George Galloway is a strange guy. He says an awful lot with which I agree. When he concentrates he is a superb politician and debater - last year he performed magnificently in front of the Senate Committee in Washington (watch it here).

Yet he also manages to say things in a way that winds me up as much as anyone else. Very often it's simply because he fails to make himself clear even when he has the opportunity to do so.

The latest example (reported on the BBC) comes from an interview with GQ magazine. Galloway was asked:

"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber, if there were no other casualties, be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

and replied:

"Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7"

I spluttered over that one - to me, murder is never morally justifiable..

But that's not what Galloway meant. He later clarified:

"From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it's possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification."

A subtle distinction but a vital one.

Galloway was saying that people would justify an attack on Blair, not that he would agree with that justification.

Not only do I agree with Galloway but I think he was making a vital point. The invasion of Iraq has made it easier for terrorists to recruit. They use arguments and "justifications" with which I disagree, but it has made it easier for them to recruit.

The invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one.