Go read this.
Now go read prominent liberal sites be willfully obtuse, lying despite everything that is known. And these are the guys that bitch about a Wurlitzer. These guys will do or say anything to get elected.
The Daily Kos gets the award for being the most willingly deceitful, because even after being pointed out that Wolfowitz never said what he said, Kos issues a terse: “Sorry, I’m not seeing it.” Hilarious.
Whatever blows your trumpet, Kos.
Again, kudos to Calpundit, who is the only one to frame the real question correctly:
The only question is: did the Guardian deliberately slant this, or was it a case of a really incompetent translation? And who screwed up the translation, Die Welt or the Guardian?
Emma, Steve Soto, and Billmon seem to get it right to. Well done. As did Matt Stoller.
*** Update ***
One more time, why Kos deserves my respect and yours, even though he and I rarely see eye to eye (and as noted this is not one of his most gracious corrections):
Boy. Somedays I am on. Somedays I’m not. Let me just admit that today wasn’t my day. The Riley piece was an incoherent, disjointed mess. The Wolfowitz piece was not as explosive as the Guardian would have us believe.
Thanks for being honest to us and yourself, Kos- this is why you have such a loyal following.
*** Update ***
Even though Hesiod remains obstinate and obtuse and insists the Wolfowitz quote was all about oil, the UK Guardian has now issued a correction as well as a retraction:
Paul Wolfowitz
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.
Brian
What surprises me about this is that these people were actually naive enough to believe this spin. I mean, I lean left and as soon as I saw this it was apparent that something wasn’t right with the quote. These people are seasoned politicans, not 4th graders. Like them or not, it takes some level of willing suspension of disbelief to swallow that line.
HH
And just the other day we were told that the Telegraph is all wrong because the Guardian says so…
Emma
It’s not willfully deceitful to quote a newspaper article. I’m happy to retract it, or offer the full quote. It’s interesting that the righties think this is some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy. But in fact, we have the administration on record for an ever-increaing number of whoppers.
JKC
FWIW, Billmon’s picked up on this, too.
http://www.billmon.org/
John Cole
Emma- I agree with you- it is not willingly deceitful to quote a newspaper. But when the newspaper quote turns out to be completely fictional, and you kow that yet continue to pretend that it is real, then it is sheer deceit. More than once on this website I have posted retractions when I have been wrong- it is not a demeaning thing to do- it is the right thing to do.
John Cole
And just by checking your website, Emma- I see you have done just that. Kudos.
Emma
Absolutely. You can’t get all the news right all the time (especially when your news bureaus are just the different voices in your head). You can just report the facts as you understand them, and correct as necessary. It’s in this regard that I think the blogosphere does at least as well as the major media. We’re not trying to sell papers, so what do we care about looking like perfect oracles?
M. Scott Eiland
Reading some of the responses at Hesiod and Daily Kos, it’s pretty clear that the inmates are in charge of the asylum–one poster at Kos took the opportunity to slam the DLC for perceived apostacy, with others chiming in approvingly in response. The whole thing is much like watching the school bully unknowingly walking towards a banana peel–you feel that you should warn him, but the prospect of what is to come is too damned entertaining to pass up.
Jay Caruso
“I’m not seeing it.” I don’t think Kos would “see it” if it smacked him in the face.
Mason
If the Guardian reported that Satan spawned from the forehead of Bush, Atrios, Kos, and Hesoid would come on their keyboards while trying to post about it. “SEE!! HE’S EVIL INCARNATE!!”
JKC
Damn, John: Kos just admitted screwing up about this, too. Gee, Jay, I guess you’ll have to find another candidate for “spawn of Satan.”
So why is it that John and Tacitus are about the only two conservatives out there who ever seem to be able to admit to mistakes?
MattS
I realize I’m not a top-tier blogger, but I was on this one too.
John Cole
I realize I’m not a top-tier blogger, but I was on this one too.
I am not sure what a top-tier blogger is (other than the obvious big ones), but if you are straight and present good arguments, that is the only tier you need to worry about.
BTW- I was serious about Scott Soto in the remarks at Calpundit- I wasn’t sure if you thought I was kidding. He is a genuinely good person.
Mason
I don’t know, John – I think you give Kos too much credit. From “I don’t see it” to “not as explosive as the Guardian would have us believe” ?! That’s a pretty grudging non-apology.
Maybe *I* just don’t see it, eh?
HH
Hesiod, on the other hand, hasn’t made any sort of correction… of course.
mark
I’ve been following Wolfowitz’s paper trail for a few weeks, ever since his odious interview with CNN Turk — an event that inspired a feature I like to call Dr. Paul’s Words of Wisdom.
Although the Guardian Sea-of-Oil and Vanity Fair Bureaucracy quotes haven’t risen to the level of 1992’s Lithuania Scenario, one can only hope that he’ll reveal too much of the real Wolfowitz sometime.
My favorite Wolfowiticism is this …
So that’s why one has to keep emphasizing it’s not about one country, it’s not about just the use of military force, it’s about the integration of all the instruments of national power across the whole world.
Wolfowitz with Thelma LeBrecht, AP Sept 10, 2002.
MattS
Yeah, I know. Steve is awesome.
Hesiod
Sorry…I was supposed to correct something?
I didn’t misquote or mischaracterize what Wolfy said.
And, given the questions that have been raised about whether his last supposed “misquote” was actually the product of a doctored Pentagon transcript [see Josh Marshall for support of this point], I’m taking that “correction” with a grain of salt.
In any event, even if you accept the “corrected” Wolfowitz quote, he’s still basically saying that the invasion of Iraq WAS about oil.
He claims that, unlike North Korea, Saddam could not be pressured with economic sanctions, etc. because Iraq was “swimming on a sea of oil.”
In other words… “but for” all that oil, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.
Now, I don’t believe Wolfy’s “interpretation,” for a second. Nor do I accept his premises [which you Bush Fedayeen will no doubt accept as gospel, because you have the critical thinking skills of a house fly].
But, even if you are charitable to the man, he seems to be admitting that Iraq’s oil reserves were a major factor in the Adminstration’s decision to go to war.
Hesiod
Oh…I see Jay is lurking over here.
I still don’t see any response to my major bust on Instahack’s gullible citation of Jules Crittenden on your site.
Gee. I wonder why that is?
When Insty screws up, and NEVER corrects himself…you guys don’t say boo.
Ricky
I think we can label this episode “Bush lays cofederate wreath” part II, eh?
As long as folks correct it, it’s fine. We all link stories that interest us & we’re hinging the credibility on the source. The sad part is when some folks have to be prodded into the corrections (even the half-assed ones). And that goes for both sides, as well.
John Cole
HEsiod- If you really think that the statement still means it was all about oil, you are dumber than a sack of hammers. I am not going to even bother to try and explain the issue to you, as Jay Caruso and Porph and the Belgravia Dispatch and Insty have all explained it in clear English. You are like teflon to smarts, and it seems to be willful and intentional.
I have no idea what mistake you are referring to regarding Glenn and Jules Crittenden.
Mike the Analyst
I believe this episode demonstrates two great strengths about the “new media” – the Internet and blogging….
First, the fact that information (even false info) can fly about at light speed means that we need to look at news in a more critical light. No less than 10 years ago the country would listen to Peter, Tom and Dan and read the papers and take it all as gospel (“Well, it’s in the news!” seemed to get more traction than “don’t believe everything you read.”) With today’s media, we have to have a HEALTHY skepticism (without fermenting it into cynicism) and make sure what we know is right.
And the second point: the “new media” is much more able to correct itself (as witnessed by Kos and others). I think this ease of correctablity allows us to actually DO correct ourselves – and the excercise of this humility leads to both better reporting and more credibility.
There. I think my profound pills are now wearing off.
Hesiod
“HEsiod- If you really think that the statement still means it was all about oil, you are dumber than a sack of hammers. I am not going to even bother to try and explain the issue to you, as Jay Caruso and Porph and the Belgravia Dispatch and Insty have all explained it in clear English. You are like teflon to smarts, and it seems to be willful and intentional.”
Wolfy said that because Iraq was “swimming on a sea of oil,” economic pressure would not work on Saddam Hussein like it will work on North Korea.
The implication is that, if Iraq had no oil, there would have been no war.
Why? Because, we could have turned the economic screws instead. In essence, he said [with a straight face] that WMD’s didn’t matter with Iraq. Terrorist connections didn’t matter with Iraq. Even Saddam’s cruelty to his own people didn’t matter with Iraq.
We, as HE IMPLIED, would not have invaded if Iraq was dirt poor, and had no natural resources [in this case, a “sea of oil”].
We would have just applied “pressure” like we are doing with North Korea.
Yeah. It is a rather disingenuous statement BOTH about NK and Iraq.
But, that’s what he said, John. It’s not my fault if you guys are too busy butt-covering and doing damage control to pay attention.
Andy
oh jeeze – and now John Cole is the keeper of truth and light.
Deeper and deeper into the looking glass we go.
M. Scott Eiland
Wow. Obviously I was wrong before. In the case of Hesiod, the inmate *owns* the asylum.
On the bright side, Howell Raines clearly has a place where he can hang out while he scans the want ads.
John Cole
Andy- Unkown trolls are annoying. Do you want me to ban the whole domain for Mcdermott, Will & Emery?
HH
You said the invasion was about oil. Sorry but that’s not what he said. It’s simply not. You can make tortured explanations for what it was implied but that’s not what he said.
David Perron
Remember, this is Hesiod[sic] you’re dealing with here. He’s had his logic shots recently enough to still be immune.
Emma
There are issues of accurate reporting and issues of administration lies–and they’re not the same thing.
On the issue of reporting–journalistic ethics are well established and pretty much a done deal. The Guardian screwed up and they retracted the article. Case closed.
But on the issue of the administration’s lies–that one’s still very much in play. Hesiod, when he mounts the defense of the Wolfowitz interpretation, points to what is increasingly necessary when dealing with the White House: playing the game of “guess the real reason.”
HH
Uh… no. The Guardian screwed up, that much you agree with. To defend their screwup is asinine to say the least.
redheadedstepchild
Hesiod wrote:
Wolfy said that because Iraq was “swimming on a sea of oil,” economic pressure would not work on Saddam Hussein like it will work on North Korea.
The implication is that, if Iraq had no oil, there would have been no war.
Why? Because, we could have turned the economic screws instead. In essence, he said [with a straight face] that WMD’s didn’t matter with Iraq.
Well, the first half isn’t so bad. If Iraq didn’t have oil, then there might not have been a war. Why? Because economic pressure might have sufficed. How does this mean that WMD don’t matter? It doesn’t. Wolfy, as Hesiod called him, was making a point about why economic pressure was not going to work with Iraq and thus military pressure was necessary. How does stating that a possible strategy for disarming North Korea was not a viable strategy for disarming Iraq mean that disarming Iraq was not the goal? It doesn’t. I should make this clear. The comment about not using economic pressure on Iraq because of Iraq’s oil, but instead taking military action, was a comment about the strategic issues concerned with achieving the US’s goals. It was NOT a comment about the goals themselves. Hopefully that is clear enough for everyone to understand. BTW, acknowledging the truth about those comments does not force one to any claims about the US’s actual goals. Hesiod should still feel free to assign the most sinister goals he wants to. Just don’t use bogus mis-interpretations to defend those assignations.
HH
I just wandered over to Josh Marshall’s blog and see that even he won’t support your bizarre notion of a “doctored transcript,” Hes. Better luck next time.
HH
I just wandered over to Josh Marshall’s blog and see that even he won’t support your bizarre notion of a “doctored transcript,” Hes. Better luck next time.