Dear grantoe,

You asserted previously that the ‘evidence’ against Galloway was ‘damning’, and you reproduced some of it to substantiate this.

However, here is a more appropriate verdict (compared to your ‘damning’ one) on that stuff:

Take this para:

38. Given our conclusion that the Telegraph documents appear, on the evidence available to us, to be authentic, and Mr Thorne's evidence of the effort required to create such a substantial mass of falsified material, there must in our view be some degree of presumption in favour of what they say being true.

This is full of such reticent language (“appear to be”, “in our view”, “presumption in favour of”) that the authors are essentially saying they do not have the confidence to make a bald assertion without caveats. This is the exact opposite of ‘damning’; it is mealy-mouthed ‘suggestion’ and ‘wishful thinking’.

Take this para:

39. Mr Galloway's evidence about the extent to which he kept the Iraqi authorities informed about his actions in support of the anti-sanctions campaign may be relevant.

“ … may be relevant”, note, not “is relevant”. Again, Galloway’s detractors know they are not on sufficiently solid ground to make a bald assertion against him. They want to cover their backs.

41. We were struck by the way a coherent and credible story emerges from the key documents, whose authenticity we accept, and conclude that they accurately describe aspects of Mr Galloway's involvement in securing Iraqi funding for the Mariam Appeal. This reinforces our view, in the light of our conclusions on authenticity, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to presume that what the documents say is true.

“ … whose authenticity we accept”, note, not “whose authenticity has been proven”
“This reinforces our view … that … it is reasonable to presume … ” Here, they are not even directing accusations against Galloway; they are merely reflecting on their own thought-processes. This is not ‘damning’; it is wishful thinking – that Galloway is guilty of something.

It would be rather tedious for me to continue like this with every paragraph. Suffice it to say that not a single paragraph in the sample you present says anything along the lines:
‘We have incontrovertible evidence that Mr Galloway committed such-and-such heinous act, breaking such-and-such law.’ Only then could you say there existed any ‘damning’ evidence against Galloway.

Now, I hope you appreciate that I have left aside the question of whether or not Galloway actually is guilty of anything. You assert that he is, and you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. But you are certainly not entitled to assert, especially on the basis of the sample you yourself present, that the ‘evidence’ (inverted commas because what you present is so innocuous that it does not even qualify for that label) is ‘damning’. The ‘evidence’ merely illustrates the lack of confidence Galloway’s detractors have in their ‘case’ against him.

In a subsequent post, you say:

“ … if someone is guilty of something, what's wrong with outrage over his guilt, even if other people are more guilty … ? Every time someone is found guilty of something, must I voice my outrage over everyone else who has or might be getting away or has gotten away with similar or worse crimes, lest I be accused of being a hyprocrite?”

What’s wrong with outrage over Galloway is that, in the scheme of things, Galloway is effectively a nothing, a nobody. Remarking on the ‘immorality’ (alleged, not proven) of Galloway is as ridiculous as being outraged by some irresponsible trigger-light teenage American soldier in Iraq: Such tragic behaviour should be fully expected; the only issue worthy of debate is the culpability of the architects of the situation - who had plenty of time, space and maturity to consider the consequences of their actions. You make a fair point regarding the unfair suggestion that you are a hypocrite for such outrage. No, you’re not a hypocrite; you are simply someone who indulges in, and/or is taken in by, the pursuit of red-herrings.

It is to your credit that you (apparently) do not want to be “grouped in with Hitchens across the board”. Indeed, Hitchens is such a mendacious, cowardly, drunken, sexist, disgusting entity (with such a nauseating, prima-donna debating style) that anyone with any integrity would want to put distance between themselves and that (to quote Cockburn) “sack of s**t”. He is a narcissist who interprets his celebrity as affirmation of the ‘value’ of his contributions to debate (analogously to how the rich interpret their good fortune as evidence of their good qualities).