• Cambios en el aspecto y funcionamiento del foro. Ver detalles

El Pentágono admite abiertamente que la guerra de Irak fue por el petróleo

FRANCE PRESS/EFE
El subsecretario de Defensa estadounidense y 'número dos' del Pentágono, Paul Wolfowitz, ha reconocido abiertamente que el petróleo fue el principal motivo de la operación militar en Irak, según declaró este fin de semana, citado ayer por los diarios alemanes 'Der Tagesspiegel' y 'Die Welt', ante los delegados que asistían en Singapur a la cumbre de seguridad de Asia.

La semana pasada, el propio Wolfowitz admitió ante la revista 'Vanity Fair' que las armas de destrucción masiva, presentadas en su momento como la causa principal para la guerra, no fueron sino una excusa «burocrática» con la que se pretendía conseguir apoyo a la operación militar.

Durante la cumbre de Singapur, después de que se le preguntara por qué se dio un tratamiento distinto al tema de las armas de destrucción masiva iraquíes en relación con el del armamento nuclear de Corea del Norte, Wolfowitz respondió en presencia de varios periodistas: «Es sencillo. La mayor diferencia entre Corea del Norte e Irak es que económicamente nosotros no teníamos otra opción en Irak. El país nada sobre un mar de petróleo».

Por su parte, el primer ministro británico, Tony Blair, defendió ayer ante el Parlamento la veracidad de los informes sobre las supuestas armas de destrucción masiva de Irak y rechazó que su Gobierno exagerara la información para justificar la guerra.

En un debate tenso, el líder de la oposición conservadora, Iain Duncan Smith, Duncan Smith, secundado por diputados de todas las formaciones, exigió hasta tres veces una investigación judicial independiente sobre esa presunta manipulación, como «única manera» de aclarar las acusaciones y restablecer la «credibilidad» del Gobierno.
 
:mad: Bueno, al final tendrian que reconocerlo, era una guerra por petroleo, y aki el Aznar diciendo que le creamos, que Irak es un peligro pal mundo (vamos q me troncho de risa) Es mas facil que Irak gane el mundial de fútbol antes que tenga armas de "destruccion masiva"
Aun asi creo q EEUU pondra armas de destruccion masiva de las suyas en Irak y diran que son de Saddam, y diran que las han descubierto y que estaban en un bunker enterradas, y bla, bla, bla...


P.D: CheNiLLe, me encanta tu firma:eek: :p :enamorado


__________________
jam
 
Dice Mó_Ònw4lk3r:
Es mas facil que Irak gane el mundial de fútbol antes que tenga armas de "destruccion masiva"

Me alegra saber que España tampoco las tiene :meparto:


Excepto las "turistas" que se encuentran en las bases americanas :(
 
Eso estaba totalmente claro;cualquier persona con un dedo de frente lo sabía igual;pero claro,eso no lo podían decir en ese momento;mejor dicho,no les convenía decirlo de cara a la opinión pública;que te quieran vender una mentira es una cosa pero el que nos la creamos es otra.
"TODO POR LA PASTA,"ese es el gran mal de este mundo,da igual que sea petroleo o lo que sea,al final siempre vamos a parar a lo mismo,pero por otra parte también hay que reconocer que en Irak,(con bombas de destrucción masivas o sin ellas) había que quitar de en medio al maldito genocida de Saddam.
Quizas por la via diplomática se hubiera podido derrocar al dictador(eso dijeron algunos) pero es muy difícil que por ese mismo medio se hubiesen hecho con el control del petróleo...
Lo cual significa que en realidad la guerra fue "más que una lucha contra el terrorismo una lucha por el poder" y por lo tanto los americanos han demostrado una vez más que no són mejores que ellos :(
Bye
 
eso estaba ams q claro y todos nosotros lo sabiamos al igual q hace 10 años.

es el unico fallo q tiene usa(economicamente hablando), el no tener petroleo para satisfacer su pais.
 
Esserio? cuentenme algo que no sepa...

Admito que en el fondo tenia la pequeña esperanza de que les hubieran hecho por derrotar a un regumen, estabilizar la region y por la población... esto que nos dices es horrible, quiere decir que si alguno de nuestgros paises les interesa economicamente, o "colaboramos" o nos hacen "colaborar" a la fuerza! :mad:
 
Críticas por la justificación del ataque a Irak

UN INFORME DEL PENTÁGONO PREVIO A LA GUERRA SEÑALABA QUE NO HABÍA EVIDENCIAS DE ARMAS PROHIBIDAS

EFE

WASHINGTON.- Un informe del Pentágono redactado antes de la guerra contra Irak señala que no había "información fiable" de que el régimen de Sadam Husein tuviera armas de destrucción masiva. La filtración de este documento ha intensificado las dudas sobre la legitimidad de las pruebas con las que la Casa Blanca justificó el ataque a Irak.

El informe, de 80 páginas, cuyo contenido ha sido difundido por varios medios de comunicación, fue elaborado por la Agencia de Información de la Defensa, y afirma que "probablemente" Irak contaba con armas químicas y biológicas, pero que no había suficientes datos fiables para poder respaldar esta afirmación.

El fracaso hasta el momento de los 1.400 inspectores de EEUU que recorren Irak en busca de los arsenales prohibidos "contribuye a la crisis de legitimidad que marcó el ataque en Irak", según dijo Arthur Helton, experto legal del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, un instituto de estudios políticos.

Sin embargo, la Casa Blanca insiste en que no exageró el peligro que representaba Irak. Bush enfatizó, en un discurso en Qatar, que Sadam Husein "tenía un país grande" para esconder las armas ilegales. "Estamos buscando y revelaremos la verdad", añadió el presidente de EEUU.

Para la administración de Bush, este fallo se ha convertido en un gran problema político que amenaza con socavar el apoyo a su doctrina de "ataques preventivos".

El Congreso aprobó la resolución que respaldaba la invasión de Irak sin mucho debate sobre la evidencia presentada por la Casa Blanca, con los republicanos en línea con su presidente y los demócratas con temor de oponerse a una operación militar que se auguraba victoriosa.

Pero ahora, legisladores de ambos partidos están comenzando a cuestionar la información y los argumentos que emanaron de la Casa Blanca.

El legislador republicano Pat Roberts, presidente del Comité de Inteligencia del Senado, ha hablado de una erosión de la "credibilidad" del Gobierno, que le hará difícil convencer al Congreso de que apoye otra guerra de "precaución" como la de Irak en el futuro.

Este comité es uno de tres en el Congreso que han pedido a la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) que presente documentos que justifiquen su análisis del peligro que suponía el régimen de Husein para la seguridad de EEUU.


elmundo.es
 
CREDIBILITY GAP, ANYONE?
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - When all three major U.S. newsweeklies--Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report--run major features on the same day on possible government lying, you can bet you have the makings of a major scandal.

And when the two most important outlets of neo-conservative opinion--The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal--come out on the same day with lead editorials spluttering outrage about suggestions of government lying, you can bet that things are going to get very hot as summer approaches in Washington.

The controversy over whether the administration of President George W. Bush either exaggerated or lied about evidence that it said it had about the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion has mushroomed over the past week.

"This is potentially very serious," said one Congressional aide. "If it's shown we went to war because of intelligence that was 'cooked' by the administration, heads will have to roll--and not just little heads, big ones."

The administration was already on the defensive last week as the controversy took off in Europe, particularly in Britain where Prime Minister Tony Blair found himself assailed from all directions for either wilfully exaggerating the intelligence himself or being "suckered," as his former foreign minister Robin Cook called it this weekend, by Washington's neo-conservative hawks, who started agitating for war even before the dust settled in lower Manhattan after the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Matters took a turn for the worse when the London Guardian reported Saturday about the existence of a transcript, obviously leaked from a senior British official, of an exchange at the Waldorf Hotel in New York between U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw just before Powell's presentation of the evidence against Iraq before the United Nations Security Council Feb. 5.

It quotes Powell, whose forceful case to the Council was decisive in persuading U.S. public opinion that Baghdad represented a serious threat, as being "apprehensive" about the evidence presented to him by the intelligence agencies. He reportedly expressed the hope that the actual facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces." (At a Rome press conference Monday, Powell insisted that he considered the evidence "overwhelming" when he spoke before the Council.)

But it appears that Powell's musing was accurate, as, after almost two months in uncontested control of Iraq, U.S. troops and investigators have failed to come up with concrete evidence of an Iraqi WMD program, let alone an actual weapon.

The scenario of an uneasy Powell received a major boost in the accounts of the three newsweeklies. U.S. News reported, for example, that, during a rehearsal of Powell's presentation at CIA headquarters Feb. 1, the normally mild-mannered retired general at one point ''tossed several pages in the air. 'I'm not reading this,' he declared. 'This is bull----'."

The same magazine also reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) formally concluded that, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" in September 2002, just as Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld was telling Congress that the Baghdad "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

The accounts by Newsweek and Time were similarly damning. One "informed military source" told Newsweek that when the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) asked the CIA for specific WMD targets that should be destroyed in the first stages of the invasion, the agency only complied reluctantly.

But what it provided "was crap," a CENTCOM planner told the magazine, consisting mainly of buildings that were bombed in the first Gulf War in 1991. And agency experts reportedly could not tell the war-planners what agents were located where.

If true, that contradicts a series of bald assertions by administration officials and their supporters over the last nine months. "Simply stated," Vice President Dick Cheney declared in the first call to arms last August, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

"We know where (the WMD) are," declared Rumsfeld in a television interview Mar. 30, well into the first week of the war. "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

He has since retreated from that certainty, suggesting last week that the Iraqis "may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."

There is also growing doubt about the evidence that Bush himself touted this weekend as proof--two truck trailers described by officials as mobile weapons-productions labs.

According to a CIA report noted in the 'Slate' Internet magazine, key equipment for growing, sterilizing and drying bacteria was not present in either trailer. Iraqi officials have said the trailers were used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Matthew Meselson, a Harvard University expert on biological weapons who 20 years ago single-handedly debunked reports by senior Reagan administration officials--several of whom hold relevant positions in the Bush government--about the use by Soviet allies of mycotoxins against rebels in Laos and Afghanistan, has also expressed doubts about the trailers' purpose, and called for the CIA to hand over the evidence to independent scientists to make an assessment.

Retired intelligence officials from both the CIA and the DIA are also coming out with ever-stronger statements accusing the intelligence community of twisting and exaggerating the evidence to justify war.

They say both agencies were intimidated by the political pressure exerted in particular by neo-conservative hawks under Cheney and Rumsfeld, who even established a special unit in the defense secretary's office to determine what intelligence was "missing."

Much of the evidence on which the WMD case was based came from defectors supplied by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi that has been championed by the neo-conservatives--including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and Defense Policy Board members Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, and James Woolsey--for more than a decade.

Retired senior CIA, DIA and State Department intelligence officers, including the CIA's former counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro and the DIA's former chief of Middle East intelligence W. Patrick Lang, have also spoken bluntly to reporters about what they call the administration's corruption of the intelligence process to justify war.

Both the CIA and State have long distrusted the INC and Chalabi, in particular, although Chalabi remains the Pentagon's favorite for leading an interim government in Baghdad.

All of this has outraged the administration, which insists the intelligence community was united in its assessment about the existence of WMD, and its neo-conservative defenders. The Wall Street Journal on Monday accused the "French and the European left" of trying to tarnish the U.S. victory and charged that discontent among CIA analysts was spurred by resentment of Rumsfeld.

But even the Journal appeared to be moving away from its previous position that Iraq's alleged WMD constituted a threat to the United States and its allies. "Whether or not WMD is found takes nothing away from the Iraq war victory," it said, citing the gains made in human rights by Saddam Hussein's demise.

Nonetheless, what the administration knew about WMD and when it knew it --to paraphrase the famous Watergate questions--are now claiming the limelight, to the administration's clear discomfort.

On Sunday, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said he hoped to begin hearings--with the Select Committee on Intelligence--before the Jul. 4 recess, while the ranking member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee has asked the CIA to produce a report by Jul. 1 reconciling its pre-war assessments with actual findings on the ground.

Inter Press Service
 
Atrás
Arriba