>>>I wouldn't know their intentions. I do know the information they plagiarized was, despite the lack of attribution, factual.<<<
No, it wasn't factual. When a college guy writes a college paper--typoEs and all--for a college audience, in order to argue an Oxford-like position, he's not making a case for war to the whole world, nor is he to expect the British intelligence service to steal his work and pass it off as something sacred for America's secretary of state who presented the information to the highest body in the world. (See the author's own statements to this effect.)
Stay with me, Brumar. That's a stretch!
For example, the student described organizations in "hostile regimes," and not, as Blair's press secretary (of all people!)--plagerized "terrorist organizations in hostile regimes."
So don't tell me it was accurate. Wanna know why? Here's the rub: I'm hostile to Bush, but I'm not a terrorist to Bush. Get it?
One more thing, and I pointed this to you earlier: That paper 12 years ago withstood a different degree of scrutiny than the scrutiny that especially would be required to pass muster for quality intelligence material that could make or break the lives of 22 million Iraqi citizens, 42 percent of whom are under the age of 15.
And the real problem here, is Bush's regime--supported by the greatest media network in the whole wide world--pulls off the same kind of deception.
So, considering all of this, why do you wanna be on their side? |
