Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Sarin or not?
Rumsfeld is saying that the roadside bomb that exploded a few days ago did not necessarily contain Sarin Gas (a little more cautious this time around, eh?).
However, there are a couple of media sources that are reporting that it was indeed Sarin gas. Drudge, of course, is on top of it. Foxnews is also one of those sources. They are reporting that the presence of the gas has been confirmed.
"Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often — used as an IED or some other way — the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Ret. U.S. Army Col. Robert Maginnis.
Some experts suggested that the two shells, which were unmarked, date back to the first Persian Gulf War. The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas.
So, what is really going on? How come these supposed findings aren't getting more airtime. Foxnews is reporting it, as is the New York Post:
U.S. officials said it's possible the terrorists did not realize the shell contained sarin because it had no markings that would distinguish it from an ordinary artillery shell.
Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said the shell could have been a forgotten stray, but he didn't rule out that it could be part of a hidden stockpile.
But, I could find no related stories talking about this confirmation on CNN.com, the BBC, Reuters, ABC News, NBC News, or anywhere else really. I googled "sarin gas confirmed" and came up with a bunch of results, but not from the major infotainment sources. Maybe they will eventually get to this "unimportant" story, but so far i couldn't find anything. We'll have to wait for them to take a break from focusing all their efforts on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Yeah, that is important news, but there is a lot more going on in the world than that. You can't ignore important news just because one story is getting good play (well, they can and are, but that just ain't right).
Why are most 'credible' news sources afraid to report on a story like this? Are they afraid the confirmation will be rescinded? Yeah, right. They weren't afraid to publish unconfirmed sex photos (turned out to be from porn movies, not from an Iraqi prison. And they are STILL talking about them). Don't jump up on your high horse now. It'd be supportive news for the Bush admin, and the media doesn't seem to want to play any part in letting that happen, good reporting be damned.
Conservative media my ass
However, there are a couple of media sources that are reporting that it was indeed Sarin gas. Drudge, of course, is on top of it. Foxnews is also one of those sources. They are reporting that the presence of the gas has been confirmed.
"Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often — used as an IED or some other way — the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Ret. U.S. Army Col. Robert Maginnis.
Some experts suggested that the two shells, which were unmarked, date back to the first Persian Gulf War. The mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles that Saddam failed to account for in his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs containing mustard gas.
So, what is really going on? How come these supposed findings aren't getting more airtime. Foxnews is reporting it, as is the New York Post:
U.S. officials said it's possible the terrorists did not realize the shell contained sarin because it had no markings that would distinguish it from an ordinary artillery shell.
Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said the shell could have been a forgotten stray, but he didn't rule out that it could be part of a hidden stockpile.
But, I could find no related stories talking about this confirmation on CNN.com, the BBC, Reuters, ABC News, NBC News, or anywhere else really. I googled "sarin gas confirmed" and came up with a bunch of results, but not from the major infotainment sources. Maybe they will eventually get to this "unimportant" story, but so far i couldn't find anything. We'll have to wait for them to take a break from focusing all their efforts on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Yeah, that is important news, but there is a lot more going on in the world than that. You can't ignore important news just because one story is getting good play (well, they can and are, but that just ain't right).
Why are most 'credible' news sources afraid to report on a story like this? Are they afraid the confirmation will be rescinded? Yeah, right. They weren't afraid to publish unconfirmed sex photos (turned out to be from porn movies, not from an Iraqi prison. And they are STILL talking about them). Don't jump up on your high horse now. It'd be supportive news for the Bush admin, and the media doesn't seem to want to play any part in letting that happen, good reporting be damned.
Conservative media my ass
Comments:
Post a Comment
