He never said the war is about oil. He said oil is a big difference between Iraq and North Korea. "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."
Aah, I see. He never said that the war was about oil. He said that the reason we treat North Korea and Iraq differently (in other words, the reason we negotiate with North Korea and go to war with Iraq) is because Iraq "swims on a sea of oil". Nice try, Mr. Clutch.
So does that mean the war was "for" oil? Does that mean the US wants the oil? I'd like to see the real question Wolfowitz was posed, not the Guardian's paraphrasing.
That may be true. But that's different than saying that the US is trying to acquire more oil. Of course, if Iraq had no oil, they probably couldn't afford any WMD's...
There are more brutal dictators in Africa than Saddam Hussein, and they have killed more people in the past 5 years than Saddam did in 20 years. Why aren't we going after them?
WMD's, spreading democracy in the Middle East, terrorist threats from the Middle East, our need to have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's role as a threat to Israel. I could go on.
Exactly...we could play spin-the-bottle for notorious Despots all day. ESPECIALY if our government wants to push regieme change based on human rights and suffering--ask "Pappa Doc Duvalier"
President Wolfowitz better return to his circumspect ways. He's spilling too much oil...er, the beans? If you want some really interesting information, pick up a copy of Gore Vidal's "Dreaming of Oil." It's $7 I think. Or just read it at Barnes & Noble. Then start putting Wolfowitz's comments in larger context, i.e., the fact that the administration had plenty of forewarning about 9/11....and let it slide. How we launched no intercept aircraft on 9/11 until 1.5 hrs after the initial attack, despite SOP stating aircraft must be launched immediately when an airliner deviates from its flight plan. And, as Gore Vidal stated on television recently (C-Span of course; few networks will go near anyone not kissing this administration's ass, "We can't say 'conspiracy'. We can't use that word. It isn't a 'conspiracy' that Bush, Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice are all oil people.....It's a coincidence."
Looks like Treeman, johnheath, DaDakota, and Trader_Jorge have once again, decided to ignore information that destroys every argument they have presented about the war not being about oil. Thanks for at least discussing the issue Mr. Clutch.
Heath, Jorge etc. are awaiting the thoughts of the National Review Online before they give it a response. Besides he didn't say it wasn't at least partially about wmd. Besides it is hard to admit that there is no Santa Claus and the US is not always pure and noble. Besides Clinton lied under oath and about sex and the statements of Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld and Bush etc. were not under oath or about sex. Besides the Guardian is not a conservative paper. Besides Bush wanted to do it. Beside Sharon wanted to do it. Besides this didn't mean that Iraq had no contacts with Al Qaeda and or plans to make wmd or was a democracy. Beside Iraq violated the UN sanctions and the UN should always be followed. (Oh well strike that.) Besides they are still in favor of it.
