Back to MyDD Weblog

White House Press Briefing: Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:00 PM

Mokhiber: Who gave him the weapons?

The rationale that Ari and the Republicans use in defense of having sold WMD's to Iraq is nothing new. It is that there is no blame in either production or proliferation, only the use.

There may not be blame per say; for their sake of the argument, I can go along with the doubt of the manufacturer or salesperson having had intended it for this use (I'll grant the ignorance). However, responsibility is a different matter; and how can there not exist such responsibility? It's a fact of the ethical life, not that Ari would know.

The San Francisco Chronicle followed up with an article on three bay area companies that are mentioned in Iraq's weapons declaration:

Other critics have suggested that Iraq intentionally mentioned the companies that reportedly did business with Hussein in order to muddy the controversy about its weapons program.

Referring to criticism in Europe of the Bush administration's push to invade Iraq, Croddy questioned the motives of Zumach and his publication. He said the report is "a sensational way of putting a spotlight on the United States because there are those who disapprove of the United States."

On the other hand, Phyllis Bennis, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, said Zumach's report offers important lessons on how the United States has coddled repressive regimes that later become international threats.

"The problem is if we had not armed that regime to the teeth, it would not become more than a tin-pot dictator," she said. "What made Iraq more powerful was support from the United States and its allies."

No wonder the chickenhawks want to just get this over with-- the lies are emerging from the depths about their betrayal of humanity.

Back to MyDD Weblog