well, here is what I am talking about and I suppose it's just possible that I misremember. Seems to me the original story quoted Wolfwitz as saying they invaded Iran because it "floats on a sea of oil." Thus, he was not misquoted because he said what he was quoted as saying. This particular controversy revolves around whether saying "it's about oil" is a legitimate interpretation of what he said. I think maybe it is. I wrote some freelance news when I was younger and I sincerely doubt that the editor did not check the transcript before going with the story, so apparently the editor did too. I mean, he had to realize the importance of such a statement to Blair's political position, and it would have been criminal not to do some fact checking. Apparently they have gotten a phone call to the effect that the Pentagon says they misquoted the guy and have decided that discretion is the better part of valor.
Dana William Bowen writes: > yeah, but the point here is that it's not the Pentagon's interpretation, > it's a quote directly from the transcript of the actual statement. I'd like > to know how this can be considered Pentagon spin? > > Here be the link: > http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html > > <snip from questions and answers after his address> > Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more > seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, > whether or not that's true, and that the lesson that people will have is > that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily > because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In > the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned > weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to > persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as > the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To > other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out. > > > Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a > matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South > Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for > them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential > collapse and anarchy. It's is also a question of whether, if one wants to > persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you > do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has > to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation > goals. > > > > 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. 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 problems in both cases > have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the > circumstances which are very different. > > </snip> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: on the guardian story, fyi > > > > 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
