|
On April 25 2003, the Christian Science Monitor published a further set of documents purporting to have originated in the Special Security Section, run by Saddam's second son, Qusay.
However, the Monitor's documents were different in many details from those of the Daily Telegraph, and came from a different source. Monitor contract reporter Philip Smucker obtained them from an Iraqi general, Gen. Salah Abdel Rasool, who had already tried unsucsessfully to sell the documents to the Telegraph.
On May 11, a report in the British paper The Mail on Sunday disputed the authenticity of documents obtained from the same source as the Monitor's documents. The Mail's article said its writer had purchased other documents from the general alleging payoffs to Galloway. Those documents, unlike the Monitor's, included purported Galloway signatures.
"Extensive examination of the documents by experts has proved they are fakes, bearing crude attempts to forge the MP's signature," said the Mail on Sunday's May 11 story.
The Christian Science Monitor later retracted the story and on July 9th, 2003 issued Galloway an apology. Galloway has since used this case to claim that all such documents related to his allocations under the Oil For Food programme were forged.
|
