From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 07:45:35 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/03 12:53:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch writes:
> Hi, Glenn
>
> some time ago, you expressed your strong conviction that oil was not and
> could not be a major motive for the USA to wage the Iraq war - and I
> gladly accepted this. So what should we think about the following?
>
> Under the headline, "So then 'a war for oil' after all?", "Der Bund",
> one of the leading daylies in Bern, Switzerland, wrote on 7th June (I
> translate the end of the article):
>
> "... these days, Wolfowitz literally poured more oil into the fire. At a
> Asian security summit in Singapore, he declared last weekend that oil
> had been the main reason for the war against Iraq. 'The most important
> difference between North Korea and Iraq is that in Iraq we had no other
> choice, for commercial reasons. The country is floating on a sea of
> oil.' Wolfowitz's most recent disclosures followed shortly after a
> provocative interview with the magazine 'Vanity Fair'. There, he had
> said that, for reasons which have much to do with governmental
> bureaucracy, one had chosen the war motive which all could accept:
> weapons of mass destruction."
>
> Is this another case of badly distorted information by the media, which
> is all too rampant here in Switzerland (and Europe in general, I
> suspect)?
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
>
You've got to take Paul Wolfowitz with a grain of salt. He is one of the
chief neoconservative war hawks, whose loyalty to the US is questioned by the
paleocons who say his real motive and the motive of most of the neoconservatives
is to use the USA to do Israel's bidding. The paleoconservatives are beginning
to make an impact, but the Jewish media does not give them fair coverage. an
indication of the neoconservative fear of the paleos is David Frum's
disingenuous article in National Review OnLine titled, "Unpatriotic Conservatives."
rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 07:46:23 EDT