http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml
stating "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."
Wolfowitz told us that the revenue generated by Iraq's oil would soon pay for the war and this is just another example of the complete domination that bro 43 has over the US MSM, and through that our apathetic common masses.
How deep is the propaganda control that Herr Karl possesses? The article "A nasty slip on Iraqi oil" at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,973940,00.html
clearly describes that the W not only controls the US MSM, but England's also as "That statement remained on the home page of the Guardian website until about 6.30pm. At that time all the corrections that were published on the leader page of yesterday's print edition, with the Wolfowitz correction leading, were made available to the website, several hours earlier than usual.
Unusual efforts were made not only to correct but to kill the story because it was wrong and by Thursday morning was attracting worldwide interest.
There were telephone calls from media organisations in South Africa and New Zealand, for example, seeking to check it. It provided another example of the speed with which information (and misinformation), spreads through the internet.
The paper has done its best to send a frank correction in pursuit and I repeat it here:
"A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading 'Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil' misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, 'The...difference 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 whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq."
Who cares about oil?
The article "A look at the next attorney general." at
http://www.slate.com/id/2174045/nav/fix/
states "Alan Greenspan has been making the rounds, talking to NYT, WP and WSJ about his new book. He even manages to get different headlines out of each interview. The WP focuses on his support for the Iraq war, which was based on the threat Saddam Hussein posed to world oil supplies."
So, Greenspan is bringing back to our attention that W started "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to free the Iraqis from their oil. His "Poppy" did the same thing and when 41 started his Iraq push, Bob Dole admitted the war was for oil! Rove controls a worldwide "Ministry of Truth" as evidenced by his ability to get English newspapers to keep mum about Wolfie's admissions.
Everything that happens Herr Karl spin to the aggrandizement of GOP partisan gain. What about how the Sunni sheiks in Iraq are fighting al-Qaida? The article
states it is all going to blow up in W's face if our 4th estate would only keep the truth fresh in our minds as "Amidst a surge of violence in Iraq, American military officials say they have captured a suspect in the killing of a U.S.-allied Sunni tribal leader. The military says the suspect is "closely allied with senior al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders in the region." Okay, but was AQI responsible?"
The September 16, 2007 article "Sheikh's Killing a Blow to Bush" at
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=39259
makes clear that "Although al Qaeda in Iraq is the leading suspect in this assassination," said Wayne White, a former senior State Department intelligence analyst on the Middle East, "Iraq's diverse Sunni Arab community is rife with various tribal and other conflicts, rivalries and score-settling dating back many decades.", but that the atrocity happening so near to big bro 43's words of praise of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, is not only ironic, but also a clear indication that anyone who supports W in the Middle East is as good as dead.
Herr Karl's minions are all over it as "This is a sheikh who was one of the first to come forward to want to work with the United States to repel al Qaeda from al Anbar province," said Bush's new spokeswoman, Dana Perino, while her Pentagon counterpart, Geoff Morrell, described Abu Risha as "a brave warrior" and expressed "our hope and belief that the has spawned a movement that will outlive him." dating back many decades."
Petraeus excoriated al Qaeda and lavished praise on Abu Risha, but he has little credibility as "Marc Lynch, an expert on Arab media and the Sunni politics at George Washington University here, called Petraeus's remarks "a leap to judgment emblematic of all which is wrong with America's current views of the Sunnis of Iraq."
"In reality, there are a plethora of likely suspects, reflecting the reality of an intensely factionalised and divided community which little resembles the picture offered by the administration's defenders," Lynch wrote.
W's Iraq war policy is failing and he needed something positive to say so "It was not surprising then, that, at Bush's meeting with tribal sheikhs during his lightning visit to the region last week, Abu Risha was seated right next to him, and photographs of the two shaking hands and consulting together appeared in dozens of Arab newspapers.
But Washington's support for Abu Risha and other former Sunni insurgents-turned-allies has been seen as something of a devil's bargain by many analysts. Abu Risha himself was largely regarded as a high-living opportunist who, in recent months, had been accused by other Sunni leaders of embezzling millions of dollars in U.S. assistance and betraying the Sunni cause.
More important are fears that Sunni cooperation with U.S. forces is simply a temporary marriage of convenience and that, contrary to the Ajami's and the administration's views, it does not signal any accommodation, or "bottom-up reconciliation," as some U.S. officials have described it, with the post-invasion, Shia-dominated regime or the U.S. military occupation.
"The danger is that once they run Al Qaeda out, they may turn on you, the Iraqi government, or both," Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at London's International
Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), told the Christian Science Monitor in July.
Indeed, Lynch sees the nationalist Sunni insurgency as believing it has already defeated the U.S. occupation and is using U.S. support to prepare for the civil war that they believe will follow Washington's withdrawal.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
