Yes, I’d have to agree – the Guardian story completely twisted what was said by the Wolf-man.
Move along. No story here.
Ah shucks!
It’s not that bad.
Wolfowitz did say that oil was the reason for military intervention in Iraq.
It is pretty bad AND shameless though.
That, after all, is the rep of the Guardian as I know it.
Sounds like a pretty good analysis to me. I was rather skeptical of the Guardian’s claim, especially given what Wolfowitz said, what, yesterday? (See my first link in this thread).
I’m with squeegee – no story here, really.
Maybe there’s one story – the willingness of the Guardian to manipulate a quote in order to mislead their readers.
Wow, with company like this, I feel better already! :rolleyes:
And, who, pray tell, is going to be the judge of whether the U.S.'s actions back up its claims? Your statement of an “anti-US bias” sounds like a ready-made excuse to be rather selective in your sourcing. [This leaves aside the issue that judging the U.S.'s actions in this way seems to be precisely saying that the ends justify the means.]
When are people going to stop making themselves look like idiots by basing a thread on a Guardian story?
Look, I know both sides of any issue are likely to get overexcited about news stories that tend to support their view and thus rely on unreliable sources (like the New York Times, apparently 
).
But the Guardian is a special case. Those guys misquoted us! (Specifically, David B.) (corrected a few days later after we complained). Stop relying on them. Read them (if you must) as you read the Inquirer, and wait until collaboration exists before associating yourself with them. Really, we’re all about fighting ignorance here, and it’s pretty damn clear that the Guardian is not on our side.
These days, I only buy the Guardian for the job listings.
Or the Associated Press… :rolleyes:
Well, it does look like The Guardian really blew that story. I was sort of skeptical that Wolfowitz would be as stupid, in a political sense, as to make the admission that The Guardian article claimed he made. Whatever you think of these guys in terms of their world view and such, I think they are wily enough to avoid saying what The Guardian said they had said.
P.S. - If I ran the zoo, at least one head would probably start to roll at The Guardian over this. All we need is to have liberal media outlets dropping to the same low standards as conservative ones like Fox!
Pfeh. The thing you have to realize about the Guardian is that any reporting errors are due not so much to political leanings as they are to general incompetence. The “Grauniad” has one of the busiest Corrections editors in the business.
OK, so screw the Guardian. Fuck 'em. We don’t need bogus quotes, we got facts. And its ok to listen politely while the Usual Suspects give their righteous indignation a workout, they haven’t been winning many lately.
Don’t fret, unlike those countries, the US is the damn goodest country on earth, ever. We are gods apple and satans holy water.
Well, i was stating that this wasn’t 50 years ago. 50 years ago when Stalin or Mao were starving massive populations, the media had no idea about it domestically or internationally. Even though domestic media is still kindof easy to control, the international media is so advanced and widespread with so many avenues of expression (the internet, books, newspapers, tv) that if the iraqi people are dying in droves the US wouldn’t be able to cover up for it the same way Stalin was able to cover up for the Ukranian famines 50 years ago. If/when something happens in Iraq, the world will know about it in a day because so many media outlets (some who want the US to look evil, like Al Jazerra or the guardian) will have access to events and a valid means of expressing their views.
Huh. I’d thought the Inquirer was a respectable newspaper.
I was under the understanding that Iraq as a country was destitute and poor post Gulf War I as a result of sanctions (indeed, some on this board cited that poverty and devastation as strong indicators that Iraq must have WMD’s, otherwise he certainly would have allowed inspectors to certify Iraq WMD). The potential wealth of Iraq is irrelevant if Iraq can’t sell enough oil. That both Iraq and North Korea have large armies and leaders who live in luxury is not an indicator of the wealth of the country as a whole. Unless Wolfowitz’s argument is that it was just too dang inconvenient to continue the blockade of Iraq.
Actually I guess in retrospect my response is irrelevant to the question of whether Wolfowitz said we attacked Iraq for oil. Whether or not his statements were honest and/or accurate I agree that the Guardian excerpts were misleading at best.
What Paul Wolfowitz said was skillfully manipulated by a biased media organisation intent on washing over the truth with lies and distortions.
Or, as the Guardian might put it:
“_____ Paul Wolfowitz _______kill____________ed__________m_____o_________t__________________h________er _t_e__r_______es_a”
What? What noise? I can’t hear any…oh, wait, you mean the moaning and the chanting and the thrashing about? Oh that’s just the sound of the ghost of journalistic integrity being exorcised. Nothing to bother yourself about.
Horse oil, huh?
Yea, AHunter. Who needs that Middle Eastern stuff when we can get freshy-squeezed Appaloosa juice?
I hate to say this, but… cite? The Guardian may be a bunch of left-wing fuckwits, but I’m not sure “wanting the US to look evil” is part of their editorial policy, strictly speaking. And the Al-Jazeera coverage I’ve seen has looked a lot less skewed that the rah-rah US television coverage (which is not to say that Al-Jazeera people don’t have their own biases).
Just because some media outlets are reporting stories we don’t like doesn’t automatically mean they’re lying and/or evil. [sub]Unless they’re owned by Rupert Murdoch, of course, in which case it’s a given. ;)[/sub]