Read me that quote again
Paul Wolfowitz been President of the World Bank for a week now, so what better way to celebrate our confidence in that venerable poverty-alleviating institution than to excerpt from this interview:
"You were one of those who was most emphatic prior to going into Iraq that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction."
"I don't think so."
"I can quote you."
"Okay."
I read him a line from an op-ed article under his byline in the British newspaper The Independent for January 30, 2003: "There is incontrovertible evidence that the Iraqi regime still possesses such weapons." Wolfowitz had spoken in the same terms on numerous occasions.
"'Incontrovertible evidence' is a pretty strong way of putting it," I said. "How did you feel when you found out they didn't have such weapons?"
"Well, I don't think they don't," he said. "You say it turned out they didn't. By the way, read me the quote again."
I did so. Wolfowitz said he needed to go back and review his prior statements.
"But clearly you believed they had stockpiles of such weapons?"
"You are putting the word 'stockpiles' in," he said.
He was right: "stockpiles" was my word.
Hard to say whether Wolfowitz is a liar, or a sinister believer bred in a world of lies. In either case I wouldn't hire him to replace urinal cakes at the World Bank lavatories. OK maybe I would. [via Catch and Hullabaloo ]
posted by Mark D. @ 11:48 PM |
| 
9 Comments:
Wow,
Let me get this right.
Wolfowitz had said (like Clinton and, oh pretty much the entire world) that Saddam had WMD.
When the multinational collalition invaded Iraq, WMD are found in small quantities and the means of production are verified. (These never really were in doubt.)
The reporter then misquotes him, and gets busted by him. More to the point, the question had nothing to do with his new job anyway. This is somehow evidence of Wolfowitz is unfit to be World Bank Pres?
I can only say WTF? Was there even a point to your post at all?
-Censored
Censored, uh yeah, the blindingly obvious point to my post was that a man who is on record as being a liar (and/or a blinkered idiot) with blood on his hands was handed the job as head of one of the world's most important institutions, a job for which most such liars would be considered unfit.
Of course, Robert McNamara (another blinkered warmonger) was also once head of the World Bank, though he seemed to have a need to atone for his Vietnam mistakes by forcing the bank to concentrate its resources on peaceful poverty alleviation.
Mark,
You are on record as saying Dean will win the Dem nomination in 2004 and will be President.
You also went to great lengths to explain that Kerry would win election against Bush.
So that makes you a liar?
The difference between us is that you read this and can't see past your hate to realize the reporter is the knucklehead here.
-Censored
The difference, of course, is that Mark did not say "There is incontrovertible evidence that Dean will win the Dem nomination in 2004 and will be President." Nor did he say "There is incontrovertible evidence that There is incontrovertible evidence that Kerry will beat Bush." You're comparing apples to oranges here. Nice try.
Nor are 1600 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis dead because of Mark's predictions.
Censored, I heard there's a recruiting shortage. Your country needs war supporters like you out on the front lines. Don't you believe in this war?
I'm on record for what? In case anyone cares: Censored just lied.
I remember being pissed off when my union endorsed Dean before the caucuses even got rolling! I couldn't stand the man. The closest I came to such prophesying was here, where my nascent hatred of Dean and enthusiasm for Edwards was just taking shape. And as for Kerry, you may be right about this, but it hardly counts as "great lengths" and "explain". Anyway, when you lie in order to accuse me of being a liar by my own fairly simple definition of lying, you are doing this debate a disservice.
A little more self-censorship (or at least fact-checking) is in order, censored.
Censored: "More to the point, the question had nothing to do with his new job anyway."
Well, Wolfowitz is also on record declaring that, "We’re dealing with a country [Iraq] that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Someone wih that kind of keen economic acumen will certainly be an asset at the World Bank.
hehe...
You guys are too easy. I can't believe you walked into that one.
Ryan and Luke missed it completely. So how does it feel to be misquoted Mark?
Better yet, Ryan, Luke, and John all attack the "reporter."
I'd like to thank you all very much for making my point.
-Censored
Nice save, censored, except there was zero misquoting in the article I posted. The fact that Wolfowitz would haggle over the use of the word "stockpiles" in the interview underscores that he's a born liar. This, I'm guessing, is why the reporter was so keen to draw attention to this alleged "misquoting".
Your little prank sucked, frankly: wasn't funny, made you look like a fool, and added nothing whatsoever to the debate. Typical Republican with a funnybone made o' wood... try harder next time!
Post a Comment
<< Home