Replies

From the June 5 Best of the Web Today at WSJ's Opinion Journal:

London's Guardian, which has been pushing the line that the Bush administration and the Blair government "deceived" the public, has two embarrassing corrections today of its own reporting on the matter. Here's the first:

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.

And here's the second (which appears on the Guardian's homepage):

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.

Those who accuse their nations' leaders of lying would seem to be engaging in what psychologists call "projection." Still, cheers to the Guardian for correcting its mistakes, something a certain New York Times columnist has yet to do.

Problem is, I can't find the second correction on Al-Guardian's homepage. But then their 6 June edition is up now. Did we miss it?

Good news is this (apparently) never made the print edition.