It seems to be something we might want to keep an eye on. Considering that napalm is being used and has a history of being lied about by the military, my position is a) open, "let's see what happens," and b) that we shouldn't believe a thing the military says unless it can be independently verified.
I have no real qualm with that. I just think that if the symptoms are tied to an agent it will be a political victory for the administration as it will be implied that Saddam used them on the troops or that he had them in places the troops have been.
The pneumonia cases aren't limited to the troops physically in Iraq. One of today's articles cites the soldier who had been innoculated here in the states for anthrax but had not yet been deployed. She got pneumonia and died.
In the same article, an interviewed soldier says most of the troops in his area came down with sore throats and bronchitis-like symptoms within hours of being innoculated for anthrax but were given medication that seemed to relieve it. I'm betting that the troops with pneumonia are the ones who have not received such medication to counter the effects of the vaccine.
The article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/143511.shtml
Aha -- that's interesting, Butrfly.
"...political victory for the administration as it will be implied that Saddam used them on the troops..."
I think he'd be bound to say that, Craven. But the breezes no longer blow sweetly for Bush -- questions are being asked all the time now. I doubt it would get past without serious examination... by Waxman and others, by the media, and by a lot of us out here...
I disagree. Between Saddam having used anthrax and it being smuggled into Iraq by the US I think the public would choose the former overwhelmingly.
I would be hard pressed to even consider the latter in this case as anything but grasping at straws.
But it's likely to all be moot.
