Friday, December 03, 2004
Here are the most egregious:
1) Hari claims Galloway defended Hussein's right to invade Kuwait. He did not. He specifically rejected it. Hari's claim was made with the use of a carefully edited quote.
2) Hari claimed Galloway was rendering a moral equivalence between Saddam's regime and Western liberal democracies. Galloway was not. Again, Hari makes his claim with the use of a carefully edited quote.
3) Hari claims that Galloway, in comparing Hussein to Stalin, is not wielding a criticism. Passages contiguous to those cited by Hari show that he was.
4) Hari claims that Galloway fails to mention the ideal of two-states, but he does.
5) Hari claims that Galloway 'evades' the reasons for Israel's creation: he does not.
6) Hari claims that 800,000 Jews were 'ethnically cleansed' from Arab countries after 1948. They were not.
Hari also makes other claims which are demonstrable false in relation to Galloway, among which are the ideas that he opposes liberal abortion legislation (he does not) and supports the death penalty (he does not). I asked him for evidence of the last claim, knowing the first had already been refuted, but Hari has been loathe to provide it.
Unusually for many journalists, Hari will listen to criticism. Little difference it seems to have made in this case, though, when he is in obvious error, if not in libel territory.