Anatomy Of A Smear

Does the Christian Science Monitor have its own Steno Sue problem? On April 25, 2003, the Monitor wrote about official Iraqi documents that purported to show Labor MP George Galloway received millions from Saddam Hussein.

From the June 20, 2003 edition of the Monitor:

In Baghdad, Monitor reporter Ilene Prusher met with General Rasool, the source of the Monitor's documents. Rasool repeated most of the account he had earlier given Smucker.

As the discussion with Ms. Prusher progressed from there, a number of things became apparent:

� The general was offering other documents alleging malfeasance on the part of a wide array of foreign public figures noted for their support of the Hussein regime. (When Smucker met the general earlier, Rasool denied having documents dealing with any foreign politicians other than Galloway.)

� The papers from Qusay's house also "proved" that six of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers learned to fly in Iraq, according to the general.

� Rasool did not directly ask for money, but he described current negotiations to sell documents to other parties.

I wonder if Rasool was advising Bush prior to the war, on the Iraq-Al-Queda connection.

And here's the truth:

An extensive Monitor investigation has subsequently determined that the six papers detailed in the April 25 piece are, in fact, almost certainly forgeries.

The Arabic text of the papers is inconsistent with known examples of Baghdad bureaucratic writing, and is replete with problematic language, says a leading US-based expert on Iraqi government documents. Signature lines and other format elements differ from genuine procedure.

The two "oldest" documents - dated 1992 and 1993 - were actually written within the past few months, according to a chemical analysis of their ink. The newest document - dated 2003 - appears to have been written at approximately the same time.

"At the time we published these documents, we felt they were newsworthy and appeared credible, although we did explicitly state in our article that we could not guarantee their authenticity," says Monitor editor Paul Van Slambrouck. "It is important to set the record straight: We are convinced the documents are bogus. We apologize to Mr. Galloway and to our readers."

Lynching Postponed

Meanwhile, let's see who presumed that Galloway was guilty, based on the Monitor story:

GALLOWAY ON THE GALLOWS: Maybe the American press will begin to cover this story properly now. The Christian Science Monitor has become the second news organization to find documents that indicate that Saddam authorized huge pay-offs to the major anti-war leader in Britain, George Galloway. This time the sums are even more staggering, totalling $10 million in almost three years:

[quote from April 25 CSM article omitted]

If you want further evidence that Galloway is guilty, here's a piece by Scott Ritter, defending him. I wonder if Galloway will decide to sue the Telegraph now, after all. And I wonder if the anti-war movement could be more damaged. (The news is also retroactively embarrassing for Diane Sawyer, who cited Galloway as emblematic of British anti-war sentiment earlier this year.) When I first mentioned the possibility of a fifth column, I presumed it would be fueled by ideological fervor. I didn't contemplate it could be fueled by the mighty dollar. You've got to love these Marxists, don't you? -- www.andrewsullivan.com (Emphasis added.)

Whoa, there, Andy, don't hang Galloway just yet.

Yes, maybe the American press will begin to cover the story properly now. I wonder if Galloway will decide to sue the "No. 1 influential blogger," after all. And I wonder if the pro-war movement could be more damaged.

(Story via Atrios.)