Hitchens smacks down Galloway

The Christopher Hitchens versus George Galloway verbal game of rock-em sock-em robots has taken a turn in favor of Hitch. The Senate has released a report suggesting Galloway might have profited from the Oil For Food scam.

During their New York debate, Hitchens had asked Galloway if he'd sign an affadavit stating he had no contact with Tariq Aziz regarding OFFP monies. He would not. In light of the report, Hitch accelerates into fifth gear:

Just before my last exchange with George Galloway, which occurred on the set of Bill Maher's show in Los Angeles in mid-September, I was approached by a representative of the program and asked if I planned to repeat my challenge to Galloway on air. That challenge—would he sign an affidavit saying that he had never discussed Oil-for-Food monies with Tariq Aziz?—I had already made on a public stage in New York. Maher's producers had been asked, obviously by a nervous Galloway, to find out whether I had brought such an affidavit along with me. I replied that this was not necessary, since his public denial to me was on the record and had been broadcast, and since it further confirmed the apparent perjury that he had committed in front of the U.S. Senate on May 17, 2005. I added that I wanted no further contact with Galloway until I could have the opportunity of reviewing his prison diaries.

By the way, just like the Able Danger story, the Galloway story is another potato the MSM doesn't care to touch.

If Galloway is indeed dirty on this, it brings to question just how many people Saddam had (or still has) on his worldwide bribery payroll.

hat tip Jim Rose.