If there was ever an enemy of Western civilization, it's British MP George Galloway.

When British Respect Party MP George Galloway spoke before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee regarding allegations that he'd personally profited from the UN oil-for-food scandal, he was hailed as a hero to the American anti-war movement. Galloway's defiance in the face of the U.S. government thrilled his fans on the left, who probably didn't much care whether or not he'd been cited six times as an oil contract beneficiary by the former Iraqi Minister of Oil.  Of course Galloway denied it all, but he certainly gave a spirited performance in the process.

Last week Galloway was back on U.S. soil, ready to embark on a book and speaking tour and to take part in his latest CSPAN appearance.  In a debate on the Iraq War moderated by Amy Goodman of the leftwing Democracy Now, Galloway went head to head with fellow wordsmith Christopher Hitchens at Baruch College in New York City.  Although as lively as his appearance before the U.S. Senate, Galloway did not impress as a debater. Between the personal attacks and the childish name calling, Galloway didn’t exactly come across as credible.  Hitchens, on the other hand, seemed to be the only adult in the room.

While Hitchens literally pummeled him with facts, Galloway insisted on inhabiting the paranoid fantasy world of the fringe left.  Hitchens dubbed his ranting “sinister piffle” and he was being generous.  Only in the fevered minds of those who falsely call themselves "anti-war" would Galloway's warped view of America, Israel, and the Islamic world make sense. And they were indeed there in the audience to cheer him on and to heckle Hitchens.

When Hitchens opened up by asking for a moment of silence in remembrance of the 160 Iraqis (at least) brutally murdered by a suicide bomber that day, some in the audience jeered in derision. They also scorned his efforts to honor the 82nd Airborne and the 1st Air Cavalry for their service in both Iraq and New Orleans. Then they booed when Hitchens tried to pay homage to the atrocities of 9/11, although Galloway’s ill-timed comments on the subject were the real offense.  Just blocks away from Ground Zero and less than a week after the fourth anniversary of 9/11, Galloway had the gall to blame America for the attack on its citizens.  This typically leftist approach to Islamic terrorism was dubbed by Hitchens, “masochism…offered…by sadists.”  It certainly didn’t go over well with the audience of locals, many of whom booed Galloway this time. 

Hitchens was withering in his criticism of Galloway's morally bankrupt politics, but he really got to the heart of the matter when he questioned his "anti-war" mantle.  For some reason, Galloway and his supporters don’t see a contradiction in professing outrage about extremism or terrorism and then simultaneously cheering it on.  One such example cited by Hitchens was Galloway’s visit to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad on July 30, when he publicly praised the “154 heroic operations” conducted in Iraq by the terrorists.  His supposed disgust at the U.S. for being an ally of Iraq decades ago, while he met and praised Saddam Hussein just months before the war began was another.  In fact, Galloway's toadying to Arab dictators is well known and Saddam Hussein had been graced with his company at least once before.

Hitchens also accused Galloway and the anti-war movement of shedding crocodile tears for Iraqi victims of terrorist acts, without making any reference to the perpetrators. As Hitchens put it, they “exculpate the murderer.”  It’s as if by its mere presence the U.S. is solely responsible for the brutal acts of Baathists and Jihadists.  Suicide bombings of mosques, funerals, groups of school children, markets, and people applying for work are just a few of the tactics favored by the “resistance.”  These are the same “freedom fighters” to whom the anti-war movement gives backhanded and sometimes outright support.  For pacifism, this sure is a deadly business.

Not one of these inconsistencies was addressed by Galloway, who, much like the duplicitous Islamists he emulates, simply denied it all. "It’s a lie…a complete lie," he kept repeating. Galloway no doubt subscribes to the view, common on the left these days, that his words and actions are never to be held accountable. It's simply onto the next talking point and the next attack.

Unfortunately, Galloway's sole point of attack was to constantly remind Hitchens that he'd once held different political views. But Hitchens' transformation from Trotskyist to right-leaning independent is common knowledge, and he's certainly not the first public figure to make such a journey.  In fact, Hitchens was much more successful at chiding Galloway and other self-proclaimed socialists for betraying their own alleged political principles than the other way around.  If Galloway is going to succeed at debating his political adversaries in the future, then he's going to have to do better than this. 

But it’s performance, not content, that Galloway excels at and he tailors it to his audience.  Galloway knows how to appeal to the left's visceral dislike for all things American and capitalistic and he has no problem taking the jihadi rhetoric up a notch when addressing Muslim audiences. Indeed, it's difficult at times to tell the difference between Galloway's rants on Al-Jazeera and the latest Al-Qaeda production. This should hardly be surprising seeing as Galloway, for all intents and purposes, seems to share their views.

Several months ago, he played a prominent part in a rally organized by the British Palestinian Solidarity Campaign in which speeches were given calling not for only a general boycott of Israel, but also its outright destruction. There was no pretense about pushing for a so-called two-state solution but rather a one-state solution — the Islamic one where Israel used to be.

In a recent appearance on Abu-Dhabi TV, Galloway referred to British and American troops as “Crusader soldiers” and warned of the “hell-fires” that would consume the West in retaliation for the war.  In an appeal to Muslim machismo, Galloway referred to "the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters," Jerusalem and Baghdad, while on Al-Jazeera. 

Galloway routinely speaks on behalf of Muslims while engaging in anti-Semitic and anti-Christian rhetoric.  Whether he’s become a convert to Islam or is simply on the Al-Qaeda payroll remains unknown, but it certainly begs further investigation.

What's really pitiful is that Galloway's supporters are willing to associate themselves with such a shady character.  Intent on aligning themselves with anyone who shares the same perceived enemies, the anti-war movement has done more to undermine its credibility than any fictional Rove plot ever could.  Far from simply being characteristic of the fringe left, this pattern extends to mainstream liberals and even the ranks of the Democratic Party.  Hence Michael Moore being given a seat of honor next to former president Jimmy Carter during last year's Democratic National Convention.

A year after 9/11, I noted that leftists, Islamists, and Arab dictators were all beginning to sound remarkably similar. At the time, leftists accused me of being nothing less than a "McCarthyist" for making such seemingly outrageous claims. But a few years later, it no longer sounds like a stretch. Now none of these groups even bother to hide their commonalties and instead feed off of each other, multiplying and spreading conspiracy theories, lies and hatred like a virus.

Why else would the latest speech from Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, include references to Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina?  Zarqawi even repeats the leftist canard that troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq detracted from the rescue effort. Gee, I wonder where he got that?

Head Al-Qaeda honcho Osama bin Laden demanded that the U.S. sign “the anti-global warming Kyoto Accords” in a “letter to America” issued a year after 9/11.  Second in command Ayman Al-Zawahiri, managed to conjure up the tiresome comparison of Iraq to Vietnam during one his many video productions on Al-Jazeera.  Now that terrorists are using boilerplate leftist talking points, what's next? Guest slots on Democracy Now?

The terrorists have indeed adapted the language of the Western left and vice versa. Sharing a common hatred of America, Israel, and Western civilization, the “unholy alliance,” as David Horowitz terms it, has come into being. Years of propaganda from the Arab media has achieved its goal and brainwashed leftists are only too happy to take up the torch. They may claim different goals -= one an Islamic caliphate and the other global socialism (i.e. totalitarianism) — but their hatred flows in the same direction.

So seeing as both leftists and Islamists put out almost identical propaganda and share the same political enemies, wouldn't that make them allies?  And at what point does one cross the line from free speech into providing aid and comfort to terrorists, or in other words, joining their cause?

George Galloway has crossed that line on many an occasion and the fact that he's still an MP in Britain is, in Hitchens’ parlance, a "disgrace." The fact that he's not in prison is too. If there was ever an enemy of Western civilization, it's George Galloway.