Galloway papers deemed forgeries. Experts discredit documents.

Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 20, 2003 | staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

[aculeus]

He's still a bum.

[TomGuy]

Yeh, but did Saddam & Sons create a bunch of fake/forged documents to incriminate people, in case of his downfall?

Sounds about like something Saddam would do.

[Parley Baer]

I'll wait and see how this plays out. Parley

[muawiyah]

Just remember, the whole story rests on the claim that the dates of the inks had been examined in a laboratory that does such things.

At the same time that sort of analysis is not admissible in a court of law.

Assume the courts have a very good reason for not accepting such analysis.

[aculeus]

Note from the Editor

By Paul Van Slambrouck

These accompanying pages contain a detailed account of a Monitor story that turned out to contain false allegations. We believe the episode involves a number of important principles that deserve some explanation.

We deemed the story itself important both because of its alleged substance and its timing. In the chaotic aftermath of the Iraq war, the abandoned files of Iraq's massive bureaucracies were suddenly open for looters, soldiers, and reporters to sort through at will. This was not a situation with established ground rules for journalists trying to obtain important and reliable information. Yet many of these documents opened new windows on the ways of the Hussein regime and its connections to the outside world.

When a Monitor reporter obtained documents detailing one such connection - purported payment from Iraq to one of its most steadfast and outspoken supporters in the West - it was not the first such allegation. Documents asserting similar payments had already been discovered the same week by a British newspaper. And we deemed it important because opening these windows into the workings of the regime and its outside linkages matters to making sense of an important historical moment. Those goals go to the most basic purpose of this newspaper, founded by Mary Baker Eddy with a stated object to "Injure no man, but to bless all mankind."

That is why we, on the basis of our assessment of information available at the time, went to press detailing the contents of six documents that described payouts to a British member of Parliament.

However, journalism always involves a potential tension between speed and accuracy, and the decision on when to publish a story rests with the editors here in Boston. We view this episode as instructive on that point, and hindsight tells us we did not strike the perfect balance. When new information cast doubt on the documents, we conducted an extensive investigation of their authenticity which culminated this week in the virtual certainty that they were forged.

We strive daily to be truth tellers. That is our way of blessing mankind. On this story, we erred. Our report said what we knew, honestly and carefully. With this follow-up story Friday, we are continuing our effort to tell what we know, as fully and fairly as we can, to set the record straight.

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[demnomo]

What's your take on this?

I'm having a hard time believing the word of one "expert's" opinion. Hey, Hans Blix is supposed to be an "expert" and he can't even keep his own stories or biases regarding the US and Iraq straight.

Scotty Ritter is also considered an (ahem) "expert" by some.

[Nick Danger]

An interesting question is who in Iraq would have wanted to "stick it" to Galloway. By all acounts, including his own, Galloway was a "friend of the regime." Whoever did this hated his guts for that.

[dighton]

He's still a bum.

And worse. But if the papers were forged and Galloway can prove libel, he'll be a rich bum at the Telegraph's expense.

Here's hoping the Monitor's experts are wrong.

[Seeking the truth]

If I was Galloway and really, truely innocent; IOW, I knew I was being set up or framed, I would have filed suit a long time ago.

I would not be considering law suits.

Why has Galloway not filed any suits yet?

There's more to this story that has not yet percolated.

[BlessedBeGod]

But if the papers were forged and Galloway can prove libel, he'll be a rich bum at the Telegraph's expense.

No, the Christian Science Monitor's documents are fakes. The Telegraph's are authentic. The article is very confusing.

[Shermy]

Unfortunately the forgery of the Monitor and Daily Mail documents means that the authenticity of the Telegraph documents will always remain under a cloud of suspicion. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the leftist papers managed to serve a leftist's cause in this case.

Good observation. And for the "inexact" ink science - does the doctor know about Iraqi ink? The ink science is anyway the only I would listen to here. The other "experts" are bordering on ridiculous/

[Shermy]

Finally, this expert found the language in the Monitor's six documents to be suspiciously blunt. The papers describe specific amounts of money requested and paid out, and to whom.

Hmmmm...maybe those "blunt" Iraqi bureaucrats need a lesson in American bureaucratese.

These guys sound like the language analysts hunting S. Hatfill.

[Nateman]

Perhaps Galloway himself had the forged documents created to foster doubt about the real ones the Telegraph stumbled upon. New underestimate the duplicity of a RAT.

[Shermy]

The Daily Telegraph report received widespread attention in the European press and throughout the world.

Perhaps the "General" and his insider heard the Telegraph report and whipped up something to sell.

Less dangerous than "looting" a museum.

[lilylangtree]

Galloway got back into the good graces of the British govt somehow? Wonder what he did or what he promised? If he plans on being a double agent, he's not going to be useful.

[piasa]

Strictly out of curiousity, what does the error analysis on, say, the lab testing of two documents, when you don't know the manner in which either was stored was identical? Does the ink on paper "age" at the same rate on two different kinds of paper, for example buffered and nonbuffered paper? Does lignin in the paper affect the rate? Does exposure to oxygen affect the rate? Would the presence of fire and smoke nearby affect the "aging" process on one paper so much that it would be markedly different from another document which had never been exposed to similar conditions?

And did anyone bother to take fingerprints or other samples off of the documents?

[aculeus]

There's more to this story that has not yet percolated.

Amen.

[berserker]

British member of parliament George Galloway refused to accept an apology from the Wall Street Journal, which retracted a claim he had received $10 million to promote Iraq in the West, June 20, 2003. The newspaper said documents from Baghdad -- on which its April 25 report about the anti-war legislator were based -- were 'almost certainly forgeries.' Galloway is shown talking to reporters April 24. (Jose Manuel Ribeiro/Reuters)

[Int]

I'm disappointed the CSMonitor got themselves into this situation - but they're still the good guys when it comes to the media...