posted 02-09-2003 02:16 AM            

February 7, 2003

Powell Cited Sham "Fine Paper"

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence...

I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed yesterday which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.

-- Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5

# GLEN RANGWALA, gr10009@cam.ac.uk, www.middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
Rangwala is a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University in Britain. He has written a report: "A First Response to Secretary Colin Powell's Presentation Concerning Iraq" [available at www.traprockpeace.org/firstresponse.html] which takes issue with many of Powell's assertions.

In his analysis of Powell's claims, Rangwala found that substantial portions of "the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed yesterday" referred to by Powell on Wednesday before the Council (entitled "Iraq: Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation") were plagiarized from pre-existing sources including a paper by a postgraduate student, Ibrahim Al-Marashi, in California. Rangwala noted: "It's quite striking that even Al-Marashi's typographical errors and anomalous uses of grammar are incorporated into the Blair government document. Al-Marashi has confirmed to me that his permission was not sought; in fact, he didn't even know about the British document until I mentioned it to him.... None of the sources [in the Blair government document] are acknowledged, leading the reader to believe it is a result of direct investigative work, rather than simply copied from pre-existing Internet sources."

For more information, see: www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg00457.html

# WILLIAM RIVERS PITT, william.pitt@truthout.org, www.truthout.org/docs_02/020803A.htm
Author of the book War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know, Pitt said today: "An analysis of the footnotes for the Al-Marashi essay clearly demonstrates that his work was meant to describe Iraq's intelligence apparatus and military situation in the 1990s. The British dossier was presented as an up-to-date report on the status of Iraq's weapons and terrorist ties.... Between other questionable sources and the unreliable data from the British, it seems all too clear that Powell's presentation was based upon information that is questionable to say the least."

# JOHN QUIGLEY, quigley.2@osu.edu
Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said today: "The U.S. has presented information to the Security Council on war and peace issues that later turned out to be false...."

Note: This morning, Norman Solomon, the Institute for Public Accuracy's executive director and coauthor of the new book Target Iraq, took calls from people who agree with Bush policy for one hour on C-Span. To watch the "Washington Journal" interview, click on the following link: http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/jdrive/wj020703_solomon.rm
This video requires a Real media player. If you don't have one, you can download it free at: http://forms.real.com/netzip/getrde601.html?h=207.188.7.150&f=windows/RealOnePlayerV2GOLD.exe&p=RealOne+Player&oem=dl&tagtype=ie&type=dl

posted 02-09-2003 02:24 AM            

NO..I'm a CONSTITUTIONALIST.

posted 02-09-2003 02:28 AM            

Here's an olive branch....

Mech, Believe it or not, I like you. I like you because I can feel empathy for anyone living with all that anger and hatred bottled up (Obviously, it’s not completely bottled as you seem to have found an outlet for your expression on this message board). But, never-the-less, it must be hell thinking like you do all the time.

And I do think guys like you serve a necessary purpose, because government should be questioned. I just wish you’d take a more rational, honest and logical approach.

Let’s look at some areas where we may have some common agreements;

For one, I do believe as you do that there should be a small federal government, and that government has grown extremely large and out of control.

I do believe as you probably do, that war is a terrible, horrendous thing, and killing other human beings is probably the most repulsive thing that we humans sometimes do….although I probably differ from you in that I believe that wars like the coming one, are sometimes necessary for the survival of civilized man….(as ironic as that might seem).

OK…so give me credit. I found at least one and a half things we can probably agree on.

posted 02-09-2003 02:34 AM            

Britain Admits That Much of Its Report on Iraq Came From Magazines
By SARAH LYALL

LONDON, Feb. 7 — The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as "a fine paper" in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals.

But while acknowledging that the 19-page report was indeed a "pull-together of a variety of sources," a spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair defended it as "solid" and "accurate."
Advertisement

The document, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," was posted on No. 10 Downing Street's Web site on Monday. It was depicted as an up-to-date and unsettling assessment by the British intelligence services of Iraq's security apparatus and its efforts to hide its activities from weapons inspectors and to resist international efforts to force it to disarm.

But much of the material actually came, sometimes verbatim, from several nonsecret published articles, according to critics of the government's policy who have studied the documents. These include an article published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs in September 2002, as well as three articles from Jane's Intelligence Review, two of them published in the summer of 1997 and one in November 2002.

In some cases, the critics said, parts of the articles — or of summaries posted on the Internet — were paraphrased in the report. In other cases, they were plagiarized — to the extent that even spelling and punctuation errors in the originals were reproduced.

The Blair government did not deny that any of this had happened. But its spokesman insisted today that the government believed "the text as published to be accurate" and that the document had been published because "we wanted to show people not only the kind of regime we were dealing with, but also how Saddam Hussein had pursued a policy of deliberate deception."

He added: "In retrospect, we should, to clear up any confusion, have acknowledged which bits came from public sources and which bits came from other sources." He said the document had been written by government officials and drawn from "a number of sources, including intelligence sources."

"The overall objective was to give the full picture without compromising intelligence sources," he said.

But critics of the government said that not only did the document appear to have been largely cut and pasted together, but also that the articles it relied on were based on information that is, by now, obsolete.

For instance, the second section of the three-part report, which is described on the Downing Street Web site as providing "up-to-date details of Iraq's network of intelligence and security," was drawn in large part from "Iraq's Security and Intelligence Network: a Guide," an article about the activities of Iraqi intelligence in Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, which appeared in the Middle East Review of International Affairs last September. Its author was Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California.

Mr. Marashi told Channel 4 News, which first reported the plagiarism charges, that his research had been drawn primarily from two huge sets of documents: "one taken from Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq — around four million documents — as well as 300,000 documents left by Iraqi security services in Kuwait." He also said that while he had no reason to doubt the truth of anything he had written and believed the government report to be accurate, no one had asked permission or informed him about using his work.

"I am surprised, flattered as well, that this information got used in a U.K. government dossier," Mr. Marashi said in an interview with Reuters. "Had they consulted me, I could have provided them with more updated information."

Dr. Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University who has compared the British report with the articles it used as sources, said that in some cases, the authors apparently changed phrases from the original articles to make the case against Iraq seem more extreme.

For instance, Dr. Rangwala said, a section on the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi directorate of general intelligence, appeared to have been lifted verbatim from Mr. Marashi's article, except for a few tweaks. Where Mr. Marashi mentions that the Mukhabarat's responsibilities include "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq," the government document speaks of "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq." Mr. Marashi's description of the Mukhabarat's role in "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes" becomes "supporting terrorist organizations in hostile regimes."

Critics of the British and American policy toward Iraq said the report showed how little concrete evidence the two governments actually have against Iraq, as well as how poor their intelligence sources were.

"Both governments seem so desperate to create a pretext to attack Iraq that they are willing to say anything," said Nathaniel Hurd, a consultant on Iraq and a critic of the American position. "This U.K. dossier, which deceptively uses outdated material and plagiarizes, is just the latest example of official dishonesty."

Opposition politicians here attacked the report as the deceptive work of a bumbling government clutching at straws as it tries to make a case for war.

"This is the intelligence equivalent of being caught stealing the spoons," said Menzies Campbell, the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. "The dossier may not amount to much, but this is a considerable embarrassment for a government trying still to make a case for war."

Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative Party's shadow defense secretary, said the government had not satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised by the disclosures.

"The government's reaction utterly fails to explain, deny or excuse the allegations," Mr. Jenkin said. "The 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?"

posted 02-09-2003 02:37 AM            

Feb 8 2003
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12620001&method=full&siteid=50143

Exclusive By Gary Jones And Alexandra Williams In Los Angeles

JOURNALIST Sean Boyne and student Ibrahim al-Marashi have attacked Tony Blair for using their reports to call for war against Iraq.

Mr Boyne, who works for military magazine Jane's Intelligence Review, said he was shocked his work had been used in the Government's dossier.

Articles he wrote in 1997 were plagiarised for a 19-page intelligence document entitled Iraq: Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation to add weight to the PM's warmongering.

He said: "I don't like to think that anything I wrote has been used for an argument for war. I am concerned because I am against the war."

The other main source was a thesis by post-graduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi, the US-born son of Iraqis, who lives in California. His research was partly based on documents seized in the 1991 Gulf War.

He said: "This is wholesale deception. How can the British public trust the Government if it is up to these sort of tricks? People will treat any other information they publish with a lot of scepticism from now on."

After the dossier's origins were revealed, Mr Blair was accused by his own MPs of theft and lies. The fiasco has deeply damaged his attempts to win backing for military action.

It emerged the PA to Mr Blair's spin chief Alastair Campbell was involved in drawing up the dossier which was published last month.

Alison Blackshaw and a Government press officer were both named on the dossier when it was first put on the Government's website. But the names were later removed.

The bulk of the Government's document is directly copied, without acknowledgement, from Ibrahim's 5,000-word thesis - Iraq's Security and Intelligence Network - published last September.

He did not even know the dossier existed until Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge-based Iraq analyst, spotted the plagarism and called him.

Ibrahim, whose parents fled to the US from Iraq in 1968, said the Government not only blatantly lifted much of his work, including typing and grammatical errors. Mr al-Marashi and Mr Boyne said their figures had been altered in the Government document.

Former Labour Defence Minister MP Peter Kilfoyle said: "It just adds to the general impression that what we have been treated to is a farrago of half-truths.

"I am shocked that on such thin evidence that we should be trying to convince the British people that this is a war worth fighting."

And Labour MP Glenda Jackson said: "It is another example of how the Government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament.

"And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying."

The PM's official spokesman rejected Ms Jackson's claims but admitted it had been a mistake not to acknowledge Mr al-Marashi's thesis in the dossier.

He added: "The fact we used some of his work doesn't throw into question the accuracy of the document as a whole. This document is solid."

Asked whether Downing Street was embarrassed about the affair, the spokesman said: "We all have lessons to learn."

The dossier had been praised by US Secretary of State Colin Powell in his speech to the UN Security Council. Mr Boyne added: "Maybe I should invoice Colin Powell."

posted 02-11-2003 12:21 PM            

Are you kidding? BJM, you are more thick and uninformed than I ever imagined. No Olive Branch for you, just a big, thick, vertical middle finger or perhaps Prozac might help.

Power Colon, the "moderate" who tried to cover up the My Lai massacre.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030206Bisbort.html

Still no answer about the plagerized Iraq documents. Clinton lies about his pecker, and all the cons are beating impeachment drums. Powell, Bush, ad Nauseum lie, and that's OK. Well, I guess lying is OK, as long as it suits your agenda.

posted 02-11-2003 03:39 PM            

quote:

---

Bush's Brilliant Powell Speech Strategery

February 10, 2003

On Monday, I shared with you the ultimate analysis of the situation in response to Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations. Many of you are angry over polls like this one asking whether people trust Powell or Bush more, and of columns like those by the Washington Post's Mary McGrory saying that the SecState convinced her that Iraq is in "material breech."
?

?
?I loved telling people that I was upset that Secretary Powell's speech was even necessary. We've known everything he said about Saddam Hussein was true. Yet the press framed the debate as the "hawks" on one side of the administration - Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney - and Powell on the other. We had all these suspicious leaks in the New York Times and the Washington Post, at which point I told you that those weren't accidental.

This White House hates leaks, which means they had a hand in what the press reported. It's been a clear strategery from Day One. Bush reluctantly agrees to go to UN on Powell's recommendation; Powell gets Security Council Resolution 1441 with Hussein allies France and German on board; the SecState's star rises higher than ever - and then he comes down and makes this case for war!

Now the other nations of the world, and liberals at home, have no choice but to go with Powell! We have just witnessed one of the most brilliantly conceived, flawlessly executed strategeries ever to come out of the White House. George W. Bush didn't care whether or not it was he or his SecState or anyone else who persuaded his opponents. All he wanted is for the truth to get out. He knew way in advance that there was going to be institutional opposition to him on the Democratic side of the aisle and in the press, so he brilliantly outflanked them.

---

Thank God we have a man in office who is using the same strategery, on the enemy, while people underestimate his intelligence.

Link

Link

Link

{edited to narrow the margins}

posted 02-11-2003 04:01 PM            

What a minute while I catch my breath from laughing!!!!!!!!! This is beyond ridiculous.

He can hardly hear, and that's why he likes to hear himself talk so much Cow Pies.

posted 02-11-2003 05:05 PM            

As far as being threatened by liberals goes...hardly. On the contrary, I'm enjoying myself immensely watching the liberal “progressive”/socialist movement world wide crumble and go down in flames. I even hope the Dems put up Hillary as a presidential candidate. I would LOVE to see that. Liberals are in panic mode right now, and Bush is winning on every single front both domestic and abroad. I'm blown away by the man's strategic genius.

Like I said, it is my sincere hope that people like you will keep underestimating him. That works to his (and America's) advantage, and allows him the success he's been able to achieve in saving this country, from the certain doom brought upon it by the Klintoon administration.

PS....and your relationship with Seeker is not my concern. (Don't know why you think it would be)..

posted 02-11-2003 05:46 PM            

You are truly living in your imagination. BU$H has created more debt than any president possibly EVER, the economy is in shreds, getting worse, to the point of police and firefighters being layed off, the world's people are in complete opposition to Bush foreign policy, the Coalition is falling apart and more countries are refusing to go to war, people are more insecure about their future than they ever have. The dollar itself is getting more and more devalued every day. And more buisnesses are closing due to CHINESE competition.

Come on Billy, you need to wake up to reality. It's not a "liberal" conspiracy. How could it? Repubs control congress, passed all of Bush's unconstitutional public spying laws etc. If you can't see that this country has been hijacked by ELITISTS who seek to feather thier own nests and sell out America...you are truly blind or YOU YOURSELF are one of THEM.

posted 02-11-2003 05:58 PM            

quote:

---

Clinton lies about his pecker, and all the cons are beating impeachment drums.

---

Most of us didn't give a whit about slick Willy's wiener. Although that is what our salacious media would have you believe. Selling top secret missile navigation technology to China however (and more treasonous acts too numerous to account here) was much more of a problem for most conservatives than desecrating the oval office. Which was bad enough.

Like Al Capone and tax evasion they went for impeachment with what they thought they could get I guess. He lied under oath among many other crimes even if those crimes were related to his deviant behavior, it was enough to impeach him.

posted 02-11-2003 06:38 PM            

Now let's have an honest discussion. Are you willing? In other words, will you respond to points that I make without changing the subject, without trying to spin your spin you spin so well and bury me in cut and pastes? Will you give some deep thought to your comments to determine if you are truly being honest or not? If you can do that, then I think maybe we can make some progress towards actual honest communication.

Ok here goes; Let's examine your comments. First of all, we must first examine whether or not this statement is true or not, and if it is true, then WHY it is true;

quote:

---

BU$H has created more debt than any president possibly EVER, the economy is in shreds, getting worse, to the point of police and firefighters being layed off, the world's people are in complete opposition to Bush foreign policy, the Coalition is falling apart and more countries are refusing to go to war, people are more insecure about their future than they ever have. The dollar itself is getting more and more devalued every day. And more buisnesses are closing due to CHINESE competition.

---

Is it true that Bush has created more debt than any president ever? First of all, to be honest with ourselves we have to examine what processes and policies create national debt, who controls spending, and who controlled congress during the period when the deficit was increasing and who controlled congress after Jefford's defection, and who opposed Bush's budget and tax cuts. There are many considerations that we must take into account here Mech, before we can make this blanket statement that "Bush created more debt that any president ever". If true, then how did he do it? After all, you aren't qualified to make the statement that he did create the deficit or National debt we have now, until you know why. What policies instigated by President Bush are you faulting. Is it the tax cut? Is it military spending? Is it failure to cut Clinton's programs? Then we have to look at other factors such as 9/11. We have to look at what it costs to secure this country, a factor which was outrageously neglected allowed to lapse into a state of decay over the eight years of the Clinton reign of malaise and terror. Securing the country from outside threats is a president's constitutional mandate, and may account for a large part of the spending that you are blaming him for. In other words, could you be faulting the president for doing his constitutionally mandated duty, the same duty that Clinton Shirked?

And furthermore, could you be blaming the current state of the economy on Bush, for something that the Clinton administration's tax and spend policies created? Every economist knows that affects of the previous administration are delayed. Clinton, for example, took credit for the boom economy that resulted from the policies of the Reagan years. Bush has to deal with the economic disaster that is now being felt by the Clinton years.

When we really look into the detail that prompts your generalized remarks Mech, we begin to see that truth and accuracy may not be a consideration in your commentary.

As another example, Is it true that the "coalition" is falling apart? Well what about our 16 allies? Only two socialist countries have reneged on their agreement to enforce resolution 1441, France and Germany. That says more about the integrity of their word than it does the Bush administration, doesn't it? And do we really need unanimous support in the UN to defend America and it's interests abroad and it’s borders from a terrorist state like Iraq? I think the truth is that it is amazing that Bush has been able to brilliantly put together the coalition we have in the first place. The allies we have now are the same as we had in the last Gulf War. Who the hell cares what socialist/communist countries (who are likely the ones selling arms to Iraq) think? Do we really need those enemies of America (France, Germany, Russia and China) as allies, and is it really any wonder to you that they would break their word?

When things are looked into with the harsh light of honesty, it becomes more and more difficult to make your blanket statements, doesn't it Mech. This is , of course, assuming that honesty is the objective here. Is it?

Well, we can get into the economy as a subject in more detail in another thread as well. That is, in and of itself, a huge subject, and to imply that Bush is responsible for the current state of the economy is just as an outrageously false statement as your others and again depends upon many factors. Are we basing your definition of economy on the GDP (gross domestic product)? Are we basing it on the stock market? Are we falsely and disingenuously blaming Bush for the failures of Enron and those other mega corporations? Are we taking into account the affect of California, the fifth largest economy of the world, on the national economy, where Democrat Gov. Gray Davis, through sheer incompetence and corruption, turned a 10 billion dollar surplus into a 35 billion dollar deficit?

You see Mech, I'm getting the impression that truth is not exactly what you are seeking here. But you can prove me wrong. Just have and honest discussion with me, that's all. Let’s take one issue and accusation at a time.

posted 02-11-2003 07:18 PM            

quote:

---

When things are looked into with the harsh light of honesty, it becomes more and more difficult to make your blanket statements, doesn't it Mech. This is , of course, assuming that honesty is the objective here. Is it?

---

quote:

---

When we really look into the detail that prompts your generalized remarks Mech, we begin to see that truth and accuracy may not be a consideration in your commentary.

---

quote:

---

You see Mech, I'm getting the impression that truth is not exactly what you are seeking here. But you can prove me wrong. Just have and honest discussion with me, that's all. Let’s take one issue and accusation at a time.

---

You are in no way sincere. Almost every one of your posts has some form of ridicule to the person to whom you are responding or others on this board. You are arrogant and condesending.

posted 02-11-2003 08:38 PM            

I will answer ALL of my accusations and yours as well.If you are STILL unconvinced that BUSH is a NWO minion JUST LIKE CLINTON...there is nothing more I can do for you...you are set in your beliefs no matter what is presented to you.You have to break your conditioning.

I already know what your reaction will be..."OHH...IT'S LIBERAL BIAS..." OHHH...THAT ISN'T TRUE". Because the evidence has been hitting you in the face ever since you found this board. It would be a shame for you to accept what is happning to our constitututional republic just because the chnge of figurehead at the top somehow appeals to you more.

posted 02-11-2003 11:08 PM            

billy...mech, uhhh...he left with elvis....