It's a legitimate interpretation, I suppose. I am still an agnostic on the topic. I did post this link though, as I promised to take another look and found this when I did. As I said, it explains why Wolfowitz would say such a thing -- he didn't, not exactly anyway. As for whether that is in fact how it happened .. I guess we will see.
Dana Nick McClure writes: > 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
