Maybe Coleman wasn't already choking on the hypocrisy of having asked for the resignation of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan over the oil-for-food fiasco, when Coleman stands mute over his the fact of his own party's leadership having so grossly mismanaged both the lead-up to 9/11 and the intelligence behind the case for war. Without the slightest apparent willingness to acknowledge such details, Coleman called to testify one of the chief critics in Britain of the invasion of Iraq, on oil-for-food charges he had already successfully refuted in the British legal system.
I would like to point out something to Mr. Scott. First, the intelligence people who generated the "mismanaged intelligence" were Bill Clinton's. Responsibility for the acts of 9/11 belong to the homicidal Islamic fanatics who carried out the attacks, not our leadership. Last, the charges made against Mr. Galloway were not disproven because he won his lawsuit. In fact, the court did not rule on the accuracy of the infomation discovered by the Telegraph at all, and the Telegraph stands by the documents and its story.
Smith goes on to claim that Galloway cleared his name in front of the Senate, and that Galloway was right about Iraq:
There was something immeasurably sad about the fact that 200 years after we told the straight truth to an out-of touch England, it took a Brit to tell the straight truth to us: "In everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies."
This is from the man who supported a dictator who attacked more than one of his neighbors, sponsored terrorists, and dotted Iraq with the mass graves of his own people, building palaces while starving the citizens of Iraq. Tell me Mr. Smith, what is it like to be a lickspittle sycophant of a toady to tyrants?