Galloway vs US Senate

I'm nop fan of Galloway, but I do think that this may shape up to be entertaining:"Mr Galloway was on the attack from the first moment. He entered the hearing room with guns blazing, telling journalists his inquisi tors were 'crazed', 'pro-war', 'lickspittles' of the president, and predicting he would turn the tables on them. 'I want to put these people on trial. This group of neo-cons is involved in the mother of smokescreens,' he said. That was the common theme in a feat of bare-knuckled rhetoric not often witnessed by the senators, who are accustomed to considerably more reverence for their positions. CNN called it a 'blistering attack on senators rarely heard or seen on Capitol Hill'."
Perhaps I should repent of wanting entertaining news but in this case ... somehow it doesn't seem so wrong.I guess because I like the idea of someone doing this in the US heart of power:
"Mr Galloway used anti-war rhetoric far more raw than most politicians are accustomed to in America, where shared patriotism normally trumps outrage.He said that 100,000 people had paid with their lives for false assumptions on Iraq, "1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies"."
Whatever you thinkg of George Galloway [and he's too loony leftie for my taste] he's certainly given the senate something to chew on, apparently something to do with a more robust UK pariliamentaary styale, he says. THe Guradian comments that the senators "... had come equipped for a trial and found themselves in the role of stooges for a man accustomed to playing to the gallery."
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | 'I am not, nor have I ever been, an oil trader':