I don't have time to do a full analysis of this report that US forces used chemical weapons against Iraqis in the assault against Fallujah last November, but I am a bit suspicious of a reporter who writes a story that begins:
Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city. (My emph.)
Unreported? Unreported?
Does this guy really think that no one will remember a little controversy called the Kevin Sites video?
CBS had a reporter embedded with US troops as well. I could go on, and on, but, again, in a bit of a rush.
Oh, one more thing:
Reports of use of white phosphorus, the chemical in question, appeared at the time, in the Washington Post.
Why no big outcry? I imagine because, back then, the docs at the hospital made it clear that those being treated (and, remember, the US admits it was in use, just not that it was actually targeted at people; it's still possible someone would have been hit with the stuff, yes?) were fighters, not innocent civilians.
Update: Greyhawk's got a complete slamdunk on the question of media coverage of the assault. The BBC, meanwhile, while not attempting to present the story in a light particularly helpful to the US still has to offer a wide range of details the British paper managed to leave out. Not the least of these are the statements made by the US government when the charges were made in the past, and the name of the American witness in the Italian documentary.
Does that get us anywhere? Nowhere I could get in the five additional minutes I had this go 'round, but it seems to me that we spend time bashing the press for using anonymous sources for a very good reason, and the fact that this witness stood up by name matters. Maybe there's something there that will guide us in how to weigh his testimony, maybe there isn't, but you have to have more respect for a reporter that provides you the name than one who just says ominously, "why, they even have a former American soldier!"
Comments