• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Wolfowitz: "we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Zrom999 Here my list for possible reasons for war with Iraq: 1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself. 2) Unfinished business. 3) *Oil.* (Thanks for admitting it wolfo) 4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden. 5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed. 6) To diminish European influence in the region. 7) The military was already there. 8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base. 9) Re-election. 10)Pure envy. I should add: 11)N. Korea would have whipped the US's ass.
#11 I bet you thought that the Iraqi war would be another vietnam as well didn't you? Wolfowitz mean't that they were swimming in oil and thus could use this as leverage to propogate an agenda that includes propagating terrorism and hatred of the west... Jeebus, the Guardian is getting to be almost as bad as al jazeera
Apparantly your comprehension level is as low as that Guardian reporter ;)
Wolfowitz was responding to a specific question about why sanctions were being used against N.Korea but abandoned against Iraq and mean't simply that the difference was that N.Korea is poor as hell and can be starved out easily, whereas Iraq is sitting on top of liquid gold, and even with sanctions in place was able to smuggle out enough to maintain its regime.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Zrom999 Here my list for possible reasons for war with Iraq: 1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself. 2) Unfinished business. 3) *Oil.* (Thanks for admitting it wolfo) 4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden. 5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed. 6) To diminish European influence in the region. 7) The military was already there. 8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base. 9) Re-election. 10)Pure envy. I should add: 11)N. Korea would have whipped the US's ass.
#11 I bet you thought that the Iraqi war would be another vietnam as well didn't you? Wolfowitz mean't that they were swimming in oil and thus could use this as leverage to propogate an agenda that includes propagating terrorism and hatred of the west... Jeebus, the Guardian is getting to be almost as bad as al jazeera
Apparantly your comprehension level is as low as that Guardian reporter ;)
Wolfowitz was responding to a specific question about why sanctions were being used against N.Korea but abandoned against Iraq and mean't simply that the difference was that N.Korea is poor as hell and can be starved out easily, whereas Iraq is sitting on top of liquid gold, and even with sanctions in place was able to smuggle out enough to maintain its regime.
Isn't that what I said?
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
#11 I bet you thought that the Iraqi war would be another vietnam as well didn't you? Wolfowitz mean't that they were swimming in oil and thus could use this as leverage to propogate an agenda that includes propagating terrorism and hatred of the west... Jeebus, the Guardian is getting to be almost as bad as al jazeera
Apparantly your comprehension level is as low as that Guardian reporter ;) Wolfowitz was responding to a specific question about why sanctions were being used against N.Korea but abandoned against Iraq and mean't simply that the difference was that N.Korea is poor as hell and can be starved out easily, whereas Iraq is sitting on top of liquid gold, and even with sanctions in place was able to smuggle out enough to maintain its regime.[/quote] Isn't that what I said?
[/quote]

No, you said that "they were swimming in oil and thus could use this as leverage to propogate an agenda that includes propagating terrorism and hatred of the west" ;)
Ok, perhaps it would have been fairer to say that your post showed as much spin to propagate your agenda as the Guardian article did. ;)
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: dpm
Originally posted by: Nitemare
#11 I bet you thought that the Iraqi war would be another vietnam as well didn't you? Wolfowitz mean't that they were swimming in oil and thus could use this as leverage to propogate an agenda that includes propagating terrorism and hatred of the west... Jeebus, the Guardian is getting to be almost as bad as al jazeera
Apparantly your comprehension level is as low as that Guardian reporter ;) Wolfowitz was responding to a specific question about why sanctions were being used against N.Korea but abandoned against Iraq and mean't simply that the difference was that N.Korea is poor as hell and can be starved out easily, whereas Iraq is sitting on top of liquid gold, and even with sanctions in place was able to smuggle out enough to maintain its regime.
Isn't that what I said?
[/quote]

No, you said that "they were swimming in oil and thus could use this as leverage to propogate an agenda that includes propagating terrorism and hatred of the west" ;)
Ok, perhaps it would have been fairer to say that your post showed as much spin to propagate your agenda as the Guardian article did. ;)[/quote]

fair enough...I'm as pro-American as the Guardian is anti-American. I can live with that

 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
[fair enough...I'm as pro-American as the Guardian is anti-American. I can live with that
fair enough. I don't doubt that you are pro-American, and I certainly don't think that there's anything wrong with that. I merely did not agree with the cast you put on wolfowitz's quote. To paraphrase, while he said "they've got oil so they can buy stuff even though we try to starve them out" you put it as "they've got oil so they can BUY BABY EATING MACHINES AND SATAN WORSHIPPING ROBOTS AND AND AND HITLER CLONES AND EVIL EVIL ANTHRAX MEN even though we try to starve them out.".

(by the way - exaggerate,... me? ;) )
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
From today's NY Times

PREWAR INTELLIGENCE
Aide Denies Shaping Data to Justify War
By ERIC SCHMITT


WASHINGTON, June 4 ? The Pentagon's top policy adviser held an unusual briefing today to rebut accusations that senior civilian policy makers had politicized intelligence to fit their hawkish views on Iraq and to justify war on Saddam Hussein.

The official, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, acknowledged that he created a small intelligence team inside his office shortly after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, to search for terrorist links with Iraq and other countries that he suggested the nation's spy agencies may have overlooked.

Intelligence analysts elsewhere in the government have complained that the Pentagon team provided an alternative hard-line view of intelligence related to Iraq that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld used in meetings with President Bush and other top national security aides.

"This suggestion that we said to them, `This is what we're looking for. Go find it,' is precisely the inaccuracy that we are here to rebut," Mr. Feith told reporters. "I know of nobody who pressured anybody."

Mr. Feith declined to comment on a growing chorus of criticism that American intelligence miscalculated the threat of Iraq's weapons programs or that policy makers exaggerated the threat. Eight weeks after the Iraq war ended, American forces have yet to find any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

"The process of gathering information about the Iraqi programs is under way," Mr. Feith said, referring to a new, enlarged military search team that began arriving in Iraq this week. "I'm not going to come in and pre-empt the careful work that's being done."

The administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq is growing into a significant political issue. Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, have in recent days all defended the intelligence used by the administration to justify the attack against Iraq. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair has done the same, and today rebutted criticism from lawmakers who were pressing for an independent inquiry into British intelligence on Iraq.

After Mr. Feith's nearly hourlong briefing, some defense officials familiar with classified intelligence assessments on Iraq, its ties to terrorists and what the govern ment charged were its weapons of mass destruction programs, said they were baffled or angered by his remarks.

One senior official, who said he was skeptical of Mr. Feith's account, was too angry to answer immediately. Another official said simply, "There was a lot of doublespeak out there."

Mr. Feith rarely gives on-the-record interviews or press briefings, but he said he acted on his own ? not on orders from Mr. Rumsfeld or the White House ? to rebut several published reports about the intelligence team he set up and its relation to the Office of Special Plans, an 18-member unit responsible for planning the Defense Department's Iraq policy.

Mr. Rumsfeld has expressed confidence that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons will eventually be uncovered, but in recent days he has suggested some of the stockpiles might have been destroyed before the war or that Iraq might have concealed its production equipment in commercial factories to be used when needed.

The C.I.A. is now preparing for Congress the information its analysts used to draw their conclusions that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons, and was actively pursuing development of nuclear arms. House and Senate committees are also readying their own reviews of prewar intelligence.

Mr. Feith said he established an intelligence team of two to six people after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to examine terrorist connections around the world, not solely with Iraq.

Its specialty was to use powerful computers and new software to scan and sort documents and reports from the C.I. A., the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies, defense officials said.

"Its job was to review this intelligence to help digest it for me and other policy makers, to help us develop Defense Department strategy for the war on terrorism," Mr. Feith said.

But other defense officials said the team's task quickly turned to gleaning details that may have collectively pointed to Iraq's wider connections to terrorism.

Among the team's most prominent findings were suspected linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a conclusion doubted by the C.I.A. and D.I.A. Mr. Rumsfeld found the report important enough to ask Mr. Feith to present it to Mr. Tenet, which Mr. Feith said he did last August.

Mr. Feith denied that the creation of the intelligence team reflected frustration on the part of senior Defense Department officials.

"I don't know why it should surprise anybody that any given group of people looking at a mass of material might come up with a few interesting insights that other people didn't come up with," Mr. Feith said.

He said the planning office, led by the neo-conservative scholar Abram N. Shulsky, was created last October to handle the growing duties of preparing for a possible war with Iraq.

Mr. Feith said the intelligence team and policy planning office were separate entities with different responsibilities. He said the intelligence team was disbanded last August and the planning office was established two months later. Mr. Feith also denied that the planning office was a conduit for intelligence reports from the Iraqi National Congress to the White House.

But other defense officials gave a different interpretation today. These officials said the intelligence team was still active at least through last fall, and its assessments carried weight with the Special Plans office.

In interviews late last October, Mr. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, described the intelligence team as still active. A senior defense official said today he could not explain the discrepancy, adding that the intelligence team was a "very minor thing on their radar screens."

Mr. Feith also disputed the notion that the intelligence team "developed the case on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," saying it focused on terrorist networks. But moments later, Mr. Feith said one of the seminal lessons from the Sept. 11 attacks was the connection between terrorist networks and their desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Asked why his internal intelligence team would therefore not look at the weapons programs of Iraq and other countries, Mr. Feith conceded, "Yes, I imagine that they looked at W.M.D. along with other stuff."
Anyone who cannot recognize the mouthful of administration lies above living in a fantasy world.

Wake up people. This is way bigger than someone getting a BJ in the office behind the oval office.

Maybe Congress should appoint a special prosecutor to spend $60 million or so investigating Bush and Co.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
fair enough...I'm as pro-American as the Guardian is anti-American. I can live with that
more conservative bs. showing bush and his administration in a negative light is somehow anti-american.
if you use your head and read the guardians other articles about real americans and you'd see differently.


 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
dont worry you people that kept saying that this war had nothing to do with oil, i wont rub your ignorance in.
Don't worry you smug know-it-alls, we won't rub your nose in the fact that you were wrong about this quote.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Just to keep people up to date. The Guardian has posted a retraction and admitted that they misrepresented Wolfowitz's statement. INSTAPUNDIT.COM has the whole rundown.

At least give the Guardian a point for coming clean.

 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Maybe the media is just trying to balance out the misrepresentations that were portrayed for the last administration. People still tell me that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,626
3
81
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: Orsorum
This was a fairly straightfoward quotation from Wolfowitz, and I would advise all of you to educate yourselves as to the true nature of his remarks.



We did. Did you miss the first page?
No, I didn't miss the first page, and, no, most of the posters in this thread do not seem to understand the fact that that was not the point of Wolfowitzs' comment.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
OK, this may be beating a dead horse, but this is too good not to quote:

From the Guardian

On Wednesday, journalists on the Guardian's website were alerted to a story running in the German press, in which the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was said to have admitted, in effect, that oil was the main reason for the war in Iraq. The German sources were found, translated, and at 4.30pm that day a story sourced to them was posted on the website under the heading, "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil".
Mr Wolfowitz, in fact, had said nothing of the kind, as a deluge of email, most of it from the US, was quick to point out. Some of it registered disappointment more than anything else - disappointment that a valued source of news and liberal comment had in this instance let them down. "The briefest of searches will bring up articles to totally discredit your story," one complained.



The article concludes:

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."

That has not satisfied all the paper's critics. There is no total satisfaction in these situations. The story should not have run. In view of the significance of the statements attributed to Mr Wolfowitz, rigorous checking should have taken place. The hazard of translating remarks from German back into the English in which they were originally made should have been apparent.

It concluded a week in which the Guardian apologised to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, for locating him at a meeting he did not attend. It has not been the best of weeks.




 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
211
106
Originally posted by: Zrom999
Here my list for possible reasons for war with Iraq:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) *Oil.* (Thanks for admitting it wolfo)
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

I should add:

11)N. Korea would have whipped the US's ass.
12). He tried to kill my dad.


Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad'

I think I would have more respect for this administration if they have been more forthcoming in their reasons for going to war. I mean the reasons changed daily as they float more balloons.
At least the oil reason made sense.
Operation Iraq Liberation aka O.I.L.
 

Tal

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2001
1,832
0
0
Ok. Great sig line if you want to take quotes out of context. Someone else just posted that this was retracted right?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS