|
|
 |
US ADMITS IRAQ WAR WAS ALL ABOUT OIL
FINAL PROOF: OIL WAS THE REASON FOR WAR ON IRAQ
The U.S. government has finally admitted the truth. The true reason for the war on Iraq was not weapons of mass destruction, as we were all told at the time. The U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, who is a senior member of the Project for the New American century, announced at a security summit at the weekend that the key motive for the conquest of Iraq was because the country "swims on a sea of oil."
It is a matter of serious concern that the newspapers which reported this matter were compelled to withdraw their articles. The quote its self is accurate so people can make up their own minds exactly what the U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary meant by this:
"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."
- Paul Wolfowitz, 31 May 2003.
Now that the war is over the oil in Iraq, which belongs to the Iraqi people is being sold by the U.S. and the U.K. The people who benefit most from the war are the elite politicians who started the war, and the world's richest business men with whom they associate. You were lied to about the reason for this war, and you paid for it with your taxes.
The time has come for the people of the world to stand up for peace and justice. Please circulate this information as widely as possible. Thank you.
SOURCES:
News 24, "Update: Iraq war 'was about oil'", 5 June 2003.
[ http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1369424,00.html ]
Full text:
Although The Guardian earlier reported that US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz had said that the Iraq war was all about oil, the newspaper has now removed the article from its web site, and will print a full correction in Friday's edition. According to the Guardian's ombudsman, the quote, "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," was taken out of context, and misconstrued.
Below is a copy of the original story as it appeared on News24:
Cape Town - 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 Guardian reports that 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 on Wednesday 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.
The Guardian says that 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.
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, Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.
The Guardian (UK), "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil", 4 June 2003.
[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html ]
[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4683693,00.html ]
Full text (in case of censorship):
Iraq war was about oil:
US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz
George Wright
Guardian Newspaper (UK),
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
Guardian Newspaper (UK), 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.
FURTHER READING:
BBC News (UK), "Analysis: Is Wolfowitz waiting for war?", 3 December 2002.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2539443.stm ]
But in the vision endorsed by Mr Wolfowitz, a transformed Iraq would ...
help secure oil supplies and reduce the threat to Israel.
The Insider - New World Order
[ http://www.theinsider.org ]
The Debate - Iraq War Motives
[ http://www.thedebate.org ]
UPDATE: NEWSPAPER ASKED TO WITHDRAW ARTICLE
The Guardian newspaper published this article on its website early this morning, which we immediately distributed to our mailing list, but the newspaper removed the article shortly after 1400 GMT. The article has also been removed from the websites of the two German newspapers that originally reported it yesterday. The Guardian's official explanation to "The Insider" was is follows. Notice that the quote hasn't changed, just the way in which we are now expected to interpret it. So much for freedom of the press.
----- FORWARDED MESSAGE -----
From: Mabel.Msonthi@guardian.co.uk
Sent: 05 June 2003 15:57
To: The Insider
Subject: Re: Guardian Unlimited - Withdrawn Article
This it the text of a correction that will appear in The Guardian on June 6
A report which was posted on our website on June 4th 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, "The most important difference betwen North Korea and Iraq is
that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea
of oil."
The sense was 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.
Thank you for your interest in the Guardian range of websites.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Regards.
Guardian Unlimited
User Support
3-7 Ray Street
London EC1R 3DJ
www.guardian.co.uk
UPDATE: NEWSPAPER PUBLISHES APOLOGY:
The Guardian, "Corrections and clarifications", 6 June 2003.
[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html ]
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.
It is the policy of the Guardian to correct significant errors as soon as possible. Please quote the date and page number. Readers may contact the office of the readers' editor by telephoning 0845 451 9589 between 11am and 5pm Monday to Friday (all calls are charged at local rate). Mail to Readers' editor, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. Fax 020-7239 9997. Email: reader@guardian.co.uk
"The Insider" mailing list article, 05 June 2003.
|
