The US has got egg on its face: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that "they can't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq":http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=12&u=/nm/20030527/ts_nm/iraq_rumsfeld_weapons_dc_1. In a weak excuse, he explained that such weapons could have been destroyed prior to the coalition invasion.
bq. Rumsfeld told the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations think-tank he did not know why Iraq had not used chemical weapons against the invaders as Washington had predicted it would. He said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
This is kind of a problem ain't it? The US and Britain ("Jack Straw has also admitted Britain can't find any WMD in Iraq":http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/stra-m16.shtml) invaded Iraq because they claimed it possessed banned weapons. Shame. Mainstream US media even has the audacity to say that "not finding any weapons doesn't make the war any less legitimate":http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37165-2003May9¬Found=true. Double shame. Michael Schrage of the Washington Post has been "suitably chastised":http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/wmd-m17.shtml for such inappropriate claims.
Perhaps, they should have stuck to a reason they could prove, such as the "murder of up to 250,000 people":http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003/06/02/World/60280.shtml who lost their lives under Saddam's brutal dictatorship.
Leave a comment