The original story made it sound like we invaded to gain control of the oil, at least that is how I read it.
Wolfowitz is saying that, we want both North Korea and Iraq disarmed. To do that we take the required steps, which are different with each country Iraq has money and a weak army. North Korea is broke and could have a stronger army. So now we attempt the best way with each. With Iraq, we use force, with North Korea we exhaust economic paths first. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:23 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: on the guardian story, fyi > > 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
