The Old New York, New York Forum - and you thought Iraq was dangerous...

and you thought Iraq was dangerous...

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/06/03/offbeat.diy.missile.ap/index.html

FullNameRequired
Tuesday, June 3, 2003

What makes you think I thought Iraq was dangerous?

www.MarkTAW.com
Tuesday, June 3, 2003

Whoops, there I go again. Forget I said that. =)

www.MarkTAW.com
Tuesday, June 3, 2003

Uh oh. Now that I come from a terrorist country will the government come knocking on my door?

Never underestimate the damage a NZer can do with a grudge and a few bales of no. 8 wire.

Kevin
Thursday, June 5, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

This article seems to have disappeared.

Wolfowitz: "Iraq War Was About Oil"
By George Wright
The Guardian
Wednesday 04 June 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.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, June 5, 2003

Someone sent me this link via e-mail:

http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2971

debunking that earlier post... I knew that sentance seemed a little strange.

Anyway, I'll shut up now since I'm the only one posting to this thread.

www.MarkTAW.com
Thursday, June 5, 2003

They printed a retraction:

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

www.MarkTAW.com
Saturday, June 7, 2003