|
1972
|
|
lunedì, giugno 21, 2004
Chi doveva scusarsi con chi? In America qualche giornale comincia a pentirsi di aver distorto grossolanamente le conclusioni della commissione.
Dalla Gazzetta di Pittsburgh (che non sarà il New York Times ma...) un’esplicita correzione di rotta: On Thursday, the lead headline in the Post-Gazette was "Saddam, al-Qaida Not Linked. Sept. 11 Panel's Conclusion at Odds with Administration." In the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that day, the banner headline read: "9/11 Panel Debunks Saddam Link. Report: No Evidence of al-Qaida Ties." This was false, as the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commission hastened to make clear. Since the Bush administration has never claimed that Saddam had a role in planning the 9/11 attacks, or earlier attacks on the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Khobar Towers bombing, or the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, there is essentially no difference between what the commission said in its staff report, and what President Bush has been saying all along. Dal NYT (che invece è proprio il New York Times...) una prima velata ammissione (ben nascosta in uno dei Multimedia Graphics): Critics of the Bush administration argue that it falsely created a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks to help justify the war. Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion — only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out — although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say. Insomma: Bush non ha mentito. Chi comincia da noi? |
A Fabio.
A Luisa.   
  Asia e dintorni Normblog |
