Nele [no editorial de José Manuel Fernandes no Público de sexta-feira] se expõe que, sobre o Iraque, Wolfowitz não disse à Vanity Fair aquilo que disse sobre o embuste das armas de destruição maciça e as reais motivações petrolíferas, mas sim que as armas de destruição maciça foram um embuste e as reais motivações foram petrolíferas.
Para que não sobrem dúvidas, seguem de novo as afirmações contextualizadas de Wolfowitz. Acerca do petróleo no Iraque:
Look, the primarily difference - to put it a little too simply - between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.
Acerca das armas de destruição em massa:
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but …there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário