Some weeks ago, someone (can't remember who - JLB maybe?) posted a story from a US news agency about UK socialist MP George Galloway, and claims that he had accepted bribes (in oil) from Saddam Hussein.

I'm delighted to be able to bring you the following story, now that the claims have been thrown out by a court of law as false, and the US newspaper has had to pay "substantial damages" to Galloway and make a humiliating public apology.

It's good to see that lies and propaganda in the right wing press, such as in this case, can still be beaten with truth and justice.


src: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3549679.stm#
---------------------------------------------
Galloway accepts libel damages
MP George Galloway has accepted damages and a public apology over an American newspaper article that alleged he accepted money from Saddam Hussein.

Mr Galloway, expelled by Labour for his stance on the Iraq war, said he had been "completely vindicated".

The Christian Science Monitor admitted a set of documents upon which it based its story were "almost certainly" fake.

The MP, who described the settlement as "substantial", has always denied taking cash from the Iraqi regime.

'Immense distress'

Mr Galloway's solicitor Mark Bateman told Mr Justice Eady at London's High Court that the allegations which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor last April were "false and without foundation".

The Independent MP was in court to hear Mr Bateman say the article, published by The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass, reported on documents which had been given to a journalist by an Iraqi general.

"The allegations contained in the Christian Science Monitor's story that Mr Galloway opposed the UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq and thereafter, opposed the recent conflict in Iraq because he had been paid by the Iraqi regime are false and without foundation," said Mr Bateman.

'Wolves'

Outside the court, Mr Galloway - who is standing in the European elections in London under the banner of his new anti-war party Respect - said the damages were a "complete vindication" of his denial that he had "received one thin dime from the Iraqi regime, from Saddam Hussein".

"This newspaper alleged that I received $10m. Today they have had to come before the High Court and in the humblest possible terms apologise infront of the British people and pay me substantial damages," he told Sky News.

Mr Galloway said he wanted Tony Blair to send British embassy officials to Baghdad to interview the Iraqi general to "find out why he forged these documents".

The MP was expelled from the Labour party over comments he made in an interview to an Arab TV station branding Mr Blair and US President George Bush "wolves".
---------------------------------------------

Christian Science Monitor.... rofl.

Christian Science Monitor


And...this is what JLB trusts to bring unbiased factual information?

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that the news report JLB (or whoever it was - can't remember) posted wasn't from the Christian Science Monitor, but was rather a report by some other agency about the Christian Science Monitor article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monitor.html
Is the paper a religious periodical?

No, it's a real newspaper published by a church — The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Mass., USA. Everything in the Monitor is international and US news and features, except for one religious article that has appeared each day in The Home Forum section since 1908, at the request of the paper's founder, Mary Baker Eddy.

JLB, I hate to turn your glee to sadness, but I was referring to this article, which was posted by you about a report on ABC news:

Galloway, other Socialists received oil bribes from Saddam

The title stands and is accurate - ABC News is American isn't it?

When did I lie about the Christian Science Monitor? That was the source for the ABC News story, which you posted. As per my previous post:

ABC article says it. ABC is America based..so US claims.
Christian Monitor is based in America...again making it be US based claims(and the original claimers to boot).

Yup...

The same story was first printed in the CSM, picked up by the Telegraph (UK right-wing paper) then appeared several months later on ABC News - the article which JLB quoted.

It's the same story.

Here's the link to the original CSM article (note - for obvious legal reasons they have now had to amend it, but the original text of the article is intact):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0425/p01s04-woiq.html

Here's the link to the apology by the CSM on the CSM website following the court case:
http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_world0319.htm

Here's a link to another apology they ran when they realised they were being sued and couldn't defend themselves:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html

And finally, here's another link to another CSM story, which references an investigation by the Daily Mail (UK newspaper) which reports that a number of different but similar forged documents about Galloway, all claiming to be of Iraqi origin, were being sold to naive western reporters:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0516/p....html#Galloway

Would sir like his humble pie to be served now?

To quote:

"But in a statement, Charles Moore, editor of the Daily Telegraph, said: "The Christian Science Monitor's retraction has no bearing on The Daily Telegraph's story.""

src: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3006166.stm

The Telegraph claim their documents are different, and unrelated to the CSM claims.

and, I should have mentioned, Galloway's suing the Telegraph too, but since it's a different article based on different documents, then it's a different case.

(src: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3027016.stm)

If/when he wins that, I promise I'll post a "UK claims proved to be fake (good news)" thread - just for you.

But the two cases are different.

BTW, the reason why the US case has been judged first is, presumably, because the CSM backed down and admitted they had been duped with false documents, whereas the Telegraph still claims it's remarkably similar documents are true - obviously court cases take longer when the defendant is not admitting their guilt.

The fact is that you have provided UK stories about a different set of documents - it's a different case which Galloway is still in the middle of suing the Telegraph (the original publishers) for. Surely you understand that these are different documents about different claims and are being challenged in a different court case?

The article I posted was about the fact that Galloway had proved in court that the story published in the US was wrong.

To put it simply: I was right.

To quote the Telegraph:

""Our story was based on a different set of documents found in a different set of circumstances. They were not supplied or given to us but unearthed by our reporter, David Blair, in the foreign ministry in Baghdad. "

src: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3006166.stm

you are wrong.

Same story, different documents.

My bet is that it will be found false in the courts as well.

Despite the deterioration of the argument, is it safe to assume the articles JLB cited are incorrect?

Although the documents are very similar.

Somewhere above I posted a link to the CSM article about a Daily mail report saying that many of these fake documents were being produced and sold to naive right wing journalists.