C H was wrong about the war.

G G was right.

Galloway is no super-hero, but he was often right, and C H has personally had to endure public shaming by G G. That's where this ad hominem comes from; unless there's some implied argument that the immense populist anti war movement is entirely driven by greedy bloodsuckers making profit from the suffering of those under dictatorial regimes.

Anyway, if you want to make money from suffering, there's plenty more investment oppurtunities created by warmongering.

The issue isn't just that Galloway was profiteering from greedy blood-suckers (which would give him compelling reasons for being strongly outspoken against regime change, incidentlally) and that warmongerers do too, it's mostly that Galloway's been lying about it or at least cantankerously dodging the issue while under oath in both the U.S. and U.K.

And regarding your argument that "C.H. was right G.C. was wrong about the war", that's really a non-issue. It's fine that you hold the opinion that the war in Iraq should never have been waged, and you may well have a very compelling argument, but the issue-at-hand is Galloway's shamelessly illegal and lucrative profiting from human suffering, basically, and then his lying about it under oath. Said "public shaming" poor Galloway has had to endure was part of an argument Hitchens was making that Galloway is in no position to be objectively arguing against the war with any semblance of integrity, which is not exactly an ad hominem.

If Hitchens had been arguing that Galloway couldn't have had a valid position on the war because he is a child molester, well, that would check out as an ad hominem attack. What makes it qualify as ad hominem is the relevency of the attack to the argument.

Now, when Hitchens gets all but lynched by the far Left for continuing to hold and argue his now very unpopular position, and conversely the likes of Galloway become praised as a hero by the anti-war croud for his avoiding the issue of his guilt in something very dispicable by hiding behind the argument against a controversial war, you start to see the hypocrisy and opportunism of some of those opposed to the war who blindly throw adulation upon Galloway and proclaim him to be a hero. This phenomenom also explains why Hitchens would have a reason to bring this up again in light of relevant new information that might help him rebut the attack against Mr. Hitchens concerning his supposed lack of integrity.

Frankly, I'm quite sick of these "Hitchens was wrong about the war (or religion), so he's wrong about [this]" posts that pop up everytime Hitchens writes an essay about anything, which incidentally end up constituting an "ad hominem" argument. I shall enjoy the day in the not-too-far-away future when the war is over and those former anti-war champions will have to swallow their pride when Hitchens scathingly articulates a valid postion that they happen to agree with this time.

Cordially,

Excellent post.

I would also add that there's nothing wrong with ad hominem arguments anyway. We don't deduce our morals, we make value judgements and we judge other people's value judgements, and we call it morality. And when we do judge another's value judgements, we want to know whenever possible what their intent was, what they knew at the time, and whether they believed in what they said. If it appears that a person doesn't actually care about what they're saying, but is just saying it to annoy an opponent, to make themselves appear clever, or to hide their true intentions, we want to know about it because that would make what they were saying either total bullshit or a lie, or both.

That being said, any British Labour leader who outwardly professes compassion with the working masses and is in opposition to most types of private property not only defends tyrants but hobnobs with them while covertly taking cash payments from one of the worst to the detriment of the poorest and most oppressed is not only an abject hypocrite but an out-and-out scumbag.

Agreed, especially on the last point.

You guys might have a point, if Galloway were guilty of anything.

If one assumes (as you do) that Galloway is guilty, then it is truly amazing that none of his opponents, including very powerful people and media and government institutions, have not been able to convict him of anything.

Galloway is quite a simple man, certainly no criminal genius - amazingly able to outwit, repeatedly, all those on his tail.

But it seems you cannot stomach the possibility of Galloway's innocence - because you are suckers for the propaganda narrative that paints him as a crook. (Galloway happens to reinforce this prejudice in people's minds through his style - bluster and showmanship. But when passing judgment, it is your responsibility to separate facts and evidence from image and perception.)

The cabal of gangsters who initiated this aggression-invasion-occupation brazenly lied about their motives ("democracy", "human rights"). That's obvious for many reasons including the fact that one of them, Rumsfeld, is on record (and video!) doing friendly (far more friendly than Galloway) and lethal (arms sales) business with Saddam, when it was politically expedient to do so, in full knowledge of what a mass-murderer he was supporting. Therefore, it's only natural (and a far easier lie to sustain) that they would lie about and smear a significant one of their detractors (Galloway),

I can stomach the possiblity of his innocence, I just don't think he is innocent. What really irks me is that so many on the far Left anti-war movement are so eager to dismiss even the possibility that he is guilty of illegally profiting from the Saddam regime, and prefer instead to smear Hitchens and the the other usual suspects.

You haven't offered one iota of proof that he is innocent or that the charges against him are false. Instead you fall back on the overall "good natured" simplicity of the man as "proof" of his inability to dodge any incriminating evidence if said evidence existed. As you say, "But when passing judgment, it is your responsibility to separate facts and evidence from image and perception.)", I would say, "right back at you".

Um, excuse me, but did you actually watch the Congressional hearings where he was asked direct questions regarding his complicity in receiving kickbacks from the Food for Oil program? He outright refused to answer any of those questions, and instead reverted every single time to the flawed Iraq war policy, the supposed hypocrisy of those questioning him, and his overall anti-war position. It was absolutely criminal, and I can't believe they let him get away with it.

And what was the "Anti-war" movements response? To unquestionly applaud his daring fortitude in shifting the issue to the flawed war, and to now roll their eyes and casually dimiss any charges against him that still hold water. I would say it seems that you and your ilk can't stomach the reality that he is in fact a nefarious character guilty of profiting from innocent people's suffering.

So in light of the damning evidence put forth by Hitchens, coupled with your inability to provide any contrary evidence, our point which supposedly crumbles under Galloway's innocence, still stands.

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.

I'm sorry to have misquoted you. I was conscious of the fact that you didn't actually put the term "good natured" into your text, but I did read your defense of him and I must have misread the words "a simple man... [without the capcity] to outwit...all those on his tail" to mean that he was essentially innocent or good natured, and so sorry for stretching the words to fit what you didn't acutally mean. (Please let me know if you have any quibbles with my paraphrasing of what you basically wrote right there).

After watching the Senate hearing, which was not a debate over the merits of the war, mind you (which could definately be legitimately criticized and said merits found lacking), it was a hearing based on his guilt or innocence, he wouldn't allow himself to be pinned down on that issue or directly answer the question. If he merely wanted to critcize the war, then why not prove his innocence by saying something to the effect of, "no those charges are false and here's why.... and by the way, you have no right to be asking those questions for these reasons....", effectively protesting the war at the same time?

I understand you're not a fan of Hitchens and therefor don't put much weight on his argument against Galloway, and so, since I have to actually prove he's guilty not just offer the critique or argument that he probably is not innocent, perhaps we could just civilly agree to disagree at this point?

To bypass the obligatory Hitchens ad hominem, here are the links with the "damning evidence" cited but not written by him:

<link>

Is what they say true?

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.

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.

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.

Mr Galloway's relationship with Mr Fawaz Zureikat

42. Mr Fawaz Zureikat's relationship with Mr Galloway is important because the Volcker inquiry[87] established conclusively that Mr Zureikat had received allocations of oil under the Oil for Food Programme which had subsequently been lifted and sold.[88] Mr Galloway's name is also mentioned in relation to some of these

44. Mr Galloway accepts that Mr Zureikat was trading in both oil and other goods under the Oil for Food Programme, and that he would have been doing so on a commission basis.[91] He accepted that Mr Zureikat had made the payments to the Mariam Appeal that are listed in the Commissioner's memorandum,[92] but disputed any suggestion that they could be linked directly to receipts of commissions for sales under the Oil for Food Programme.[93] He was adamant that Mr Zureikat was funding his donations out of his own pocket.[94] He continued:[95]

"I believe he was sincerely—and I still believe he was sincerely—an Arab nationalist trying to get the embargo on Iraq lifted……"

45. Mr Zureikat has responded to neither the Commissioner's nor Mr Galloway's[96] requests to offer evidence to the Commissioner's inquiry.

The record of the meeting between Mr Galloway and Saddam Hussein in August 2002

46. On 8 August 2002, Mr Galloway had a meeting with Saddam Hussein, and a document which purports to be a record of this meeting was obtained by the Commissioner.[97] According to this record, Mr Galloway made remarks which implied that some of his activities in support of the Iraqi regime may have been financed through an oil-related mechanism. If the record were to be substantiated, it would represent further circumstantial evidence that the activities of the Mariam Appeal had been funded through the Oil for Food Programme, and that Mr Galloway was aware of this.

48. In his evidence to us, Mr Galloway was dismissive of of the alleged record of the meeting on a number of grounds, notably that it had emanated from the intelligence services and "which they say was recovered from a department who was not involved in the circulation list of the so-called "minute"".[98] We note that the document states that the minute was to be distributed to "the comrades in the Iraqi State Command of the Socialist Arab Ba'ath Party and to the Ministers" and that 30 copies were made.[99] However, neither the Commissioner nor we have any information on the precise circulation; the document itself is silent on this point.

51. We note that Mr Galloway rejects any suggestion that his meeting with Saddam Hussein could have been covertly recorded and subsequently transcribed by the Press Secretary. Equally, the paper received by the Commissioner reflects a credible explanation of its provenance, and how it came into the hands of Coalition forces.

52. We take the view that the alleged record of the meeting between Mr Galloway and Saddam Hussein in August 2002 is authentic.

grantoe,

Thanks for the apology (regarding your not quoting me fairly).

I will address your points properly later (when I'm under less pressure work-wise).

But, for now, here is one blatant incongruity in the words from those who regard the 'evidence' against Galloway as 'damning'.

Their words express indignation and anger - but it is all directed at the 'slippery' Galloway.

If the evidence really is damning, then they (e.g. Hitchens, you) should also be writing critical, angry, damning words against the idiots (e.g. Coleman, Daily Telegraph, UK MPs) who are incapable of using damning evidence to nail the slippery little s**t.

Indeed, Hitchens is incongruous (hypocritical) in other aspects of this debate too: He damns Galloway for Galloway's alleged alliance with Saddam, but he does not damn Rumsfeld, Reagan et al for their documented (and deadly) alliance with Saddam.

Yes, I definately agree with you that there are others who should be held accountable for their profiting from Saddam's regime. I think, in addition to what you mentioned, Rumsfeld is also guilty for his strategy of intentionally bleeding the military's resources dry in order to create a demand for military industry that he and his cronies could profit from. I'm no fan of Reagan's, but I'm more inclined to blame him for taking the policy of pitting enemies against each other and taking a side based on self interest as a means to solve problems in the short-term.

The reason I get so worked up about Galloway is (laying aside the argument over his actual guilt just for the moment, and just assuming he is), he was receiving money from a program that was supposed to be feeding the poor.

But I definately agree that it is disappointing (at the very least) that Hitchens spends so much time on Galloway at the exclusion of others just as guilty or even more so, especially conservatives. My guess for why this is (layed out above) is that he is following up on the debate he had with Galloway. But either way I would rather Galloway be indicted (if he is guilty) at the very least than see all of these scumbags getting off scotch free.

Anyway, I'll look forward to your more detailed response

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.

rippon:

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.

I'm sorry, I have to take issue with this one. First of all, up until my last post, I was talking about Galloway only; I never mentioned Rumsfeld or Reagan or anybody else at all. So I think it's a bit unfair for you to have suggested that I had any intentions in relating the relevancy or significance of Galloway to Rumsfeld or Reagan. (Also, please keep in mind, I only originally chimed in in this thread to respond to the somewhat poor original post at the top in order to discuss the merits of ad hominem arguments and their relevency to this situation).

Second, (still assuming Galloway is guilty), again, in a debate, if Galloway has been arguing against regime change in Iraq, his guilt would be relevent to attacking his argument, which is the main point of what I was trying to say. Saddam is relevent because they were debating whether military actions against his regime were warranted.

Third, if someone is guilty of something, what's wrong with outrage over his guilt, even if other people are more guilty (keeping in mind that you brought up Rumsfeld first, and I was trying to confirm that I wish he would be brought to justice too, trying to help us find some common ground)? 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?

rippon:

I reiterate: Where are Hitchens’ (and your) words of indignation and anger about people who actually have the power to shape policy and events?

Galloway, while not having the blood on his hands that hawks on the right do, is notable for being an example of a high ranking scumbag on the anti-war side of the debate, who used his anti-war arguments to divert the Senate away from his guilt (at whichpoint you might not still be assuming said guilt is vaid or proven -- not trying to pull a fast one on you).

Also, it does seriously bother and upset me that politicians are unfathomably corrupt and are too weak in taking the likes of Galloway to task. The Dems here in the states are afraid to even publicly consider the question of impeachment hearings, which is an utter disgrace. I'm sorry I didn't voice my outrage over that too.

Unfortunately, I won't have the chance to talk to Hitchens any time soon (read ever). But if I could, the question as to why he never critiques the mismanagement of the war or the potentially criminal behavior of Rumsfeld & Cheney would be at the top of the list (I'm sincerely interested). Also, why he focuses only on defending Wolfowitz's behaviour at the World Bank and never criticizing the poor architecture of the war is another mystery to me.

And I would argue that the comment about his being a racist is unfair. He is against Saddam because of acts of genocide and for being a fascist (something the left is supposed to be against), not for being an Arab. One of the main reasons he says he supports the war is his emotional investment with the Kurdish people (in general as well as specific individuals) who are the ones who want the democracy there (most of whom have fled the country ironically). Also he is close friends with Salmon Rushdie, for example (not that the "I'm not a racist, some of my friends are black" argument ever is good. Sorry.) But a great deal of his arguments against religion come from examples where it has held back rights for minorities or been the basis for racism.

I am completely fine with your inquiry into someone's intentions in his voicing outrage over Galloway, and you raised some very interesting points, but I feel like I was unfairly grouped in with Hitchens across the board, and so am unsure as to where to go from here....

grantoe:
... up until my last post, I was talking about Galloway only; I never mentioned Rumsfeld or Reagan or anybody else at all. So I think it's a bit unfair for you to have suggested that I had any intentions in relating the relevancy or significance of Galloway to Rumsfeld or Reagan.

Fair point. Yes, that was unfair of me - you were only ever talking about Galloway.

(I will reply more fully some time next week, when my work deadline is behind me.)

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).