Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

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.

You, just have to....laugh...

Does this mean that the rats are turning on each other?

It means MR Zionist Wolfowitz has become so blatantly cocky and so sure that no one will question his and his masters actiosn that he can freely flaunt the fraud, deciet, lies, and BS this war was masked in.

Dynamite.But do you have a link please.I want to make sure before I start gloating.

talk about spin - whew.

Here's the story that was quotes (which, they quote the misquotes Vanity Fair article):
politics.guardian.co.uk...

Now, here's the DoD Q&A from which the 'Guardian' is spinning:
www.defenselink.mil...


Basically, to me, he's saying that since NK is broke, the US has diplomtic options with NK. Perhaps giving them money, aid, etc. (here's some cash - stop making your nukes). Iraq has oil. Iraq can make money off of oil. Therefore, the US can't give them money so they'll quit their wmd program.

Spun through the Guardian's liberal spin cycle it reads: Iraq war was about oil. Shoddy journalism and definitely
slanted! Sorry JB. Nothing to gloat over here. Plenty for me though

I bet if this story was slanted to the right you would have no problem with it...

you're missing the point.

What makes the story even worse to me is the Guardian not only spins it, but uses the 'Vanity Fair quote' (which was a misquote) as reference, which was also spun.

I'd think with the scandals going on over at the NY Times, from Blair's lies to Dowd's 'Michael Moore-like' Op-eds, that these so-called journalists would be on their toes. I am beginning to think it's impossible for them to do otherwise.

[Edited on 4-6-2003 by Bob88]

Mr. Wolfowitz's stance on the middle east in general is well documented. He's gone back and forth on ways and reasons to do the damn thang but his over all stance is pretty consistant (democratization/privitization). In other words the reason doesn't matter only the outcome. folk, it's not like he's kept his views a secret he's a policy maker.

We can try and turn this around on the reporters all we want at the end of the day his history stands for itself.

i think Mr Wolfowitz's is gona be on the end of a bullet purty soon, he is making more trouble for the Bush Administration then he is worth.

The only intelligent thing posted here was by Bob88, what the HELL happend that he was the only one shunned.

All you other liberal nut jobs just poo pooed him and then patted eachother on the backs like after bullies beat up the geek.

Bums.

I wonder if Bob88 knows how I feel now lol.

Thank Bob.I'll put that gloating away until later.

ZZzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipppppppppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a serious note though.In Britain we expect our politician to be aware of the impact of the words and phrases they choose to use.

The US Administration will continue to cause problems for Blair as long as Non-professional politicians speak on their behalf.

Even if the phrase:" The country swims on a sea of oil."was used out of context it was still careless of him to use it.

I agree JB, probably not the best choice of words for him to use. When a lot of people think it's 'all about oil' - and he said THAT? wow! I mean, really now, what a dumbass thing to say.

Sorry I had to delete this post...

[Edited on 5-6-2003 by TigeriS]

I just thought I'd comment, seeing as I often back up the guardian in these anti-guardian arguments. Actually, I have to say that this article is pretty biased, but it does look like it's been pulled from the site.

Did the link used to work? I can't find the article anywhere...

At least he's being honest

Originally posted by TigeriS
Sorry I had to delete this post...it was a bit bad educated post... I misunderstood his words.... but still it is about the oil after all.... Economy, dollar etc... that's what's all about, power, might... I mean look how he's talking about the world, as if he's the big boss trying to make things better.... yes better but for who ?

Wolfowitz is a main player and one of the founding father's of the Bush Doctrine and he is merely showing his pride in its birth

Dom, yes, it worked yesterday.

www.news24.com...

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

Try searching news.google.com also