Two things:
1) He probably feels comfortable that this will receive no play in the US, or will be so watered down as to be meaningless. A damn good bet.
2) He may want to screw Blair. Now that the limeys have done their bit, does the US really want to share the loot with them? And it has the added benefit of tearing the Labor Party apart. (Do you think Bush & Co. *really* want the LP in power, no matter how degraded the LP has become?) Think those caper movies where, after the big score, the loyal assistant crook goes, "We're rich! What do we do now, boss?" as the muzzle of the boss's gun rises to the back of his neck.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Guilherme <groschke at luminousvoid.net> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
>
>On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>> Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
>>
>> George Wright
>> Wednesday June 4, 2003
>>
>> Oil was the main reason for military action against
>> Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed,
>> confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the
>> US-led war.
>>
>> The US deputy defence secretary, 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 now gone
>> further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is
>> "swimming" in oil.
>>
>
> lets be careful, i suspect he is arguing that iraq had oil
>and therfore the means to be bad. not that iraq has oil that we want.
>
>-gr
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>