The Guardian Fully Retracts BOTH Powell/Straw Story AND Wolfowitz "It's All About Oil" Story

The Guardian ^ | June 5, 2003

[Dont Mention the War]

Corrections and clarifications

Thursday June 5, 2003

In our front page lead on May 31 headlined "Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims," we said that the foreign secretary Jack Straw and his US counterpart Colin Powell had met at the Waldorf Hotel in New York shortly before Mr Powell addressed the United Nations on February 5. Mr Straw has now made it clear that no such meeting took place. The Guardian accepts that and apologises for suggesting it did.

[PhiKapMom]

Would go buy a lottery ticket if they were sold locally -- almost feel like a trip down to Gainesville, TX, is in order today for a Texas lottery ticket.

What a day so far!

[caisson71]

Anybody believe this, "oh, so sorry, we misquoted" baloney? They know others will use their original story, come election time, and never be corrected - not by journalists anyway.

[Stultis]

"You incompetent Limey layabouts shouldn't have brought the Waldorf into it. Now where's my screwdriver?"

[iceskater]

I hope they print the retractions on the front page instead of burying them on the back page of the home and garden section.

I know, I'm a dreamer....

[Blood of Tyrants]

Won't stop the Bush haters from making the claim.

[rwfromkansas]

sitcom canned? Huh?

[FourtySeven]

Irrelevant..........

Now marking the Guardian down in my (now long) list of obviously BIASED (towards the left) media sources.

At least they're honest though. I'll give 'em that. If this were the Slimes, or CBSABCNBC we were talkin about, there'd be NO retraction I'm sure.

[Grampa Dave]

There is some incredible BS on this thread?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/923727/posts

[SwinneySwitch]

If you want, I'll buy you one when I buy mine!

[katana]

This is how it's supposed to work but rarely does over here. Front page screw-up = front page retraction. It might have something to do with Britain's lack of "First Amendment" protection and much more stringent libel laws.

[RinaseaofDs]

Needless to say, that this is hugh. Possibly series.

[arasina]

Yeah, after the damage is done, they retract it. How many people read the original misstatements and didn't see the retraction?

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

HA ha...this is why they're so preoccupied with missing WMD's in Europe and lefty-land, because they have egg on their face for virtually everything else because they are always wrong.

[Wolfstar]

Not weird, Howlin. The internet is a tool that has made it possible — at long last — to shine the light of truth where it most needs to be shone: the news media.

I don't know what the ultimate fallout will be as the general public increasingly sees for themselves the sham big media is, but it can only strengthen the internet. I'm hoping it will eventually lead to a strengthening of our woefully weak libel and slander laws. Freedom of the press should not mean that the media are immune from the same type of legal action as other companies are when they sell defective products.

[arasina]

Did Bill Clinton attempt a landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln TOO? What he won't do for a photo op! Sheesh!

[Marysecretary]

It jest keeps getting better and better.

[Marysecretary]

You're funny!

[Marysecretary]

I'm waiting to see what their strategery is!

[leprechaun9]

This is only another data point on the integrity and honesty of the elite media!

[Carolina]

Wow....this is turning into a facinating News Day.

I know. Pinch me, please. I'm not dreaming, am I?