hmm hmm interpretive reporting is the norm any more; the Pentagon is saying the Guardian misinterpreted and the correct interpretation is something else.
Since, presumably, the Guardian editors are hearing from the source quoted that this is not what was meant, there is little choice but to issue the retraction. It still seems a valid interpretation to me, and I can't believe that a major newspaper would not have looked at the transcript before going to press. Personally I think they gave in to pressure and bowed to the reinterpretation. This does not however mean that oil is not a subtext in the conflict. Them bad Iraqis wont do what we say no how because they got all that oil gosh darn it. Let's teach them boys not to mess with Jed :) Dana William Bowen writes: > but the new quotes are from the actual transcript no spin needed, the spin > was the Guardian's > > will > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:14 AM > Subject: on the guardian story, fyi > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html > > > > Answers the question of why Wolfowitz would say such a thing. I do smell > > spin doctors though. > > > > Dana > > > > But I don't make films > > But if I did they'd have a samurai - Bare Naked Ladies > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
