Skip to comments.(May 09, 2003) Interview with Paul Wolfowitz (U.S. Bases in Saudi Arabia Encourage Al Qaeda)
Posted on 05/20/2007 9:05:34 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
There are a lot of things that are different now [that the U.S. occupies Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed but its huge is that we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. Its been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.
In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
I dont want to speak in messianic terms. Its not going to change things overnight, but its a huge improvement.
(Excerpt) Read more at defenselink.mil ...
This is satire, right? I mean you're not really that stupid? I wouldn't want to imply you are by responding seriously to the claim that endorsing al Qaeda rhetoric in a manner that damages U.S. interests is "essentially the same" as undermining al Qaeda rhetoric in a manner that advances U.S. interests.
Wolfowitz lead the successful effort to topple communist governments and defeat communist insurgencies throughout South America under Reagan. He hasn't changed. Let's also be sure and ignore the fact that withdrawing U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia was Bush's decision, and was endorsed by MANY other Admin officials (e.g. Rumsfeld).
Let's just pretend it's all about the JOOOO instead.
He’s a what? JOOO? Who cares? You do apparently.
Whatever the man is or is not he carelessly influenced our nation.
You’re just being defensive there Stultis. Our nation’s security is far more essential that any misperceived Joooobaiting.
Tehran Paul is doing the same thing Tokyo Rose did during WW2 and it is utterly pathetic that supposed Conservatives are making excuses for his idiocy.
Yeah it would be REALLY smart for the USA to let the vast majority of the world oil supplies to fall into the hands of a megalomaniac that had all ready invaded 2 of his neighbor, was openly funding Muslim terrorist groups and had use WMDS against them and his own people.
Are you people REALLY this stupid or are you so use to screaming your dogmas at each other you simply cannot be bother to learn even ONE fact about the world outside your trailer park?
I know this is really hard for you Paul drones to grasp but Muslim Terrorist were killing Americans LONG before the 1991 Gulf War. Simply mouthing their propaganda and acting like good little Dhimmis is NOT going to stop them from trying to kill you.
The jihadists greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an ultra-conservative interpretation of sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade
—Declassified Key Judgments Of The National Intelligence Estimate, April 200
Did you bother to read this or do you just repost the talking points the Paul campaign sends yous with NO clue what it says? What the above says, which YOU posted, is a complete refutation of Paul’s, and yours, Neo-Isolationist dogma. It makes it quite clear that a “Do Nothing” policy on the part of the US Govt, which is what you and Paul are advocating, would actively HELP the Whabbhists acheive their political goals!
So is Paul merely stupid or actively a traitor?
Perhaps you MIGHT try actually reading and THINKING about the facts next time?
Apparently, you were going to the fridge for a beer during part of the debate and missed part of what Paul said. He specifically noted that blowback (which would include "killing Americans" of course) has a LONG history. As an example, he cited the blowback from the U.S. sponsored coup to restore the Shah in 1953.
Instead of clinging feverishly to your dogmas, try actually reading and learning something about the world.
Quit just screaming down anything that does agree with your emotion based preconceived notions about the world.
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
U.S. should have allowed — and even encouraged — Saddam Hussein to invade Saudi Arabia in 1990
The more history happens the more I think this position is correct...tribes duking it out....and Muslims dying on each other...a good thing...what do we do now? and what about the oil? The Left has chained us to be submissive to muslim and lapdog oil
You know what, come back with your political dogma when it's your son facing his FOURTH tour in that hellhole.
The people there are animals, aren't worth the life of One American serviceman.
And I work in the Oil & Gas industry...we have all the resources we need right here. Let those animals have their oil. If it weren't for their oil, they'd be back to wiping their asses with their left hands.
F them animals.
I think MNJohnnie is slightly off his rocker, to put it mildly.
Unfortunately we are once again involved in a half hearted nation building effort. History teaches that nation building (enemy nations) is possible but only after said nation was been throughly defeated and crushed. Neither happened (PC war fighting) in Afghanistan or Iraq so the "nation building" in Afghanistan and Iraq will fail. Sad but true.
The good news is that once the nation building fails and the usa retreats from the area, Europe will be the "front line" and Europe is very good a fighting unPC wars and killing enemies, so all is not lost. Maybe we'll get to help Europe in a real WOT.
I really can't understand your position. Seeing as how OBL has cited the sanctions against and bombing of Iraq as one of the 3 or 4 reasons AQ "declared war" on the US in 1998...again cited it as one of the 3 reasons in his speech in October 2001...seeing as how the 9/11 Commission cited it as one of the 3 reasons...seeing as how Mike Scheurer has noted again and again the OBL has used the American bombing of Iraq to great effect for years in his public statements...seeing as how FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald testified before the 9/11 Commission about AQ that: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States"...seeing as how virtually every AQ expert as far as I can tell (Michael Doran, Jason Burke, Richard Clarke, Michael Scheurer, etc.) all will note the AQ has based its campaign against the US on a short list of political grievances against the US government (I say "note" because I don't think this is a controversial point...I don't know of any objective analysts arguing that AQ is attacking the US because, as Giuliani professes to believe, we have freedom of religion and women's rights)...seeing as how the Department of Defense has stated that the "US invites (a term that Ron Paul did not use) attacks on America because of its presence"....
What is it? You guys sound like you refuse to let any facts get in the way of your opinion...that you want to be kept ignorant by the US government...you don't want to know what motivates those who threaten the American people...you dismiss every expert as a "Jew-hater", an "America-hater", a "traitor", a "leftist" when they note facts and opinions that you don't want to hear...stop worrying about what the left is saying...whether they're right or wrong on this issue doesn't change the facts...worry about why your government insists on telling us that AQ hates "us" (I don't consider the US government and me as "us"...seeing as how they forcibly take half my money and constantly seek to further exercise control over me and my family) because of how "free we are"
In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.
In any case, Admin Moderator, please correct the falsely attributed publication date for this article. It should be May 09, 2003, not May 09, 2007.
Saudi Arabia is an artificial creation according to Al Qaeda. Their concern is the presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula as a whole where, of course, U.S. troops have continually remained since 1991.
Do you dispute the fact that al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and like minded jihadists and radical Islamists generally, from Sayyid Qutb to the present, have prominently and repeatedly cited democracy as one of the major threats/conspiracies from the West?
|The Guardian Pulls a "Dowd" - Falsely Attributes War for Oil Claim to Wolfowitz w/ Misquote ^
|Posted by Stultis
On News/Activism ^ 06/04/2003 4:55:40 PM CDT · 154 replies · 713+ views
6 June 2003
Excuse the vanity. All the relevant information is in the following thread, but buried a hundred odd messages down. I wanted to post something with what you need to know right up top, without having to wait for the editorials to come out tomorrow. Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil (RUH ROH!!) [The Guardian, 6/4/03] Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed [...]. Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has...
|What Wolfowitz Really Said: The truth behind the Vanity Fair "scoop." ^
|Posted by Pokey78
On News/Activism ^ 05/30/2003 11:06:20 PM CDT · 69 replies · 838+ views
The Weekly Standard ^ | 06/09/03 | William Kristol
AS THIS MAGAZINE goes to press, a controversy swirls about the head of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. He is alleged to have "revealed," in an interview with writer Sam Tanenhaus for the Manhattan celebrity/fashion glossy Vanity Fair, that the Bush administration's asserted casus belli for war against Saddam Hussein--the dictator's weapons-of-mass-destruction program--was little more than a propaganda device, a piece of self-conscious and insincere political manipulation. Lazy reporters have been following the lead of the press release Vanity Fair publicists circulated about their "scoop." It begins as follows: Contradicting the Bush administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz tells...
Yes...I dispute that AQ has ever expressed any care about the form of government under which we Americans live. Do you have any links to AQ statements to the contrary?