[soloNYer]

Wow, I read this and wonder what the press has to be hit with for them to call a dangerous liberal psychopath exactly what he is.

I don't see what's "controversial" or how you can label someone who sees justification in murdering the Prime Minister as a "firebrand," a word that connotes youthful over-exhuberance or activism...not treacherous or traitorous.

I realize I'm focused on the press, not this idiot, but I believe their coddling of these freaks is worse than the freaks themselves. To them, he is no different than a Bush, Rumsfeld or Blair...who they regularly call "controversial" as well, but would never use the more positive label "firebrand."

[purpleland]

Respect magazine interviewed MP Galloway-anti-war party and asked if it would be justifiable for a suicide bomber to blow up Blair provided there were no other casualties. Galloway told GQ magazine: “Yes, it would be morally justified.

Wow, I read this and wonder what the press has to be hit with for them to call a dangerous liberal psychopath exactly what he is.

***I'm not sure that "journalists" should make a diagnosis of "psychopath". Respect's interviewer certainly asked, or baited Galloway with, a provocative question. Galloway's answer exposed himself (with a hate-speech WAR CRY) as a pyschopath. I KNOW of a "different moral order" that will justify tossing Galloway into a stirring hive of manic muslims.