Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

[zakur]

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,970334,00.html)

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."Why is Wolfowitz's coming forward with all these statements all of the sudden?

[aerocontrols]

Yes, Guardian, yay.

The reason we believe the North Korean regime can be combatted economically is because it's on the brink of economic collapse already, while Iraq could not be combatted economically because it had enough oil to support its police state indefinitely. Note that our economic effort to end North Korea's tyrant regime and nuke-building primarily consists of cutting off their flow of oil. For obvious reasons, that wouldn't work in Iraq.

That hardly translates into oil-as-motive, despite the Guardian's distortions.

Here (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6) is a media source that gets the quote correct:

"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.

Here's the transcript (http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html)

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 looks to me like the Guardian is relying on a twice-translated version or something.

MattJ

[Gem]

If this was even more quoted out of context, they'd have quoted somebody else instead of Wolfowitz.

Gem

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Yes, Guardian, yay.

The reason we believe the North Korean regime can be combatted economically is because it's on the brink of economic collapse already, while Iraq could not be combatted economically because it had enough oil to support its police state indefinitely. Note that our economic effort to end North Korea's tyrant regime and nuke-building primarily consists of cutting off their flow of oil. For obvious reasons, that wouldn't work in Iraq.

That hardly translates into oil-as-motive, despite the Guardian's distortions.

Here (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6) is a media source that gets the quote correct:



Here's the transcript (http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html)



It looks to me like the Guardian is relying on a twice-translated version or something.

MattJ

Good call.

[zakur]

Originally posted by Gem
If this was even more quoted out of context, they'd have quoted somebody else instead of Wolfowitz.:D

[aerocontrols]

Let's see how Babelfish does:

English:

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.

Translate to German:

Schauen Sie, der hauptsächlich Unterschied -- ihn zu einfach setzen wenig -- zwischen Nordkorea und der Irak ist, daß wir praktisch keine ökonomischen Wahlen mit dem Irak hatten, weil das Land auf ein Meer des Öls schwimmt. Im Fall Nordkoreas, schaukelt das Land auf dem Rand des ökonomischen Einsturzes und der, den ich glaube, ist ein wichtigster Punkt von Hebelkraft, während die militärische Abbildung mit Nordkorea zu der mit dem Irak sehr unterschiedlich ist. Die Probleme in beiden Fällen lassen etwas Ähnlichkeiten aber die Lösungen zu den Umständen hergestellt werden müssen, die sehr unterschiedlich sind.

and back to English:

Look, which is mainly difference -- too simply few set it -- between North Korea and the Iraq that we had practically no economic elections with the Iraq, because the country swims on a sea of the oil. In the case of North Korea, the country on the edge of the economic collapse and that, which I believe, swings is a most important point of lever strength, while the military illustration with North Korea is very different to with the Iraq. The problems in both cases let have to be manufactured something similarities however the solutions to the circumstances, which are very different.

Heh... no elections in Iraq. Very revealing...

It did change 'floats' to 'swims' just like Guardian.

Plus we have to 'manufacture' stuff...

Sounds to me like, compared to Babelfish, the Guardian was being generous. :D

[corplinx]

Sounds like Maureen Down should work for the Guardian.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Yes, Guardian, yay.

The reason we believe the North Korean regime can be combatted economically is because it's on the brink of economic collapse already, while Iraq could not be combatted economically because it had enough oil to support its police state indefinitely. Note that our economic effort to end North Korea's tyrant regime and nuke-building primarily consists of cutting off their flow of oil. For obvious reasons, that wouldn't work in Iraq.

That hardly translates into oil-as-motive, despite the Guardian's distortions.

Here (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6) is a media source that gets the quote correct:



Here's the transcript (http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html)



It looks to me like the Guardian is relying on a twice-translated version or something.

MattJ

Interesting, as this recalls the endless praise of Reagan for defeating the USSR, Wolfowitz was also an influential figure back then as well. They also were close to economic collapse, and underwent an internal, peaceful revolution. Why the massive arms build up then? The intelligence networks would have known better than anyone the state of affairs in the USSR, but we were told that a massive arms build up was imperative.

[zakur]

This story is a perfect candidate for the The media is biased? Prove it in real time! (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18193) thread. I have made mention of it there, and thanks to aerocontrols for his enlightenment.

[KingRat]

guardian.co.uk corrections and clarifications (http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html)

[Baker]

Originally posted by KingRat
guardian.co.uk corrections and clarifications (http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html)

Is that their standard operation presager just repeat a magazine story without further investigating?
When all they had to do was go to the Department of Defence website to get the complete transcript

[KingRat]

The Guardian explains itself (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,972482,00.html)

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.