Geral
O semanário liberal-conservador britânico The Economist, que apoiou a invasão do Iraque, vê bem o que os demais campeões da ocupação não querem ver: sob pena de total descrédito da
coligação, alguém tem de ser responsável pela vergonha dos Estados Unidos no infame tratamento dos prisioneiros iraquianos:
«(...) The scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light. Moreover, the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken—and to be seen to be taken—at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him. (...)»
(The Economist, ed. de hoje)
Adenda:
O New York Times de hoje é da mesma opinião. O editoral, intitulado «Donald Rumsfeld Should Go», defende:
«It is time now for Mr. Rumsfeld to go, and not only because he bears personal responsibility for the scandal of Abu Ghraib. That would certainly have been enough. The United States has been humiliated to a point where government officials could not release this year's international human rights report this week for fear of being scoffed at by the rest of the world. The reputation of its brave soldiers has been tarred, and the job of its diplomats made immeasurably harder because members of the American military tortured and humiliated Arab prisoners in ways guaranteed to inflame Muslim hearts everywhere. And this abuse was not an isolated event, as we know now and as Mr. Rumsfeld should have known, given the flood of complaints and reports directed to his office over the last year.»
- E Vão Dois?
Depois da queda de Rumsfeld, o ex-ministro da defesa que foi o arquitecto da guerra no Iraque, parece que a próxima baixa causada na equipa de Bush pela derrota Republicana é o embaixador dos Estados Unidos nas Nações Unidas, John Bolton. E depois...
- O Homem-da-guerra
Rumsfeld sai. Era o mínimo que se poderia espera depois da contundente derrota eleitoral republicana. Um falcão a menos nas tropas de Bush.http://rpc.twingly.com/...
- Não, Obrigado!
Na sua coluna regular no New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman, que apoiou a invasão no Iraque, pergunta agora: "If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out...
- A «cabala» Sobre O Iraque
O Financial Times ilustra mais uma vez o "anti-americanismo primário" que grassa na imprensa europeia nos tempos que correm. O diário britânico atreve-se a escrever que, no seguimento de uma intervenção no Senado americano de Condoleezza Rice (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bbc31062-40d8-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html),...
- As Fotografias Da Ignomínia
...
Geral
«Resign, Rumsfeld»
O semanário liberal-conservador britânico The Economist, que apoiou a invasão do Iraque, vê bem o que os demais campeões da ocupação não querem ver: sob pena de total descrédito da
coligação, alguém tem de ser responsável pela vergonha dos Estados Unidos no infame tratamento dos prisioneiros iraquianos: «(...) The scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light. Moreover, the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken—and to be seen to be taken—at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him. (...)»
(The Economist, ed. de hoje)
Adenda:
O New York Times de hoje é da mesma opinião. O editoral, intitulado «Donald Rumsfeld Should Go», defende:
«It is time now for Mr. Rumsfeld to go, and not only because he bears personal responsibility for the scandal of Abu Ghraib. That would certainly have been enough. The United States has been humiliated to a point where government officials could not release this year's international human rights report this week for fear of being scoffed at by the rest of the world. The reputation of its brave soldiers has been tarred, and the job of its diplomats made immeasurably harder because members of the American military tortured and humiliated Arab prisoners in ways guaranteed to inflame Muslim hearts everywhere. And this abuse was not an isolated event, as we know now and as Mr. Rumsfeld should have known, given the flood of complaints and reports directed to his office over the last year.»
- E Vão Dois?
Depois da queda de Rumsfeld, o ex-ministro da defesa que foi o arquitecto da guerra no Iraque, parece que a próxima baixa causada na equipa de Bush pela derrota Republicana é o embaixador dos Estados Unidos nas Nações Unidas, John Bolton. E depois...
- O Homem-da-guerra
Rumsfeld sai. Era o mínimo que se poderia espera depois da contundente derrota eleitoral republicana. Um falcão a menos nas tropas de Bush.http://rpc.twingly.com/...
- Não, Obrigado!
Na sua coluna regular no New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman, que apoiou a invasão no Iraque, pergunta agora: "If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out...
- A «cabala» Sobre O Iraque
O Financial Times ilustra mais uma vez o "anti-americanismo primário" que grassa na imprensa europeia nos tempos que correm. O diário britânico atreve-se a escrever que, no seguimento de uma intervenção no Senado americano de Condoleezza Rice (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bbc31062-40d8-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html),...
- As Fotografias Da Ignomínia
...