Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (6114)	2/7/2003 1:21:52 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Well first of all, I understand the charges of plagiarism were aimed at a British report. What Powell did was praise the report in his speech. the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday. guardian.co.uk Secondly, issues about the proper attribution of material, are secondary to the issue of accuracy. Especially since we're talking about issues of war and peace. We're not talking about a paper that's going to be submitted for publication somewhere. If that's all it were, the issue of whether sources were properly attributed would be more important. You and I both know the people raising a fuss over plagiarism are improperly aiming to indict the material itself. Because they don't like the argument the material is used to advance. The issue of attribution and the issue of accuracy are two different things. Al-Marashi who is the expert on Saddam's regime says this about the issue: Dr Marashi, a research associate at the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California, said no one had contacted him before lifting the material. But on the regular edition of Newsnight he later gave some comfort to No 10. "In my opinion, the UK document overall is accurate even though there are a few minor cosmetic changes. The only inaccuracies in the UK document were that they maybe inflated some of the numbers of these intelligence agencies," he said. Explaining the more journalistic changes inserted into his work by Whitehall he added: "Being an academic paper, I tried to soften the language. "For example, in one of my documents, I said that they support organisations in what Iraq considers hostile regimes, whereas the UK document refers to it as 'supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes'. "The primary documents I used for this article are a collection of two sets of documents, one taken from Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq - around 4m documents - as well as 300,000 documents left by Iraqi security services in Kuwait. After that, I have been following events in the Iraqi security services for the last 10 years." guardian.co.uk If Clinton were presenting the same information instead of Powell, would you call it plagerism Maybe, maybe not. I did think the Republicans should not have gone after Clinton over perjury (even though he was a slimeball). He was still the President and the Monica business weakened and distracted the country. Otherwise, maybe Saddam would have been dealt with in 1999 as he should have been.