From Yahoo (IPS):A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the [Halabja] massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. This is the infamous "gassing of the Kurds" incident that is the basis for the "Saddam used WMD against his own people" mantra. Before the war I remember hearing that it was really the Iranians, but then it seemed like anyone saying this was branded a nut job (or worse - a Saddam lover,) and I admit to being sort of convinced by this into believing it was Saddam.
Has anyone been following more closely? Is this the standard line now? Are you no longer crazy to suggest it was the Iranians? And has this been widely known, or is this new story big news?
That could be a little tough for the administration...
I've read that. Not sure if I saw the Pelletiere story. I knew the facts on Halabja were shaky. It's really two issues: did Saddam do it? and is gas a WMD or a battlefield weapon? There is a difference between slaughter on the battlefield and ethnic cleansing/genocide. Of course Bush (and his liberal hawk enablers) are going to say it was genocide and Saddam did it.
Here's a copy of the Pelletiere opinion piece that appeared in the New York Times on January 31, 2003. I can't believe I didn't know about this before. There are so many lies it becomes hard to keep it all straight.
Tom's point about the difference between battlefield chemical weapons (like sarin or mustard gas tipped mortar rounds) and real WMDs cannot be repeated enough.
In fact, the whole concept of WMDs seems shaky and designed to mislead. Does it really make any sense to put a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead in the same class as botchulism? What value does such a classification system have? It's hard not to think that the reason for this is so the U.S. can find some not really very dangerous weapons, and trick people into thinking they mean nukes by calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction.
One by one the rationales fall away: WMDs, the al Qaeda connection, "Saddam gassed his own people..." The really sad thing is all this was known and in the public domain before the Administration opted to pull the trigger.
That's an interesting point in the Pelletiere essay about control of the water.
Kind of off-topic, but Steve Gilliard has a theory that it was the Washington sniper that got the pundit class all freaked out and in the "bomb anybody, bomb them now" mode leading up to the war. They're just as much to blame for not challenging the Known Lies about Saddam in the runup to the invasion.
|
Has anyone been following more closely? Is this the standard line now? Are you no longer crazy to suggest it was the Iranians? And has this been widely known, or is this new story big news?
That could be a little tough for the administration...
- jim 7-09-2004 5:36 pm
I've read that. Not sure if I saw the Pelletiere story. I knew the facts on Halabja were shaky. It's really two issues: did Saddam do it? and is gas a WMD or a battlefield weapon? There is a difference between slaughter on the battlefield and ethnic cleansing/genocide. Of course Bush (and his liberal hawk enablers) are going to say it was genocide and Saddam did it.
- tom moody 7-09-2004 8:10 pm [add a comment]
Here's a copy of the Pelletiere opinion piece that appeared in the New York Times on January 31, 2003. I can't believe I didn't know about this before. There are so many lies it becomes hard to keep it all straight.
Tom's point about the difference between battlefield chemical weapons (like sarin or mustard gas tipped mortar rounds) and real WMDs cannot be repeated enough.
In fact, the whole concept of WMDs seems shaky and designed to mislead. Does it really make any sense to put a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead in the same class as botchulism? What value does such a classification system have? It's hard not to think that the reason for this is so the U.S. can find some not really very dangerous weapons, and trick people into thinking they mean nukes by calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction.
- jim 7-09-2004 9:55 pm [add a comment]
One by one the rationales fall away: WMDs, the al Qaeda connection, "Saddam gassed his own people..." The really sad thing is all this was known and in the public domain before the Administration opted to pull the trigger.
That's an interesting point in the Pelletiere essay about control of the water.
Kind of off-topic, but Steve Gilliard has a theory that it was the Washington sniper that got the pundit class all freaked out and in the "bomb anybody, bomb them now" mode leading up to the war. They're just as much to blame for not challenging the Known Lies about Saddam in the runup to the invasion.
- tom moody 7-09-2004 11:01 pm [add a comment]