Here's a story that wasn't reported in the mainstream press. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq. That's right. This is probably news to you. Newsbusters noticed that no one else seemed to report on it.
The few media outlets that have discussed it talked about how it wasn't as many weapons as what we suspected or how they were old weapons, not newly made weapons. What they don't mention is that a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon and under International Law Iraq was unable to possess them. By Iraq's admission they did not possess them. Neither the law nor Iraq's admission tempered the statements to say they didn't create any new weapons. They didn't say they only had less than 5. The law was they couldn't have any.
I know maybe I'm beating a dead horse here but you'll here in the press for years about how we went into Iraq and there were no weapons. This isn't true. I'm not advocating the manner in which we went into Iraq but lets stick to the facts. Iraq did have chemical weapons. The press just didn't have the objectivity to report it.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
More Iraq Madness
I've discussed what's going on in Iraq with so many different people on so many different levels that I almost don't want to get into it. Then today I read the following line from MSNBC.com.
"Iraq’s leading Sunni Muslim clerics said Wednesday the country’s landmark elections lacked legitimacy because large numbers of Sunnis did not participate in the balloting, which the religious leaders had asked them to boycott."
Does anything else really need to be said about the situation?
UPDATE: 1/10/2006 7:14PM
I was looking back through some old posts trying to add the newly supported labels and I was reading through the article that is reference here. Apparently sometime between when I originally made this post and now the article I liked to has changed. They've toned down their language slightly. I guess they realized how ridiculous it made the opposition in Iraq look. The arcile now reads:
"Because many Sunnis stayed away from the polls, influential Sunni clerics — including many who had called for a boycott — are now challenging the legitimacy of the balloting and the government that will emerge from it."
That's makes them sound far less hypocritical and is honestly probably far less accurate.
"Iraq’s leading Sunni Muslim clerics said Wednesday the country’s landmark elections lacked legitimacy because large numbers of Sunnis did not participate in the balloting, which the religious leaders had asked them to boycott."
Does anything else really need to be said about the situation?
UPDATE: 1/10/2006 7:14PM
I was looking back through some old posts trying to add the newly supported labels and I was reading through the article that is reference here. Apparently sometime between when I originally made this post and now the article I liked to has changed. They've toned down their language slightly. I guess they realized how ridiculous it made the opposition in Iraq look. The arcile now reads:
"Because many Sunnis stayed away from the polls, influential Sunni clerics — including many who had called for a boycott — are now challenging the legitimacy of the balloting and the government that will emerge from it."
That's makes them sound far less hypocritical and is honestly probably far less accurate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
