|
I didn't say enough about Jag's links and exactly how much they suck.
Common Dreams: According to a Scottish newspaper, US Sen committee says we sold Hussein biological agents. (Not weapons.) Immediately it contradicts itself; we didn't sell to *Hussein*, we sold to their universities, for study. The problem, says CD, is that they're DUAL USE. That is, the antidote for a nerve agent might be reverse-engineered to produce the nerve agent itself. Damn, does that count? Because doves are saying DUAL USE doesn't constitute an act of war. In fact I would be surprised if this was not the policy of Common Dreams. Just because a centrifuge can also be used to separate out fissionable materials doesn't mean they wanted it for that reason, right?
Business Week says the CDC sent biological samples to Iraq in the 80s. (Not weapons. A pattern emerges.)
smh says that some former US officers say that Iraq would build chemical attacks into the battle plans drawn up by the US. The "smoking gun" in this story is that one single "veteran of the program" said that the Pentagon "wasn't horrified." Somehow "not horrified" indicated "backed use" to the headline writer.
The Guardian - I could stop right there - says the US participated in a "covert program" to help Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. It then goes on to quote the same "veteran" that smh quoted, with the same "not horrified" quote. That's interesting reporting! The Guardian headline-writer is even more schemy: "US helped as Saddam plotted chemical attacks". The reader is encouraged to draw the inference that the US helped with the chemical part. This is not journalism.
The Yahoo/AP story: Is a piece about statements made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking on state-run radio.
Rense: I'm not even going to address this pathetic excuse for a rumor-mongering web site.
|