[Article] Iraqi weapons "only one reason for war"

Victor

So Iraq was invaded for bureaucratic reasons :rolleyes:

Iraqi weapons "only one reason for war"
From:Reuters
Wednesday, 28th May, 2003

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war, U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says.

Wolfowitz, seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, said on Wednesday President Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons was merely one of several reasons behind the decision to go to war.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

No chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq despite repeated assertions by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair before the March 20 invasion that the threat posed by Saddam's vast stocks of banned weapons warranted a war to eliminate them.

The United Nations and America's allies were not convinced by the argument that it was justification for a war, which was launched amid protests in many world capitals. Washington's ties were major allies France and Germany are still strained.

Wolfowitz said another reason for the invasion had been "almost unnoticed but huge" -- namely that the ousting of Saddam would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major al Qaeda grievance.

"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door" to a more peaceful Middle East, Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.

The magazine said he made the remarks days before suicide bombings, attributed to al Qaeda, against Western targets in Riyadh and Casablanca two weeks ago that killed 75 people.

The United States announced last month that it was ending military operations in Saudi Arabia, where they have long generated Arab resentment because of their proximity to Islam's holiest sites.

Wolfowitz's remarks were released a day after Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seeking to explain why no weapons of mass destruction had been found, said Iraq may have destroyed them before the U.S.-led invasion.

Sparks

So. The only reason they could agree on, is the one reason that Rumsfeld is now saying is unlikely.

Anyone catch Paxman's interview tonight? He merrily ran circles around his interviewee until the subject of those "biological warfare trailers" came up. Why is it no-one has yet asked why, if the Iraqis were worried enough to forensicly scrub the trailers, that they didn't throw a grenade or two into them to render the equipment a lump of unrecognisable scrap metal?

bonkey

Wolfowitz said another reason for the invasion had been "almost unnoticed but huge" -- namely that the ousting of Saddam would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major al Qaeda grievance.
...
The United States announced last month that it was ending military operations in Saudi Arabia, where they have long generated Arab resentment because of their proximity to Islam's holiest sites.

But didnt the Saudi's tell the US that they could no longer keep their bases their a year or two ago?

If so, then what Wolfowitz is effectively saying is that the US invaded Iraq in order to enable them to comply with the Saudi's requests.

That would make everything alright...wouldnt it....."We invaded one nation because another nation told us we couldnt keep our toys in their garage any more".

Is he saying that the US no longer need a presence in the Gulf now that Saddam is ousted, or just that they have created a new bestest friend who's land they can use instead?

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Is he saying that the US no longer need a presence in the Gulf now that Saddam is ousted

I think thats what they want people to understand, but it does look like doublespeak.

namely that the ousting of Saddam would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major al Qaeda grievance.

So they are giving into terrorist demands now or are they actually learning something?

Of, course they will need a land base to invade Iran .....

xen

Maybe the States are going after countries that begin "IR". Oh wait they couldn't go after Ireland coz were not in the Middle East.

SkepticOne

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue."

It was also the reason they used with heads of state at the UN when trying to persuade them to back the war.

Lennoxschips

Hmmm. I wonder what the real reason was then.

Hmmm.

Hmmm.

xen

Look lets face it the current US Government is under the thumb of those Satanic neocons.

What they say goes, no matter how illogical it may same to be a human being.

Whats their agenda, Who knows?

Éomer of Rohan

Look lets face it the current US Government is under the thumb of those Satanic neocons.

What they say goes, no matter how illogical it may same to be a human being.

Agreed apart from the satanic bit - not a fan of assigning good and evil to arguments.

The US cannot back up it's invasion of Iraq - it is that simple. However, they will be able to justify their continued presence in the middle east, just as they did when Saddam and Rummie were buddies back in the 80's. The reasons given, in an order will be;

Syria
Oil
Iran
Oil
Terrorists
Oil
Oil
OIL.

Of course they might not come right out and say it like that.:D

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

An article that might interest some folks- a speech from the Dean of Congress:

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2003may/byrd_speeches_2003may_list/byrd_speeches_2003may_list_2.html

Sparks

When the sanest voice in congress is coming from an ex-KKK member...

Éomer of Rohan

That is a fascinating article - are you sure he is an ex-KKK member Sparks? I mean, the guy is a leading Democrat - here was me thinking no Democrat electorate would support an ex-KKK member for so long.

Sparks

Yeah Dave, he joined in '42 and claims he left a little under two years later - though many of his later writings show a clear racial bias, things like how he'd rather die than serve in the military with anyone with black skin and so on and so forth.