Posted on 05/30/2003 1:11:24 PM PDT by fritter
Wolfowitz says Saudi troop withdrawal was 'huge' reason for war with Iraq
Associated Press
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European critics of the Iraq war expressed shock Friday at published remarks by a senior U.S. official playing down Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the reason for the conflict.
In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited "bureaucratic reasons" for focusing on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal and said a "huge" reason for the war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.
He said one reason for going to war against Iraq that was "almost unnoticed but huge" was the need to maintain American forces in Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power.
Those troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to protect the desert kingdom against Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1991, but their presence in the country that houses Islam's holiest sites enraged Islamic fundamentalists, including Osama bin Laden.
Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and would set up its main regional command center in Qatar.
However, those goals were not spelled out publicly as the United States sought to build international support for the war. Instead, the Bush administration focused on Saddam's failure to dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
The failure of U.S. forces to locate extensive weapons stocks has raised doubts in a skeptical Europe whether Iraq represented a global security threat.
Wolfowitz's comments followed a statement by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who suggested this week that Saddam might have destroyed his banned weapons before the war began.
On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the outset of the war.
"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
The remarks by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld revived the controversy over the war as President Bush left for a European tour in which he hopes to put aside the bitterness over the war, which threatened the trans-Atlantic partnership.
In Denmark, whose government supported the war, opposition parties demanded to know whether Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen misled the public about the extent of Saddam's weapons threat.
"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for the war," Jeppe Kofod, the Social Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said in response to Wolfowitz's comments. "Those who went to war now have a big problem explaining it."
Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's claim. "It leaves the world with one question: What should we believe?" he told The Associated Press.
In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeiting newspaper said the comments about Iraqi weapons showed that America is losing the battle for credibility.
"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said Friday.
In London, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had any such weapons.
"The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive strike, 'Hit Saddam before he hits us,' " Cook told British Broadcasting Corp. "It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to hit us in the first place."
During a visit to Poland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday he has "absolutely no doubt" that concrete evidence will be found of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
"Have a little patience," Blair told reporters.
Wolfowitz was in Singapore, where he is due to speak Saturday at the Asia Security Conference of military chiefs and defense ministers from Asian and key Western powers.
He told reporters at the conference that the United States will reorganize its forces worldwide to confront the threat of terrorism.
"We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture worldwide, including in the United States," Wolfowitz said. "We're facing a very different threat than any one we've faced historically."
In that regard, it's also worth noting we've removed the one of the two viable threats to the monarchy, the other being their wahabbis. The Saudi's don't need our troops anymore.
The Blair virus infects more than the New York Times.
And isn't it interesting that some freepers will believe the magazine rather than the Department of Defense transcript?
Like that's ever stopped a politician in that city from having something twisted. And as I said perhaps I could have been mistaken on his exact comments. However even in the DOD report, Wolfowitz still states it was a settle on one issue, not the issue. If it was the issue and WMDs are not found, then is the war on Iraq a success?
2. The Washington Post has covered this story and has indicated that Vanity Fair twisted Wolfowitz's words and added their own interpretation.
3. I realize that those who are looking for anything to bash Bush are desperate, but in this case, since there is solid evidence of Wolfowitz being misquoted, you are just going to have to admit you were wrong.
Personally, I think reb9 is correct, and we will produce everything at one time, wrapped up in a nice, neat package for all the leftists.
Really? I suggest you read the SOTU from this year. He makes it quite clear it is the issue. He doesn't say a coalition will attack Iraq unless they turn to a democracy, he doesn't say the coalition will attack Iraq over human rights violations, however he does say unless Iraq disarms the coalition would attack Iraq.
2. The Washington Post has covered this story and has indicated that Vanity Fair twisted Wolfowitz's words and added their own interpretation.
Like the boys over at New American Century (of which our current foreign policy is based considering half the administration was part of it back in the 90s) have never done any twisting of words. Remember, they're politicians, just like the Democrats.
3. I realize that those who are looking for anything to bash Bush are desperate, but in this case, since there is solid evidence of Wolfowitz being misquoted, you are just going to have to admit you were wrong.
No what I see is someone who is trying to change their story because the main line that has been yelled from the top of every mountain for the last 8 months is turning out to be no more than wishful thinking
Next I'd lurk around and learn from other people . Get a feel for personnalities , go look at what these folks do in society & know that it will be something new for you ; so give yourself plenty of time .
Having said that .. When you show up here again with that attitude & that juvenile silliness you damn sure know folks are going to rip you a new ass .
As it should be . So butch up and get an education . Perhaps someday you will be in an earned position to teach others . This site will change you're entire outlook and most importantly you will be armed with knowledge & facts if you allow it to happen for you .
They stand as proof positive of Wolfowitz’s third criteria, second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people as well as the second, terrorism, for which there is ample additional evicence. I was addressing the other poster as well, who seemed to imply the sole reason for the war was WMDs, which was false.
Personally, I have little doubt he had WMDs, and that we’ll find evidence of their disposal and transfer. In fact you’ll find reports of transfer to Syria, under control of uncontrollable rogue elements according to the Syrian government, posted on FR last fall.
As to whether atrocities on their own are cause for intervention, IMO in most cases no. I wasn’t supportive of Kosovo (or Bosnia), though I think it would have been proper for the EU, it’s their backyard. If it was a matter of a 5,000 troop deployment, I probably would have supported a deployment in Rwanda. In the case of Iraq, I think Sadaam’s atrocities, coupled with his support for terror and the threat he posed to middle eastern oil fields (those troops weren’t in Saudi Arabia to enjoy the scenery) might have been enough even without the WMDs, which I’ve no doubt existed.
I view the intelligence issue separately, and think a thorough review is called for. The smoking guns weren’t there, there may be reasons, possibly destruction, possibly lousy intelligence, which should be addressed.
Is the Blair virus a WMD?
We found em!
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.