From: Dr. Blake Nelson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 08:18:12 EDT
Not to get off on a tangent, but the whole
interpretation of the Wolfowitz statements were made
up by the Guardian. The Guardian has since retracted
the interpretation attributed to Wolfowitz.
Unfortunately, this was yet another example of
overzealous reporters trying to generate a
controversial and exciting angle on news.
For a pretty fair blogsphere take on it go here:
or more specifically
The Guardian's retraction is here:
Unfortunately, the story took off and was picked up by
other media outlets before the Guardian retracted its
statements: For stories using the fabricated
attribution see the following:
--- RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/11/03 12:53:53 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > Hi, Glenn
> > some time ago, you expressed your strong
> conviction that oil was not and
> > could not be a major motive for the USA to wage
> the Iraq war - and I
> > gladly accepted this. So what should we think
> about the following?
> > Under the headline, "So then 'a war for oil' after
> all?", "Der Bund",
> > one of the leading daylies in Bern, Switzerland,
> wrote on 7th June (I
> > translate the end of the article):
> > "... these days, Wolfowitz literally poured more
> oil into the fire. At a
> > Asian security summit in Singapore, he declared
> last weekend that oil
> > had been the main reason for the war against Iraq.
> 'The most important
> > difference between North Korea and Iraq is that in
> Iraq we had no other
> > choice, for commercial reasons. The country is
> floating on a sea of
> > oil.' Wolfowitz's most recent disclosures followed
> shortly after a
> > provocative interview with the magazine 'Vanity
> Fair'. There, he had
> > said that, for reasons which have much to do with
> > bureaucracy, one had chosen the war motive which
> all could accept:
> > weapons of mass destruction."
> > Is this another case of badly distorted
> information by the media, which
> > is all too rampant here in Switzerland (and Europe
> in general, I
> > suspect)?
> > Best,
> > Peter
> You've got to take Paul Wolfowitz with a grain of
> salt. He is one of the
> chief neoconservative war hawks, whose loyalty to
> the US is questioned by the
> paleocons who say his real motive and the motive of
> most of the neoconservatives
> is to use the USA to do Israel's bidding. The
> paleoconservatives are beginning
> to make an impact, but the Jewish media does not
> give them fair coverage. an
> indication of the neoconservative fear of the paleos
> is David Frum's
> disingenuous article in National Review OnLine
> titled, "Unpatriotic Conservatives."
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 08:18:28 EDT