ShareThis Page

Correcting Iraq spin

| Sunday, March 31, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Trudy Rubin's column “Casualties of war” (March 24 and is a classic example of political spin. She states, “The Iraq war was justified by (false) White House claims that (Saddam) Hussein was secretly building nukes and was in cahoots with al-Qaida” — conveniently selected words. The facts are different:

• Nuclear weapons components from a suspended program were removed prior to the invasion.

• Iraqi physicist Khidir Hamza testified before Congress in 2002 that Iraq was “in the final stages” of its uranium enrichment program and that the German intelligence service believed Iraq had enough bomb-grade uranium to build three nuclear weapons by 2005.

• Nuclear production facilities and uranium stockpiles were hidden inside hospitals and residences.

• Five hundred and fifty tons of yellowcake uranium were discovered and shipped to Canada in July 2008.

• Equipment for uranium-enrichment centrifuges was found.

• Iraq's chemical warfare program was active. Over 500 weapons were found.

• Maybe Iraq wasn't “in cahoots “with al-Qaida, but terrorist training camps were located — one complete with a commercial airline fuselage. Saddam funded many terrorist organizations including the PLO and Hamas.

The Trib opposed the invasion, but providing a forum for history's revision is yellow journalism.

Leo Patterson


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.