Yes, let us, as you suggest, assume for the sake of argument that Galloway is guilty.

Now, what is so bizarre about this debate is that Hitchens and you talk about Galloway as though he is as relevant and significant to the issues as Rumsfeld, Reagan and Saddam.

Galloway is practically a political non-entity here in the UK (the only MP representing his ‘RESPECT’ party in parliament). Moreover, no one had even heard of him in the US before Sen Coleman provided him a stage and the opportunity of global notoriety.

And plenty of others, like Coleman, boost Galloway’s reputation while denigrating their own.

The Daily Telegraph ran a story on Galloway, which they failed to defend in court, and ended up having to pay Galloway tens of thousands in damages (not the only paper to have to do so).

A House of Commons committee spent ages investigating him and, in their final report, they had to state repeatedly that there was no evidence that Galloway personally benefited from the Saddam regime.

Now, Hitchens regards Galloway as guilty and as nothing more than a jumped-up egotistical little demagogue of a politician.

If I were on the side of Hitchens (and you), I would be livid about the gross incompetence and failure of such powerful influential people. An insignificant big-mouthed buffoon has run circles around all of them. If anything, you ought to thank Galloway for revealing the ineptitude of these institutions.

I reiterate: Where are Hitchens’ (and your) words of indignation and anger about people who actually have the power to shape policy and events? Why waste energy on a simple common-or-garden crook? Similarly, where are Hitchens’ scathing columns about what a horrific disaster the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz architects have created, with such callous disregard and disinterest in the human consequences of their cosy, detached, armchair-cigar, cerebral ruminations over how to advance the US national interest in Iraq (i.e. initiate a bombing orgy and invade). After all, the plight of the Iraqis – under Saddam – was something Hitchens claimed to care about passionately; perhaps Hitchens is a racist who only cares about their suffering when it can be blamed on a loathsome Arab, but when civilised white men are the cause, then it’s just a case of well-intentioned policy gone wrong, not barbarism.

Real journalists, and any writers worth their salt, focus their scrutiny and criticism on those with power (Galloway has none). Allegedly, Hitchens used to be such a writer. But actually, he is just a very self-conscious narcissist who pretends to write about events but, actually, is always just writing about himself (his favourite subject). He writes about Galloway because Galloway is part of Hitchens’ personal story, not because Galloway has any significant relevance to the big important topic of Middle East policy and stability.