gratoe,

I never said Galloway was “good natured” and that that constituted “proof” of his innocence, so I don’t know why you put those words in speech marks.

(You do use speech marks correctly later on to quote me, so you do know how to use them; perhaps your first attempt was just an innocent mistake.)

For what’s it’s worth, I don’t think Galloway is particularly ‘good natured’.

What I did say was Galloway “is quite a simple man”. I concede that that assertion perhaps does need more elaboration than I first gave. I mean ‘simple’ in the sense that he does not have a powerful, highly sophisticated team of people behind him – lawyers, PR managers, private investigators to dig-up dirt on enemies, …, and so on. His ‘simplicity’ in this respect is one of the big differences between him and his enemies, e.g. US Congress members, The UK Daily Telegraph newspaper, UK House of Commons investigating committee.

You’ve missed my point, which is that it is not beyond the ability and resources of such powerful people to establish guilt where it exists. The reason they persistently ‘fail’, and, incidentally, Galloway persistently wins libel damages against his enemies, is because Galloway is innocent of their charges.

The reason Galloway ‘shifts’ the emphasis towards the Iraq disaster is because he, and many others, are rightly angry that the ‘smear Galloway’ campaign is a deliberate diversion from the correct charges (lies and war crimes) that are made against the Iraq invaders. Moreover, Galloway is a single insignificant UK MP. It is ridiculous that US Congress people investigate him rather than significant issues relevant to the US – most notably the reasons why the Iraq invasion-occupation is such an unmitigated disaster, and who is culpable for the mass–death and –suffering and waste of soldiers’ lives. (The situation is so horrific that supporters of this obscenity are reduced to such ‘defences’ as ‘Well the Iraqis were even worse-off under Saddam’, uttered without irony or shame. Apart from simply being incorrect, that ‘defence’ reveals how low that group have sunk, by actually implying themselves noble because their record on bringing “human rights” and “democracy” to the Iraqis is marginally better than that of a mass-murdering dictator.)

“Contrary evidence”? You’ve got the basic principle of justice back-to-front. It is the job of the prosecution to provide evidence to make a case, not the job of the accused to ‘prove’ his innocence. The accused, or his spokesperson, merely has to demonstrate that the prosecution case is flawed.

Nevertheless, this is clearly one piece of relevant evidence: The personal financial accounts of Galloway and the accounts of The Mariam Appeal have been examined, and they couldn’t find any dirt there to stick on him.

Galloway did directly answer direct questions: He said that he had never profited from the Saddam regime. The only problem here is that you don’t like the answer, but it is highly improper of you to pretend that that is not a direct answer.

The “evidence” against Galloway is patently not “damning”, not damning by definition in fact, (regardless of whether one believes him innocent or guilty) because, if it were, he would have been charged and convicted with something by now; remember, this particular smear campaign – profiting from Saddam – against Galloway (there are plenty of others he has to endure) was started four years ago.

You refer to “damning evidence put forth by Hitchens”. Hitchens puts forth nothing new in this ‘debate’; his article merely regurgitates the innuendo and smears of others.

Well, perhaps Hitchens does add something: He fancies himself a dab hand with the pen, so perhaps he has added some ‘clever’ turns of phrase, framed the smears with more sophistry and ‘humour’ (while his other hand relieves the tension he has stimulated in his groin area).

Oh, what a sharp wit Hitchens is! Who can forget his perspicacious observation on what is common to women’s breasts and martinis: ‘One is not enough and three is too many.’ (Bravo!, old chap.)

Hitchens is a boozy buffoon. By his own admission, he produces his best ‘work’ (garbage) when he is pissed. He is frustrated, and obsessed, with Galloway (who, incidentally, is teetotal). His infamous breasts-martinis ‘joke’ suggests he may be frustrated sexually. His alcohol intake suggests he may be frustrated with life generally.