Letter: Gulf attacks lack hard evidence and imagination
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.CONGRATULATIONS to Peter Pringle ("A deadly cloud of paranoia drifts across the US", 20 December) in exposing the weaknesses of the Unscom report on weapons inspection.
The report (leaked to the US government four days before it was available to the UN) consists mainly of complaints that the Iraqis were unable or unwilling to provide documents which may have contained information on weapons of mass destruction. Their reluctance to give away state secrets that, on past form, would have been immediately passed on to the Israelis is understandable. No convincing evidence has been provided of the major industrial installations that would be necessary to produce chemical or biological warheads.
Although the Clinton/Blair spin-doctors have tried to justify the attacks on targets such as oil refineries on the basis of the Unscom report, the hard evidence is lacking.
CHARLES HUGHES
Felixstowe, Suffolk
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments