[rrpjr]

Jyl: You're lucky.

But Galloway had indeed been a favorite of many leftist intellectuals for a long time before he really lit up the sky like a comet last spring when he publicly tongue-lashed several US Senators, in Senate hearing rooms, over the war in Iraq. It was a spectacular performance (broadcast over C-Span), mostly for his harsh language in the usually rather austere setting, and it made him many new fans who had no previous awareness of his long Leftist pedigree or his shady associations with despots around the world. If he could humiliate Senators like that, what else could he do! Most of the Senators had not heard of him, either, and were obviously unprepared for this former member of Parliament with his blistering Scottish burr and impressive erudition.

As it has turned out, however, he has proved a rather nasty customer. His debate with Christopher Hitchens in September at Baruch College and broadcast over many NPR stations and on C-Span, was probably the moment of his undoing. Many on the far Left were obviously looking for a Galloway knockout of Hitchens, whom they despise for his support of the war. But Hitchens had been following Galloway for years, and dealt with him handily. Galloway, unable to handle the truth about his personal relations with Hussein, Taraq Aziz, Arafat, and his support of the insurgents (all of which I've cited above) called Hitchens a "slug", a "drunkard", etc. Since the debate, Galloway seems to be shrinking. He was going to tour the country with Jane Fonda, but that plan has fizzled.

He was no straw man at all, and one need only look at the glowing tributes he was getting on many of the NPR stations, at least out here. It now seems as if much of what he said before the Senate was a lie.