This is what they call 'hard talk'

George Galloway may be a provocative and mischievous s.o.b. ('scuse my french), and one may wish to quibble with his choice to shake Saddam Hussein's hand (I don't think I would want to shake either his hand or Tony Blair's-but then I am not a politician) or his reference to god, but there is nothing in what he says, in this interveiw at least, which I could define as wrong, either morally or politically. The so-called journalist opposite him tried desperately - with the use of petty linguistic attacks, quotes out of context or by repeatedly insisting Galloway abide by a different set of morals from the leaders who led us to war - to provoke Galloway into getting agitated, and in my opinion he failed miserably.

From the oustide at least, Respect does seem to be the only real political opposition, as far as Iraq anyway. Galloway may enjoy the glory of his role, but that doesn't minimise in anyway the truth of what he points out: that Bush and Blair are not only criminals but also murderers; that it would therefore be morally justifiable for a victim or the relative of a victim of these murderers to want to seek revenge, even though no humanist would ever call for murder; that the best thing UK and US soldiers can do is to disobey illegal orders as Nüremberg did in fact state.
Furthermore, I also believe the question of patriotism posed by the interviewer is not only off topic, but is yet another desperate attempt at provocation. I could not agree more with Galloway when he says being of such and such a nationality is an accident of bith. Not merely as voters, but especially as citizens of a democratic country, we are however responsible for the actions of our government.