Tonight a story in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye. Look carefully at some of the statements that came out of the settlement:
Decorated Marine Settles Suit With Defense Contractor
What totally theoretical possibilities do these two statements make it possible for a cynic to imagine?
Here is the Marine's statement:
"I am gratified to learn that BAE Systems-OASYS did not ultimately sell and does not intend to sell advanced thermal scopes to Pakistan"
"I am gratified to learn that BAE Systems-OASYS (not to be confused with "BAE Systems-PALM”) did not ultimately ("we were thinking about it but then the suit was filed") sell (lease?) and does not (currently) intend to sell advanced (regular grade are OK) thermal (non-thermal?) scopes (but we can sell other gear) to Pakistan (defined as "the government of Pakistan").
Here is BAE's position:
“BAE has made clear that the scopes arousing Mr. Meyer's concerns were never sold to Pakistan.”
BAE has made clear that the scopes arousing Mr. Meyer's concerns (specifically) were never sold to Pakistan" (defined as "the government of Pakistan?")
Why not a clearer and more categorical statement? What military equipment have they and other defense corporations sold to Pakistan? Doesn’t Pakistan appear to be rapidly transforming itself into an enemy?
Why, after posting a comment at the WSJ similar to the above, did I just now (for the first time ever) encounter a paywall at the WSJ?