Guardian retracts Wolfowitz article

[nicky g]

Well, boys and girls, it's time for me to look stupid (again). The Guardian has issued the following statement, and taken down the article in question. Sincere apologies, the article was taken in good faith and I was unaware that Wolfowitz's words had been twisted:

Paul Wolfowitz
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, "The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." The sense was that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

I don't think what he says is true by the way, but that's another argument.

[Jimbo]

Good job Nicky g, I noticed this as well but gave you time to post. Of course those of us with common sense understood this at the beginning. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Dr Wogga]

....thanks for the honesty. Where are the rest of your lefty brothers? Hey guys - chris alger, cyrus, andy fox, et al? C'mon bush-basher inc!!! learn a lesson here from nickyg. Sometimes your politics are wrong because the information you base them on is dishonest. We are seeing this all over the place with the LA Times, NY Times - liberal rags to the Nth degree. They are trying to clean up their shops because - gasp!!! and horrors!!! - almost 70% of America IS NOT LIBERAL, LEFTY, and COMMIE. They don't want their news reports SLANTED - and THAT'S why Fox News is kicking all their asses. The liberal rags that twist and slant are in the MINORITY. Get used to it - the MINORITY. Fox News isn't right-wing - they are just not slanting. Get it?? I doubt it!

[nicky g]

None of "(my) lefty brothers" had anything to do with the post. Even MMMMMM took the way the quote had been slanted at face value, though he disputed the implications of it. I don't really see how it vindicates Fox news. Then again, with the likes of Oliver North on their payroll, who could doubt their journalistic integrity?

[MMMMMM]

nickyg: "Even MMMMMM took the way the quote had been slanted at face value, though he disputed the implications of it."

Actually, I caught Wright misusing Wolfowitz' quote in the original thread: See my response to Graham below, posted 06/04/03 at 4:39 P.M.

MMMMMM: "1. nicky's "ahem" showed that he shared Mr. Wright's opinion that Wolfowitz had said the war was all about oil

2. Reading Wolfowitz' comments carefully, one can see that this is not what Wolfowitz said. Saying oil was a major or even pivotal factor is very different than saying the war was all about oil.

By the way, in the last U.S. Presidential elections, the Florida vote was pivotal. This isn't nearly the same as the election being all about oil."

No need to apologize nicky;;-) I'm used to everyone missing the little things (and in fact I'm pretty good at missing lots of things myself).

[andyfox]

I got it.

Fox News does well because they give the American people simplicity. Just the way they like it.

Wolfowitz's statement stands by itself. The reason why we attacked Iraq, but probably won't attack North Korea, is because we couldn't afford to let Iraq continue outside of our economic orbit.

I would think that far more than 70% of America is not Communist. As I recall, though, more people voted for the liberal candidate, Al Gore, than for George Bush. This despite the fact that Gore ran perhaps the most inept campaign since Thomas Dewey, lost his home state, and had votes drained from him by a candidate further to the left, Ralph Nader.

BTW, will our Yankees ever win another game?

[MMMMMM]

Wolfowitz: "The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

The Guardian, in explaining in what sense this was meant: "The sense was that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war."

From this you apparently derived this: "Wolfowitz's statement stands by itself. The reason why we attacked Iraq, but probably won't attack North Korea, is because we couldn't afford to let Iraq continue outside of our economic orbit."

From The Guardian's clarification however I derive this instead: that we could not use economic options to achieve our objectives (of disarming Iraq)--since economic tactics, e.g. sanctions, had obviously failed to do this. On the other hand we expect we can use economic tactics to successfully achieve our objectives of disarming North Korea.

I don't see anything in the Guardian's statement which implies that it has anything to do with not being able to afford to let Iraq continue outside of our economic orbit. I just interpret it to mean that North Korea is far more likely to be swayed by an economic carrot-and-stick aproach, while Iraq--swimming on a sea of oil--is relatively unimpressed by such measures (note that Saddam did find ways around the sanctions and restrictions and even may have managed to turn the oil-for-food program into an oil-foir-palaces program. In any case, one country--North Korea--is far more susceptible to outside economic pressures and is even currently significantly dependent on foreign aid).

[Cyrus]

This is a non-issue. This is something that only comforts the woggas in this world who have no excuse or legitimate reason to offer for the Iraqi War besides We-Are-Number-One! or Saddam-Gotta-Go. Just watch them flapping and a-yapping in the wind, delirious with the leaf of legitimacy they think they were provided by that Guardian retraction.

Once more, folks, watch out 'cause the con is on :

Suppose a respectable newspaper, for some reason, describes Saddam Hussein as a murderer of 20 million people, someone who ate alive a whole family and provoked 12 wars in the region. When that newspaper later retracts and admits that it "quoted out of context" or that it "exaggerated", this shouldn't take anything away from the true measure of Saddam's crimes.

A murderer who is not a serial killer is no less guilty of murder, folks.

--Cyrus

PS : Wolfowitz et al will soon speed up their tune, don't you worry. The new chorus will be something even more arrogant, more arbitrary and more Americano-centric. More honest too.

[MMMMMM]

I think the Saddam-Gotta-Go reason was pretty good, and apparently sanctions and the U.N. weren't gettin' him a-goin'.