[firebrand]

It seems obvious. You don't take a remark in English translated into German and translate it back into English. Something is inevitably lost in the process. If they want to distort Wolfowitz even more, they can go from English to German to French to Italian and then back to English. We'll probably get Wolfowitz wanting steal every drop of Iraqi oil for his own private use.

[tictoc]

Now I see what you mean.

Translations can be either accurate or not. I make my living by supplying the former. The Guardian, whatever else we can say about it, did translate accurately from the article in Die Welt. If the journalist writing for Die Welt had been equally accurate in translating the original Wolfowitz comment into German, there would have been nothing for Tagesspiegel to hang its spin on, and in turn nothing for the Guardian to go nuts about.

However, and I am realizing this as I type, the Guardian was wrong to put the comments attributed to Wolfowitz in inverted commas. That gives the readers an impression of reading a verbatim quote. When you translate from Language A into Language B and then back into Language A, the result can be accurate, but will rarely if ever be word-for-word identical to the original comment.

Bad Guardian!

[hellinahandcart]

If they really want to confuse people, they should translate it into Portuguese and back again.

Portuguese is fun.

[hellinahandcart]

Courtesy of FreeTranslations:

"Look, the mainly difference -poô read a very simply small one -between Korea North and Iraq is that we had practically no economic options with Iraq because the rural buoys in a sea of oil. In case of of Korea North, the country scale itself in the economic border of collapse and that I believe he is an advantage important thing tip while the military chart with Korea North is very unlike that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some resemblances but the solutions received be tailored to the circumstances that they are very peculiar."