Skip to content

Atacar o México a seguir a Pearl Harbor

2004/03/26

Não resisto a citar partes de um artigo de Bob Herbert (The wrong war) no NYT de hoje, sobre o livro do ex-responsável anti-terrorista da Casa Branca, Richar Clarke.
“The most compelling aspects of Richard Clarke’s take on the world have less to do with the question of whether the Bush administration could somehow have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks and much more with the administration’s folly of responding to the attacks by launching a war on Iraq.”
(…)
“Mr. Clarke, President Bush’s former counterterrorism chief, writes in his book, “Against All Enemies,” that despite clear evidence the attacks had been the work of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, top administration officials focused almost immediately on the object of their obsession, Iraq.

He remembers taking a short break for a bite to eat and a shower, then returning to the White House very early on the morning of Sept. 12. He writes:

“I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were. . . . Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.”
(…)
Soon would come the now-famous encounter between Mr. Clarke and President Bush in the White House Situation Room. According to Mr. Clarke: “[The president] grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. `Look,’ he told us, `I know you have a lot to do and all . . . but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way.’ ”
(…)
The president wanted war with Iraq, and ultimately he would have his war. The drumbeat for an invasion of Iraq in the aftermath of the Qaeda attack was as incessant as it was bizarre. Mr. Clarke told “60 Minutes” that an attack on Iraq under those circumstances was comparable to President Roosevelt, after Pearl Harbor, deciding to invade Mexico “instead of going to war with Japan.”

The U.S. never pursued Al Qaeda with the focus, tenacity and resources it would expend — and continues to expend — on Iraq. The war against Iraq was sold the way a butcher would sell rotten meat — as something that was good for us. The administration and its apologists went out of their way to create the false impression that Saddam and Iraq were somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, and that he was an imminent threat to the U.S.
(…)
Richard Clarke has been consistently right on the facts, and the White House and its apologists consistently wrong. Which is why the White House is waging such a ferocious and unconscionable campaign of character assassination against Mr. Clarke.

Como democrata, acredito na democracia e nos representantes que ela elege. Não tenho qualquer dúvida sobre este princípio. Mas há outros princípios que nos obrigam a questionar sempre as verdades absolutas, sobretudo quando elas colidem com outras evidências ou sinais. A democracia é sem dúvida o melhor dos sistemas, mas ela é uma construção humana, e os seus intérpretes são humanos. Não são anjos nem demónios, mas a sua prática pode defini-los com maior clareza. E felizmente que em democracia só não se pode corrigir o que já se tornou irreversível.

Os comentários estão fechados.

%d bloggers like this: