Now that they think they've established, via polling, that the majority of Americans think the war was a good idea even if the WMD were fictitious, Wolfowitz is trying to make it OK with the American public that we go take over countries because they've got lots of oil. I don't think he said it by mistake. I think it's a matter of deliberate strategy.
It would be nice to think that statements like this would disillusion the American public, but people who've come along this far with Bush probably won't turn back now.
It also would be nice if more of those who were outraged at Clinton's lies about his penis were similarly outraged at Bush's lies about just about everything else.
Kathryn Cramer |
June 4, 2003 04:41 PM
Kathryn that's a scary thought. I think it will take a well coordinated campaign to really get people to get upset about the massive lies. Most people aren't paying enough attention to really notice I think. If the Dems start hammering it home then they might have a case. And the more the administration lies the easier it will be to make the case. But someone needs to start hounding on the case or its going to slip away unnoticed...
William Blaze |
June 4, 2003 09:12 PM
Try reading what Wolfowitz actually said. What the Guardian Reported, and youfell for:
"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.
What he actually said:
"The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday. North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore."
"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage." "The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said. Wolfowitz did not elaborate on how Washington intends to put economic pressure on North Korea, but said other countries in the region helping it should send a message that "they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road it's on."
So no, he most certainly did not "admit" that the war was "about oil". He pointed out the limitations of economic pressure on a country that has a natural resource like oil.
Thanks for playing, and try reading the actual quote next time.
James Robertson |
June 4, 2003 09:14 PM
Ummm when did I say anything like '"admit" that the war was "about oil"'. The Guardian quote I used is practically identical to the one you site. I never duplicated any off the Guardian analysis. And this "corrected" quote going around is no less damning then the original one. Hence I saw no need to correct it. Misquoting is when you intentially chop up sentences to get the effect you want, not when you chop off a preceding paragraph.
We all know what was driving these fools. Now they are making it public.
William Blaze |
June 4, 2003 09:28 PM
William Blaze |
June 4, 2003 09:29 PM
I had read the total context before making my comment. Wolfowitz is not a total idiot. He's actually very slick. I stick by my take on it, that the administration is becoming more open about what it did. I'm certain that 2 weeks from now, there will be polls showing that the majority of Americans approve of the war, even if it was fought to get control of Iraq's oil, and perhaps further, that control of Iraq's oil is vital to our National Security.
Given the nature of the American media and the lack of significant opposition from the Democratic party, there is nothing short of total world domination that cannot be justified to the American public as vital to our National Security.
Kathryn Cramer |
June 5, 2003 12:14 PM
The Guardian has now pulled the story.
Kathryn Cramer |
June 5, 2003 03:21 PM
Finally the left gets to use the Bush admins "release misinfo on the front page and retract it the backroom" tactic!
Juries still out on Wolfie being calculating vs being careless with words. Regardless of his intentions though I think you are completely right on the effect Kathryn. I'm still hoping and a touch confident that at some point all these lies will hit critical mass and explode in the GOPs face. Going to take an outside source to trigger it though. Are the Dems and/or media up to the task?
William Blaze |
June 5, 2003 05:14 PM
As an Iraqi who long detested the criminal regime of Saddam Hussein I am not naive to assume that the U.S. would send her sons and daughters to shed their blood for the people of Iraq. We in the know realize in advance that there never has been a historical, cultural or religious relation between the U.S. and Iraq that were built on favorable impressions. The U.S. invaded Iraq for her own interests which include those of her dear and close ally Israel. It is unfortunate that such simpleton reasons have to be applied to such complex matters. Yet, the truth must come out. Iraq at no point in its entire modern history posed a threat of any sort to the U.S. The U.S. targeted Iraq because it stood in the way of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. They were a thorn in the side of successive American regimes. The removal of the "Arab problem" is what counts in the long run. This intransigence as far as the U.S. was concerned created problems in the flow of oil that fuels Western and significant Asian economies. Without Middle Eastern oil the U.S. and European economies would virtually collapse. It is unfortunate to see such moral decay in the U.S. that has such a great constitution and tradition of freedom that it now exists as a whore for oil and corruption. One would think that a resourceful people like the Americans would see the value of the higher good in the world which they virtually rule if they sought building bridges as opposed to arrogantly make up lies about threats that do not exist. If weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are found they would be of no consequence in the long term. The fact that such a muddled case was made has led to the virtual destruction of the UN and the country of Iraq. It is unforgiveable. We should look to our fellow human beings as brethren rather than mere outsiders to ourselves. Making enemies is easy to insecure pigots, but making friends requires morality, maturity, patience and genuine love of liberty. While the U.S. continues its war on terror rather than conduct a far ranging dialogue with all aggreived parties they are missing historical chances and becoming more hated and feared for their recklessness. Unfortunately, citizens in the U.S. do not practice their democratic right to protest in mass. This indifference will come to haunt the American people. The "I don't give a s--t" attitude is good enough for high school students who are spoiled, but does not bode well for international responsibility, the stuff of real leadership.
I have lost so many friend and relatives to a variety of conflicts involving Iraq which are the fault of Saddam and all those who sold their souls to this devil. Yet, the U.S. was not an innocent bystander. They contributed actively to this mess. These crimes included the CIA infiltration into Iraqi politics in the early 1960s by taking sides to inner country disputes to insure that oil continued to be monopolized by western oil companies to the great deteriment of the Iraqi people. The U.S. supported getting rid of one dictator and replacing him with another. That actually gave Iraq their first taste of the Ba'ath party which had a brief stint and returned in earnest in 1968. In the early 1970s Kissinger plotted with the Shah of Iran to destabilize Iraq by supplying arms to the rebellious Iraqi Kurds, the virtual dupes of history. Their continued rebellion to no end that they even can decide upon brought more misery to them as a result of American treachery. The Shah pulled his support and they became victims once again. We all know of the support given to Saddam by the Reagan/Bush administration which resulted in the WMD build up. Where was the moral outrage to that eight-year warbetween Iraq and Iran? Where was the moral outrage to the Iraqi governments crackdown for decades to any voices of dissent? The State Department continued to issue annual reports about the attrocious human rights conditions in Iraq. Yet the U.S. administration was willing to send senators and special envoys to court Saddam Hussein rather than demand that his regime treats the people of Iraq more humanly and begin the process of reform as avcondition to further talks and support. I am not naive to assume the U.S. and her people are there to do God's will in Iraq by spear heading the effort to rebuild. Everything in America is for a price and the price in Iraq would be the control of oil and eliminating long term dissent among the Iraqi people. That is precisely why the U.S. is also demanding that the new Iraqi constitution be supervised by a hand picked 32 year-old American scholar who will advise the Iraqis on how to write their constitution which would favor foreign investment and intervention. More trouble still lurks in the background and the horizon is growing dim.
Dr. Adam Ajwadi |
June 9, 2003 03:12 PM