Posted on 06/04/2003 2:55:40 PM PDT by Stultis
Update: Iraq war 'was about oil'
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1369424,00.html
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.
Below is a copy of the original story as it appeared on News24:
Cape Town - 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 Guardian reports that 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 on Wednesday 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.
The Guardian says that 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.
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, Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.
The sanctions were a joke. We only stopped the illegal flow of oil when we showed up in person to shut down the pipeline!
And the Oil-for-Food program, another joke. More billions into Saddam's pocket.
The Iraqi soldiers weren't starving because there was no money to feed them. There was plenty of money. Plenty of food and medicine, too. Tyrants use rationing and starvation to control their populations. The welfare of individuals is completely irrelevant in the Baath ideology.
Oh, there was plenty of money for illegal weapons, and for working with bio and chemical weapons, and for paying $50,000 bounties to the families of suicide bombers, and for harboring terrorists in style, and for Salman Pak...
Your (apparent) opinion that Saddam was not ripping off the Iraqi people and diverting oil money and oil for food resources to arms, palaces and patronage to murderous thugs, rapists and torturers is duely noted.
Mr. Ombudsman never replied to my email. Maybe it was found a wee bit intemperant? (hehehe)
In response to your "Yeah, sure" when I said the same thing you are now conceding.
Which made the Left's insistence that we drop what we were doing in Iraq and go "take care" of North Korea forthwith, rather inexplicable.
Kim Jong Il would use the weapons. They have to be removed as a factor before any military action. It's that simple.
No, what you meant was "oh yeah, that's right".
That's different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.