David T reprints Nick Cohen's aposite question in today's Evening Standard:

I want to ask a question of my own: would you think worse of Mr Galloway if the Americans were right and he was corrupt? I wouldn't. Corruption is deplorable, but it is a common human vice. Is it better to grovel before fascists because you've been paid to grovel before them? Or because you sincerely believe in their courage, strength and indefatigability?

The questions aren't only for Mr Galloway. With a few honourable exceptions, the anti-war movement has accepted the leadership of an apologist for totalitarianism. Most of the newspapers have praised him or left him alose. The fearsome interviewers of the BBC have never given him a proper grilling.

People look back at the 20th century and marvel at the Tories who sucked up to Hitler and the socialists who sucked up to Stalin. We think we've learned the lessons of the past and are better than them.

Quite. As Christopher Hitchens puts it:

I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.

I'd also recommend reading David Blair's piece. It was Blair who unearthed the original Galloway documents in Baghdad - the veracity of which were not questioned by the High Court judgement, whatever Galloway might wish:

Following publication of the documents in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Galloway successfully sued and won damages of £150,000. Yet anyone who listened to the MP's public statements would never have guessed two crucial facts. First, Mr Galloway's lawyers did not challenge the authenticity of the documents. Second, they did not question my account of how I found them.

Turning to the authenticity issue: shortly after I brought the documents to London, the Telegraph commissioned a forensic examination that helped show they were genuine. But, as the documents' authenticity was not disputed by Mr Galloway's lawyers - they argued that it was "irrelevant" - this evidence was never introduced in the libel trial.