For instance, you may remember Powell sitting in front of the U.N. and telling the entire world:
Collin Powell: "Key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection."
Now, here's what Powell's staff was telling him two days before.
"Page 4, last bullet, re key files being driven around in cars to avoid inspectors. This claim is highly questionable and promises to be targeted by critics and possibly UN inspection officials as well."
Collin Powell: "I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things... it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so."
Here's what Powell's staff told him:
"Our key remaining concern is the claim that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that "far exceeds US requirements for comparable rockets." In fact, the most comparable US system is a tactical rocket—the US Mark 66 air-launched 70mm rocket—that uses the same, high-grade (7075-T6) aluminum, and that has specifications with similar tolerances." Via A Tiny Revolution
PS: é possível a noção de Direito Internacional (e não falo da ONU) acomodar uma Guerra que no fim é justificada apenas para mudar e tentar (sim, porque nunca sabemos se o resultado é conseguido) democratizar um regime? E devem conservadores e liberais apoiar tal doutrina napoleónica? O erro de Bush (dizem agora os Neocons para se safarem) é falta de planeamento e força bruta a menos, ou acreditar que pode resultar se "devidamente" planeado e for usada a força bruta adequada (para não falar em orçamento/etc)?
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário