grantoe,

You have remarked earlier, if I understand correctly, that you were seeking common ground. I agree that that it is a worthwhile exercise – otherwise debate merely degenerates into opponents shouting their positions with increasing volume.

Well, we seem to be agreed that the evidence against Galloway is not damning.

You qualify the links you provide with “more conclusive” and “less uncertainty”, which merely illustrates the point I made in my previous post: If Galloway is guilty of something, his accusers must say exactly what, instead of repeatedly making mealy-mouthed statements about what the ‘evidence’ ‘suggests’.

You say, “the fact that someone hasn’t been convicted doesn’t mean they weren’t guilty”.

Well, actually, it does – because here in the UK (and, I understand, in the US too) we operate according to the principle that a person retains the legal status of “innocent” until proven guilty.

Now, you may feel that I am playing here with “semantics” again, but my point is this:

Powerful media and political figures could persistently enquire as to whether or not you beat your wife. Given their resources and influence, they would have no trouble casting doubt on your innocence, even in the absence of ‘conclusive’ evidence; there is no end of unanswered questions that could be interpreted as suggestive of your guilt. Given their resources and influence, they would find it easy to keep the ‘debate’ alive. Any action/inaction by any other party could also be easily dismissed by simply trashing (fairly or unfairly) that party – as you have done with the UN.

After a certain amount of time (in Galloway’s case, four years at least – of smear campaigning), if people are still merely making ‘suggestions’ – when they have obviously had the resources, power, influence and time to arrive at explicit ‘accusations’ – then there is obviously a problem with their ‘case’.

Rumsfeld is guilty of selling arms to a mass-murdering dictator, fully aware that that was precisely what he was doing; that is a mere fact, not even a question of debate. The reason he wasn’t convicted for that was, presumably, because it was not in breach of the law; indeed, he was merely implementing the Reagan administration’s policy.

Now, suppose for the moment that the fantasy of you & Hitchens is true – that Galloway is guilty of some heinous act. Then, although, as I’ve said before, it is nonsense even to be comparing the fate of Galloway (a nobody) to that of Rumsfeld (one of the world’s most powerful men), you might argue, like I have regarding Rumsfeld, that ‘breaking the law’ is not the issue, because, after all, the law can be an ass.

You might argue, ‘Never mind the law, what about the morality.’

Well this, it seems, is where we simply cannot find common ground. You cling to your opinion that Galloway is an immoral actor. But I put it to you that: If you read enough of his words and listen to enough of his radio shows (available on the internet, btw), then it is clear that he is a deeply moral and principled actor.

I think I understand your problem with Galloway. I think Galloway’s style – apparently bombastic, definitely showman (to some extent), provocative, polemical, … – does naturally inspire dislike and suspicion in many people.

Hitchens’ problem with Galloway is the frustration that such a relatively crude character can expose him – expose him for his sickening mendacity and self-serving hypocrisy.

Apparently, Hitchens' alcohol-intake, I learned the other day from a fellow hack of his, is worse than I was aware of. Hopefully, he and his rotten lies (rubbishing the Lancet ranks amongst his lowest points) will expire in a sea of vodka and urine as he pisses himself lying unconscious in the gutter where he wallows, and belongs.