Is anyone sensible prepared to defend Ann Clwyd’s insistence that coalition forces haven’t been using napalm, or something functionally indistinguishable, in Iraq, both during the military campaign in the Spring of 2003 and, more recently, in Fallujah?

Chris Young, over at Explananda, who has been keeping his eye on napalm-themed issues for a while now, writes that “Clwyd must know that the U.S. used a modern form of napalm in Iraq; incompetence simply can’t suffice here as an explanation. It’s just a lie – and a depressing one too, considering what Clwyd’s job is supposed to be”, and that just about sums up my reaction, too. The only alternative explanation seems to be that she hasn’t paid any attention at all to what critics of the US invasion have been saying for over two years, and that she is the last person on the planet gullible enough to believe things that government ministers tell them, just because it’s a government minister talking.

As Chris goes on to comment, “I’ve never believed that offering a humanitarian justification for the war in Iraq requires anyone to lie about U.S. conduct. So why does Clwyd act as if it does?”

[For napalm-related concerns, try here, here, here, here, here, here (sort of), here, here and here.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.