This smear against Galloway - his 'profiting' from Saddam's regime - has been dragging on for years now.

The smear has been perpetrated by very powerful people in very high places. So why can't the mud be made to stick?

The reason Galloway keeps 'winning' this argument (or 'escaping' the charge) is because it has no foundation.

Hitchens is such a sore loser. If he was a true 'intellectual', he would grow-up, move on and focus his attention on revising his arguments re:Iraq (rather than continuing to whine about Galloway). But Hitchens is not an intellectual; he is a whore who sold himself to the neocons, deluding himself that Bush's concern in Iraq was human rights rather than control of oil.

Hitchens' whole discourse re:Galloway is merely a tantrum.

Hitchens fancies himself as a 21st Century Orwell, but, as Galloway correctly observed, he is merely a slug - who should retreat back beneath the nearest stone. (Cockburn has also identified appropriate words to describe Hitchens.)