Wolfowitz has a big mouth

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know what I mean... it was merely mean to appease groups in the party.

[GePap]

Sorry Imran, but Powell is the nod to Poppies team. Wolfowitz is not the only one. You then have guys like Bolton, and Rummy himself. Lets remember that it was Poppie who had Cheney re-write Wolfie's little '92 paper.

Wolfowitz is in line with the core DoD team, and the DoD isd the one with the stronger hand in foreign policy.

[HershOstropoler]

Imran:

And that excludes him calling the shots? How?

I don't know how much influence he has, but your point says very little about it.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You know what I mean... it was merely mean to appease groups in the party.

That claim sounds a bit hollow if you consider how many ideas the administration has adopted from the neocon think tanks lately. (especially wrt FP)
Even if the guy really is a nobody, everybody sees him as one of the biggest proponents of the neocon agenda, and for that fact alone this comment has a heavy impact. (whether its pulled out of its context doesn't really matter either - this quote is going to show up a lot of times from now on)

[Imran Siddiqui]

And that excludes him calling the shots? How?

I don't know how much influence he has, but your point says very little about it.

His opinion is considered, but it isn't always followed as some of the people here seem to believe. Sometimes he'll be followed, other times not. His influence doesn't reach Cheney's or Rumsfield's... even Powell sometimes probably has more pull than Wolfy does.

[lord of the mark]

calm down guys - it was taken out of context.

He was asked why economic sanctions would work against North Korea, but not against Iraq - we didnt have economic options against Iraq, its swimming on a sea of oil.


IE Iraq could smuggle out oil and defeat sanctions, while Nkor depends on imported oil.
Which any fool could see.

But this is a pleasant diversion from contemplating the mass grave of 200 Kurdish children that has just been discovered.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He was asked why economic sanctions would work against North Korea, but not against Iraq - we didnt have economic options against Iraq, its swimming on a sea of oil.

Interesting... so the question was all about economic sanctions? Hmm... that'll teach me to trust a British newspaper again!

[lord of the mark]

Heres what he really said.
From the Belgravia Dispatch, via Instapundit.



"The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday. North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore."


"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage." "The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said. Wolfowitz did not elaborate on how Washington intends to put economic pressure on North Korea, but said other countries in the region helping it should send a message that "they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road it's on."


Al Guardian really screwed up this time.

[HershOstropoler]

Here's the source the Guardian refers to:

http://www.welt.de/data/2003/06/02/105924.html?search=wolfowitz&searchHILI=1

The question was: "Why the different treatment Iraq/NK?". I think what Wolfojoke wanted to say was about the effect of economic sanctions, but it isn't clear. I'd still think Freud played a role in the way he phrased that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Here's the source the Guardian refers to:

http://www.welt.de/data/2003/06/02/105924.html?search=wolfowitz&searchHILI=1

The question was: "Why the different treatment Iraq/NK?". I think what Wolfojoke wanted to say was about the effect of economic sanctions, but it isn't clear. I'd still think Freud played a role in the way he phrased that.

and which turn of the century Viennese played a role in how al guardian distorted it - Karl Lueger maybe?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Here's the source the Guardian refers to:

http://www.welt.de/data/2003/06/02/105924.html?search=wolfowitz&searchHILI=1

The question was: "Why the different treatment Iraq/NK?". I think what Wolfojoke wanted to say was about the effect of economic sanctions, but it isn't clear. I'd still think Freud played a role in the way he phrased that.

wofie presumably spoke (in singapore) in English - is it usually the practice at Al-guardian to cite a German language source in such cases, and translate back into English? Kinda helps explain the misquotation then, but seems a sloppy practice.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.



Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.



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. 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 problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

from http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0246.html

to cleare up the confusion...

[Cyclotron]

It sounds like he's talking about the increased economic viability of rebuilding Iraq, not about oil for the US. What exactly do you think it sounded like?

[lord of the mark]

Guardian headline:

"Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil "

what he said:

"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. 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 problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different."

the only thing this thread has proven is that the Guardian is shameless.

[HershOstropoler]

Well the quote was correct. The headline was almost Foxesque.