They need to make the distinction between claims that were originated from journalists and claims originated from official spokesmen. Many of these claims have really just been bad reportage.

But making that distinction wouldn't serve the Guardian's aims.

Good point. A good summary though.

Maybe its just my imagination, but for some strange reason, all the refuted claims appear to be made by just one side in this conflict.

thanks! great link!

This is just antiwar propaganda.
Blix claims no prohibited weapons used, but the Guardian fails to note that this use has been confirmed in Kuwait where missiles have gone well beyond the allowed 150 km limit.

So Blix is WRONG and the Guardian fails to note it!

What about the claims that the US is using napalm, using nuclear weapons, is targeting civilians, etc.?

Yes, yes, we know the Guardian's agenda is predictable and transparent, ok. How about updating the list correctly then...?

to JIM:
1. How do you know that the Iraqis launched the missiles to Kuwait more than 150 km away?
2. What kind of missiles were it anyway (that would help to determine if it was possible at all to launch them in a greater distance)?

There were a lot of these things they say were wrong when in fact the reports were just less clear later.

For instance it was said we found a chemical weapons factory, then it was said to be a chemical factory, that was hidden from satellites and guarded and run by a general. That really isn't going back and saying it wasn't a chemical weapons factory.