Dr. Paul, did you say something about oil?
Or is this another "misquote"?
June 4, 2003
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.
From other excerpts I've seen from this conference, I think the gist of what Wolfowitz was saying is that we have the option to starve the N. Korean economy to bring them in line, but that this option was not viable in Iraq.
The Taipei Times reported the following quote from Wolfowitz at the Shangri La Dialog. "Countries of the region that are helping keep North Korea afloat need to send a message to North Korea that they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road its on."
More when the DoD or Dept. of State post transcripts.
via Tom Tomorrow
sourced from The Guardian
and the IISS website
wolfowitz's prepared text
Update:
DefenseLINK posts their transcript of the Q&A session from which the quotation comes:
Look, the primarily 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.
The first denial:
Q: I'm Satoru Suzuki with TV-Asahi of Japan. Mr. 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. Given that, are you still convinced that you'll be able to find such weapons eventually and, in the absence of such weapons, how can you still justify the war, and what would you say to those critics in Japan and the rest of the world who've been saying that the war was mainly about oil?
Wolfowitz: Well, let me start with the last part. 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.
DefenseLINK transcript Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Media Availability at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, June 3, 2003
Second Update:
George Bush disagrees with Wolfowitz's emphatic assertion that the war was not about oil, by pointing out the economic importance of the Persian Gulf reserves.
Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors - neighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won't.
Address to congress by G.H.W. Bush on September 11, 1990, known as the "Toward a New World Order" speech.
3rd Update
The Guardian has pulled the story from their website. Click through to the comments page for a screen shot, the text, and the Die Welt quotation that they used as a basis for the story.
If only the Guardian had read this AP story, they could have avoided the embarrassment of the double-translated quotation.
The Guardian's retraction statement is also posted in the comments.
linked at Bartcop E!
Calpundit has good coverage of the translation difficulty.
TRANSLATION WOES....Remember those games where you electronically translate something into Japanese and then translate it back into English? Lotsa laughs.
It looks like that happened for real today. Here is a report in Die Welt about Paul Wolfowitz commenting on the difference between Iraq and North Korea:
Betrachten wir es einmal ganz simpel. Der wichtigste Unterschied zwischen Nordkorea und dem Irak ist der, dass wir wirtschaftlich einfach keine Wahl im Irak hatten. Das Land schwimmt auf einem Meer von Öl.
The Guardian picked this up and translated it thusly:
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."
The Guardian has withdrawn their story. But I've got it here!
The Guardian
4.30pm update
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 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.
Corrections and clarifications
Thursday June 5, 2003
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." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
Hasn't just about everything about this "war" been mis-represented? Pvt. Lynch, Chemical Ali, weapons labs, SCUD missiles? Its all been a manipulation of words and reports to make people believe what "they" want us to believe. Stop watching the news. Go read a book. Let the idiots waste their energy on arguing out points we have no control over. When it comes time to vote, make your decision then.
The memory hole covers this and another Guardian gaffe.
Unfortunately, people got so excited about an "admission" by Wolfowitz about Iraq, that they failed to take notice of his admission about N. Korea.
A nasty slip on Iraqi oil
The readers' editor on...the reasons why a report on the Guardian website was deleted
Ian Mayes
Saturday June 7, 2003
The Guardian
On Wednesday, journalists on the Guardian's website were alerted to a story running in the German press, in which the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was said to have admitted, in effect, that oil was the main reason for the war in Iraq. The German sources were found, translated, and at 4.30pm that day a story sourced to them was posted on the website under the heading, "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil".
Mr Wolfowitz, in fact, had said nothing of the kind, as a deluge of email, most of it from the US, was quick to point out. Some of it registered disappointment more than anything else - disappointment that a valued source of news and liberal comment had in this instance let them down. "The briefest of searches will bring up articles to totally discredit your story," one complained.
It seems to me that Wolfowitz would never make such a fantastic blunder as to tell the truth about the reasons the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq.
The Orwellian re-writing of history is proceeding at a fantastic pace. There are a lot of neo-con man fantasies that have to be un-remembered.
Iraq will be a "cakewalk"
Democracy will be instantly declared in Iraq.
We know exactly where the weapons of mass destruction are located.
Hans Blix said "how can there be 100% certainty about the existences of WMD and 0% certainty as to where they are?"
This site and www.thememoryhole.org are a valuable resource to prevent the Bush international criminals from "disappearing" the lies they have told.
what is the meaning of life. ever one is scared to die but you dont know why. are people scared to die because you don't know what life is like in heaven or hell. you are probally scared because the only life you know is the one on earth. when we die ever says we went to heaven. are people just afraid that if they die they will go to hell. i know i m. everbody i know discribes hell as a place that is burning hot even hotter than the sun. i asked my dad why people are afraid. my dad says that when we are dead we have nothing to worry about but if we are alive we have to worry about bills, money, food, jobs, shelter, how you look and many other things. but when you are dead you just sleep. it is an enternal sleep. no worring or crying just enternal sleep. but yet we are scared. there is nothing to be scared about we were are scared. we go through the day wondring if we will or if your kids are safe. people in the army are just praying to stay alive yet why? if we are alive all we do is worry and suffer but if we are dead we just sleep no worry. priest say that God will judge us when we. is that why we are scared? i have never wanted to die and i still don't i m youn and want to live untill i m at least 70. some people say thatwhen you live for long it is not a blessing they say that God is being cruel to them because they were cruel to someony else. other people think that long life means God loves you and his blessing is over you. every says that God will come and judge us then the world will end yet the bible says world without end. in some place there is disaters happening so will the world really or will it be as the bible says. when we try to hide our feelings from God can he see right through us the answer is yes so if we tell a lie or pretend we are sorry for something we did but we don't mean it God will see right through you and punish you. so here is my question why are we scared of death?
nice post kid. when your young you ask these big picture question. the beauty part is that no one who says they have the easy answers really do. dont stop asking the questions. but also dont let it ruin your day. continue to work on this on your own and enjoy the research. see, its the journey (research) not the destination. youve made a good start. have fun.
|
Or is this another "misquote"?
June 4, 2003
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.
From other excerpts I've seen from this conference, I think the gist of what Wolfowitz was saying is that we have the option to starve the N. Korean economy to bring them in line, but that this option was not viable in Iraq.
The Taipei Times reported the following quote from Wolfowitz at the Shangri La Dialog. "Countries of the region that are helping keep North Korea afloat need to send a message to North Korea that they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road its on."
More when the DoD or Dept. of State post transcripts.
via Tom Tomorrow
sourced from The Guardian
and the IISS website
wolfowitz's prepared text
Update:
DefenseLINK posts their transcript of the Q&A session from which the quotation comes:
Look, the primarily 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.
The first denial:
Q: I'm Satoru Suzuki with TV-Asahi of Japan. Mr. 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. Given that, are you still convinced that you'll be able to find such weapons eventually and, in the absence of such weapons, how can you still justify the war, and what would you say to those critics in Japan and the rest of the world who've been saying that the war was mainly about oil?
Wolfowitz: Well, let me start with the last part. 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.
DefenseLINK transcript Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Media Availability at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, June 3, 2003
Second Update:
George Bush disagrees with Wolfowitz's emphatic assertion that the war was not about oil, by pointing out the economic importance of the Persian Gulf reserves.
3rd Update
The Guardian has pulled the story from their website. Click through to the comments page for a screen shot, the text, and the Die Welt quotation that they used as a basis for the story.
If only the Guardian had read this AP story, they could have avoided the embarrassment of the double-translated quotation.
The Guardian's retraction statement is also posted in the comments.
linked at Bartcop E!
- mark 6-04-2003 3:55 pm
Calpundit has good coverage of the translation difficulty.
The Guardian has withdrawn their story. But I've got it here!The Guardian
4.30pm update
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 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.
Corrections and clarifications
Thursday June 5, 2003
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." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
- mark 6-05-2003 8:22 pm [add a comment]
Hasn't just about everything about this "war" been mis-represented? Pvt. Lynch, Chemical Ali, weapons labs, SCUD missiles? Its all been a manipulation of words and reports to make people believe what "they" want us to believe. Stop watching the news. Go read a book. Let the idiots waste their energy on arguing out points we have no control over. When it comes time to vote, make your decision then.
- anonymous (guest) 6-06-2003 7:45 am [add a comment]
You're not the first one to figure this out, but I'd at least keep track out of the corner of your eye. Otherwise, what are you basing your decision on?
- alex 6-06-2003 5:00 pm [add a comment]
The memory hole covers this and another Guardian gaffe.
- mark 6-06-2003 8:48 am [add a comment]
Unfortunately, people got so excited about an "admission" by Wolfowitz about Iraq, that they failed to take notice of his admission about N. Korea.
- mark 6-06-2003 5:37 pm [add a comment]
A nasty slip on Iraqi oil
The readers' editor on...the reasons why a report on the Guardian website was deleted
Ian Mayes
Saturday June 7, 2003
The Guardian
On Wednesday, journalists on the Guardian's website were alerted to a story running in the German press, in which the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was said to have admitted, in effect, that oil was the main reason for the war in Iraq. The German sources were found, translated, and at 4.30pm that day a story sourced to them was posted on the website under the heading, "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil".
Mr Wolfowitz, in fact, had said nothing of the kind, as a deluge of email, most of it from the US, was quick to point out. Some of it registered disappointment more than anything else - disappointment that a valued source of news and liberal comment had in this instance let them down. "The briefest of searches will bring up articles to totally discredit your story," one complained.
- mark 6-07-2003 4:51 pm [add a comment]
It seems to me that Wolfowitz would never make such a fantastic blunder as to tell the truth about the reasons the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq.
The Orwellian re-writing of history is proceeding at a fantastic pace. There are a lot of neo-con man fantasies that have to be un-remembered.
Iraq will be a "cakewalk"
Democracy will be instantly declared in Iraq.
We know exactly where the weapons of mass destruction are located.
Hans Blix said "how can there be 100% certainty about the existences of WMD and 0% certainty as to where they are?"
This site and www.thememoryhole.org are a valuable resource to prevent the Bush international criminals from "disappearing" the lies they have told.
- Stopwar1943 (guest) 9-01-2003 5:02 am [add a comment]
what is the meaning of life. ever one is scared to die but you dont know why. are people scared to die because you don't know what life is like in heaven or hell. you are probally scared because the only life you know is the one on earth. when we die ever says we went to heaven. are people just afraid that if they die they will go to hell. i know i m. everbody i know discribes hell as a place that is burning hot even hotter than the sun. i asked my dad why people are afraid. my dad says that when we are dead we have nothing to worry about but if we are alive we have to worry about bills, money, food, jobs, shelter, how you look and many other things. but when you are dead you just sleep. it is an enternal sleep. no worring or crying just enternal sleep. but yet we are scared. there is nothing to be scared about we were are scared. we go through the day wondring if we will or if your kids are safe. people in the army are just praying to stay alive yet why? if we are alive all we do is worry and suffer but if we are dead we just sleep no worry. priest say that God will judge us when we. is that why we are scared? i have never wanted to die and i still don't i m youn and want to live untill i m at least 70. some people say thatwhen you live for long it is not a blessing they say that God is being cruel to them because they were cruel to someony else. other people think that long life means God loves you and his blessing is over you. every says that God will come and judge us then the world will end yet the bible says world without end. in some place there is disaters happening so will the world really or will it be as the bible says. when we try to hide our feelings from God can he see right through us the answer is yes so if we tell a lie or pretend we are sorry for something we did but we don't mean it God will see right through you and punish you. so here is my question why are we scared of death?
- anonymous (guest) 11-22-2006 5:59 pm [add a comment]
nice post kid. when your young you ask these big picture question. the beauty part is that no one who says they have the easy answers really do. dont stop asking the questions. but also dont let it ruin your day. continue to work on this on your own and enjoy the research. see, its the journey (research) not the destination. youve made a good start. have fun.
- bill 11-22-2006 6:27 pm [add a comment]