Whats new about the DSM anyway? Anyone remember Wolfowitz' quote?

[patcox2]

I think it was from Woodwards book back in 2002, Wolfowitz described how the Bushies were talking attacking Iraq immediately after 9/11, and then there was a quote from Wolfowitz in which he admitted that the WMD justification was just a pretense.

Something like "We tossed around a bunch of justifications, and the WMD seemed to be the only one everyone agreed with, so we went with that." I am quoting from memory.

I was shocked when I first read it, and still find it more shocking than the DSM.

[cthrumatrix]

1. NONE of this is new to DU'ers..... it's a bitch for the MEDIA to say

anything

[wtmusic]

2. Also the TIME mag quotes

"The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East ...Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when."
Time Magazine
May 5, 2002

"'F___ Saddam. We're taking him out.' Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators. "
Time Magazine
March 31, 2003

Lots of pieces to the puzzle. If the press will seize on DSM that's just dandy.

[Amonester]

3. But they won't, unless their bank accounts turn in the

red

:grr:

[BlueEyedSon]

4. We need a preponderance of evidence to controvert "plausible deniability"

[many a good man]

5. Wasn't from Woodward

Quote is from an interview about a year ago and cited all over the place. Let's try and find the exact citation.

[patcox2]

7. Here it is, from Vanity Fair

WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

By David Usborne
independent.co.uk News
30 May 2003


The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.

The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.

Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found.

The failure to find a single example of the weapons that London and Washington said were inside Iraq only makes the embarrassment more acute. Voices are increasingly being raised in the US ­ and Britain ­ demanding an explanation for why nothing has been found.

Most striking is the fact that these latest remarks come from Mr Wolfowitz, recognised widely as the leader of the hawks' camp in Washington most responsible for urging President George Bush to use military might in Iraq. The magazine article reveals that Mr Wolfowitz was even pushing Mr Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the 11 September attacks in the US, instead of invading Afghanistan.

There have long been suspicions that Mr Wolfowitz has essentially been running a shadow administration out of his Pentagon office, ensuring that the right-wing views of himself and his followers find their way into the practice of American foreign policy. He is best known as the author of the policy of first-strike pre-emption in world affairs that was adopted by Mr Bush shortly after the al-Qa'ida attacks.

[Love Bug]

6. They'll just say it was his "opinion" like they say about the DSM

[DemocracyInaction]

8. Turn on your tv.....I did about noon and saw the shit hitting the fan

It's now being covered. Even heard, gasp, snipits from liberal talk shows being played and coverage of an angry crowd that looked big (who knows whether it was or not but it looked that way). You see what the difference at this point is are the polls: people are looking for ways to hate fucking Bush instead of their idiot desire to protect the asshole for the last several years. Common Americans who feel they must wave that damn plastic flag no matter what are seeing their kin come home in body bags and listening to their military kin bitch, gripe and call Bush bad names. They are "in the mood" and being in "the mood" is essential in order to successfully "bed" them. That's what is different. I actually thought all the talk here was sort of the usual spitting in the wind...but not today.

[indie_voter]

11. Exactly!!

It is irrelevant that we (collective) we've been shouting LIE LIE LIE since before the war began.

Nobody was listening because they were all mesmerized by Bush's promises of an easy victory.

Things didn't quite turn out as advertised.

This is what angers the masses, the result.

Had the seduction panned out with the promised results, then very few would have cared Bush lied.

However, with no end in sight, our soldiers dying on a daily basis, the specter of the draft, etc..

The masses are now ready to listen.

[tex-wyo-dem]

9. Didn't Wolfowitz testify to Congress...

that the Iraq war would be relatively cheap since it could be larely paid for by the sale of oil?

If so, this would support the assertion that oil was one of the main reasons for the war, not WMD or terrorism.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. And this genius of economics is now at the world bank. nt

[donkeyotay]

12. a google search turned up liitlegreefootballs at the top

and they dispute the quote. I found this copy of the transcript:

{This meeting would have been Sept, 13th, 2001)

Q: So now there is the much-reported, I just want to make sure I get it right, famous meeting at –

It’s been reported in a couple of different ways, and I’d like to get it in your words if I can, the famous meetings that first weekend in Camp David where the question of Iraq came up. I believe the President heard you discussing Iraq and asked you to elaborate on it or speak more about it. Can you give us a little sense of what that was like?

Wolfowitz: Yeah. There was a long discussion during the day about what place if any Iraq should have in a counterterrorist strategy. On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when. There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first.

There was a sort of undertow in that discussion I think that was, the real issue was whether Iraq should be part of the strategy at all and whether we should have this large strategic objective which is getting governments out of the business of supporting terrorism, or whether we should simply go after bin Laden and al Qaeda.

To the extent it was a debate about tactics and timing, the President clearly came down on the side of Afghanistan first. To the extent it was a debate about strategy and what the larger goal was, it is at least clear with 20/20 hindsight that the President came down on the side of the larger goal.

(emphasis added)

http://americanvoicesabroad.net/WolfowitzInterview.htm


What's always bothered my about this quote is that Wolfowitz admits they were debating this broader - and illegal - policy of regime change, while Bush was telling the American people only that we were going to bomb Afghanistan to get Osama BECAUSE he was the one responsible for the 9-11 attack. The policy of allowing the neoCons to decide which governments were legitimate and which should be overthrow was never reported or debated - other than vague assertions about the WOT covering many countries, many ways, and lasting - well being permanent for all practical purposes. (Oh yeah, perpetual war, but you can't criticize the government while we're at war.)

These things should have been discussed before we even bombed Afghanistan, a war which people seem to have forgotten,and a war that continues.