Posted on 06/09/2003 1:04:26 PM PDT by Hipixs
| June 09, 2003 | |
Oil war
|
|
|
WE'VE been saying all along that the Bush administration would never have attacked Iraq, except for its huge oil reserves. Now, a senior Bush administration official has confirmed it. According to recent reports in the Guardian, a British newspaper, and two major German papers, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said as much during an address to an Asian security summit in Singapore.
|
|
|
He was asked why North Korea, with its nuclear weapons, was being treated differently from Iraq, which had no nukes. According to the newspapers, he 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." The comments couldn't come at a worse time for the Bush administration. World leaders and even some members of Congress are asking why we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave one answer: The Iraqis may have destroyed them before the invasion. This is conveniently tough to disprove. Wolfowitz had another explanation. In an interview with Vanity Fair last month, he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction" as a reason for war. That suggests the weapons threat was exaggerated to build support for the war, while the real motives -- political and economic control of the Middle East -- remained hidden. It should be no surprise that oil drove this administration to war. From top to bottom, it's filled with former oil and gas executives. The companies they once worked for (Vice President Dick Cheney still receives "deferred compensation" from Halliburton), and the companies that contributed so handsomely to the Bush campaign will make millions, if not billions, of dollars from contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. A rumor has it that the name of the war, "Operation: Iraqi Freedom," was originally going to be "Operation: Iraqi Liberation." But someone figured out that the resulting acronym might be too telling: OIL. |
|
Pentagon challenges Vanity Fair report
What Wolfowitz actually said:
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A following IISS Asia Security Conference
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair
I'm starting to think we should, you know. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.
GOD I LOVE THE INTERNET!!!
"This has not been a good week for the Charleston Gazette."
I doubt he will respond or issue a retraction, but perhaps I'll be surprised.
Now that Sullivan has it, they're going to get pummeled.
I'm going to go pop some popcorn.....
When a newspaper can no longer be trusted even to tell the truth, what good is it?
We'll spend BILLIONS in order to make...millions...yeah, this sinister plot is beginning to make more sense now!
I did too. I asked if he was lying or just too lazy to do basic fact checking.
You can still use it to
a. Start fire in fireplace
b. Line birdcage
c. Pack glassware and china for storage
d. Fill the "Post-consumer" percentage at paper factory.
It isn't. Even hillbillies wouldn't be DUMB enough to print quotes from a story that was already retracted!
We can now call the Charleston Gazette "the New York Times of West Virginia".
What an insult.
Where?
If you're saying The Charleston Gazette printed a retraction, I sure can't find it.
I would be much obliged if you could post a link directly to the page the retraction is on.
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.