Wolfowitz:"We just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

[flavio]

Guardian

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.

 

[Squiggy]

* Pretends to be surprised....again.

 

[Leslie]

 

[ris]

damnit, now luis is just going to love this

 

[tommyj27]

/me resists urge to shout "I told ya so!"

 

[flavio]

To be fair I believe he may have been making a point about the two countries abilities to withstand economic pressures.

 

[outside looking in]

What was the context of that quote? What was the full quote?

 

[MitchSchaft]

Check this one out:
http://www.ajc.com/print/content/epaper/editions/wednesday/opinion_e3ddf850e14eb1df00f6.html

Weapons of mass destruction were never the real issue
Thomas Friedman - Contributor
Wednesday, June 4, 2003

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now. Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough. Because a terrorism bubble had built up over there --- a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was OK, having Muslim preachers say it was OK was OK, having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was OK, and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was OK. Not only was all this seen as OK, there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government --- and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen --- got the message.

The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states --- young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the "stated reason": the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with al-Qaida, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this WMD argument for PR reasons.

Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Bush did not need to find any WMDs to justify the war for me. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's WMDs is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the CIA. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's WMDs, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Bush's credibility rides on finding WMDs, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

Finally. Somebody who understands the world is more complicated than CBS/CNN likes us to believe.
Oil shmoil.

 

[Aunty Em]

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the "stated reason"

They got it wrong didn't they? They should sack their advisors...

 

[Gonz]

Is Paul looking for early retirement?

 

[outside looking in]

The first four paragraphs of that commentary look like a rewording of posts I made months ago.

Someone did understand that the situation was more complicated than "WMD's" or "oil" or "SA." People didn't seem too interested in real explanations though. If it couldn't be summarized by a single word, it was overlooked.

 

[Aunty Em]

I personally would have prefered the real explanations not the crap we were fed... I hate it when people, especially politicians, treat me like a brainless idiot!

 

[Gonz]

I vaguely recall the speech Bush gave at the UN. I do recall that it had far more reaons than WMDs. WMDs became the focal point because they thought Iraq wasn't a direct threat to the American heartland. Well, we know they aren't now.

 

[Squiggy]

Time to spend a few days in the archives......nah....Its all moot now...

 

[ris]

you have to remember that for all the reasons they might have in private only a few could be used under international law. regime change under human rights violations isn't one of them. the case for a pre-emptive strike under international law requires a clear danger from the regime in question.
the two main reasons were therefore connections to international terrorist groups [in this case al queda] with a portfolio of attack on the us/uk. this was unproven and is generally accepted by leading intelligence sources to be bunk.

so the other had to be the potential for attack with wmd. now this too looks shaky.

res 1441 itself was never enough and the legalese behind the referal to 1991 ceasefire was always a bit tenuous.

 

[Luis G]

The article MitchSchaft posted is just a little taste of how "preaching about patriotism and moral" is a great formula to gain the support of the people.

btw, the article flavio posted has now been removed

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference 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 sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Just a final question, how much oil are you guys getting out of Iraq per day?

How many Iraqies are in worse life conditions now than before the war?


They are supposed to be free (according to the very particular Bush definition of being free), so where's their freedom?

 

[outside looking in]

What was the context of that quote? What was the full quote?

Isn't that the way these things almost always happen? One side takes comments from the other side completely out of context, makes a big deal out of it, and grabs some headlines before there is time to quell the fanatic idiocy? That applies equally to both sides, and is why I asked the questions that are quoted above.

Time to spend a few days in the archives......nah....Its all moot now...

If you're referring to my claim that I said very similar things months ago... be my guest to search the archives. If you can't find the relevant posts, I'd be glad to help.

 

[outside looking in]

Just a final question, how much oil are you guys getting out of Iraq per day?

Dunno. Ask 6 months from now.

How many Iraqies are in worse life conditions now than before the war?

Is that really relevant? Ask again in 6 months.

They are supposed to be free (according to the very particular Bush definition of being free), so where's their freedom?

You expect to just demolish an infrastructure, and simply walk out? Ridiculous. Ask that question again in a year or two.

 

[Squiggy]

No, oli...My post was not in reference to you at all...

 

[Gato_Solo]

Couldn't have been directed at me, either, as this is the first post I put in this thread...