Hitchens: "I would want to revisit the judgment for libel that Galloway astonishingly managed to win" [my italics]

Hitchens,why can't you get it through your thick head?: Galloway is just an insignificant MP. He is not a criminal mastermind (nor was Saddam) who is able dupe the Telegraph, parliament, The Senate, ... . Galloway 'wins' for the simple reason that there is no evidence, because the charges are false. Galloway's enemies, e.g. Hitchens, are so frustrated that the charges (smears, rather) can't be made to stick.

Don't stop though, Chris. It is entertaining to read your continued frustration and bitterness regarding Galloway. And anyway, on the subject of Iraq, irrelevantly railing against an insignificant individual is all you remain fit to do, given that all your commentary has proved discredited (and, indeed, was predicted so by Galloway).

Very ironic that HItchens, the consummate Left-pretender whore of the Right, applies the word 'prostitute' to someone else (Galloway). When it comes to columnists applying epithets to others (e.g. "prostitute" - Hitchens on Galloway), Hitchens' blows pale besides those of others (e.g. "sack of shit" - Cockburn on Hitchens).

Yeah, "sack of shit," that's a real zinger. Cockburn got him there! Galloway's a whore. Hitchens is an iconoclast. Cockburn is a complete irrelevancy.

You've missed the point, purposelessness.

The point is that Hitchens' fatuous indulgence in abuse against Galloway is (to borrow your name for a second) "purposeless". And if Hitchens wants to go there, well, then he is the target of plenty of abuse himself, and it just so happens that Hitchens' opponents, e.g. Cockburn, hit the mark more effectively.

An iconoclast is someone who defies establishment 'wisdom'. Hitchens does the opposite: He defends the establishment lie that the illegal Iraq invasion was executed for honourable reasons, e.g. defence of human rights. The Hitchens-Whore charge stems from, amongst other reasons, his writing of fawning eulogies for the architects, e.g. Wolfowitz. (Bizarrely, and illogically - which might be the whisky influence - he does not praise but condemns another architect of war, Kissinger.)

Moreover, while Hitchens condemns Galloway for Galloway's alleged alliance with Saddam, Hitchens does not condemn Rumsfeld et al for such alliance, a transparently obvious and deadly one because Rumsfeld (unlike Galloway) was selling Saddam arms. (The purpose of Galloway's visit, which is explained in one of his books, was to try and sweet-talk Saddam into co-operating more fully with the weapons inspectors, for the sake of avoiding more death and suffering through sanctions and military attack - a highly laudable purpose, whatever one may think of Galloway's style.)

purposelessness, I think you meant to say Cockburn is a complete 'irrelevance'.

Hitchens is an irrelevance because, rather than commenting on the way forward in Iraq now and who is to blame for the current disaster, he chooses, instead, to rail against an insignificant individual - Galloway - because Hitchens juvenile ego is a higher priority to him than the plight of civilians (and soldiers). His ego has been hurt because his confrontations with Galloway and the realities of the criminal war he cheered have made a mockery of Hitchens (and vindicated Galloway).

.."a complete irrelevancy" is what you call someone who continually points out the failures of those whom you support.

Better than trying to debate him, I guess...