The Guardian Pulls a "Dowd" - Falsely Attributes War for Oil Claim to Wolfowitz w/ Misquote

6 June 2003

[Michael81Dus]

Any proposals HOW to remove the N Korean nukes? One´s forsure, the longer the good side (whoever decides to be on it) waits, the situation gets worse.

[Michael81Dus]

That's different.

Yeah, right. LOL eerrr, oh yeah, that´s right! ;)

[hellinahandcart]

I always thought China should take them out for us, in order to prevent Japan and Taiwan from feeling the need for a nuclear deterrent of their own against North Korea, but I suppose it will eventually have to be done by infiltration and sabotage.

Or assassination.

Either way, it takes time.

[Michael81Dus]

And time is exactly what we don´t have.
Infiltration, sabotage, assassination - that´s riskful. There must not be a relation to the US, if discovered by the Reds. Nukes are a really ugly weapon... but I wouldn´t give it to S Korea either.

[knighthawk]

BUMP!

[Post Toasties]

For shame, Guardian. But the lying left have trained themselves not to feel the much deserved remorse for such actions, unless they are caught at it, that is.

[hellinahandcart]

Wow, I just signed off this silly computer, and I had to get back on because HOWELL RAINES just resigned!!

The wheel is turning...

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Guardian: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Transcript: "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil."

If this paper had any intellectual integrity, which I'm sure they ironically have a pretentious view of themselves about their intellect, they would print a retraction. I'll be waiting, Eurotrash.

[hellinahandcart]

LOL, you won't have to wait long.

[americanbychoice1]

again, Goebbels disciples?

[finnman69]

Congrats, you forced them to make a correction.

[tictoc]

More likely, Marx/Lenin disciples.

I have yet to hear back from Die Welt on my letter.

[americanbychoice1]

I've got it! Let's give it to the UN or better the EU to discuss it and determine what action they want the U.S. to take ( They would never get involved in it). Possibly in 10 years we may have a consesus that will make everyone happy?

[Stultis]

See the thread HIAHC linked:

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

The Guardian has TWO stories to retract.

Today (Thurs) they are retracting the story about the meeting between Jack Straw and Colin Powell. This is the one where Powell allegedly bemoaned American intelligence spin on Iraqi WMDs, according to a mysterious transcript that was supposedly circulating among NATO capitals but no one had actually seen.

Tomorrow (Fri) they will be (according to that South African news site) retracting the story discussed in this thread, claiming that Wolfowitz admitted the Iraq war was primarily about oil. The War for Oil story has already been pulled from their website as noted by other freepers upthread.

What will they screw up in time for retractions on Monday?

[Stultis]

Congrats, you forced them to make a correction.

Thanks, but I have a feeling mine wasn't the only letter to the ombudsman. And as to the Waldorf story, it was complaints from Jack Straw that forced them to fold on that one.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

Where is a proof that Wolfowitz didn´t say that?

This is my biggest pet peeve of Europeans. The burden of proof is on Die Welt and the Guardian to show what Wolfowitz said and the context in which he said it. Both newspapers have failed miserably, but nobody notices which is why I protest as loud as I do on the German threads that this is exactly how anti-US attitudes and hyprocrisy runs rampant in Europe.

The truth is, if you actually read what he said, that he was asked why North Korea is being treated differently than Iraq. THIS is the context of his answer, which is that over time North Korea gets weaker and weaker, whereas Iraq 'is floating on a sea of oil', therefore they have tons of wealth to survive on and exploit. I doubt that will satisfy Europeans but anyone who can read English and reads the actual quote will not be confused as to what was said.

He did not say the war was about oil and this is why these two newspapers are being ripped to shreds in blogland for being so careless with the truth.

[Citizen of the Savage Nation]

However, the misquotation is evident.

Okay, you see it too. You just disagree that Saddam would take the money gained from selling oil for food to buy weapons. Why? I think that is beyond a doubt true and proven on the battlefield 2 months ago.

[Michael81Dus]

It would be acceptable to discuss that problem in the UN Security Council. Well, this time, noone can say "it´s all about oil".

[Michael81Dus]

When did I say that I disagree that Saddam has used the oil-for-food-money for his advantage? I doubt that he has bought weapons (because on the battlefield, the weapons were really old), probably he tried to do so.

[Michael81Dus]

In the meantime, I have read the post #1, yes.