but when ambassador bremmer came over, that direction had changed. instead of quickly handing off power to a new iraqi government and getting out, the bush administration selects former ambassador l. paul brimmer to take over in iraq and remake iraq s entire economy, starting with the oil sector. we are not here to be a colonial power. we are here to help turn over as quickly as we can efficiently do it to the iraqi people their country. we had virtually no elbow room for major changes to anything unless we could get the oil going and that was our priority.
liberation was actually a war about oil. i frankly know of no evidence that shows that. i certainly wouldn t argue that iraq and the decision to go to war and oil were unrelated. i mean iraq, 95% of iraq s revenues come from oil. it is a big global producer and at least today exporter. you can t divorce these things. these are, these are realities. we, in my mind. we do not go into iraq for oil. you know the folks that i worked with we all felt like we were going into iraq because of of wmd. now, were there other folks that had other reasons, i m not aware of it. there may have been. we didn t go into iraq to get access to the sand, we went into iraq to get access to oil. period. an attempt by any outside
war in afghanistan. but then quickly puts three other nations on notice, north korea, iran and iraq. states like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world, by seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regions pose a grave and growing danger. all three nations have been on america s national security radar for decades, but now, after 9/11, the bush administration makes the case for action to disarm them. it is not just the threat of rogue states using weapons of mass destruction themselves, the president argues, but the prospect of a rogue state providing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons technology to terrorist groups. neither iran to nor iraq is known to have nuclear capability, but north korea is steaming full speed ahead to a
it was in a meaningful way, a war about oil and about the role that oil plays in our world and in our world economy. the idea was to go into iraq to remove saddam hussein and his government. once that job is done, then it s about oil. period. (man) that s a good look for you. (woman) that was fun. (man) yeah. (man) let me help you out with the.. (woman).oh no, i got it. (man) you sure? (woman) just pop the trunk. (man vo) i may not know where the road will lead, but. i m sure my subaru will get me there. (announcer) love. it s what makes a subaru, a subaru. alright, that should just about do it. excuse me, what are you doing? uh, well we are fine tuning these small cells that improve coverage, capacity and quality of the network. it means you ll be able t post from the breakroom.
liberation was actually a war about oil. i frankly know of no evidence that shows that. i certainly wouldn t argue that iraq and the decision to go to war and oil were unrelated. i mean iraq, 95% of iraq s revenues come from oil. it is a big global producer and at least today exporter. you can t divorce these things. these are, these are realities. we, in my mind. we do not go into iraq for oil. you know the folks that i worked with we all felt like we were going into iraq because of of wmd. now, were there other folks that had other reasons, i m not aware of it. there may have been. we didn t go into iraq to get access to the sand, we went into iraq to get access to oil. period. an attempt by any outside