|
|
|
Wolfowitz: ‘Iraq War Was About Oil’
RePortersNoteBook memo
I know the Paul Wolfowitz family and how they think.
Some of them used to read my e-mail's. I have had e-mail exchanges with a few
of his angry relatives. I have met one of his relatives in her home.
This is my assessment of why Paul Wolfowitz is saying things to make his boss
and this administration look pathetic. He is a hawkish Zionist. It is rumored
he has dual citizenship with Israel. Most important, it is not in Israel's
best interest for the U.S. to have a two term president. The pressure for
Zionist interests are drastically reduced in a second term presidency.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Wolfowitz: ‘Iraq War Was About Oil’
By George Wright
The Guardian
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml
Wednesday 04 June 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.
"Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the
Jews - reminds us who we are." --Jay Lefkowitz (NYT Magazine. 12 F. 1995, 65) Jay
Lefkowitz is now Deputy assistant to President Bush and Director of Domestic
Policy Council. A sick man! Don't you think?
Chinese Axiom:
When things are investigated, knowledge is extended.
When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere.
When the will is sincere, the mind is correct.
When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated.
--Confucius
"An anti-Semite condemns people because they are Jews" --ICHEE.org
I am not an anti-Semite
---Michael Santomauro
"An anti-Semite is someone that the Jews hate."
---Joe Sobran
Another way of putting it:
An anti-Semite used to be someone who does not like Jews; now it is
someone who the Jews do not like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891
http://reportersnotebook.com/newforum/indexforum.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The QUESTION:
To subscribe and grow with knowledge or
to unsubscribe and Die Stupid? Send an E-mail to:
Guardian Makes Major Corrections on Wolfowitz
London's Guardian, which has been pushing the line that the Bush
administration and the Blair government "deceived" the public, has two
embarrassing corrections today of its own reporting on the matter. Here's
the first:
In our front page lead on May 31 headlined "Straw, Powell had serious doubts
over their Iraqi weapons claims," we said that the foreign secretary Jack
Straw and his US counterpart Colin Powell had met at the Waldorf Hotel in
New York shortly before Mr Powell addressed the United Nations on February
5. Mr Straw has now made it clear that no such meeting took place. The
Guardian accepts that and apologises for suggesting it did.
And here's the second (which appears on the Guardian's homepage):
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.
©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute