Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

[blueindian]

4.30pm update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
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.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

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."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University


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

[brainsmile]

now that's shocking















not

[whitak24]

somehow, i don't think he's going to be allowed to speak in public much longer.

the bush administration tends to be very careful present a united front in the media, which means no loose cannons. i think mr. wolfowitz just established himself as a loose cannon.

[topane]

I think Wolfowitz will be found dead of a "self-inflicted" gunshot wound.

[revil]

anyone see the daily show the other day with the clip of the american soldier giving an iraqi four cookies for pumped oil.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by revil
anyone see the daily show the other day with the clip of the american soldier giving an iraqi four cookies for pumped oil.

Yep I saw that, 4 cookies for something like 50,000 barrells :rolleyes:

[blueindian]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


Yep I saw that, 4 cookies for something like 50,000 barrells :rolleyes:

what? was it real?

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by blueindian


what? was it real?

yep, everything on the daily show is real. :rolleyes: :)

[coleslaw]

Originally posted by guiseppewv


yep, everything on the daily show is real.

Wait a minute! What? Hold on now... Everything is real??

/me rushes out to buy gaydar

:P

[blueindian]

Originally posted by guiseppewv


yep, everything on the daily show is real. :rolleyes: :)
true.

[LegendKiller]

Heh, one has to wonder what the differences in Iraq and NK are.

NK has hundreds, if not thousands, of barrels of artillery pointed right at seol. Furthermore, they have a masssive army, proven nuke weapons and the methods to use them. Taking on NK would be akin to suicide for the SK's, millions would die before we could do much. Even if cities were evacuated, the economic impact would be horrible.

Iraq was an easy nut, now we move on.


I am not saying oil wasn't a factor, but it was not the one that people are making it out to be.

[Butch]

Originally posted by revil
anyone see the daily show the other day with the clip of the american soldier giving an iraqi four cookies for pumped oil.

Saw that too . . . I guess the Iraqis beat their quota or something for oil production, so the soldier said something like "Great job! Well, now I guess I owe you something" . . . pulls out said cookies . . . "Here are some homemade cookies straight from my mom in America . . . do you like cookies?"

Was very condescending

[topane]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
Heh, one has to wonder what the differences in Iraq and NK are.Iraq was a pushover. They already started dismantling their missiles (albeit slowly) which made them even easier pickings. We picked the easy fight. Maybe Dubya can ride the wave to re-election.


NK has hundreds, if not thousands, of barrels of artillery pointed right at seol. Furthermore, they have a masssive army, proven nuke weapons and the methods to use them. Taking on NK would be akin to suicide for the SK's, millions would die before we could do much. Even if cities were evacuated, the economic impact would be horrible.We were told that Iraq had tons of chemical and biological weapons pointed at us and ready to go. They were going to use their balsa wood gliders and drop anthrax in the middle of Washington DC. You mention that taking on NK would be suicide for SK. While true, why weren't we worried about those tons of WMDs and Israel?


I am not saying oil wasn't a factor, but it was not the one that people are making it out to be. So what was the reason? Weapons? Hardly. Liberate the Iraqi people? Then why don't we give a **** about all the other "horrible dictators" and genocide?

[cyro]

The difference between NK and Iraq?

Iraq's natural resource: oil! (We want!)
NK's natural resource: mud! (We don't want!)

The sad thing is: in the end Iraq may end up being an Islamic theocracy which is 10 times worse than what it was before :(
But then nobody has accused our gov. of thinking ahead :)

[Butch]

Originally posted by guiseppewv


yep, everything on the daily show is real. :rolleyes: :)

I already know you're not a fan of The Daily Show . . . but . . .

The Daily Show was just nominated by the Television Critics Association for best news and information program . . . among other nominations . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/06/05/showbuzz/index.html#1

TV critics' top picks
LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Comedy Central's news spoof "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" was the surprise front-runner in the nominations for this year's Television Critics Assn. Awards, along with NBC's critically praised new drama "Boomtown."

The two programs garnered four nominations each, including mentions in the top program of the year category. Among the networks, HBO snagged the most nominations with 10, led by the dramas "The Wire" and "The Sopranos" with three each.

In the program of the year category, "The Daily Show," "Boomtown" and "The Wire" compete with Fox's espionage thriller "24" and the reality megahit "American Idol." "Boomtown," "24" and "The Wire" are also nominated in the best drama series category, along with FX's "The Shield" and HBO's "The Sopranos."

On the comedy side, "The Daily Show" faces HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm," Fox's now-canceled "Andy Richter Controls the Universe," CBS hit sitcom "Everybody Loves Raymond" and BBC America's "The Office."

"The Daily Show's" fourth nomination is in the best news and information program category, where it will compete with CBS' "60 Minutes," PBS' "Frontline," ABC's "Nightline" and NBC News correspondent David Bloom, who died while covering the war in Iraq.

The winners will be announced July 19 at a ceremony at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel.

[IrishSS]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not saying oil wasn't a factor, but it was not the one that people are making it out to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by topane
quote:
So what was the reason? Weapons? Hardly. Liberate the Iraqi people? Then why don't we give a **** about all the other "horrible dictators" and genocide?

George was trying to finish what his pops started. Simple as that. The rest is just BS. He wanted to get Saddam and Iraq back for doing his daddy the wrong way.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by IrishSS





George was trying to finish what his pops started. Simple as that. The rest is just BS. He wanted to get Saddam and Iraq back for doing his daddy the wrong way.

What? In first gulf war we were not allowed to go into Baghdad b/c of the arab coalition (including Saudi Arabia). The only way the arab coalition would support us in our attack of Iraq was IF we accepted a bunch of conditions that they made. One of these conditions was to NOT over throw Saddam and to not go into Baghdad.


When are you moving to WV and where are you going to be moving to?

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by Butch


The two programs garnered four nominations each, including mentions in the top program of the year category. Among the networks, HBO snagged the most nominations with 10, led by the dramas "The Wire" and "The Sopranos" with three each.

In the program of the year category, "The Daily Show," "Boomtown" and "The Wire" compete with Fox's espionage thriller "24" and the reality megahit "American Idol." "Boomtown," "24" and "The Wire" are also nominated in the best drama series category, along with FX's "The Shield" and HBO's "The Sopranos."

On the comedy side, "The Daily Show" faces HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm," Fox's now-canceled "Andy Richter Controls the Universe," CBS hit sitcom "Everybody Loves Raymond" and BBC America's "The Office."

"The Daily Show's" fourth nomination is in the best news and information program category, where it will compete with CBS' "60 Minutes," PBS' "Frontline," ABC's "Nightline" and NBC News correspondent David Bloom, who died while covering the war in Iraq.

The winners will be announced July 19 at a ceremony at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel.

I really like 24, The Shield, and The Sopranos. I doubt the Sopranos will win this year. I am not sure who will win this one.

Everybody loves Raymond will win best comedy.

I am not really sure who will win the best news and info show. But I wouldn't really consider the daily show a news and info show. A comedy, maybe, but not a news show.

[sbp]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030606-075944-3628r.htm
Knaves: The London Guardian, for a pernicious distortion of a principled U.S. policy-maker.

In a June 4 story headlined "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil," the paper quoted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as saying in response to a question about why Iraq was dealt with differently than North Korea, "Let's look at it simply, the most important difference between North Korean and Iraqis that economically, we justly had no choice in Iraq. The country swims in a sea of oil." The Guardian reportedly called it confirmation of the "worst fears" of those who had opposed the war.

However, Mr. Wolfowitz actually said, "The primarily [sic] 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 in 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 . . . The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances, which are very different." (The full transcript has been posted by the Pentagon at www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ under the heading "05/31/2003: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A following IISS Asia Security Conference.")

While there's little new about bias in British papers, Guardian editors should have thought to double-check the statement in this post-Jayson Blair era, especially since this is the second time in little over a week in which Mr. Wolfowitz was completely misquoted.

The first was in Vanity Fair magazine. In an interview with Contributing Editor Sam Tanenhaus, Mr. Wolfowitz supposedly admitted, "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Yet the quote was totally distorted, as the transcript (also available at www.defenselink.mil) shows. Mr. Wolfowitz told Mr. Tanenhaus that there were three primary concerns in Iraq — weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism and the criminal treatment of Iraqis.

Those who trumpeted the Vanity Fair quote had to believe that a canny operator like Mr. Wolfowitz would falter so far as to admit what would seem to be a highly classified state secret to a celebrity gossip magazine. The editors at the Guardian were apparently grasping for straws to confirm their worst fears, since the quote they printed was at variance with everything the Bush administration has said about Iraq since it took power.

Moreover, as Mr. Wolfowitz and many others have repeatedly pointed out, U.S. policy-makers could have probably gotten all the Iraqi oil they wanted had they been willing to overlook humanitarian and security concerns. Instead, they hazarded a far more costly course.

To its credit, the Guardian pulled the story from the Internet and issued a correction. However, even that is unlikely to convince either its editors or those who insist on viewing the administration through oily lenses, despite the black and white evidence in the transcripts that should be in front of them.

[sbp]

Well look at that, the link blueindian posted doesn't bring up an article. :o


http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html
Corrections and clarifications {posted Thursday June 5, 2003}

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, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference 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 sense was clearly 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.


And here today is Ian Mayes, the readers' editor at the Guardian, on why a report on the Guardian website was deleted:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,972482,00.html

It concluded a week in which the Guardian apologised to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, for locating him at a meeting he did not attend. It has not been the best of weeks. Yeah we bet.

[Cantacuzene]

Well look at it this way. If Iraq didnt have oil we could have bribed them. So in essence the war was because Iraq had oil. The only thing debatable was what we do with the oil.