George Galloway, recently accused as a participant in the Oil-for-Food scandal, defends himself to a Senate sub-committee in a frank, un-censored, and beautifully eloquent way. 50-minute ram file, but WELL WORTH IT. It's nice to finally see neo-cons get smacked in the face.  
Via Metafilter. His opening statement begins around 6:12
Talk about sparks!  
YepYep: It's nice to finally see neo-cons get smacked in the face.  
Can you clarify exactly how Norm Coleman and Carl Levin are Neo-cons?  
Moreover, can you clarify exactly how a guy who, for the better part of 40 minutes, is dodgy and elusive can reasonably be referred to as having "smack[ed] someone?
dodgy and elusive  
No. He gave answers that were very relevant and complete. They weren't the binary responses the Senators were trying to wedge Galloway into, of course. But then, they gave him extremely circumscribed, false-dichotomy questions which were impertinent to the actual accusations they were making against him.  
Senator: So, Mr. Galloway, do you still beat your wife?  
Galloway: Your question is impertinent, because I have never beat my wife. I've always had a wonderful relationship with my wife. And the people who have said otherwise have already been proven, factually, to be liars.  
Frankly, Levin's attempt at the end to completely derail the whole issue of Galloway's guilt and instead make it an issue about his character (what he would be "troubled" by) was pretty pathetic, and made it quite evident they didn't have any firm evidence against him.
budfields: YepYep: Perhaps these quotes might help enlighten you:  
"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaida. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.  
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people paid with their lives -- 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."
reapre: FVCK YEAH.
YepYep: OK, and what did those answers have to do with the questions he was asked?  
Not answering a question does not equal "slapping."
deathburger: Way to evade the point.
DonkaWechico: Hate to be repetitive, but seeing as it ismy link, I should respond, too.  
First of all, my neocon comment wasn't directed at those two particular Senators (obviously, since Levin is Dem). I was speaking of the hundreds of salivating neocons desperate to diminish international power and delegitimize the United Nations. Galloway's response not only struck a blow to that particular movement, but also brought the international fight against the war to the neocon's turf: the Senate & the US in general. He made some striking (albeit off-topic) criticisms that would actually be heard by, at least some, Americans. In that way, it's a smack in the Neocon's face. Also, Norm Coleman is demonstratable a neocon. Here's my ridiculously short case against him:  
Norm Coleman, 2002: “God bless America is a prayer, and I believe that George Bush is God’s answer to that prayer.” And, Coleman demanded that the US launch a strike against Iraq even before Bush had publicly supported such a move.  
As for your "how is that smacking someone" (paraphrase) comment, it's clear to anyone who listened that Galloway ripped their case against him to shreds. The only question I can recall him dodging in ANY way, is the question about how he would feel if it turned out his friend was doing oil business with Saddam. And what the hell does that matter? In everything else, he provided evidence, spoke far more clearly and eloquently than the Senators drilling him, ridiculed their efforts to incriminate him (again, with evidence), and was able to speak out against the crimes of the administration. You're right, "smacked" isn't the correct term to use. "pwned" would be more like it.
vinfille: Norm Coleman's not a neocon. He's just the patsy yesman for the neocons. With scary teeth.
i like
webguy: i like this guy hehehe...
Bud Tugly: Galloway is a product of the British parlimentary system. All those guys, left and right, know how to roll around in the mud and fight.  
If you've ever watched a question and answer session in the parliment with the Prime Minister, you know what I mean.  
Our politicians pale in comparison in that regard. I doubt whether our very best Presidential politicians on the left or right (Clinton and Reagan, say) could stand up to it.