I think Galloway is some what of a Ninny on this, well on his remark to pull out of Iraq. During an investigation hearing he stated that the US & the UK should pull out of Iraq. And do what? Leave these people with a war torn nation? Without a stable government? Without a means of an economy? How could the US and UK governments pull out now without feeling like a bunch of major asses as they would leave the Iraqi people high and dry? This is completely unrealistic.
Galloway thinks that because there is no proof of WMDs and supposedly no proof of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 or the Taliban that we should just pick up and leave. This is just asinine! Do you tell your child to just leave a mess all over the counter? Just make them leave it, in disarray for someone else to clean? No, you tell them to finish what they started. You tell them to clean up the mess they made before they go out and play with their friends. The US & UK shouldn't pull out now, morally you'd think the wouldn't - they need to finish what was started. If you topple a horrid governmental regime then you should stay and help make a better one - not just smack 'em down and leave the country to anarchy ruin. Galloway is just being short sighted in my opinion & only looking to cover his butt while testifying.
On a good note the article pointed out what I've been saying for a while - The French had too much to lose from financial losses if they went along with invading Iraq. Not only were there contracts for items like automobiles but supposedly there's oil barrels as kickbacks involved as well:
In addition to Galloway, the panel also implicated former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, who allegedly was allocated 11 million barrels.
"I wrote to Mr. Coleman," Pasqua said Sunday, "and I told him that all allegations about myself are false."
As Martin from the Simpsons would say, "Hah-ha!" to the French government (Actually Mr. Chirac to be specific) - I am not particularly fond of Mr. Chirac (in case you couldn't tell).