Thursday, May 29, 2003
Mr Wolfowitz says that stressing Iraq's alleged chemical and biological weapons as the main argument for going to war with Iraq was the only one that all arms of the bureaucracy could agree on.
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Mr Wolfowitz is quoted at saying the reason for choosing Iraq's alleged stocks of chemical and biological weapons to justify going to war was taken for bureaucratic reasons.
It was, he says one of many reasons. The magazine quotes Mr Wolfowitz saying "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Despite a concerted effort by US forces in Iraq, no chemical or biological weapons have been found. In the lead-up to the war, President Bush and his key allies, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister, John Howard repeated assertions that the threat posed by Saddam's stocks of banned weapons was sufficient enough to go to war and eliminate them.
The UN Security Council disagreed. Just yesterday, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked why no weapons of mass destruction had been found, said Iraq may have destroyed them before US-led forces invaded.
In his interview with Vanity Fair, Mr Wolfowitz said another reason largely ignored for going to war with Iraq was that it enabled the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Lifting that burden, he said, is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East.
The interview was conducted just days before the terrorist bombing in Riyadh.
Not long after the major conflict was declared over in Iraq, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld announced US troops would be withdrawing. One of Osama bin Laden's demands has been the withdrawal of US forces from the home of Islam's holiest sites.
So Osama has won and the WMDs were a PR stunt? Weren't we crazy liberals saying that before the war?