Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Powell recalls war speech 'blot' (x i charlie-castagno)

 Powell recalls war speech 'blot'
From correspondents in Washington
09sep05
FORMER US secretary of state Colin Powell has said his UN speech making
the case for the US-led war on Iraq was "a blot" on his record.
In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell
forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering
"proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The presentation included satellite photos of trucks that Mr Powell
identified as mobile bioweapons laboratories.
After the invasion US weapons inspectors reported finding no Iraqi
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
"It's a blot" on my record, Mr Powell said in an interview with America's
ABC News to be aired today.
 
"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world,
and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful
now."
Mr Powell spent five days at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters
ahead of the speech studying intelligence reports, many of which turned
out to be false. He said he felt "terrible" at being misinformed.
He did not, however, blame then CIA director George Tenet. Mr Tenet "did
not sit there for five days with me misleading me," he said. "He believed
what he was giving to me was accurate."
However some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time
that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon,
and they didn't speak up," Mr Powell said.
"These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that
some of these resources should not be considered reliable," he said. "I
was enormously disappointed."
Mr Powell also said that he had "never seen evidence to suggest" a
connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the US and the
Saddam regime.
As for post-Saddam Iraq, Mr Powell said there was little choice but to
keep investing in the Iraqi armed forces.
"What we didn't do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our
will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough
troops from coalition forces, or, by (quickly) recreating the Iraqi
(armed) forces," he said.
"It may not have turned out to be such a mess if we had done some things
differently."
Mr Powell also voiced concern over a possible civil war in Iraq.
"A way has to be found for the Sunnis to be brought into the political
process. You cannot let Iraq devolve into a mini-state in the north, a
larger mini-state in the south, and sort of nothing in the middle," he
said.
"The mission we set for ourselves at the beginning, and which we told the
Iraqis that we were going to do, is to keep this as a single state. And
that's the challenge that we have now."
Mr Powell downplayed his reported differences with Vice President Dick
Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, and said he was on good
terms with President George W. Bush.
"There are some who say, well, you shouldn't have supported (the war), you
should have resigned. But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone," Mr Powell
said.
On Washington's differences with Tehran, Mr Powell also said he did not
see "a clear military option with respect to Iran."
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16543679%255E401,00.html
------------------------------------------------
Castagno che dice Powell? Non e' che tu eri tra quelli che sbandieravano 
le prove USA per giustificare l'attacco all'Iraq?
-- 
cocktail maisele: 1/3 arduino, 1/3 debora faith, 1/3 S. De Ce' . Agitare.
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 the case for the US-led war on Iraq was "a blot" on his record.
Ma secondo te maccheroniCharli mastica abbastanza inglese da sapere cosa
significa "blot" ?   ;-)
Non farà confusione con "blog"?   ;-)
Saluti                  Nuovomedioevo

 le prove USA per giustificare l'attacco all'Iraq?
No. Io ero quello che riportava i rapporti UNMOVIC/UNSCOM, e che
nessuno ha mai dimostrato essere falsi.
Inoltre, c'è qualcuno che non ha benchiaro la differenza che c'è tra
"falso" e "sbagliato".
Raffaele

 Raffaele
Come se quei rapporti siano stati un casus belli... Non a caso condividi 
questa valutazione con SdC, mentre persino la Casa Bianca se n'e' 
dimenticata...
Come ci si sente ad essere ultimi soldati giapponesi dimeticati su un 
atollo?
Am.

 atollo?
Ritenere quelle provette e quelle foto il casus belli della guerra in
Iraq, è una cagata.
Consiglio a tutti la lettura di:
"Attacco all'Iraq
100 ragioni segrete, incredibili, ovvie"
U.Rapetto R. Di Nunzio
RIZZOLI
Quei rapporti non sono stati affatto un casus belli. Quelli sono stati
una documentazione del fatto che Saddam era un criminale recidivo. Sono
solo uno dei sassolini che hanno portato all'intervento armato. Tra
l'altro, va sottolineato che alla fine della prima guerra nel golfo tra
coalizione ed Iraq si era arrivati ad un armistizio, con precise
condizioni. Le condizioni non sono state rispettate, e l'armistizio è
stato sciolto.
Comunque ribadisco: le ragioni della guerra in Iraq sono state
parecchie, non certo solo per le wmd, nè tantomeno per il petrolio.
Raffaele

 Iraq, è una cagata.
Quelle dell'Unmovic, o quelle del povero Powell? Ma non valgono cmq. di 
piu' di quelle della nave nel golfo del Tonchino, che scateno' 
l'aggressione USA al Vietnam.
Come dici tu una cagata.
L'Irak andava  punito per dare un segnale al mondo arabo, cosi' come il 
Vietnam per dare un segnale al mondo comunista. Il resto sono pietosi 
pretesti, pagati sul terreno dai vari platoons, che finiranno per 
ritirarsi cmq.
Vedremo come se la caveranno con la Cina i gloriosi USA, che non avendo 
vinto una guerra dal 45 in poi ora stanno rispolverando l'attacco 
nucleare preventivo.
Roba da vergognarsi, dopo il Giappone.
Am.

amalric ha scritto:




tanto ha la sua trombetta...
