|
by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 3:04pm PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
The American mainstream media actually seems to have done a better job here than presenting it in context, but that doesn't solve the basic problem.
Essentially the Guardian presented the Wolfowitz quote as an admission that the war was because Iraq 'floated on a sea of oil'. In fact what he was saying was that the reason to attack Iraq rather than NK was the Iraq wasn't going bankrupt anytime soon due to their having more oil than anyone but Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, NK seems likely to economically collapse on its own in short order.
Which is a much less (completely less) damning statement.
HOWEVER, this still doesn't excuse Wolfowitz's statement last week that WMD was just a reason everyone could agree on for the war - essentially admitting that WMDs were simply a marketing reason, and not the real reason.
Conclusion? Oil was one of several reasons to do it, but WMDs were never really a serious reason (surprise), which would not be the case with NK.
--SB |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Wolfowitz openly admits war was about oil by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 2:53pm PDT 
Jesus Christ. Please shut the fuck up you nitwit. by laudablepuss 06/04/2003, 3:00pm PDT
Caught it on my own, thanks. NT by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 3:04pm PDT
Hmm, on second thought, let's just downgrade that to 'probably yes' by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 3:04pm PDT
Re: Hmm, on second thought, let's just downgrade that to 'probably yes' by laudablepuss 06/04/2003, 3:40pm PDT
Cool. Sorry about my mistake in the parent. Posted too quick. NT by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 3:47pm PDT
I can see it in the next America's Army game . . . by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 4:22pm PDT
Re: I can see it in the next America's Army game . . . by I need clarification 06/04/2003, 6:19pm PDT
There's our expansion pack, boys! No wonder you're a game designer, INC! NT by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 6:26pm PDT
I'm not a fucking designer!! by I need clarification 06/04/2003, 8:15pm PDT
why did all of the world's oil have to end up in the middle east? by FABIO 06/04/2003, 4:59pm PDT
Well, more precisely... by I need clarification 06/04/2003, 6:26pm PDT
Re: Well, more precisely... by mimic 06/10/2003, 11:33pm PDT
You really put me in my place. :( NT by I need clarification 06/11/2003, 1:56pm PDT
Re: Wolfowitz openly admits war was about oil by Fussbett 06/04/2003, 6:29pm PDT
Obligatory Bush quote on Britain by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 6:41pm PDT
Re: Obligatory Bush quote on Britain by foogla 06/04/2003, 7:30pm PDT
Re: Obligatory Bush quote on Britain by Moab 06/04/2003, 7:48pm PDT
Re: Obligatory Bush quote on Britain by foogla 06/04/2003, 8:20pm PDT
Re: Obligatory Bush quote on Britain by DidC0tMaSSiF 06/05/2003, 5:33am PDT
Re: Obligatory Bush quote on Britain by foogla 06/05/2003, 7:06am PDT
Re: Obligatory Bush quote on Britain by Unbitter 06/05/2003, 12:44pm PDT
Middle east is gonna hate us no matter what we do. by Jhoh Creexul 06/04/2003, 10:43pm PDT
Funny thing by Senor Barborito 06/04/2003, 10:46pm PDT
Untill the Iran/Iraq war. by Cyrris 06/04/2003, 11:04pm PDT
Actually by Senor Barborito 06/05/2003, 12:17am PDT
Re: Actually by Cyrris 06/05/2003, 12:44am PDT
Pffft by Senor Barborito 06/05/2003, 12:51am PDT
Re: Wolfowitz openly admits war was about oil by DidC0tMaSSiF 06/05/2003, 4:43am PDT
Re: Wolfowitz openly admits war was about oil by callowSniper 06/05/2003, 7:32am PDT
Re: Wolfowitz openly admits war was about oil by McFly 06/05/2003, 5:43pm PDT
Re: Wolfowitz openly admits war was about oil by Monty Cantsin 06/09/2003, 7:55pm PDT
Don't play dumb. by Fussbett 06/09/2003, 8:16pm PDT
It's a mystery by Monty Cantsin 06/10/2003, 9:34am PDT
Of course not! by Senor Barborito 06/10/2003, 6:25pm PDT
He wasn't under oath by Entropy Stew 06/05/2003, 3:40pm PDT
Re: Wolfowitz openly admits war was about oil by Bill Dungsroman 06/11/2003, 2:32am PDT
Interesting addendum by laudablepuss 06/09/2003, 4:10pm PDT
Very appropriate printing Christopher Hitchen's writing against a mauve BG NT by MM 06/09/2003, 7:49pm PDT
Makes the whole thread moot; that is, if it were the facts that were in dispute by Lizard_King 06/11/2003, 2:12pm PDT
|
|
