Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

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.

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."

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Fishie, if you're gonna quote at least make sure you try to get the whole thing.

"Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- 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 problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different."

It doesn't make the guy look any better, but quotes taken out of context are a pet peeve.

BTW, link to the original quote is here

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

I linked tto one of the only English language sources that reported on this.

Thanks for the direct quote BTW, couldnt find that myself.

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

little article I found by accident to the same effect -

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6906_Another_British_Attack_on_Wolfowitz

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

LOL

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

OK, back to Reuters then: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=TKU0ET1SZOD5KCRBAEKSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=2880491

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Multiple" visits to the CIA by Vice President Cheney and a top aide over the past year created an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make assessments of Iraq data fit the administration's policy objectives, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
The report cited an unnamed senior CIA official as saying that the visits by Cheney and his chief of staff to question the analysts "sent signals, intended or otherwise that a certain output was desired from here."

The disclosure comes amid growing concern that the administration exaggerated -- either deliberately or due to faulty intelligence -- the threat posed by Iraq's weapons.

The assertion by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and had a program to develop nuclear weapons was a prime justification for the war but no such weapon has been found since President Saddam Hussein was toppled.

The Washington Post said it could not learn the exact number of visits by Cheney to the CIA but it reported that one agency official described them as "multiple."

The report cited intelligence officials as saying that visits to CIA headquarters by a vice president are unusual.

The newspaper reported that former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat not only from Cheney but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and, to a lesser extent, CIA Director George Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that invading Iraq was urgent.

The Post said a spokeswoman for Cheney declined to discuss the matter on Wednesday.

The newspaper quoted senior administration sources as saying that the visits allowed Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, to have direct exchanges with analysts rather than ask questions of their daily briefers.

The paper quoted sources, which it described as sympathetic to the vice president's approach, as saying that their goal was to have a free flow of information and not to intimidate the analysts. The sources said that some analysts may well have misinterpreted questions as directives.

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Oh boy, and those people have the guts to complain about The Guardian?

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

You know what the problem is, the democratic party is still so fucking scared of bush they will not make a ruckas out of this.

 

You can blame the wuss Tom Daschle who even though he is supposed to be the Democratic Minority Leader, he has no spine.

I often wonder if the Dems criticized Bush when this terror frenzy started, if things would be different now.

My other thought is if Bill Clinton had done the same thing as Bush, in terms of Iraq, they'd nail him to a cross on the WhiteHouse lawn.

Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney

If there's a scandal Dick Cheney can't be far behind.

 

Senator Byrd's Where is the Outrage?

Iraq's WMD Intelligence: Where is the Outrage?
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks - June 5, 2003

With each passing day, the questions surrounding Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction take on added urgency. Where are the massive stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other nerve agents that we were told Iraq was hoarding? Where are the thousands of liters of botulinim toxin? Wasn't it the looming threat to America posed by these weapons that propelled the United States into war with Iraq? Isn't this the reason American military personnel were called upon to risk their lives in combat?

On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before ordering the invasion of Iraq, President Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the United Nations months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and thus presented an imminent danger to the American people. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," the President said.

Now, nearly two months after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has yet to find any physical evidence of those lethal weapons. Could they be buried underground or are they somehow camouflaged in plain sight? Were they destroyed before the war? Have they been shipped out of the country? Do they actually exist? The questions are mounting. What started weeks ago as a restless murmur throughout Iraq has intensified into a worldwide cacophony of confusion.

The fundamental question that is nagging at many is this: How reliable were the claims of this President and key members of his Administration that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States, such a grave threat that immediate war was the only recourse?

Lawmakers, who were assured before the war that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, and many of whom voted to give this Administration a sweeping grant of authority to wage war based upon those assurances, have been placed in the uncomfortable position of wondering if they were misled. The media is ratcheting up the demand for answers: Could it be that the intelligence was wrong, or could it be that the facts were manipulated? These are very serious and grave questions, and they require immediate answers. We cannot - - and must not - - brush such questions aside. We owe the people of this country an answer. Every member of this body ought to be demanding answers.

I am encouraged that the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees are planning to investigate the credibility of the intelligence that was used to build the case for war against Iraq. We need a thorough, open, gloves-off investigation of this matter and we need it quickly. The credibility of the President and his Administration hangs in the balance. We must not trifle with the people's trust by foot-dragging.

What amazes me is that the President himself is not clamoring for an investigation. It is his integrity that is on the line. It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his leadership that has come under scrutiny. And yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity about the strange turn of events in Iraq, expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled. How is it that the President, who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern over the where-abouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Indeed, instead of leading the charge to uncover the discrepancy between what we were told before the war and what we have found - or failed to find - since the war, the White House is circling the wagons and scoffing at the notion that anyone in the Administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq.

In an interview with Polish television last week, President Bush noted that two trailers were found in Iraq that U.S. intelligence officials believe are mobile biological weapons production labs, although no trace of chemical or biological material was found in the trailers. "We found the weapons of mass destruction," the President was quoted as saying. Certainly he cannot be satisfied with such meager evidence.

At the CIA, Director George Tenet released a terse statement the other day defending the intelligence his agency provided on Iraq. "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong," he said. How can he be so absolutely sure?

At the Pentagon, Doug Feith (FITHE), the Under Secretary of Defense for policy, held a rare press conference this week to deny reports that a high level intelligence cell in the Defense Department doctored data and pressured the CIA to strengthen the case for war. "I know of no pressure. I can't rule out what other people may have perceived. Who knows what people perceive," he said. Is this Administration not at all concerned about the perception of deception?

And Secretary of State Powell, who presented the U.S. case against Iraq to the United Nations last February, strenuously defended his presentation in an interview this week and denied any erosion in the Administration's credibility. "Everybody knows that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction," he said. Should he not be more concerned than that about U.S. claims before the United Nations?

And yet...and yet...the questions continue to grow, and the doubts are beginning to drown out the assurances. For every insistence from Washington that the weapons of mass destruction case against Iraq is sound comes a counterpoint from the field - another dry hole, another dead end.

As the top Marine general in Iraq was recently quoted as saying, "It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Again, believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

Who are the American people to believe? What are we to think? Even though I opposed the war against Iraq because I believe that the doctrine of preemption is a flawed and dangerous instrument of foreign policy, I did believe that Saddam Hussein possessed some chemical and biological weapons capability. But I did not believe that he presented an imminent threat to the United States - as indeed he did not.

Such weapons may eventually turn up. But my greater fear is that the belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein to sell or disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq. Shouldn't this Administration be equally alarmed if they really believed that Saddam had such dangerous capabilities?

Saddam Hussein is missing. Osama bin Laden is missing. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are missing. And the President's mild claims that we are "on the look" do not comfort me. There ought to be an army of UN inspectors combing the countryside in Iraq or searching for evidence of disbursement of these weapons right now. Why are we waiting? Is there fear of the unknown? Or fear of the truth?

This nation and, indeed, the world were led into war with Iraq on the grounds that Iraq, possessed weapons of mass destruction, and posed an imminent threat to the United States and to the global community. As the President said in his March 17 address to the nation, "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

That fear may still be valid, but I wonder how the war with Iraq has really mitigated the threat from terrorists. As the recent attack in Saudi Arabia proved, terrorism is alive and well and unaffected by the situation in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the President seems oblivious to the controversy swirling about the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Our nation's credibility before the world is at stake. While his Administration digs in to defend the status quo, Members of Congress are questioning the credibility of the intelligence and the public case made by this Administration on which the war with Iraq was based. Members of the media are openly challenging whether America's intelligence agencies were simply wrong or were callously manipulated. Vice President Cheney's numerous visits to the CIA are being portrayed by some intelligence professionals as "pressure." And the American people are wondering, once again, what is going on in the dark shadows of Washington.

It is time that we had some answers. It is time that the Administration stepped up its acts to reassure the American people that the horrific weapons that they told us threatened the world's safety have not fallen into terrorist hands. It is time that the President leveled with the American people. It is time that we got to the bottom of this matter.

We have waged a costly war against Iraq. We have prevailed. But, we are still losing American lives in that nation. And the troubled situation there is far from settled. American troops will likely be needed there for years. Billions of American tax dollars will continue to be needed to rebuild. I only hope that we have not won the war only to lose the peace. Until we have determined the fate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or determined that they, in fact, did not exist, we cannot rest, we cannot claim victory.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a mystery and a conundrum. What are they, where are they, how dangerous are they? Or were they a manufactured excuse by an Administration eager to seize a country? It is time to answer these questions. It is time- past time - for the Administration to level with the American people, and it is time for the President to demand an accounting from his own Administration as to exactly how our nation was led down such a twisted path to war.

 

Re: Senator Byrd's Where is the Outrage?

Either way they will "find" WMD's in Iraq....if you catch my drift...

 

Maybe Bush Knows where they are?

He sure knew there were alot of them before the war.
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

 

Re: Maybe Bush Knows where they are?

Thanks for typing that out Barto, im gonna paste it on another board, hope you dont mind.

 

Re: Senator Byrd's Where is the Outrage?

[ QUOTE ]
EmX said:

Either way they will "find" WMD's in Iraq....if you catch my drift...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow if that is true.......then North Korea would go ballistic, along with most other countries, if Bush or the UN admits that the US was wrong (with proof), I am willing to bet that there would be a whole new wave of terroritst attacks on American interests................................the same EXACT thing happened in Gulf War I, and now might happen in the second.

One thing though ALWAYS SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

 

Re: Senator Byrd's Where is the Outrage?

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aY_Q5sIDfLAs&refer=top_world_news

Pentagon in 2002 Found `No Reliable' Iraq Arms Data (Update5)
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. Defense Department report in September 2002 found ``no reliable information'' proving that Iraq had chemical weapons, even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was saying the country had amassed stockpiles of the banned arms.

``There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities,'' a report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said in a summary page obtained by Bloomberg News.

The unreleased report said Iraq ``probably'' had stockpiles of banned chemicals, a more tentative conclusion than Rumsfeld was presenting in public. Iraq has ``amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas,'' he told Congress on Sept. 19.

The page from the report suggests ``substantially more uncertainty than was stated by senior administration officials,'' said Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on Iraq's military for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, who was told of the contents by Bloomberg.

The summary ``mischaracterizes'' a report that backs the administration, said Michael Anton, a White House spokesman. ``The report as a whole is fully consistent with the public case on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that has been made by the president, this administration, prior presidents, the United Nations and other governments,'' Anton said.

No banned weapons have been found in Iraq. U.S. and U.K. lawmakers are demanding to know more about the intelligence cited as a reason for invading the Middle East country in March.

Biological Weapons

The Defense Intelligence Agency's uncertainty about Iraqi weapons extended to germ warfare programs, the summary suggests. ``Iraq is assessed to possess biological agent stockpiles that may be weaponized and ready for use,'' its report said. ``The size of those stockpiles is uncertain and is subject to debate. The nature and condition of those stockpiles also are unknown.''

``The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq War, the U.S. intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security,'' said Jonathan Tucker, a senior research fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace and a former United Nations arms inspector, when informed of the summary page contents by Bloomberg.

The Defense Intelligence Agency's findings in the report, ``Iraq: Key Weapons Facilities -- An Operational Support Study,'' are similar to those of other DIA reports on Iraq's suspect weapons programs, a U.S. military intelligence official said.

Existence of the study was disclosed by U.S. News & World Report in its June 9 edition.

Blix Criticizes U.S. Data

Hans Blix, the UN chief arms inspector, criticized the U.S. and U.K. intelligence about Iraq's banned weapons after his team found nothing in following up leads at suspected sites.

``Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say,'' Blix said on British Broadcasting Corp. radio today. ``I thought: My God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?'' Blix gave the UN his final report yesterday.

Scott Ritter, an American who headed UN arms inspection teams from 1991 to 1998, said in an interview today with Switzerland's daily Le Temps that the U.S. and the U.K. should admit they lied about Iraqi weapons. Ritter said the allies haven't found evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear arms ``because it's impossible to find something that doesn't exist.''

Judgments Defended

Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials say the weapons will be found after the allies locate people from Hussein's regime who know where they're hidden. Some officials, including Rumsfeld, have said Hussein may have shipped the weapons out of Iraq or destroyed them.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said yesterday that agency director George Tenet stands by his Feb. 12 statement to Congress that ``stockpiles of things he (Hussein) has not declared and weapons he has not declared'' will be found.

U.S. defense officials on Wednesday defended pre-war judgments, including those in the September 2002 report, as consistent with statements by officials in the administration of President George W. Bush's predecessor, President Bill Clinton.

``It's pretty clear that the intelligence judgments concerning Iraq weapons of mass destruction did not undergo a major change between the Clinton and Bush administrations,'' Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith told reporters at a Pentagon press conference in Arlington, Virginia.

CIA Review

The CIA is reviewing pre-war assessments to determine whether it overstated the Iraqi threat in response to Pentagon ``hawks'' who favored war, the New York Times reported Wednesday. The Washington Post said yesterday some CIA analysts felt pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and his top aide, Lewis Libby. Cheney's office declined to comment, the Post said.

In the U.K., Prime Minister Tony Blair is under pressure to produce evidence underpinning his assertions that Iraq possessed weapons that justified going to war. Blair said yesterday that he would produce ``all'' that evidence and he repeated denials that he embellished it.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Feb. 5 gave the United Nations transcripts of intercepted telephone and radio communications, satellite photographs and statements from Iraqi defectors that he said proved Iraq had an active program of banned- weapons production. The war began six weeks later.

The Pentagon's 2002 report said ``although we lack any direct information, Iraq probably possesses chemical munitions, possibly including artillery shells, aerial bombs and ballistic missile warheads.'' Iraq retained all chemicals and equipment to make ``blister agent mustard,'' the report said.

Iraq's ability to make nerve agents such as VX ``is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and during subsequent UN inspections,'' the Pentagon report said.

Last Updated: June 6, 2003 12:37 EDT

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Fishie, you better hope the U.S. goverment doesn't send some special force to seize my VF because of the topic on this thread!! If they do, I'll hunt those bastards down and body checking them to the moon and after I'm done with them I coming after you snappy boy. /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif

P.S. What's your address just in case I need it, thanks. /versus/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

Re: Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

The white house /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Re: War on terror futile?

I've thought long and hard about the "War on Terror", and I've come to the conclusion it simply can't be won. In fact, its likely to do more harm than good.
I mean does the Bush Administration really think it can eliminate all terrorists just by dropping bombs? For every terrorist killed this way, there will always be more to take his/her place through ever growing hatred towards America and its allies.

Let's forget about Iraq for a moment and go back to Afghanistan. What were the real results of that conflict? Alright, the Taliban regime was removed, but then again, was the threat they posed all that great?
Al Quaida (sp?) still exists however, maybe weaker than before, maybe stronger, no-one knows because they've been forced further underground.
Its also reasonable to assume more people would want to join a terrorist network such as Al Quaida due to innocent lives being lost through conflict, the damge done by bombs, etc.
What's worse is that it seems as though America and her allies don't care anymore, 'its done and dusted' so to speak.

Now to Iraq, what were the results of this conflict? Saddam was removed which is great and everything, but at what cost? Again it has to be asked what real threat did he pose? Also, does he pose more of a threat now than before? Undoubtedly, Saddam will want revenge against America.
The land is in serious need of reparation, which America has admirably taken the responsibility upon themselves, but no Iraqi wants them to be there. This conflict, much like Afghanistan is not yet over. Victory is still way, way off in the distance, if indeed it is attainable at all.

One thing is for certain though, there are dark days ahead for everyone.

 

Re: Maybe Bush Knows where they are?

No prob fishie I just cut and paste it from somewhere else, but I think its interesting the progession of WMD talk in his comments as he got closer to war.

As for this whole War on Terror thing, when your fighting an enemy that is willing to die to kill you, you will always lose. I think the War on Terror will go the way of the War on Drugs, or War on Poverty and it will just be another campaign issue.