Skip to content or view screen version

Guardian: Wolfowitz says it WAS about oil

The Crimson Repat | 04.06.2003 17:47

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.

The Crimson Repat

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Boy scouts and poodles

04.06.2003 18:18

It must be terrible for a sanctimonious, hymn-singing boy scout like Blair. All this chutzpah from Rummie and Wolfie is making him look like a LIAR! Can he live it down? Will he stay in office?

The Crimson Repat


This is war crimes

04.06.2003 20:40

Lets hope this news will be on every newspaper all over the world tomorrow!

Anne


spooky

04.06.2003 21:19

Its getting quite scary now that Wolfowitz is being so honest, it really makes no sense why he's saying this... why is he telling the truth??? They could have gotten away with it claiming that the intelligence just turned out to be slightly dodgy, whys he saying this??? Hes really wierd this guy, check out what he said about something like 'This is total war... all this talk of Afghanistan first, Iraq next, this is all wrong... we shouldn't bother trying to construct clever diplomacy, we should just put forth our vision of the world and just wage war, and our children will sing great songs about us in years to come'. Its quite worrying that he's being so honest. The only claim the right can still make now is that yes, this is about oil, but its because America is for freedom and democracy and we need to ensure this control to expand this under American leadership, stuff like that. I'm open to persuasion from these people but their arguments just keep on falling to pieces, with (oddly) a little help from ol Wolfy.

daf


GRAUNIAD LIES? OR GRAUNIAD INCOMPETENCE?

05.06.2003 02:03

It's a misquote. What he actually said was SANCTIONS would not force Saddam to disarm because the Iraqis were able to use their oil stocks to circumvent the them. Like the last "honest" Wolfowitz quote in the Al-Grauniad Al-Arabi, it's a staggering piece of journalistic incompetence or deliberate deception.

Grauniad invented quote: "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."

This was further manipulated by changing the context of the statement to such a degree it seems like a vindication for the "war for oil" theories. In fact, Wolfowitz is arguing that the US had no other options, and was unable to exert sufficient economic pressure on Saddam:

The actual quote (logged DAYS AND DAYS before the Guardian mis-quote): "Look, the primary 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."

 http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html

So there you have it. The Grauniad are a bunch of liars or they're just plain shit. I'm going for the latter.

Wolfoshitz


Free only when it's okey with USA values

05.06.2003 12:56

Where did this story go today thursdag? I can not find it on guardian anymore?!! Does anyone know more why it is no longer there or have the article just been hidden?

Lesely


The truth hurts...

05.06.2003 12:59

Where did this story go on the guardian?

Jack


Not that I like defending Wolfowitz but...

05.06.2003 13:15

Wolfoshitz is right that it`s a misquote,and that he was really talking about breaking U.S. enemies economies(which is still pretty fucking evil).The war in Iraq was still about oil though.

Wolfowitz is a shit


Can not find it anymore....

05.06.2003 13:23

It seems as if this story have been deleted from the guardian. Anyone knows why?

Let me be


Jamie - try and see things more holistically

05.06.2003 17:08

The problem with your targeted killings argument is that it suggests that without a fair and open trail - you still claim you know the people that Israel assassinate are defiantly terrorists. Why? – because the state of Israel tells you they are. Additionally to this the Israeli military often kill and injure other people who just happen to be in the area when the Israeli aircraft fire missiles at the people they are targeting - a missile is not a 'targeted' weapon when you fire it into a busy street. These people are innocent so they have been murdered as they are killed unlawfully and this turns the attackers (in this case Israeli military personnel) into terrorists. Stop trying to defend the Indefensible.

Haidar


Can not find it anymore.... -> this is why

05.06.2003 22:57

The Guardian admitted they invented the story.

Thursday June 5, 2003

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.

'misconstrued' - bwahhah... good one!

UGHUGH
- Homepage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html