Back to main menu :: [Prev] we hate to say we told you so, but... [Next]

...of course it was about the oil.

Wolfowitz, again: 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."

Does Paul Wolfowitz make these appalling statements because he doesn't know his mic is on, or is he just so stunningly arrogant that he thinks the rest of the world won't care?

Nevermind. I already know.

Replies: 8 Confessions

Sister -

I do believe that Wolfowitz was misquoted, or more accurately, mistranslated. I've also seen this translation...

"Look, the primarily (sic) 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...."

This comes via CalPundit. http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001421.html.

I'm no fan of Wolfowitz, but I'm a huge fan of truth and accuracy.

Um, amen, god bless, ciao.
Ms. Haplopia

ms. haplopia @ 06/05/2003 02:48 AM CST


Hmmm...it seems he did not say what it looked like he said.

Not that what he actually said makes any sense at all, but I apologize for linking to inaccuracy.

It is still about the oil, however.

amyc @ 06/05/2003 09:12 AM CST


the direct quote basically still sez iraq has a resource we want, n. korea has jack shit we want, so we went for iraq.

that makes the invasion and current occupation of iraq just or moral how?

shechemist @ 06/05/2003 09:23 AM CST


I think the quote said that we had leverage with North Korea that we don't with Iraq because Iraq can buy international influence with its oil (as it did with France and Russia) while North Korea has run out of things to sell that are worth anything, if it ever had any. Thus we could try tob uy off North Korea, the way the Clinton administration did, before resorting to blowing them up. Also, of course, North Korea has REAL nuclear weapons while Iraq's weapons exist only in the imagination of the imaginer (not part of the quote but still).
I heard an interesting piece on Fresh Air yesterday suggesting that all the oil income Iraq can possibly produce won't be enough even to pay for rebuilding the stuff we blew up, so the notion that Iraq will be a big economic windfall is maybe not well supported by the evidence.
I'm just sayin'.

elavil @ 06/05/2003 09:39 AM CST


If that's the case, then obviously we need to start drilling in ANWR to help the poor poor Iraqis out.

jima @ 06/05/2003 11:24 AM CST


Yes! Absolutely! Tell yr Congressman! It's for Freedom! For the Iraqi people! Oh, and give the contract to Haliburton, no bids required.
In the meantime, John Ashcroft is at this very moment asking Congress to expand the Justice Dept's powers under the Patriot Act. Perhaps this will inspire Congress to take a closer look at said Act and the goings-on in the Hall of Justice.
Bam bam bam.

elavil @ 06/05/2003 12:16 PM CST


"I think the quote said that we had leverage with North Korea that we don't with Iraq because Iraq can buy international influence with its oil (as it did with France and Russia) while North Korea has run out of things to sell that are worth anything, if it ever had any."

Considering that any money Iraq made off of oil sales went right into the UN Account this doesn't hold much water.

Of course, regardless, it all comes down to the same thing--"We want their oil." The Guardian story might have gotten the quote wrong but the meaning was very clear.

Coalition of the Witty @ 06/05/2003 12:31 PM CST


The other day at CalPundit.com he posted about a random survey of conservative blogs v. liberal blogs. His casual survey pointed to the conclusion that the majority of liberal blogs allow readers to post while the conservative blogs do not. That's a huge generalization, but I found it to be very interesting.

It is interesting to note that all your comments thus far were thoughtful and rational. I am pretty sure that I would have been called names had I posted something that questioned the accuracy of a conservative blog. Or I might have received my favorite conservative comment "well I don't care if it is not true...I'm glad that we bombed them...". One place that they do allow commenting is Little Green Footballs. LGF is actually a really good case for not allowing commenting. Truth is irrelevant there. Emotion is king.

While I don’t imagine that Wolfowitz will ever admit that it is about the oil I can say with a good deal of certainty that it is very much about the oil. I don’t think that we will actually high jack the oil and sell it on the open market. I think that the US will make a great deal of money “rebuilding” the oil industry in Iraq. I work for a company that is a first tier supplier to all the major oil companies and a second tier supplier to all the major engineering and construction firms (Bechtel, Fluor Daniel, Brown & Root, etc.). Before we even invaded Iraq our sales managers were calling us asking how much we anticipated our bookings would go up as a result of the war. I thought the sales managers were nuts until one of my friends was recruited to work in Iraq for Brown & Root (owned by Halliburten now) before the war was even over.

Isn't that strange? Brown & Root already had a contract to hire engineers before the war was even over. Hmmmm.

ms. haplopia @ 06/06/2003 10:03 AM CST


Add A New Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (required)

Homepage (optional)

Remember personal info?

Comments