Harper's plagiarized 2003 Iraq speech

[Bryan]

Here's some more documentation (albeit from a less than objective source):

http://stevejanke.com/archives/195448.php

WHoops, here's a reprise of the story in light of the current situation, with the added bonus of Bob Rae trying to copyright a song he claims to have written that he himself plagiarized parts of !!!!!

http://stevejanke.com/archives/274526.php

[Alta4ever]

He didn't cite anything as proper citing includes reference to the source of the citation (as learned in junior high - my two cents).

He sited a Dion Speech and the Suzuki report, as I said before if you don't beleive the burden is now on you to disprove it.

[myata]

He sited a Dion Speech and the Suzuki report, as I said before if you don't beleive the burden is now on you to disprove it.

I wonder about all the people with strange notions have serious problems with basic reading comprehension, which in no way prevent them from making statements in public forums.

Do you understand "reference to the source of the citation"? Or should somebody (not me) translate it for you??

[Moonbox]

I wonder about all the people with strange notions have serious problems with basic reading comprehension, which in no way prevent them from making statements in public forums.

Do you understand "reference to the source of the citation"? Or should somebody (not me) translate it for you??

Myata please note in my opening post that I can't reference Dion's website anymore because it was hastily re-written after he started receiving criticism for it, but here are the sources I used without looking very far into it:

Dion and Suzuki Foundation Report comparison

Yes, that's a blog. I know it's not a super source, but here's confirmation of it from the Globe and Mail:

Globe and Mail on Dion's plagiarism

Now that I wasted my time proving it to you, I'm dying for a response.

I'm waiting patiently but I'm highly doubting many Liberal supporters are going to venture into this thread.

If you close your eyes, plug your ears and hum loudly you can pretend it didn't happen.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Moonbox

[myata]

The reports are indeed making international splash: BBC News front page.

Something that Harper failed to achieve with his international policies, lockstepped with Bush's administration.

[myata]

Now that I wasted my time proving it to you, I'm dying for a response.

An interesting approach to argumentation. Proving your reference a "waste of time"?

I'm waiting patiently but I'm highly doubting many Liberal supporters are going to venture into this thread.

I wouldn't deny a proven fact, nor whitewash Dion or anybody else of anything. If Website used parts of somebody else's speech, its deplorable and should be corrected.

The important differences remain:

1) Harper's was an official speech delivered in the Parliament;

2) It hinged position of the official opposition on a critically important for the country foreign issue on a position of a foreign politician.

No matter issues with the speech itself, it's obviouis for everybody that Harper's foreign policy is in lockstep with that of neoconservative Bush administration, and the report is only one, though very telling, demonstration of that fact. This is what I consider the real issue that needs to be discussed.

[capricorn]

The reports are indeed making international splash: BBC News front page.

Speaking of judgment, I wonder how much thought the Liberals gave to the potential negative impact this latest attack on Harper would have on our international reputation? Whatever happened to the high ideal of doing what is good for the country rather than what is good for the party? After all, the fact that the previous leader of another country is part of the picture would surely peak the curiosity in the foreign press. Did this not occur to the Liberals in their zeal to vilify Harper? It seems not.

What it says to me is that the Liberals are operating in a bubble. It also tells me that the Liberals are so desperate to return to power they are willing to expose Canada to ridicule and criticism. And all this over a five year old speech by a man who was opposition leader in a party that is now defunct.

The Liberals have completely lost the ability to think rationally beyond winning over the voter. Power at any cost.

[myata]

Speaking of judgment, I wonder how much thought the Liberals gave to the potential negative impact this latest attack on Harper would have on our international reputation?

Obviously, it can be challenging (for a supported of a neoconservative government) to grasp the difference between criticizing (their) government and the reputation of the country. That line is very well known by e.g accusations of critics of Iraq war in unpatriotism. And so on.

But I'm really interested in developing that line of thought further (and deeper). When else critical analysis of official's and/or government's actions should be contained for the concern of hurting "reputation"? Does it extend to situations when other parties happen to be in power? Please elaborate.

[independent]

Speaking of judgment, I wonder how much thought the Liberals gave to the potential negative impact this latest attack on Harper would have on our international reputation? Whatever happened to the high ideal of doing what is good for the country rather than what is good for the party? After all, the fact that the previous leader of another country is part of the picture would surely peak the curiosity in the foreign press. Did this not occur to the Liberals in their zeal to vilify Harper? It seems not.

What it says to me is that the Liberals are operating in a bubble. It also tells me that the Liberals are so desperate to return to power they are willing to expose Canada to ridicule and criticism. And all this over a five year old speech by a man who was opposition leader in a party that is now defunct.

The Liberals have completely lost the ability to think rationally beyond winning over the voter. Power at any cost.

He was in opposition how much worse will it be if he gets back in as PM. He has nobody to blame but himself. It is the oppositions job too point out screw ups to the electorate.

[Moonbox]

An interesting approach to argumentation. Proving your reference a "waste of time"?

When I provided a word for word comparison of both articles it became rather unlikely that I made that up and just as unlikely that whoever I referred to for my search had made it up either. It's simple copy and pasting and a 5 second search would have yielded you the same results. Yes, I understand it's important to reference your opinions and claims but sometimes even I give people the benefit of the doubt.

I wouldn't deny a proven fact, nor whitewash Dion or anybody else of anything. If Website used parts of somebody else's speech, its deplorable and should be corrected.

How is it corrected? The speech writer in Harper's case resigned. It's a gigantic stretch to assume Harper would be dumb enough to know he was speaking a plagiarized speech. Where was the correction from Dion, other than yanking the information off his 'official website' and trying to hide his tracks?

The important differences remain:

1) Harper's was an official speech delivered in the Parliament;

How is that different? Other than that it was easier for Dion to hide his tracks? It was a blatent rip-off on both sides. At least in Parliament the issue can be easily critiqued.

2) It hinged position of the official opposition on a critically important for the country foreign issue on a position of a foreign politician.

That's a bit of a jump in logic. You're assuming that the position of the official opposition was not already that it was dangerous to leave Saddam Hussein in power. Words being copied by a speech writer does not mean that Harper did not come to this conclusion on his own.

No matter issues with the speech itself, it's obviouis for everybody that Harper's foreign policy is in lockstep with that of neoconservative Bush administration, and the report is only one, though very telling, demonstration of that fact. This is what I consider the real issue that needs to be discussed.

The question of whether Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power is something altogether different. He was a proven mass-murderer and genocidal maniac who used WMD's on his own citizens in an area of the world which the west depends on for fuel. The Bush administration led everyone to believe they had conclusive evidence he had another WMD program in development, and the world (ie Howard, Harper, Blair etc) all acted on this supposed 'evidence'. It turns out we were all fooled, but blame Bush for this.

[kengs333]

I wonder about all the people with strange notions have serious problems with basic reading comprehension, which in no way prevent them from making statements in public forums.

Do you understand "reference to the source of the citation"? Or should somebody (not me) translate it for you??

My sentiments exactly.

On a similar note, according to MacLean's the Conservatives have (had) the highest percentage of non-university educated MPs at about 41%. Doesn't come as a surprise, really, if one watches the HoC when it's in session, and it's no wonder that the party attracts the likes of some of the people who post here.

[noahbody]

The plagiarism part itself is so outrageous that it rightfully deserves an international scandal.

If this is what is known as a scandal these days, we've sure come a long way haven't we? Have you forgotten what the last government did? Do you really want more of that?

[independent]

When I provided a word for word comparison of both articles it became rather unlikely that I made that up and just as unlikely that whoever I referred to for my search had made it up either. It's simple copy and pasting and a 5 second search would have yielded you the same results. Yes, I understand it's important to reference your opinions and claims but sometimes even I give people the benefit of the doubt.

How is it corrected? The speech writer in Harper's case resigned. It's a gigantic stretch to assume Harper would be dumb enough to know he was speaking a plagiarized speech. Where was the correction from Dion, other than yanking the information off his 'official website' and trying to hide his tracks?

How is that different? Other than that it was easier for Dion to hide his tracks? It was a blatent rip-off on both sides. At least in Parliament the issue can be easily critiqued.

That's a bit of a jump in logic. You're assuming that the position of the official opposition was not already that it was dangerous to leave Saddam Hussein in power. Words being copied by a speech writer does not mean that Harper did not come to this conclusion on his own.

The question of whether Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power is something altogether different. He was a proven mass-murderer and genocidal maniac who used WMD's on his own citizens in an area of the world which the west depends on for fuel. The Bush administration led everyone to believe they had conclusive evidence he had another WMD program in development, and the world (ie Howard, Harper, Blair etc) all acted on this supposed 'evidence'. It turns out we were all fooled, but blame Bush for this.

Sure glad you are not in power. We would be attacking a lot of countries. There is no way Canada should get involved in anything of the kind with out our own evidence. Harper should not have spoken on the matter at all. He spoke with out any real knowledge of the situation.

[guyser]

If and it seems when, Dion is shown to have plagiarized form Suzuki , then he needs to be asked about it and provide an answer.

If he refuses to answer or explain himself, then he is as much an idiot as Harper and his minions are for refusing to answer.

No more no less.

[independent]

If and it seems when, Dion is shown to have plagiarized form Suzuki , then he needs to be asked about it and provide an answer.

If he refuses to answer or explain himself, then he is as much an idiot as Harper and his minions are for refusing to answer.

No more no less.

Why not ask Suzuki if he has a problem with it?

[blueblood]

Why not ask Suzuki if he has a problem with it?

why does former pm howard?

[Argus]

Do we have any references, anything, confirming this, or we have to take you on your word? Including the foul language?

I would have thought this one would have been self-evident.

[guyser]

Why not ask Suzuki if he has a problem with it?

I dont have his cell number.

[jdobbin]

Harper's aide plagiarized a speech fairly heavily. Fair enough. Nobody's disputing this.

The issue wasn't so much the plagiarism as the the indication that Harper displayed poor judgment about sending Canadian troops to Iraq.

[jdobbin]

If you close your eyes, plug your ears and hum loudly you can pretend it didn't happen.

That's what I tell Tories in regards to them denying that if Harper had been PM he would have sent troops to Iraq.

[Canadian Blue]

I think the bad judgment was letting a Tamil run who clearly thought that the terrorist designation didn't belong.

So you fully support allowing the Tamil Tigers being allowed to operate in Canada?

Sure. They used to roommates with Joe Stalin and Kin Jong Il.

But then again keep in mind that most Liberals probably the view the latter two as better than George W Bush.

[Alta4ever]

My sentiments exactly.

On a similar note, according to MacLean's the Conservatives have (had) the highest percentage of non-university educated MPs at about 41%. Doesn't come as a surprise, really, if one watches the HoC when it's in session, and it's no wonder that the party attracts the likes of some of the people who post here.

Aparently their are few on this board who seem to be unable to use google.

[jdobbin]

So you fully support allowing the Tamil Tigers being allowed to operate in Canada?

Don't think I said anything of the sort. I said that the Tories ran a Tamil who was under the impression that the organization the Tories banned was legitimate. In fact, during the election, the Harper Tories downplayed any action they might take on the Tamil issue.

But then again keep in mind that most Liberals probably the view the latter two as better than George W Bush.

And Tories probably think those individuals are better than Trudeau.

[jdobbin]

Aparently their are few on this board who seem to be unable to use google.

A few others can't use a dictionary.

[Canadian Blue]

Don't think I said anything of the sort. I said that the Tories ran a Tamil who was under the impression that the organization the Tories banned was legitimate. In fact, during the election, the Harper Tories downplayed any action they might take on the Tamil issue.

Which is odd considering the fact the organization was officially banned after the election, as well it's been noted that the CPC had long supported banning LTTE. However it's good to note that the Liberals continue to think that an organization guilty of genocide, rape, assassination, and suicide bombing, should be allowed to operate in Canada. Plus the fact that Jean Chretien openly called for the elder Khadr to be freed in 96, and todays gang of Liberals wish for the Khadrs to all be living in Canada despite their noted terrorist activities should give any Canadian pause to wonder where the party stands on the war on terror. Not to mention when a certain Liberal MP wanted to lift the terror designation for Hizbollah, an organization whose goal is to obliterate all Jews in Israel should also give one some pause. That is of course at the same time that Denis Coderre is talking about how those evil Canadian troops allow Afghan's to be tortured.

And Tories probably think those individuals are better than Trudeau.

No, we don't find it necessary to publicly compare the Liberals to Stalin. However given the Liberals constant hatred of Bush one can't help but wonder if they'd prefer the company of Kim Jong Il, Castro, and the Iranian Mullahs, over a good relationship with America.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Canadian Blue