Turning to the authenticity issue: shortly after I brought the documents to London, the Telegraph commissioned a forensic examination that helped show they were genuine. But, as the documents' authenticity was not disputed by Mr Galloway's lawyers - they argued that it was "irrelevant" - this evidence was never introduced in the libel trial.
This did not stop Mr Galloway from contradicting his legal team and insisting that the documents were "fake" or "fabricated". From the witness box, when proceedings began, he shied away from the word "forged" and instead called them "fake".
On the day of the Telegraph's first story about the documents, April 22, 2003, Mr Galloway told Today: "Somebody, somewhere has fabricated them." Two days later, he wrote: "I don't know the provenance of these documents," before adding: "Forgery and deception have, of course, been a hallmark of the whole Iraq story."
When a different set of documents, carried in another newspaper, was shown to be forged two months later, Mr Galloway said those found by me "would meet the same fate".
He was at it again yesterday, claiming that he had been unable to "have them independently forensically examined". In fact, more than two years ago, a forensic expert engaged by Mr Galloway's lawyers, one Oliver Thorne, was given as much time as he needed to look at the documents when he visited the Telegraph offices on June 12, 2003. For good measure, Mr Galloway claimed yesterday that these documents are "mere photocopies". In fact, there are several originals among them.
Moreover, according to the Senate's report, the documents have now been authenticated by the very people who first received them. These memoranda were circulated at the highest levels of Saddam's regime and Tariq Aziz, then Iraq's deputy prime minister, was on the distribution list. When he was shown a copy of the key document of Jan 3, 2000, he told Senate investigators that he "recognised" it and "recalled seeing it in the past".
A copy of another document found by me was shown to Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice-president. He confirmed to the Senate that the "facts stated in the document were true", although he could not remember seeing it himself.
As for the discovery of the documents, Mr Galloway tried to undermine my account of finding them. He claimed that I "stumbled" on them "in a burning, destroyed, looted building". In fact, there were no fires in the foreign ministry when I went there and the description of the building as "destroyed" is patently absurd. Television crews filmed this tower block on the day the Telegraph stories appeared. The foreign ministry still stands in the heart of Baghdad.
My Iraqi translator provided a witness statement detailing how he had accompanied me to the ministry and found the documents alongside me. Mr Galloway's lawyers accepted his evidence and chose not to cross-examine him. Nor did they challenge me directly on my account of finding them.
Looking back, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Mr Galloway's aggressive response to scrutiny is nothing more than an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction.
-- Michael Pugliese