Please say this isn't so

[gbear]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

It's the Guardian, so take it with a grain of salt, and I know nothing about the German papers that are the source of the comment. Do German papers have the same rules about misquotes that we have here in the States?

I would like to believe nobody could be stupid enough to say what he is quoted saying. Of course it wouldn't be the first time one of our higher up has made comments likely to cause Blair some serious troubles.

With political allies like us...

I present this only as a problem over seas because I suspect either nobody here will hear about it or it will be just shrugged off as an off the cuff comment.

[aREDSKIN]

Here's the transcript. I haven't the time to read it in it's entirety but reading about this on another site I will speculate that the Guardian is full of it.

Wolfowitz Remarks at the IISS Asian Security Conference

NEWS TRANSCRIPT from the United States Department of Defense

DoD News Briefing Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Saturday, May 31, 2003

Thank you, John. I am delighted that the Shangri-La conference is back for a return engagement and I am delighted to be back again, myself, and very honored to be here sharing the podium with two distinguished Senators like Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed. These two gentlemen, I think, are testimony to the kind of continuity and bi-partisanship that is brought to American foreign policy by those distinguished members of Congress who devote special time and attention to foreign policy and national security matters and I can assure you it is not exactly the top of constituent priorities, so they do it at some political cost, and that's even more appreciated.

This second Asian security conference will build on the success of the first and it is an important vehicle for promoting understanding through dialogue about issues important to the entire international community. I commend all the nations who have taken this opportunity to build the relationships in the region that is so vital to solving the challenges that we face.

As John Chipman noted, I have spent a lot of time working in East Asia over the last 20 years. I still remember when I was moved from being the head of the Policy Planning staff in the State Department, twenty years ago, to becoming Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, as head of Policy Planning, I think I spent 80-90 % of my time working on Middle-East issues and moving to East Asia was like coming out of a dark, stuffy room into a great breath of fresh air. To be dealing with people who were solving problems instead of creating problems was really quite wonderful. I must say it feels a little bit like déjà vu all over again to be back in Asia. It is a good feeling.

One of the messages that I would like to convey this morning, not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of Secretary Rumsfeld and the President, is three things. First, that the United States understands how important East Asia is; secondly, that we understand that the future security and stability of this region is key to our own security as well. And third, that the United States remains committed to playing its role in promoting East Asian security. We understand how important that commitment is for peace and stability in this important part of the world.

I am also here to have the opportunity to hear from our Asian partners their views about how peace and stability can best be sustained in the Asia-Pacific region. And I would like to give a special thank you to our Singaporean hosts who have played a particularly strong role over the last 10 years in assisting the United States in maintaining its presence in this part of the world and sustaining our commitments.

When I spoke last year, my basic message was that terrorism is everybody's problem. In the 12 months since the last conference, that truth was brought tragically home to this region by the brutal attack in Bali -- one of the worst terrorist attacks ever. Along with Indonesia, Australia was hit particularly hard. I believe, as a proportion of its population, hit nearly as hard as we were on September 11.

At a memorial service at Washington National Cathedral last fall that our Australian allies held to remember the countrymen they'd lost, Australian Ambassador Michael Thawley summed up the larger message of the tragedy. He cited Prime Minister Howard, who said, and I am quoting: "Our backyard leads on to the street and off that street there are many other backyards&."

Indeed, as with September 11th, the lesson of Bali was a lesson for every country. Westerners may have been the immediate targets, but the impacts reverberated throughout Indonesia and Southeast Asia. While the terrorists may regard their attacks as a tactical success, I believe they were, in fact, a strategic failure. The attack in Bali galvanized Indonesian resolve to fight terrorists and strengthened international cooperation to go after terrorists in Indonesia. The Indonesian people now understand that the terrorists target them and terrorist actions aim to destabilize their country, hurt their economy and obstruct Indonesia's progress to building democratic institutions.

I must say that we are impressed by the professionalism of the Indonesian authorities, and in particular the Indonesian police, in pursuing the Bali bombers and starting to bring them to justice.

Indeed, looking at the overall global war on terrorism, I can say that we have made some remarkable progress in the last year, and particularly in the last few months, in capturing and killing terrorists and breaking up terrorist networks. Just a few of the most important examples which I'm sure that you are familiar with, but it is worth mentioning. Last June, Omar al Farouq, al Qaeda's Southeast Asia chief was arrested; his interrogation helped reveal the depth of the network in this region. Last August, here in Singapore, 21 people affiliated with Jemaah Islamiya were caught and major attacks were prevented. Last September, key September 11th operative, Ramzi Binalshibh, was arrested in Pakistan. Perhaps most important of all, in March, al Qaeda Operations Chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, was captured, also in Pakistan. So was Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who paid the hijackers. At the end of April, Walid bin Attash, a top al Qaeda operations man, who masterminded the attack on the USS Cole, was captured, again in Pakistan. And paymaster Ali Abd al-Aziz was also arrested.

Those are just some of the more prominent cases. As of the end of last year, More than 3,000 al Qaeda members have been detained in more than 100 countries. This demonstrates the impressive international cooperation in the global war against terror.

But, even that significant progress obviously does not mean that we have won the war. It is going to be a long, hard fight, and the recent attacks in Morocco and Saudi Arabia demonstrate that fact, if any demonstration were needed. Terrorists are still out there, still plotting their brutal attacks to draw innocent blood. But like September 11 and Bali, I believe the bombing in Riyadh may prove to be a wakeup call, this time for the Saudis. Again the terrorists achieved a tactical success, but at a strategic price.

The Saudis are pursuing terrorists in their own country now with a vigor that we have not seen before, and they have freer hand to do so because of our success in Iraq. That success not only eliminated a threat to Saudi Arabia, but it also eliminated the enormous burden that the containment policy had required over the last 12 years -- the burden of sustaining large U.S. forces on Saudi territory engaged in almost daily combat over Iraq. It is helpful that two weeks before those attacks in Riyadh, Secretary Rumsfeld and Defense Minister Sultan bin Abdul Aziz were able to agree on the withdrawal of those U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia, since they were no longer needed.

The defeat of Saddam Hussein is a victory in the war on terrorism. It deprives terrorists of sanctuaries, of material and moral support, and of a potential source of weapons of mass terror. Moreover, Saddam's defeat is a salutary example for those who might think of emulating him.

But the defeat of Saddam Hussein presents challenges and opportunities in what I think could be considered the second front in the war on terrorism. That second front was described by President Bush in his State of the Union message last year, that same speech in which he spoke about the "Axis of Evil." The President also said that the war against terrorism is about more than just about killing and capturing terrorists. It's also about building, in the President's words, " a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror," and particularly in the Muslim world.

In the aftermath of the Saddam Hussein regime, there are two immediate challenges in that regard in the Muslim world-challenges that are also large opportunities: the challenge and opportunity of advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process, and the challenge and opportunity of building a new and free Iraq. Let me say a few words about each of those.

This coming week, President Bush is going to the Middle East for an important meeting with leaders of Arab states in Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt, and then, with Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas in Aqaba, Jordan. The President hopes to consolidate regional support for the Middle-East road map during these summit meetings, including, among other things, commitments by the Arab countries to halt terrorist funding for Palestinian groups and to support Palestinian efforts in the peace process; Palestinian commitments to fight terror and to reform their own institutions; and, Israeli commitments to start dismantling outpost settlements.

link to full article

[gbear]

well, his prepared remarks (from the link, thanks) seem far different from his quote in response to a question reported by the German news and subsequently by the Guardian.

The only part I found disturbing was his belief that NK will sell Nukes to anyone. I don't find it alarming that he said, I find it alarming that it may be true.

[aREDSKIN]

Ah, yes the plausible deniability defense by the Guardian. It was a bad "German" translation. Again just my conjecture.

[redman]

The only way I've seen the Pentagon acknowledge the role of oil in Iraq - and its absence in N. Korea - is regarding the issue of regime change and the ability (or lack thereof) of those countries to pay for the rebuilding effort with their own resources versus foreign aid. It's always been referred to by the Pentagon as a rebuilding issue, not as justification for war.

As for the Guardian, I can handle a lot fo things including honest, well-argued philosophical differences, but lying is not one of them. Reporting utter fiction as fact is simply bogus.

But being in journalism means never having to say you're sorry.

[Henry]

Originally posted by redman

But being in journalism means never having to say you're sorry.

Kinda like being a lawyer that way, eh?

Frankly, this just further goes to support my notion to think "Oh, it's from The Guardian. Nevermind." whenever I read some anti-American piece from them. I can now add blatant flasehoods to general anti-American bias. So in a sense it's a good read.

[JimboDaMan]

So we've already decided this is a complete falsehood? Bit premature, don't you think?

It wasn't on the prepared transcript, but then it wouldn't be since it seemed to be a Q&A session that supposedly elicited the transcript. I haven't seen it reported elsewhere, but I did find a link from The Economist website to the Guardian story. That's no guarantee of authenticity, but The Economist won't link to the National Enquirer.

So I haven't seen if confirmed anywhere, but I haven't heard the howls of outrage from the White House either. Think I'll wait until tomorrow before making any judgement.

[aREDSKIN]

Here is the Q & A transcripts: You be the judge.

Wolfie-" 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."

Guardian quote-"The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.".................

"Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. 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."

Q & A

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

Here is the Q & A transcripts: You be the judge.

Wolfie-" 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."

Guardian quote-"The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.".................

"Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. 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."[/url]

This is fascinating. (Thanks for the post, aREDSKIN.)

The translations take different grammatical approaches to convey similar thoughts. Though very close, the Q&A translation clearly implies that Wolfowitz was making an argument that North Korea could be worn down economically (much like the Soviet Union), while that could never happen in Iraq (due to the oil revenue supporting the regime).

If the Q&A translation is accurate (a big "if"), the Guardian translation -- and especially the editorial framing of that quote -- is irresponsible and misleading.

[redman]

ASF, I agree with you, although the Guardian's report is not "similar" to the Q&A.

The Guardian reports essentially that seizure of Iraq's "sea of oil" was our motive to invading.

The Q&A indicates that the "sea of oil" had nothing to do with motive but instead meant we had less leverage against a rogue regime short of force.

This is a blatant lie by the Guardian. It makes you wonder what it is they think they're guarding.

[JimboDaMan]

The Guardian's quote was pretty close to the mark, yet was taken out of context in order to supply a meaning clearly not intended (didn't I just have a similar discussion about another example of this? ). While I'm not sure the intended meaning bodes well for the humanitarian aspect in dealing with NK - basically, we can starve them out - it clearly did NOT mean we're there to annex oil fields. Thanks for the quote.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

An update: the Guardian story is no longer available at the link that started this thread. It was working yesterday.

I went to the Guardian web site and couldn't find a reference to the story.

It would appear that the Guardian has retracted this story. I'd respect them more if they updated the link with a formal retraction, instead of a "bad link" error page.

[aREDSKIN]

ASF-It would appear that the Guardian has retracted this story. I'd respect them more if they updated the link with a formal retraction, instead of a "bad link" error page.

I guess we figured out the motivations of the Guardian. Surprise Surprise. I tried to look up the article by author and it is no longer there. :laugh:

[redman]

I just knew Jayson Blair would find another job! :laugh:

[JimboDaMan]

Apparently the Guardian will attempt to rectify things. From a news site:

"Although The Guardian earlier reported that US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz had said that the Iraq war was all about oil, the newspaper has now removed the article from its web site, and will print a full correction in Friday's edition. According to the Guardian's ombudsman, the quote, "Let's look at it simply. 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," was taken out of context, and misconstrued. "