The Guardian apologies for Wolfowitz "war was about oil" article

[Lucky]

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, "The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." The sense was that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,972482,00.html


On Wednesday, journalists on the Guardian's website were alerted to a story running in the German press, in which the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was said to have admitted, in effect, that oil was the main reason for the war in Iraq. The German sources were found, translated, and at 4.30pm that day a story sourced to them was posted on the website under the heading, "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil". ...

 

[AnImuS]

thats what happens when a newspaper pushes their "Agenda" instead of just reporting the news properly...

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: AnImuS
thats what happens when a newspaper pushes their "Agenda" instead of just reporting the news properly...

Care to elaborate?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: AnImuS
thats what happens when a newspaper pushes their "Agenda" instead of just reporting the news properly...

Care to elaborate?

If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Lucky
If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

Ah, sort of like Fox News?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Lucky
If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

Ah, sort of like Fox News?

In some sorts, yes. But far worse, IMO. Much of the conservative spin from fox comes from correctly labeled editorials and commentary, but Fox unfortunately plays those up more than hard news. From what I've read at the guardian...they simply dont care about that distinction when it comes to the war and Bush.

 

[jjones]

Ah, it's just the Guardian. I'm surprised they bothered to apologize but maybe they realized it was a bit much, even for them.

 

[Tal]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Lucky
If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

Ah, sort of like Fox News?

Ah, care to give examples?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Lucky
If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

Ah, sort of like Fox News?

Just the Rush Limbaugh hour

 

[alchemize]

I just don't understand where all the responders and wolfowitz detracters on the original oil post went? Must have found a new thread of the media jumping the gun to rally to.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Tal

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Lucky
If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

Ah, sort of like Fox News?

Ah, care to give examples?

No, they won't give any specific examples. They don't have any to give.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I just don't understand where all the responders and wolfowitz detracters on the original oil post went? Must have found a new thread of the media jumping the gun to rally to.

Ya thats usually how they work... Hence why they lost whitehouse,senate,house till 2008...

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: AnImuS

Originally posted by: alchemize
I just don't understand where all the responders and wolfowitz detracters on the original oil post went? Must have found a new thread of the media jumping the gun to rally to.

Ya thats usually how they work... Hence why they lost whitehouse,senate,house till 2008...

*cricket *cricket sure is quiet in here? oh yah they are all talking about "Al qaida detainees deny Iraq link". Like the bums we have down in Cuba would know...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: AnImuS

Originally posted by: alchemize
I just don't understand where all the responders and wolfowitz detracters on the original oil post went? Must have found a new thread of the media jumping the gun to rally to.

Ya thats usually how they work... Hence why they lost whitehouse,senate,house till 2008...

*cricket *cricket sure is quiet in here? oh yah they are all talking about "Al qaida detainees deny Iraq link". Like the bums we have down in Cuba would know...

I saw the Guradian's statement for what it was - an out of context attempt to rally against the US. But, you know, if UQ was here he'd say:

"I'll just leave you guys to finish your circle-j**k". Why the need to gloat?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Hey, I've been very critical of this admin, but I'll admit the Guardian was way out of line twisting Wolfowitz's words around this time. Unreliable news sources are bad for everybody. Others are probably avoiding this thread because, like me, they're after the truth, and the truth about this is out now, so there's not much more to say.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: AnImuS

Originally posted by: alchemize
I just don't understand where all the responders and wolfowitz detracters on the original oil post went? Must have found a new thread of the media jumping the gun to rally to.

Ya thats usually how they work... Hence why they lost whitehouse,senate,house till 2008...

*cricket *cricket sure is quiet in here? oh yah they are all talking about "Al qaida detainees deny Iraq link". Like the bums we have down in Cuba would know...

I saw the Guradian's statement for what it was - an out of context attempt to rally against the US. But, you know, if UQ was here he'd say:

"I'll just leave you guys to finish your circle-j**k". Why the need to gloat?

Cheers,

Andy

Because it shows ignorance by people and how easily they believe everything...
Its hiliarious...

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Tal

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Lucky
If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

Ah, sort of like Fox News?

Ah, care to give examples?

No, they won't give any specific examples. They don't have any to give.

I can give one. During the war, when the first 'evidence' of a chemical/biological warfare factory was found, the only news station that definitively claimed it was in fact a chemical/biological warfare laboratory (even though the military said they were still investigating it to see what it was) was fox news. They later had to retract their statement when it was found it was not the case.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Tal

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Lucky
If you look at their articles about iraq or the bush administration they read much more like editorials. Some of them are just downright comic in their slanted coverage or outright bias.

Ah, sort of like Fox News?

Ah, care to give examples?

No, they won't give any specific examples. They don't have any to give.

I can give one. During the war, when the first 'evidence' of a chemical/biological warfare factory was found, the only news station that definitively claimed it was in fact a chemical/biological warfare laboratory (even though the military said they were still investigating it to see what it was) was fox news. They later had to retract their statement when it was found it was not the case.

Actually they were not the only ones. Another foriegn embed reporter thought their group had found such a facility. There is nothing wrong with reporting what is known at the time as long as corrections are made. Most new sources are busy printing corrections about Iraqi museum looting right now. Or do you think it was wrong for them to report looting that did not actually happen.

 

[etech]

Phokus

I can give one. During the war, when the first 'evidence' of a chemical/biological warfare factory was found, the only news station that definitively claimed it was in fact a chemical/biological warfare laboratory (even though the military said they were still investigating it to see what it was) was fox news. They later had to retract their statement when it was found it was not the case.

Consider the source

According to FAIR: "Reporters were also embarrassed on March 23 by an evaporating story about a 'chemical facility' near the town of Najaf, Iraq, that was touted by U.S. military officials as a possible smoking gun to prove disputed claims about Saddam Hussein possessing banned chemical weapons. While journalists were not typically as credulous of this claim as they were with the Scud story, and generally remembered to attribute it to military sources, accounts still tended to be breathless and to extrapolate wildly from an unconfirmed report."

ABC's John McWethy: "Amidst all the fighting, one important new discovery: U.S. officials say, up the road from Nasarijah, in a town called Najaf, they believe that they have captured a chemical weapons plant and perhaps more important, the commanding general of that facility. One U.S. official said he is a potential 'gold mine' about the weapons Saddam Hussein says he doesn't have."

NBC's Tom Brokaw: "Word tonight that U.S. forces may have found what U.N. inspectors spent months searching for, a facility suspected to be a chemical weapons plant, uncovered by ground troops on the way north to Baghdad."

NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski added corroborating details: "This huge complex ... was constructed of sand-casted walls, in other words, meant to camouflage its appearance to blend in with the desert. Once inside, the soldiers found huge amounts of chemicals, stored chemicals. They apparently found no chemical weapons themselves, and now military officials here at the Pentagon say they have yet to determine exactly what these chemicals are or how they could have been used in weapons."