Deny's here is the statement from the German government about the dispute.

http://de.news.yahoo.com/030210/12/3abuv.html

How about the report from Colin Powell from the British secret service and
then it turned out to be a report written by a student.
Is that any kind of proof?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Pitt_UKDossier.htm

If they have such high tech and smart machines, then the US and Britain
certainly should be able to find some better proof.
Not that I even like Saddam but to start a war which nobody knows when and
where is will end, certain proof should be available.


Blair-Powell UN Report Written by Student

by William Rivers Pitt
Dissident Voice
February 9, 2003




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

-- Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations, 2/5/03





The veracity of Colin Powell's report on Wednesday before the United
Nations Security Council was dealt a serious blow when Britain's Channel 4
News broke a story that severely undermines the credibility of the
intelligence Powell used to make his case to the UN.



Powell's presentation relied in no small part upon an intelligence dossier
prepared by the British Government entitled, "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of
Concealment, Deception and Intimidation." That report plagiarized large
swaths of an essay written in September of 2002 by a graduate student from
California named Ibrahim al-Marashi. Al-Marashi's essay appeared in the
September 2002 edition of a small journal, the Middle East Review of
International Affairs.



The British intelligence report can be read here. The essay by Ibrahim al-
Marashi can be read here.



According to the story from Channel 4 News, which was later augmented by an
Associated Press report by Jill Lawless, the duplicate text was first
spotted by a Cambridge, England academic named Glen Ranwala. Apparently,
Ranwala read the British dossier when it became available and believed he
had seen it before. As it turns out, he was correct. Entire sections of the
al-Marashi essay, including six full paragraphs in one section, had been
cut and pasted into the British dossier, including several spelling and
grammatical errors that are identical.



According to the Associated Press, al-Marashi had no idea his paper was
being used by the British. "It was a shock to me," he told the Associated
Press, and expressed the hope that the British would credit his work "out
of academic decency."



A line-by-line comparison of the two documents clearly shows one example of
the plagiarism:



From the British report -



"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf
War. After the Gulf War he was replaced by Wafiq Jasim al-Samarrai.



After Samarrai, Muhammad Nimah al-Tikriti headed Al-Istikhbarat al-
Askariyya in early 1992 then in late 1992 Fanar Zibin Hassan al-Tikriti was
appointed to this post.



These shifting appointments are part of Saddam's policy of balancing
security positions. By constantly shifting the directors of these agencies,
no one can establish a base in a security organisation for a substantial
period of time. No one becomes powerful enough to challenge the President."



From the al-Marashi essay -



"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri(80) as head of Military
Intelligence during the 1991 Gulf War.(81) After the Gulf War he was
replaced by Wafiq Jasim al-Samarrai.(82)



After Samarrai, Muhammad Nimah al-Tikriti(83) headed Military Intelligence
in early 1992(84) then in late 1992 Fanar Zibin Hassan al-Tikriti was
appointed to this post.(85) While Fanar is from Tikrit, both Sabir al-Duri
and Samarrai are non-Tikriti Sunni Muslims, as their last names suggest.



Another source indicates that Samarrai was replaced by Khalid Salih al-
Juburi,(86) demonstrating how another non-Tikriti, but from the tribal
alliance that traditionally support the regime holds top security positions
in Iraq.(87)



These shifting appointments are part of Saddam's policy of balancing
security positions between Tikritis and non-Tikritis, in the belief that
the two factions would not unite to overthrow him. Not only that, but by
constantly shifting the directors of these agencies, no one can establish a
base in a security organization for a substantial period of time, that
would challenge the President.(88)"



After a close analysis of the identical text from both reports, it is also
clear that Britain altered key words to give their report a more sinister
and ominous twist. The British report states that the Iraqi intelligence
agency is "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq." The al-Marashi essay's
version states that the Iraqi intelligence agency is "monitoring foreign
embassies in Iraq." The rhetorical leap from "monitoring" to "spying" is
evident.



In another portion of the British dossier, Iraq is accused of "supporting
terrorist organizations in hostile regimes." The al-Marashi essay's version
states that Iraq is "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes." The
insertion of the word "terrorist" is manifestly provocative.



A disturbing series of questions is raised by this matter. Mr. Powell
relied heavily upon "facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence,"
often from foreign intelligence services such as the British. His
presentation was meant not only to establish the fact that Iraq is in
possession of prohibited weapons, but also that Iraq enjoys ties to
terrorist groups like al Qaeda. In light of this data, the factual basis
for these claims is in doubt. Britain's report was touted as an up-to-the-
minute intelligence review of the situation in Iraq. In fact, much of it is
based upon the work of a graduate student who published his essay five
months ago.



Furthermore, if the al-Marashi essay was worthy of plagiarizing, why did
the British feel it necessary to alter certain key phrases so as to make it
seem that Iraq is spying on foreign embassies and aiding terrorist groups?
The manipulation of the original data appears, on the surface, to have been
done in bad faith.



An analysis of the footnotes for the al-Marashi essay clearly demonstrate
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. There
are 106 reference footnotes in the essay. 103 of these footnotes reference
reports and articles from 1988 to 2000. Only three are from this century,
and all of them reference reports from 2001. This is not current data in
any context.



Clearly, Mr. Powell cannot be held responsible for the veracity of data
given to him by the British government. The fact remains, however, that the
British intelligence data, which comes from the most steadfast ally of the
Bush administration, has been severely undermined by this report. This
calls into question the veracity of virtually every aspect of Powell's
presentation to the United Nations.



If the American Secretary of State was given such shoddily-assembled data
from its most loyal ally, how can the rest of the data be considered
dependable? The data on Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam came from Jordanian
intelligence, a source much less trustworthy than the British. Many of
the "human sources" cited by Powell were, in fact, detainees in Guantanamo,
Cuba. These sources are suspect at best, yet were a significant part of the
basis for Powell's accusations that Iraq is working with al Qaeda and
developing a wide variety of prohibited weapons. Between these sources and
the unreliable data from the British, it seems all too clear that Powell's
entire presentation was based upon information that is questionable to say
the least.



Finally, and most significantly, is the question of intent. The United
States will have soon placed approximately 150,000 troops in the region
surrounding Iraq with the full intention of going to war. Such a conflict
is almost certain to cause destabilizing upheavals in the Middle East which
could threaten the global community. More ominously, the CIA and FBI have
reported that a war in Iraq will definitely lead to terrorist attacks in
America and a number of European nations, including Britain. This matter
must now be framed in a new light. Does the British government believe it
acceptable to assist the United States in going to war on the word of a
graduate student from Monterey?



The revelation of this data could conceivably come to do significant harm
to the Bush administration's attempt to assemble a "Coalition of the
Willing" for an attack upon Iraq. Tony Blair and Britain have been, since
the beginning, the most fundamentally important members of whatever
international coalition Mr. Bush is able to assemble.



This report could shake Blair's standing with his government and his
people. Blair's relationship with his own party, and with the British
citizenry, has already proven rocky on the subject of his alliance with the
Bush administration over this conflict. If Blair's ability to stand with
Mr. Bush becomes undermined, Mr. Bush would find himself almost completely
isolated on this issue.



William Rivers Pitt is a teacher from Boston, MA. He is the author of War
On Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know (Context Books, 2002) with
Scott Ritter, and The Greatest Sedition is Silence which will be published
in May by Pluto Press. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.




On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:11:09 -0600, Denys Beauchemin <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2003/01/31/wally31.xml&
>sSheet=/news/2003/01/31/ixnewstop.html
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/opinion/10SAFI.html
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-573483,00.html
>
>
>Denys
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of
>Christian Lheureux
>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:37 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: OT: Terry Jones (from Monty Python) on War
>
>Yosef worked for peace :
>
>[stuff snipped ...]
>
>> I do not advocate
>> violence in any
>> form, against any person, at any time, for any reason.
>
>Neither do I. That's precisely why I spoke out against going to war if
>another solution exists.
>
>[More stuff snipped ...]
>
>> Wirt also pined: But beyond that, I have never felt so out of
>> touch with the
>> American public. Hang in there, Wirt. You are in touch with
>> more of us than
>> you know.  I think our numbers are growing daily.
>
>I'd even suggest that the only one who's getting out of touch with the
>American public, or a larger and larger share of it every day, and further
>off every day, is Dubya himself. And perhaps a few members of the
>Administration.
>
>Christian
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *