LoneStarMadam wrote:Why isn't FNC acceptable to you? I'm sure Al Jazeera nor MoveOn would have that story, sorry.
Is that the same CIA that said there were WMDs in Iraq? The same ones that told BC & this president that WMDs was in Iraq?
I don't think that I said that Fox wasn't
acceptable. I said that Fox News popping up at number 1 in the search results was ironic.
But you'll certainly agree that Fox rather leans to the right, because otherwise you wouldn't have given examples of what you perceive to be left-leaning news sources.
And
even though Fox News is rather on the right side of whatever's out there to report, their article clearly mentions that
- the munitions found dated back to the period pre-1991
- the chemical agents had already degraded
- the munitions found were not proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s
So what exactly does this proof? Well, it's evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons prior to Gulf War I. Of course, that is not particularly exciting, as we already knew this from Halabja poison gas attack in 1988.
And we already knew it from the Iraq-Iran war. Of course, back then, the US had no problem with the fact that a) Iraq was in posssesion of WMD and b) was using those WMD to kill more than 100,000 Iranians.
Actually, we already knew that Iraq was in possession of chemical weapons because countries like the US, the UK, Germany, France or China had
supplied Iraq with either precursors, know-how or actual weapons. Of course that was back in the 1980s, when Iraq Was Our Friend.
However, I somehow remember that the US government made all kinds of claims that Iraq was in the possession of
nuclear weapons of mass destruction. You know, all that talk about mushroom clouds and so on. I don't think that chemical weapons were mentioned a lot pre-Gulf-War-II.
So here's my question to you: What do you think the defunct pre-1991 munitions show us in regard to the claims the US government made about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in the run-up to the invasion?