I agree we cannot say he is not connected with it EG - I did say he helped set it up. What I do find absurd, and I was not clear enough in this point, is the implication that because he was connected he must know of any wrongdoing and be guilty by implication. Does that make everyone connected with it guilty? As I said - we may as well blame the poor lass herself. She was, after all, the whole reason for the charity being there. On top of the fact that nothing was found to prove the charity did anything wrong there does seem to be a lot of justification for him attacking the senate comittee as he did.

I am cynical enough to realise that just because there is no proof does not mean the charity is innocent but until such proof arises what right do the US senate have to state quite categoricaly that both Mr Galloway and the charity are guilty? That should remain in the realm of the tabloid press shouldn't it? Where, as Mr Galloway has proved before, he would at least have recourse to answer the defamation in an independant court of law.

As to the 'bit smokey' comment. Yes, agreed again. I am well aware of the ploys and deceipts of politicians and it does look like Mr G sailed close to the wind on more than one occasion. As we all know there IS somethimes smoke without fire. And at times that smoke drifts across from the acusers themselves.

Cheers

DtG