antiquary
|
posted on February 7, 2003 11:54:44 AM new
Interesting....
Charges the British government with both plagiarism and distortion in creating the document.
LONDON, England -- The British government has been accused of basing its latest Iraq dossier on old material, including an article by an American post-graduate student.
http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html
|
antiquary
|
posted on February 7, 2003 12:33:59 PM new
Another article that is very interesting about the economy and the Bush budget plan--though I've been very busy lately, I always take a few hours to read the news daily and I thought that some of you might find this interesting also.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm
|
snowyegret
|
posted on February 7, 2003 01:26:31 PM new
Hi Antiquary.  Not unexpected, but disappointing none the less. The disinfo, not your visit.
Incite peace now!
This Brand America article is an interesting view of corporate mindset at work in a global way. Is this what we deserve for electing coporate people instead of lawyers?
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Feb 7, 2003 01:27 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 7, 2003 01:48:40 PM new
"This document has been cited by the prime minister and Colin Powell as the basis for a possible war. Who is responsible for such an incredible failure of judgment?
Colin Powell's source was assembled in London and contained plagiarized portions from a paper written by a graduate student 12 years ago. Good grief!
Powell, the Diplomat is losing credibility by hanging out with the Cowboy and his London Poodle too long.
Helen
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 7, 2003 04:44:27 PM new
"The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement.
"So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old."
Like I said - it's all about illusion.
|
profe51
|
posted on February 7, 2003 05:27:24 PM new
Not trying to pick a fight here Borillar, but didn't you say in another thread that Powell's talk had sort of turned you around on the war? Just checking.
|
antiquary
|
posted on February 7, 2003 09:24:58 PM new
Hey, snowy! Great link and fits right in. You find the most fascinating information. Wasn't it Rove who was overheard and quoted last summer comparing the war to an advertising campaign.
Helen  and Borillar. Yes, those are very critical parts of the story. I like to take the basic facts of newstories like this one and see what national media outlets pick them up and how they are presented if they do. It's a good basis of judgment about the integrity of the news sources. I also listened to Peter Jennings' World News Tonight to see if it were included there. He did mention the plagiarism by British intelligence but not the distorted effect that it created. In fact if one had not read the story, I doubt his statement could have been very clearly understood. I was pleased that he included it however.
I assume that Powell had no way to verify the information that he was provided. It's placed him in a very awkward situation at best.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on February 7, 2003 09:35:31 PM new
Have you seen the Moyers - Lewis interview on the proposed expansion of the Patriot Act? Very bad news. 
Link
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on February 7, 2003 09:53:20 PM new
Watching Moyer right now.
Interesting.Anyone that opposes big government should be appalled at this proposed legislation.Anyone that values freedom as well.
When Chuck Lewis said these words :"I think that we're in a very unusual situation right now. And it really worries me actually. " It was clear from his face that he meant it.
and good men stood by and did nothing..
|
antiquary
|
posted on February 7, 2003 09:54:44 PM new
I was just catching up on my reading, snowy, and saw the link. More good information!!! I've read of numerous little incidences, but they are very easily underestimated singularly and of course they are under-reported. It's refreshing to see that people with a national voice are beginning to assimilate information and address the internal dangers to our way of life. We may just escape a police state yet.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on February 7, 2003 10:20:56 PM new
Between my arts and letters daily check, and my fodder bookmarks, I get most of my news from a variety of Net sources now. It's good to know that the plagarism was reported on the network news. I've found their content so similar and homogenized over the years, that I preferred the paper or McNeil Lehrer. The lack of depth in their coverage also bothers me.
Ah, for the days when Watergate hearings were the best show on TV....
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on February 7, 2003 10:31:10 PM new
Watergate is looking pretty tame about now.
This statement from the Moyers interview is particularly troubling to me.
"We have other things like presidential papers being sealed off. We have reporters trying to cover things in Afghanistan being locked in a warehouse and not able to file their stories. Even before September 11th, we had one reporter's home phone records seized by a grand jury without telling him or his news organization.
bolding mine.
Even before 9-11 this started?
|
antiquary
|
posted on February 7, 2003 10:54:08 PM new
Hi Robin,
Yes, the pre-9/ll is especially troubling. People are beginning to think again though, so depending on how far that can be continued, we could discover a great deal more than we ever anticipated.
Snowy, I like to watch the evening news from one of the major networks because I believe that that is probably the most exposure to news that the majority of citizens today experience. Which explains a lot.
I'm exhausted. To bed! Nice to see all you good people.
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 7, 2003 10:58:44 PM new
>Not trying to pick a fight here Borillar, but didn't you say in another thread that Powell's talk had sort of turned you around on the war? Just checking.
No, I did not. Linda asked if that was the case (Powell's speech) and I told her that it was not. I missed Powell's speech as I keep saying in here and other recent threads and I have yet to read a transcript of it.
|
profe51
|
posted on February 8, 2003 04:05:03 AM new
thanks for clarifying...
|
antiquary
|
posted on February 8, 2003 05:54:19 PM new
More discredited evidence
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,892112,00.html
|
twinsoft
|
posted on February 8, 2003 06:14:19 PM new
There's a lot of popular support for Powell. Even talk about the presidency. Many people who don't trust Bush will follow Powell on Powell's word alone. Now he is looking like an complete idiot with egg on his face. Was Powell set up? Deliberately given false information? The sad thing is, discovery of the phony reports won't even slow down the Bush war machine.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 8, 2003 06:48:38 PM new
I would like to believe that he was set up but with his intelligence, how is that possible? How could he not question the data that he was given?
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Feb 8, 2003 08:15 PM ]
|
twinsoft
|
posted on February 8, 2003 07:02:03 PM new
So you're saying you think he knew the evidence was outdated, plagiarized from some grad student, and false to boot? Or, what?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 8, 2003 07:15:54 PM new
I believe that he may have been unaware that the paper was partially plagiarized but I don't believe that he could be ignorant of the possibility that his other presentation materials were not credible. By other materials, I mean the tape recordings, satelite photos and other sources that he identified as "irrefutable and undeniable".
And he certainly must have been aware that his evidence was not justification for war with Iraq. What an embarrassing position for Powell. He was used.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Feb 8, 2003 07:23 PM ]
|
antiquary
|
posted on February 8, 2003 07:43:27 PM new
I don't know exactly how or why this situation arose. Whether it was intentional or not. Seeing how it's played will likely reveal more clues. At present, he would seem to be in a position from which he can't defend himself without accusing the governments involved. Neither can he argue the validity of the information without appearing foolish to the rest of the world.
Several scenarios present themselves. It could be that it's not unlike Winston's situation in 1984.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 8, 2003 08:49:43 PM new
I haven't been able to find a report of Powell's reaction to the news that his report was plagiarized in London. The sad aspect is that this outdated and false information is being used to justify a war.
Latest news...
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited the dossier Wednesday as he addressed the United Nations with evidence of Iraq's weapons programs.
"I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities," Mr. Powell said.
Mr. Blair's spokesman said the sections of the report describing the current activities of Iraqi intelligence "are largely based on intelligence material" but conceded that the section on Iraq's security structure — 10 pages of the 19-page report — drew on Mr. al-Marashi's work, "which in retrospect we should have acknowledged."
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 9, 2003 01:24:57 AM new
>Was Powell set up? Deliberately given false information?
Let's figure this out.
IF the Bush camp knew it was bad information, they also know that journalists would be checking out the reported facts. It would be discovered that the facts were false, but the propaganda would have had its intended effect.
So, who should be left standing without a chair when the music stops?
The answer is obvious: SOMEONE B-L-A-C-K!
|
antiquary
|
posted on February 13, 2003 10:00:42 AM new
More backtracking and admissions that evidence was overstated in Powell's speech as well as the connection between bin Laden and Hussein in the recent tape from bin Laden.
By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 13, 2003; Page A20
In the past two days, administration officials have appeared to qualify their case that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have paired up to threaten the United States, a key argument for going to war against Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A134-2003Feb12.html
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2003 10:09:38 AM new
McCain is, right now, on Fox News  giving his statement on why containment is unworkable in Iraq.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2003 10:23:33 AM new
U.S. and Russian officials on Wednesday said international missile experts this week did find that an Iraqi missile exceeds the maximum 93-mile range allowed under U.N. resolutions. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said it was now up to Blix to recommend what to do about the violation.
And Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., asked President Bush to consider convening debtor and donor conferences to pay for a smooth, post-Saddam transition. In a letter to the president, Lieberman said he was "in full agreement that we must put an end to the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq pose to the U.S., the region and our allies."
Powell told the House International Relations Committee that all 15 nations who voted unanimously in November to threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if it did not disarm knew they were voting for force as an option.
"I hope in the days ahead we will be able to rally the United Nations around the original resolution and what other resolution might be necessary in order to satisfy the political needs of a number of the countries," Powell said. But he said the United States would not be deterred by opposition to using force.
"France and Germany are resisting," he said. "They believe that more inspections, more time" should be allowed. "The question I will put to them is: Why more inspections? And how much more time?" Powell said. "Or are you just delaying for the sake of delaying in order to get Saddam Hussein off the hook and no disarmament? That's a challenge I will put to them."
In other developments, chemical weapons experts headed into the Iraqi desert Wednesday to destroy a newly discovered batch of banned Iraqi weapons - 10 leftover artillery shells filled with burning, disabling mustard gas.
Continued breaches......
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2003 10:25:43 AM new
My above post was taken from Herald Tribune.com
|
bunnicula
|
posted on February 13, 2003 01:27:46 PM new
"In other developments, chemical weapons experts headed into the Iraqi desert Wednesday to destroy a newly discovered batch of banned Iraqi weapons - 10 leftover artillery shells filled with burning, disabling mustard gas."
The only problem with this statement is that the missiles found were empty. No mustard gas.
As for the missiles at the beginning of your post that can exceed the 94 miles range limit...at most they can exceed it by 10 miles. Now, it's been a while since I studied geography, but I could swear that the US is more than 104 miles away from Iraq...
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
|
