Hey, I think the Coleman committee should retract their story

[deacon]

Looks like the pompous elitists got it wrong again. Agree?

[punpirate]

1. Well, maybe not...

... not just yet. Galloway warned them today. The story is now international, and Coleman has besmirched Galloway's name and reputation via the British press. If Coleman presses the issue in the absence of any Department of Justice investigation of Galloway, Galloway might have grounds for a slander suit... and the UK libel/slander laws aren't like they are in this country (no exception for absence of malice).

Cheers.

[deacon]

2. Well then maybe we can market Galloway boots with a slogan of

"They Kick Ass" :))

[pacifictiger]

3. He already won a

slander suit on the same issue from an english newspaper.

[Mr Creosote]

4. He won a libel suit from the Daily Telegraph

based on forged Iraqi documents purporting to be from 2001. Whereas your senate committee's evidence was, er, forged Iraqi documents purporting to be from 2001. You couldn't make it up could you?
He also won a settlement from your Christian Science (?) Monitor. But that was based on forged Iraqi documents - but purporting to be from 1992/93 I think.

[Disturbed]

5. Why can't more Dems have the courage to speak out against..

the Bush Cult, as this man has done?

[ObaMania]

7. Yeah, you'd think that they'd take their queue from Galloway

n/t

[0007]

6. Galloway just got an apology from the Christian Science Monitor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4557369.stm

"In 2003, the Christian Science Monitor issued a public apology to Mr Galloway over a story alleging that he accepted millions of pounds from Saddam Hussein, which turned out to be based on faked documents."

[Mr Creosote]

8. Your assertion is incorrect

"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".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3549679.stm

[0007]

9. I wasn't aware that the Christian Science Monitor made a pay off

to Galloway, he even took them to court. How much was it?

[Mr Creosote]

10. Yeah they definitely did

I remembered it - so it wasn't that hard to Google a relevant article. I don't know how it works over there - but these settlements often aren't disclosed here - and that looks to be the case this time. My guess, and it's no more than that, is that "substantial" means a six-figure sum. What is clear is that they did much more than just apologise and pay his costs. Confirmation from the losers is here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0425/p01s04-woiq.html
"To underline the sincerity of this apology, the Monitor has paid Mr. Galloway a sum in damages".

And I think this article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p01s03-woiq.html
is a model of how a newspaper should behave when it gets something wrong - so fair play to them for that. And perhaps if that ghastly moron with the rictus grin had read it his committee would have been less willing to traduce Galloway.

[0007]

11. Thank you kindly for the information. I wish that the media here

would have addressed this issue instead of trying to make Galloway look like a buffoon.

[deacon]

12. Whether the media reports this or about the Downing St. memo honestly

or not doesn't much matter anymore, what matters is the truth is the truth and the more they make fools of themselves by not bothering to get it right, the better.