| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2003/6/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28644 Activity:very high |
6/5 Does anyone have a copy of the Guardian article saying that Wolfowitz
said that Iraq was about oil? They removed the article and apologized.
\_ Try google's cached pages.
\_ Does google cache news? I can't figure it out. I did find:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0604-10.htm
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7345&TagID=2
\_ Except it's not what he said, troll.
\_ Dude, read the page. The explanation of the retraction is on
the right hand side (of the commondreams link, anyway)
\_ Read it. Not impressed. It's the Guardian for God's sake.
\_ http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2971
\_ Here is the retraction:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html
\_ some more thorough quotes from the wolfowitz interview, albeit
from the ever-obnoxious conservative "weekly standard":
http://csua.org/u/34v
\_ what's "ever-obnoxious" about the weekly standard? is it that
you find the writing poor, the research is poor or you simply
disagree with their political views so it must be automatically
'obnoxious'? |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0604-10.htm The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed. 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 Defense 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 defense 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. 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 Center and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harboring 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. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Common Dreams 21 NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. |
| www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7345&TagID=2 The US Deputy Defense 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 defense 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. 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 Center and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harboring 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.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2971 Liberal Press Misquoting Paul Wolfowitz on Iraq War Posted by 25 Brandt Zembsch Thursday, June 05, 2003 The frothy frenzy among the liberals to find a reason--absolutely any reason--to descredit the Iraq war is astounding. You'd think they would be embarrassed at such blatant partisanship. But, even more amazing is the extent to which they will bend the truth to make their point. 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. It is hugely irresponsible of the Guardian to run such a distorted, tabloid-style headline. Secretary, eleven weeks have passed since the coalition forces moved into Iraq. Yet you've found no weapons of mass destruction in that country -- no convincing evidence yet. The notion that the war was ever about oil is a complete piece of nonsense. If the United States had been interested in Iraq's oil, it would have been very simple 12 years ago or any time in the last 12 years to simply do a deal with Saddam Hussein. We probably could have had any kind of preferred customer status we wanted if we'd been simply willing to drop our real concerns. Our real concerns focused on the threat posed by that country--not only its weapons of mass destruction, but also its support for terrorism and, most importantly, the link between those two things. You said it's eleven weeks since our troops first crossed the Kuwaiti border, and coalition troops first entered Iraq, as though eleven weeks were a long time. In fact, unfortunately, significant elements of the old regime are still out there shooting at Americans, killing Americans, threatening Iraqis. But I wouldn't suggest we've gotten to the bottom of the whole story yet. We said, when Resolution 1441 was being adopted, that the most important thing was to have free and unintimidated access to Iraqis who know where these things are. Simply going and searching door to door in a country the size of the state of California is not the way you would find things. You would find things when people start to give you information--we're still in an early stage of that process and there is no question we will get to the bottom of what's there. But there should be no doubt whatsoever this was a war undertaken because our President and the Prime Minister of England and the other countries that joined with us believe--and I think they believe correctly--that this regime was a threat to our security and a threat that we could no longer live with. Comments Add Your Comments to this Article: Just complete the form below and click Post My Comments. IMPORTANT NOTE: To help prevent abuse of our systems, you must have a username (registered and confirmed through our 31 Forums) in order to submit any article comments. If you're already a Forum member, enter your username and password below. Add to Favorites Add to Favorites ("Ctrl-D") 39 Top of Page | 40 Previous Page 41 Home | 42 Search | 43 Get Our Newsletter! |
| www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed. The steam engine enthusiast referred to in Country Diary, page 20, G2, June 2, was the Rev Wilbert Awdry, (not Audry) the inventor of Thomas the Tank Engine. Our Country Diary, page 16, G2, last Friday, May 30, was used ahead of its scheduled publication in place of a diary that had not turned up. Unfortunately a reference to its publication coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Coronation Day was left unchanged to the dismay and perplexity of the diary's author, A Harry Griffin, and his readers. It is the policy of the Guardian to correct significant errors as soon as possible. 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: Readers' editor, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. |
| csua.org/u/34v -> www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/757wzfan.asp He is alleged to have "revealed," in an interview with writer Sam Tanenhaus for the Manhattan celebrity/fashion glossy Vanity Fair, that the Bush administration's asserted casus belli for war against Saddam Hussein--the dictator's weapons-of-mass-destruction program--was little more than a propaganda device, a piece of self-conscious and insincere political manipulation. Let's be clear: Though Paul Wolfowitz has friends and admirers at The Weekly Standard, we would be surprised and more than a little distressed had he actually said what he's supposed to have said in this instance. For the last 12 years, all specific and sometimes heated policy disagreements notwithstanding, American presidents of both parties, joining a near-unanimous consensus of the so-called "world community," have agreed that the Baath party regime's persistent and never-fully-disclosed WMD program represented a grave threat to international security. Al Gore, for example, in his much-hyped antiwar speech last September, acknowledged that "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. For that matter, the notion that the Bush administration really, really, in its heart of hearts, had other, preferred reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein--particularly, that it did so to justify removing its troops from Saudi Arabia--and that the entire war was therefore a fraud . What gives is that Tanenhaus has mischaracterized Wolfowitz's remarks, that Vanity Fair's publicists have mischaracterized Tanenhaus's mischaracterization, and that Bush administration critics are now indulging in an orgy of righteous indignation that is dishonest in triplicate. Due to this limitation, you may experience unexpected results within this site. |