top
Iraq
Iraq
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

by Lynn
Wolfowitz says the Iraq war was carried out because Iraq is "swimming" in oil. I am left terribly shocked because I thought it was all about WMDs and Saddam's rotten human rights record. Goodbye cruel world.
Wolfowitz says the Iraq war was carried out because Iraq is "swimming" in oil. I am left terribly shocked because I thought it was all about WMDs and Saddam's rotten human rights record. Goodbye cruel world.

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 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.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Hedley
From the Guardian, which initially reported this distortion.

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.

by Abraham
Lynn, Your posted Guardian article was already posted here on SF Indymedia yesterday
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1616348.php

Per the official US State Department's document, "...purpose of war would be to disarm Saddam Hussein." Please read. Very informative.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1219oil.htm

Saddam is a very bad person, but his human rights record isn't the reason or justification for war. No one defends Saddam. The real problem is the way how our government deal with other nations, Iraq included.

If I may repeat what I've said before, our government support anyone as long as they serve our purpose. Even if another government is pro-democracy but does not serve our purpose, we have historically taken actions to bring down opposing government. Human rights has been a criteria.

If you care about human rights, consider the ten year sanction against Iraq systematically destroying their health care, water, utility infrastructures. Things that have nothing to do with military build up. Going back before the 10 years, U.S. back Saddam. Reagan and Sr. Bush supported and encouraged Saddam to use WMD against Iran when he was losing the fight. Our government pretended not knowing anything when he used WMD on the Kurds. Worst yet, Sr. Bush encouraged the Shiites and Kurds to rise up against Saddam at the end of the 1st Gulf war, but did not support their uprising. Saddam slaughtered them even witnessing by our U.S. troops stationed nearby (because Sr. Bush gave an order not to interfere. He was more concerned about Iraq turning into a second Iran equivalent state). These are all racist acts based on racist policy.

Lastly, I assume you're aware the hot issue about whether anyone purposely manipulate or even fabricate WMD intelligence to support this war....

Stay tuned. Let's see how soon Blair will be pushed out from power, then hopefully Bush be next very soon.

by Abraham
"... opposing government. Human rights has NEVER been a criteria."
by Saddam is bad
“Saddam is a very bad person”

Woo, you didn’t pull any punches there.

“but his human rights record isn't the reason or justification for war”
Of course not, if we used this reasoning, the US government would be on the hook for ALL the human rights abuses in the world. It’s not

“Even if another government is pro-democracy but does not serve our purpose, we have historically taken actions to bring down opposing government. Human rights has been a criteria.”

Right on, although very cynical. Yep, this is the case with all governments in the world; a good example would be the 1953 pro-democracy movement in Persia, damn Brits. Still this is nothing new to foreign affairs, as every government on the world practices it. So why only blame one party and not try to fix the problem?


“consider the ten year sanction against Iraq systematically destroying their health care, water, utility infrastructures”

Well other than some water plants the Americans took out in first gulf war, all the other things were cut back to make way for Saddams 50 new presidential places built after 1991. You expected him to live in the

“back Saddam. Reagan and Sr. Bush supported and encouraged Saddam to use WMD against Iran when he was losing the fight”

Very good, America supported Saddam AFTER the 1979 over through of a brutally oppressive Shah was replaced by brutally oppressive Mullahs. My enemies, enemy is my friend; it is nothing new.
When Saddam gassed the Kurds, it was with East German mustard gas. Now, there are plenty of questionable actions you can accuse the American government of doing, but accusing them encouraging another state to use WMD is a bit of a stretch even for a radical. Either way, Iraq was never losing the war, in fact at first it look like Saddam would win rather easily, then the State department got scared and started giving the Iranians US satellite information, hardly the actions of the government desperate to see Saddam victorious.

“but did not support their uprising”
Yep, just as the anti-war movement asked for at the time asked for, and asked again for before this war latest war. “Let the Iraqi people over through Saddam themselves” I guess most in the anti-war movement now, will choose to eat their own words and admit they never wanted anything other than non-action UN style. Too bad I enjoyed reading those nuts, especially one who said Saddam could be kicked out if the US gave only 56 million to an opposition group. (Sadly that was probably the best realistic plan any anti-war radial gave, other than say the complete and total indifference to the plight of the Iraqi people.

In actuality, In 91 the US was worried about the possible break up of Iraq, many Arab coalition members wanted the war over, combined with the growing American anger at the highway of the death. As yes, human rights never played a role.
Why improve human rights, when you can have the status quo.

“These are all racist acts based on racist policy.”
That’s good I hate to see racist acts based on a non-racist policy.
by Saddam's Bad, Bush's Ugly
Only if Dubya had one tenths of Saddam-is-bad's I.Q., the peace movement would have been one one hundredths the size of current.

Only if Dubya had learned to knit pick in his public speeches, he would have been untouchable. I guess it's time for Dubya to go back to school to hone his tools.

Lesson 1: “but did not support their uprising”. Blame the anti-war activists. It's their fault, I wish I'd listened to them. I should've finsihed off Saddam.

Hahhhh Hahhhhhh Hahhhhh !
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$135.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network