Well, we were sort of wrong.
Back in December, we suggested that CNSNews.com would never note that a British court ruled that a report in a British newspaper that British politician George Galloway accepted a bribe from Saddam Hussein -- a report repeated by CNS in four stories -- was libelous and ordered the paper to pay him nearly $300,000 in damages.
It only took five months, but CNS did finally get around to noting it. In a May 12 article on yet another allegation of dealings between Galloway and Saddam's regime, this time by a Senate subcommittee, correspondent Mike Wendling notes the ruling:
Earlier this year, Galloway won $3 million in a libel suit against the conservative Daily Telegraph newspaper. The paper, citing documents found in Baghdad following the collapse of Saddam's regime, alleged that Galloway and his charity profited from the oil-for-food program.
The case is currently being appealed.
However, the subcommittee report stated that the documents it was based on "have no relation to those discussed in the Daily Telegraph ." After publication, the newspaper's source documents were found to be forgeries.
All of which begs the question that CNS refuses to address: If previous allegations against Galloway have been found to be false -- remember, the Christian Science Monitor also printed, then retracted, a similar allegation, which CNS has not reported at all -- what makes the current allegation credible?
WorldNetDaily and NewsMax also reported the original accusations against Galloway. Neither reported the Monitor's retraction and the British libel judgement at the time they occurred; NewsMax later ran an Associated Press article noting the libel judgement.