War on Paper

I was doing my daily news roundup when i came across something interesting.  i caught a headline accusing George W. Bush or plagiarizing from other books from his newly-released (and fantastically insightful) memoirs.  I thought "uh-oh.  He just fucked himself."  Then i saw where the accusatory article was posted.  Huffingtonpost.com.  This is basically a website that panders to the left and churns out political bullshit at an alarming rate.  In fact, i would say that the HP does more to widen the gap between our separate ideologies in America than almost every other medium.  Just out of curiosity, i decided to check out the allegations for myself.  The first thing we see is a thinly veiled insult hurled at the former President.  Way to instantly call your credibility into question, guys. 
So, I flipped through the fifteen or so examples that they provided and I was surprised at what I saw.  I would say that a good 100% of the plagiarism allegations stem from quotes spoken, in most cases, by or to the President himself.  Basically, imagine I wrote a post about Bush's first meeting after the 9/11 attacks and quoted the most important part of that meeting, which was when Bush looked around the room and said: "I just want to make sure that all of us did agree to this plan, right?" before Bush released the book.  This is what HP would refer to as "plagiarism". 
There are many other instances that are exactly like that.  There were hundreds of books written about W's Presidency and the War on Terror.  Should Bush just have omitted everything that was mentioned in every other book?  Just because someone wrote about it first doesn't mean he shouldn't include it in his own memoirs. 
The key problem here is that HP makes no distinction between plagiarism and historical overlapping.  If i wrote a book about Nagasaki, wouldn't you expect me to mention the A-bomb, even though it was mentioned a hundred times already?  If I was writing about Pearl Harbor, I would be foolish not to quote "a day that will live in infamy."  That, my dear friends, is not plagiarism. 
I don't want to get too political, but this article is pretty much a case of character assassination.  HP either wants to either derail book sales or discredit Bush, but they only succeeded in discrediting themselves. 
Now, I'm not going to lie. I hate any political organization that distorts facts to incite fear, hatred and distrust.  It's stupid and disgusting and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Maybe i am unable to provide you with an unbiased report on this, so I'll leave it to the professionals at Plagiarismtoday.com.  Why don't you see what they have to say?