BBC 'no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq'

Kind of reminds you of Andrew Gilligan saying the Americans had not taken Baghdad airport when in fact they had and Gilligan wasn't anywhere near the airport to know.

So it is with Michael Buchanan, except he is the BBC correspondent in Washington and has access to all the US media reports detailing the weapons of mass destruction found so far.

Here is a copy of my latest complaint to the BBC for breaching their "so called" core values. Everyday since announcing that the BBC is a changed animal for the good, they have shown it is business as usual. No one is in control of this organization and their charter should not be renewed.

In the referenced article, Michael Buchanan states "The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is moving the Iraq conflict, in the minds of many voters, from a war of necessity to a war of choice."

A totally false statement.

Many weapons of mass destruction have been found. Many news outlets, except of course the BBC, have reported on the finding of weapons of mass destruction.

From Fox News

"He also told Fox News that about 10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells have been found in various locations in Iraq."

From Front Page

"Demetrius Perricos, acting chairman of UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), recently disclosed that his inspectors have been busily tracking shipments of illicit Iraqi WMD components around the world.

The Associated Press announced that UNMOVIC inspectors have found dozens of engines from banned al-Samoud 2 (SA2) missiles, which were shipped out of Iraq as “scrap metal.” Most recently, UNMOVIC agents found 20 SA-2 engines in Jordan, along with a great deal of other WMD materials. Officials discovered an identical engine in a Rotterdam port in the Netherlands and believe as many as a dozen extra SA-2 missile engines alone have been transported out of Iraq and remain unaccounted for."

Your much vaunted "core values" states in its' first paragraph:

"Truth and accuracy - BBC journalism must be rooted in the highest accuracy, well sourced and based on sound evidence."

Do you call this "the highest accuracy and sound evidence"?

Please correct these false statements as soon as possible.

UPDATE: Forgot to post the link to the story. BBC referenced article here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------