Oh dear, Michael; you've completely lost the thread of this 'controversy' (inverted commas because it's manufactured; it's actually just a smear campaign).
Given how Galloway "disgusts" you, and given what a sworn enemy of Galloway Hitchens is (Hitchens actually boasts that he will spend time stalking and hounding the minnow), rather than thanking the boozy baffoon, you should be berating him for his unmitigated failure in being able to land a single effective intellectual/oratorical blow on the "monster".
But to be fair, Hitchens is merely a flawed frustrated pseudo-intellectual (on religion, the most fatuous choice of debate topic - particularly when conducted in Hitchens' signature school-boy point-scoring style - he reaches such intellectual heights as the argument that 'people don't need God to tell them that murder and theft are bad ideas'). Given his moral and intellectual flaws, and given that he has only the resources, wealth and influence of an individual, then Hitchens could probably never succeed where The Telegraph newspaper, the British Parliament and the US Senate have all so miserably failed - making the mud stick on Galloway. The excuse for the failure of Galloway's detractors is the fantasy that Galloway is an evil slippery genius who persistently outwits them. They cannot admit to the truth that they have given themselves a near-impossible task - near-impossible for the simple reason that Galloway is innocent. They cannot admit to that because of what it would reveal about them.
Like you, Michael, Hitchens himself displays ignorance (and shares your fantasy - 'Galloway is a demagogue/monster who must be slain') about the realities of the Galloway controversy. Hitchens does this right from the start - "Parliament's damning report". Parliament's report was the exact opposite to "damning". The report admits, six times, that Galloway received no personal financial gain through his 'Mariam Appeal'. Indeed, that is why, seeing that pursuing that line against Galloway is a losing horse, the parliamentary standards committee shift their criticism to the ridiculous charge that Galloway should have researched the financial affairs of benefactors before accepting money. (If they believe that, then there are a million political campaigns far more worthy of their scrutiny than the piffling 'Mariam Appeal'. By comparison, Galloway is whiter-than-white in the murky world of political campaign funding.)
Hitchens' opening statement - "The mills of justice grind with maddening slowness" - shows his frustration (shared by you, Michael) that, never mind his own personal juvenile spat with Galloway, even the big boys, eg Parliament, make no significant strides, even after four years, in smearing Galloway.
Hitchens is a highly educated man; Galloway is not. Thus, it is galling to witness Hitchens' boorish ("bring it on") clumsy style of confrontation as against Galloway's dignified clever retorts. Before the Coleman-led Senate hearing commenced, Hitchens was haranguing Galloway with questions/accusations. Galloway kept his distance and kindly suggested that Hitchens calm down, with the polite addendum "Your hands are shaking; you badly need another drink." So, Michael, rather than "thank you" (for regurgitating an untenable smear), more appropriate words from you to Hitchens would be "damn you" (for elevating Galloway's reputation and denigrating your own).
