Oil war Wolfowitz admits it [Charleston Gazette pulls a Guardian]

The Charleston Gazette ^ | 6/09/03 | Editor

[Hipixs]

The Charleston Gazette editor apparently has his agenda and subsequent retractions, corrections, and the original source don't fit in.

A nasty slip on Iraqi oil

What Wolfowitz Really Said

Pentagon challenges Vanity Fair report

What Wolfowitz actually said:

Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A following IISS Asia Security Conference

Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair

[mewzilla]

Oh, boy...This ought to be good.

[mewzilla]

The editor's oopsie has been brought up on the paper's web site (go to the forum on news and editorials). That didn't take long.

[Hipixs]

Contact Page for the Charleston Gazette

[hellinahandcart]

The funny thing is, they really think it means WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE OIL. Bwahahaaa...

I'm starting to think we should, you know. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

[TomB]

We are now beginning to see how "journalists" actually do their work. They are lazy, agenda-driven morons.

GOD I LOVE THE INTERNET!!!

"This has not been a good week for the Charleston Gazette."

[Dog Gone]

I wrote the editor and told him I'd be watching to see if he had the guts and integrity to publish a retraction like the Guardian did. I even gave him the URL to that retraction from your post.

I doubt he will respond or issue a retraction, but perhaps I'll be surprised.

[TomB]

I bypassed the paper and went right to the blogs.

Now that Sullivan has it, they're going to get pummeled.

I'm going to go pop some popcorn.....

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

The editorial page staff should be fired en masse for their laziness and incompetence, never mind the maniacal bias that led them to print this nonsense without doing the most elementary fact-checking.

When a newspaper can no longer be trusted even to tell the truth, what good is it?

[hellinahandcart]

The companies they once worked for (Vice President Dick Cheney still receives "deferred compensation" from Halliburton), and the companies that contributed so handsomely to the Bush campaign will make millions, if not billions, of dollars from contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure.

We'll spend BILLIONS in order to make...millions...yeah, this sinister plot is beginning to make more sense now!

[alnick]

I wrote the editor and told him I'd be watching to see if he had the guts and integrity to publish a retraction like the Guardian did. I even gave him the URL to that retraction from your post.

I did too. I asked if he was lying or just too lazy to do basic fact checking.

[hellinahandcart]

When a newspaper can no longer be trusted even to tell the truth, what good is it?

You can still use it to

a. Start fire in fireplace
b. Line birdcage
c. Pack glassware and china for storage
d. Fill the "Post-consumer" percentage at paper factory.

[facedown]

e. take out cat litter

[68skylark]

Good post. Please keep us posted about what happens.

[dighton]

"There's always someone who doesn't get the word."

[tupac]

Well, if it isn't the hillbilly paper of record. I live in Parkersburg and while our sports editor tries to get in his digs at Our President, the editorial page is very much an enjoyable, balanced and fair read. The evening paper is another story. Wood County is a bastion of right thinking folks, unlike the demoncrap infested interior of our fair state.

[TomB]

Well, if it isn't the hillbilly paper of record.

It isn't. Even hillbillies wouldn't be DUMB enough to print quotes from a story that was already retracted!

We can now call the Charleston Gazette "the New York Times of West Virginia".

What an insult.

[quidnunc]

Mewzilla wrote: The editor's oopsie has been brought up on the paper's web site (go to the forum on news and editorials). That didn't take long.

Where?

If you're saying The Charleston Gazette printed a retraction, I sure can't find it.

I would be much obliged if you could post a link directly to the page the retraction is on.

[TomB]

No, readers are starting to rip them.

link

[FairOpinion]

Teh Guardian actually printed a retraction, didn't they?