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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (72153)	2/7/2003 3:44:31 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is the part of the New Yorker article that I found most interesting, in light of the debate over intelligence use of material found in scholarly journals: >>Rumsfeld also said that policymakers mistakenly assume that information must be secret in order to have value. "There's something about me, I suppose, and others possibly, where we read intel and we begin to think that this is the sum total of what we know about a subject and not really go in and probe the open sources, which are rich in many cases," he said.<< Colin Powell's presentation and President Bush's rhetoric repeatedly emphasize the "dangerous intelligence at risk" in the revelation of facts proving our case against Saddam. Apparently all they really need to invade a sovereign country is a few newsletters and graduate students to make a case. cnn.com <<A spokeswoman for No. 10 Downing Street told CNN: "This was a government briefing paper which was compiled from a number of sources including intelligence material. "The first and third sections of the report went to the issues of Iraq's non-compliance with United Nations resolutions. This information was largely intelligence based. "Section Two dealt with historical background on Iraq, and some of it was based on material written by Dr Ibrahim al-Marashi. In retrospect we should have acknowledged any references to material we used that had been written by Dr Ibrahim. We have learnt an important lesson. "But this issue does not take away to any degree from the accuracy of the information in the report nor does it negate to any extent the core argument put forward that Iraq is involved in deliberate acts of deception," she said. International affairs expert Dan Plesch of the Royal United Services Institute in London told Channel 4 that the alleged plagiarism was "scandalous." "This document is clearly presented to the British public as the product of British intelligence and it clearly is nothing of the kind." He said it was "dressed up as the best MI6 and our other international partners can produce on Saddam." "The word 'scandalous' is, I think, greatly overused in our political life but it certainly applies to this." Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin of the opposition Conservative party said: "The government's reaction to the Channel 4 news report utterly fails to explain, deny or excuse the allegations made in the programme. "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? "The Channel 4 report clearly suggests that the intelligence has been embroidered from other sources. Who is the author and who gave their approval? "We need a clear assurance that the government's published information is based on the best available sources and is not just spin." The document claims that Iraqi agents have been hiding vital material from UN weapons inspectors under houses and mosques. It also argues that UN inspectors are outnumbered 200 to one by Iraqi agents trying to obstruct them. >> Rascal@ orangeyougladtruthnolongermatters.com