Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Poop Man Bob

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,970331,00.html

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 post 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.

 

Last week he admits the mainly cited reason for war, that Saddam has WMD, was merely "bureaucratic." Now this shit.

 

WHAT.

THE.

FUCK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to include in this Richard Perle's comments from MTP in February.

 

Richard Perle -- NBC News' Meet the Press - 23/02/03:

"But please allow me to say: I find the accusation that this administration has embarked upon this policy for oil to be an outrageous, scurrilous charge for which, when you asked for the evidence, you will note there was none. There was simply the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TONY BLAIR:

"Let me first of all deal with the conspiracy theory idea that this has somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever, if oil were the issue, that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam, who I'm sure will be delighted to give us access to as much oil as we wanted, if he could carry on building weapons of mass destruction."

 

TONY BLAIR:

"The very reason we're taking the action we are, is nothing to do with oil, or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward. It is to do with one very simple fact. I believe that we have to make sure that the will of the United Nations is upheld."

 

 

 

 

and stolen from another message board:

It just doesn't strike me that Wolfowitz would say such things by accident. Either his ego has gotten so big he thinks he's above all possible retribution, or...my conspiracist streak comes out...this is part of a Bushco plan to exorcise the ongoing concerns about the reasons for war. Use Wolfowitz as a decoy to flush out the outrage, shoot him down, and get on with your nefarious plans. (Animal Farm, anyone? "It was all Snowball's fault")

 

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ARCEL

i get the feeling that the public is just going to ignore this

 

 

I doubt it. I saw on the news the other day that congress is launching an investigation on the Bush administration. They feel that there is a good chance the Bush sent the United States to war under false pretences. I mean Jesus Christ it has been 6 weeks since the war stopped and not any significant evidence of WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no confidence in the intelligence of the AMerican public

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Esai

I have absolutely no confidence in the intelligence of the AMerican public

 

Well it seem obvious that the government thinks we are all idiots. Now be a good little sheep and do as daddy tells you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuck the government and the war. they spent billions on that, scores of billions.of course oil had something to do with it. you cant beleive that bush aint think of oil at ALL.who cares.that war just was a way for people to die, all we get out of it is depressed families who are forgotten about once there is a new issue on tv. people are poor in this country. all these contest, "win a million" what the fuck? shit is backwards. bush is too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by PedroHammers

move to Europe, that is what I did. No more tax money into Oil men pockets for me.

only if it was really that easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is that easy, unless your a felon or not 18, you could probally leave on a boat or jet after saving money...unless your letting something hold you back..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear a lot of people say "fuck the government." Pay close attention to Fortune 500 magazine and then tell me who the enemy is. Not to say the US government is made up of angels...But people tend to overlook the very important element of private power in America.

 

My hat is now in the political ring and I am off to watch Star wars for the first time ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone uses 'its not that easy to just leave' excuse.

 

yes it is. look at those cubans. they have the clothes on their back and a raft and they leave. desperate times call for desperate measures...i guess you arent too desperate to get out?

 

on one hand it sucks we did this over oil. although i dont think it was just about oil. i think bush getting revenge on saddam, as well as Israeli interests played a role.

 

on the other hand i actually respect him for telling the truth..if only part of it.

 

but now im pissed again since this should be all over the media. but it isnt. 95% of people wont even know this piece of news ever existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_El Mamerro

The article is no longer available.

 

...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by El Mamerro

The article is no longer available.

 

...?

 

 

:scratches head: hmmmm:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out, from the U.S> Department of defense site:

 

http://www.dod.mil/news/Apr2003/n04182003_..._200304185.html

 

Wolfowitz: Newly Freed Iraq Provides 'Greater Security' for U.S., World

By Gerry J. Gilmore

American Forces Press Service

 

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2003 – An Iraq newly freed from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein provides "a greater security for our country and for the whole world," U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said here April 17.

 

Also, the Iraqi people now have the opportunity to build better lives for themselves under a new, democratic government, the deputy defense secretary told Fox News television host John Gibson.

 

"And that will be truly a brand new development for the whole Arab world," Wolfowitz said.

 

He pointed to other areas of the world – such as the Philippines and South Korea -- in which the democratic process successfully supplanted less citizen-friendly governments.

 

A democratic Iraq, he emphasized, can be a role model of self- government for the Arab world.

 

"I think it's the prospect of inspiring other people by example to do what I think the Iraqis are now free to be able to do," Wolfowitz said.

 

In the days since the dictator's fall from power, news reports have depicted some Iraqis looting government buildings. Such events, Wolfowitz believes, are a natural outcome when a formerly oppressed people are freed from the iron rule of a brutal dictator like Hussein.

 

However, he noted that law and order is returning to the country and "things are settling down." "What we're finding is even a relatively small presence of American or British forces begins to give the Iraqis the courage to take care of their own affairs," the deputy defense secretary remarked.

 

Wolfowitz maintains the United States and its allies "paid a very big price" for seeking to control Saddam through sanctions and the establishment of northern and southern fly zones for more than a decade since the end of the Gulf War.

 

"It was a price that was paid in money. It was a price that was paid in lives," he pointed out.

 

However, "the biggest price of all was that we made ourselves a huge target for people like Usama bin Laden," Wolfowitz declared, "who kept complaining about the fact that we were bombing Iraq every day, and that we had troops occupying the holy land of Saudi Arabia."

 

Regarding the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Wolfowitz noted that if they're there, "we've got to find them … so (they) don't fall into the wrong hands."

 

However, he continued, "right now we're focused" more on restoring order and stabilizing social conditions in Iraq.

 

The whole point of the United States and its allies going to war with Saddam was security and the liberation of the Iraqi people – not oil – Wolfowitz emphasized.

 

"We went to war to remove a threat to us and we removed that threat," he pointed out. He added, "It's also clear in the process we've removed a regime that was brutalizing the Iraqi people … it was never a war for oil."

 

Televised images of jubilant Iraqis celebrating their new freedoms demonstrate the feelings of a populace that's been liberated from a despot, Wolfowitz noted.

 

The war, he concluded, "actually liberated a whole important country in the Arab world."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops.

 

Argh.

 

I thought this thread was going to die and fall into 12 oz. oblivion, but I see it hasn't.

 

The Guardian used Wolfowitz's quote way out of context, allowing a lot of people (myself included) to jump the gun and assume the cover had finally been blown.

 

 

Here's his entire quote, plus the question asked:

Question: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

 

 

Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.

 

 

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.

 

 

Sooo, all in all, my bad. I'm sure the Guardian caught hell for it, which is why they pulled the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sir Doodles

At least the British government seems more concerned with the notion of holding an inquiry on PM Tony Blair to see if whether or not evidence could be provided with proof of WMD. But wait! Don't we (US) have WMD? How come there isn't a investigation as to what we have? Oh that's right! We're living in Babylon! History does not repeat itself, rather the problems of history do!

 

________________________

We create a mental atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×