Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gurdur · 05-28-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

news story

The US 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, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released today. ....

"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. ...

Sauron · 05-28-2003, 07:57 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gurdur

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one rationalization everyone could reliably stick to and repeat," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying..."

Fixed.

B. H. Manners · 05-28-2003, 08:01 PM

Do any Political Science majors have any links to give us explaining how folks like Mr. Wolfowitz develop strategies for pushing their agendas through.

Ut · 05-29-2003, 04:33 AM

I think Wolfowitz means the UN when he talks of bureaucracy. To get a resolution passed, you have to focus on some clear, concise and "diplomatically correct" point.

Whether or not you think that getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia is a valid reason for invading Iraq (as Wolfowitz argues in the article), it's clear that you just can't write that in a UN resolution.

BolshyFaker · 05-29-2003, 05:30 AM

I was going to come and start this very same post, so thanks for doing it for me! The same story can be found here on the BBC , for those who no longer trust the American media

It is absolutely incredible that the adminsitration is now begining to admit that the war was not conducted to eliminate a "clear and present danger" to either America, Britain or her allies in the Middle East, but simply for startegic and political goals.

This story Orwellian , shows how the UK government manipulated the intelligence services to provide a justification for war.

Rummy has also had some hilarious quotes recently:

Quote:

"It is also possible that they [the Iraqis] decided that they would destroy them [weapons of mass destruction] prior to a conflict," he said.
Mr Rumsfeld said: "We don't know what happened [to Iraq's banned weapons]. We may actually find out what happened."

And a personal favourite here:

Quote:

"Iran should be on notice; efforts to try to remake Iraq in Iran's image will be aggressively put down," he said.

Yeah, cause uh, thats not at all what America is doing....

We are being lied to by our governments on the most important issue a country can ever face, the tactics being used are similar to those used by totalitarian governments and go against the grain of centuries of political tradition. Vote them all out, the next chance you get.

Mr. Superbad · 05-29-2003, 07:40 AM

Can't say that I'm surprised.

John Hancock · 05-29-2003, 08:20 AM

Rummy got tired of shakeing hands with Sadam:

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.

Martin

Edited to Say tried to attach picture but didn't show up to be downloaded?

Gurdur · 05-29-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BolshyFaker
....
for those who no longer trust the American media

Allow me to point out that the Sydney Morning Herald (the source of my OP citation) does not fall into the category of "American media".

Godless Dave · 05-29-2003, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
Allow me to point out that the Sydney Morning Herald (the source of my OP citation) does not fall into the category of "American media".

...yet.

05-28-2003, 07:57 PM	#2
Sauron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In the dark places of the world Posts: 8,093	Re: Wolfowitz comes clean [QUOTE]Originally posted by Gurdur "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one rationalization everyone could reliably stick to and repeat," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying..." Fixed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2003, 08:01 PM	#3
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	Do any Political Science majors have any links to give us explaining how folks like Mr. Wolfowitz develop strategies for pushing their agendas through.

05-29-2003, 04:33 AM	#4
Ut Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 828	I think Wolfowitz means the UN when he talks of bureaucracy. To get a resolution passed, you have to focus on some clear, concise and "diplomatically correct" point. Whether or not you think that getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia is a valid reason for invading Iraq (as Wolfowitz argues in the article), it's clear that you just can't write that in a UN resolution.

05-29-2003, 07:40 AM	#6
Mr. Superbad Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Well fortified mountain bunker Posts: 3,567	Can't say that I'm surprised.

05-29-2003, 08:20 AM	#7
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	Rummy got tired of shakeing hands with Sadam: 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. Martin Edited to Say tried to attach picture but didn't show up to be downloaded?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.