Posted on 06/05/2003 9:21:04 AM PDT by Dont Mention the War
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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html
Might have?, can they describe some other purpose for these mobile labs?
And why all the pesticides around Military Base. The nurseries in Bagdad said they couldn't afford to buy pesticides!!!!
See this thread:
FAS (Fed Am Scientist) Report: Iraqi Precursor Chemicals Stored Separately for Weapon-side Mixing
gaud
\Gaud\, n. [OE.] deceit; fraud, artiface; device.
The lib press is getting smarter about damage control with the "don't let this happen to you" object lesson they are getting from the Old Grey Whore. 'Course for many this will just mean lying more carefully.
I posted the text of the Utne Reader peice on another thread, in this message. Unfortunately they do not send you to the correction if you go to the link for the original article. You just get a typical "page no longer available" notification.
The retraction is here:
Correction
June 2003 Issue
Yesterday, we cited a story in the Guardian newspaper that quoted U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as saying the U.S. invaded Iraq for the oil. We removed that story from our website today after the Guardian issued the following correction:
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, according to the Department of Defence website, The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The sense was clearly 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.
Which one? The second War for Oil one we got to quick enough that it never made hard copy ('cept in those German sources), and even other "responsible" news sites that ran internet stories based on The Guardian have pulled them. You'll probably still find the uncorrected internet article posted on CommonDreams.org, an islamist website, or the like, but it never got distributed as widely as the first misquote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.