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


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.


"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


Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891




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.



Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute