If a lie is continually told, will it become truth:

WE’VE been saying all along that the Bush administration would never have attacked Iraq, except for its huge oil reserves.

Now, a senior Bush administration official has confirmed it.

According to recent reports in the Guardian, a British newspaper, and two major German papers, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said as much during an address to an Asian security summit in Singapore.

He was asked why North Korea, with its nuclear weapons, was being treated differently from Iraq, which had no nukes. According to the newspapers, he said:

“Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”

The comments couldn’t come at a worse time for the Bush administration. World leaders and even some members of Congress are asking why we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I guess the internet doesn't work very well in West Virginia. The Guardian retracted the story Saturday:

On Wednesday, journalists on the Guardian's website were alerted to a story running in the German press, in which the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was said to have admitted, in effect, that oil was the main reason for the war in Iraq. The German sources were found, translated, and at 4.30pm that day a story sourced to them was posted on the website under the heading, "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil".
Mr Wolfowitz, in fact, had said nothing of the kind, as a deluge of email, most of it from the US, was quick to point out. Some of it registered disappointment more than anything else - disappointment that a valued source of news and liberal comment had in this instance let them down. "The briefest of searches will bring up articles to totally discredit your story," one complained.

You had better put more gas in the generator Cletus, quoting the Guardian will only mean trouble and you're going to have to retract the story.