Galloway must be doing something right: managing to be a thorn in the side of Tony Blair, being labelled a traitor by the Sun (surely an honour), and now finding himself the victim of security service and state-media (Telegraph on this occaision) smear - something he must have expected at the back of his mind for some time.

Galloway stated on Radio 4 (22/4/2003)that he had never knowingly met a 'security' agent, and said the Telegraph was going to be sued. He also noted that the Telegraph had been privy to all sorts of 'secret intelligence data' in the past few weeks suggesting that their correspondent has either made links with a CIA/MI6 agent, or is linked directly to the security services himself. Galloway also said that if the allegations in the documents found by The Telegraph are correct, the proof will reside in the UN (under the Oil for Food fund). I suggest that if this evidence is 'found', then it will lead to an (anonymous) account that is not in Galloway's name - allowing the intelligence services to claim that the story is correct, thus preventing Galloway from taking action to show his innocence. It seems certain that Galloway's legal advice will have informed him of all available means of proving his innocence.

What seems without question is that the Telegraph is acting on this occaision as the mouth of the secret intelligence services, - a role it has carried out dutifully in the past - this time through their reporter David Blair. He has covered numerous stories on Iraq, Zimbabwe, the rise of Islamic parties in Pakistan, the Maoist insuregence in Nepal, and most notably, written a discredited story titled "Bin Laden Buys Child Slaves for His Drug Farms". These are all stories that attack the enemies of the British state, though it should be noted that he has attacked in careful terms the very worst atrocities committed by the Israeli state as well - also in line with British foreign policy. As it stands, his stationing in locations where British Foreign Intelligence is most active, and covering issues that are likely to be at the forefront of MI6 interest whilst failing to report on issues that don't concern British Intelligence directly put his credibility as an objective observer at stake. In this case, not only the 'documents' he uncovers, but also the circumstances surrounding this find is quite literally miraculous: Saddam's regime/government kept massive amounts of paperwork - for something this 'interesting' to literally fall into the hands of a right-wing, pro-war journalist working for the most pro-war government Britain has seen defies all statistical probability. Why weren't they found by a foreign journalist? Why not an Iraqi? Even finding the 'documents' seems unlikely when looters, arsonists and bombs have messed up the files, destroying thousands of them, and scattering millions to the wind. No, this story is a complete non-starter. If it had emerged after a couple of months it would have been more credible: the fact that the state resorted to these measures so quickly proves it is incredibly jittery about their process of 'liberation'.

This is a classic case of character assassination by the state. It keeps Galloway fighting a legal battle that will damage his credibility and prevents him from engaging in the full range of anti-war activities he might have undertaken; it might even remove one prominent opponent from opposing further wars of aggression by Britain and America. What this character assassination attempt doesn't do is legitimise the war. It simply helps the pro-war lobby and its supporters to strengthen their message and deride opponents as traitors and inadvertent lackeys of the enemy - *the* classic pro-war, war-time tool of the state, used successfully by all governments, including the fascist German one that Bush's America is increasingly beginning to resemble.