Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's one source of information about WDMs being false, and that may indeed have been knowable at that time. But lack of proof does not prove the opposite, it does not prove that Saddam did not have WDMs.

Saddam had used WDMs on multiple occasions in the past and it was not unreasonable to think he would use them again, even without any proof he had any more. It's not all that hard to hide those weapons if you are a dictator. The US made the mistake of presenting this incorrect piece of information. But reporting reasonable sounding information from an intelligence agency, even if that later turns out to be false, does not make the Washington Post a "liar" or a "state mouthpiece", as the grand parent claimed.



> But reporting reasonable sounding information from an intelligence agency, even if that later turns out to be false, does not make the Washington Post a "liar" or a "state mouthpiece", as the grand parent claimed.

Sure sounds like being a state mouthpiece to me. That's kind of what uncritically echoing what a murderous government tells you, while refusing to give the time of day to anti-war voices like a good little lapdog is.

In regards to them being liars - kust read their reporting from the time, such as this article titled "Irrefutable"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

"AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the Security Council's offer of a "final opportunity" to disarm."

This reporting they did was a lie that helped sell a war under false pretences.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: