Daily Kos
Political analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation

Wednesday | June 04, 2003

War was about oil -- Wolfowitz

If confirmed, this will be explosive:

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 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."

Shit. Assumming the report is accurate, Wolfy has undercut the "pretend" reason for war (WMDs) and admitted the real reason (oil), all in a single week.

2-1 Wolfowitz is gone by the end of the month.

Update: The full quote is as follows:

The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse. 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.

Supposedly, the Guardian took this quote out of context by taking out the first paragraph.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Iraq had suffered through more than a decade of dehabilitation international sanctions. True, some oil was smuggled out, but that money went to pay for Saddam's palaces and army. The same is true in North Korea -- Kim Jung Il is known as a free-spending playboy that loves to live the good life. He pays for it by exporting missile technologies.

Iraq could've rested on a sea of diamonds for all the good it would've done it.

You have two dangerous regimes (assuming, for the moment, that Saddam was "dangerous"). Both face crippling international sanctions. Why focus on the one that denies having WMDs, and not the other that admits to having nuclear missiles capable of striking the US mainland?

Hint: it's that "sea of oil" thing.

Posted June 04, 2003 09:36 AM | Comments (242)


Bush Administration
Business and Economy
Foreign Policy

© 2002. Steal all you want.
(For non-commercial use, that is.)