CNN Cancels Crossfire

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"62536)</div>

Alan Colmes is only on Fox News because he's the only liberal they could find that would be enough of a pushover to not stand up effectively for what he believes in. Plus he even looks like a wimp.

Not that I can imagine why anyone even slightly left-leaning (or moderate for that matter) would want to work for Fox News, so I suppose Alan Colmes is PROBABLY better than no liberal voice.

I can say one good thing about crossfire though. It definitely attracts my attention with all the yelling. Of course then I get a headache from watching it.

 

If we repeat it often enough, people will believe it....

"Weapons of mass destruction" "Weapons of mass destruction" "Weapons of mass destruction" "Weapons of mass destruction"

"Intolerant left" "Intolerant left" "Intolerant left" "Intolerant left" "Intolerant left"

"Saddam and 9/11" "Saddam and 9/11" "Saddam and 9/11" "Saddam and 9/11"

See... it is already working.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ssmithri\";p=\"62856)</div>

Saddam’s biggest fear was not being attacked by the USA. If it were, he would have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to do their job unmolested . But no, he played cat and mouse games. He thought his bribes to France, Germany and Russia would keep the USA at bay.

WMD is what Saddam wanted the Iranians to believe he still had! The threat of WMD was the only ace card he had to prevent Iran from attacking. His army was decimated during Desert Storm and without the fear of WMD he was a sitting duck . . . Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY would have come to his defense.

The CIA believed Saddam’s bluff too, but imagine the world today if Iran had overran Iraq.

So yes, "Weapons of mass destruction" "Weapons of mass destruction" "Weapons of mass destruction" "Weapons of mass destruction" . . . he used them against the Kurds and the Iranian army during the Iran/Iraq war, and Saddam thought that fear would save his butt.

It is sooooo easy to criticize with 20/20 hindsight, especially when you don’t factor in the consequences of the alternatives.

 

That is one other possible and perfectly reasonable alternative: That Saddam actually did posses WMD (after all - he declared having them and he did use them), but moved them away before the invasion (there are numerous reports that do suggest the possibility).

Interestingly enough such alternative doesn't even cross liberal's mind. I wonder why.

 

Where to?

Because it is so preposterous.

 

Maybe because we haven't seen these "numerous reports" you speak of. If you know of any credible reports that claimed there is EVIDENCE that he moved WMDs away before the invasion, I would certainly like to see them. I can suggest an infinite (well, very large) amount of possibilities; that doesn't make any of them true or likely true. It certainly doesn't give any rational person reason to believe any particular one of them.

 

Oh and also the Duelfer report contradicts your claim. Would you like to provide a more credible source than the Duelfer report? And this press conference is interesting (just happened today, actually):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20050112-7.html

Scott McClellan is grilled by reporters on the absense of finding evidence for WMDs in Iraq. He admits we were wrong (actually the entire thing is an interesting read):

"Q: The President accepts that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said back in October that the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer concluded what his predecessor had said, as well, that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there. And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time, and correct any flaws."

So....... the official reports contradict your claim...... and the administration itself has admitted that our intelligence was wrong..... so.... I fail to see the difficulty in taking the facts and constructing a rational conclusion from them. But, who knows, I could be missing something.

 

Preposterous? Saddam declared having WDM (after Desert Storm), used them, Iraqui refugees, including his own relatives, reported them, and yet the possibility that he may have moved them out of the country prior the invasion is preposterous?

Well, it is obvious that such a possibility doesn't fit into your scheme of things, but to someone who is able to use some common sense it is anything but preposterous.

 

Gentlemen,

of course there were no WMD in Iraq, otherwise these would be found by now. You want me to prove that Saddam owed them. Well - he did, certainly at one time. He did his best to have everyone believe that he still does. Did he indeed? I don't know - maybe he did not, I can't prove it, and neither can you. Maybe he did, and moved them out of country - I can't prove it, and neither can you.

But it is a possibility that should be considered. Your outright dismissal of such option only because it doesn't fit into your personal political agenda is more than telling.

 

I'm dismissing it because of the lack of evidence, after we spent so much time looking for such evidence. I am saying our government has spent a great deal of time investigating the issue and come up with nothing, when they wanted nothing more than to find something to validate their claims. I agree that the possibility of Iraq smuggling WMDs out of the country is scary, and that is why I am glad that we spent all this effort investigating such claims, and as Scott McClellan says we will continue to investigate all those claims.

The idea of Saddam smuggling WMDs out of Iraq was certainly a perfectly reasonable alternative when we had not investigated the matter. Now that we have, it has become a very remote and unlikely possibility.

 

I'd appreciate if you could provide me with some info on investigations that you mentioned. I'd be especially interested in the one that made you believe that it has became very "remote and unlikely possibility".

I'd love to believe the same - perhaps I missed these investigation reports you consider so decisive in forming your conclusions.

Thanks.

 

Guys,

We are off message here...

"free Iraqi elections" "free Iraqi elections" "free Iraqi elections" "free Iraqi elections"

Besides, the massive mandate that my President got at the polls proves that the American people believed every word he said.

 

CNN cancels Crossfire.........Who cares.
That show sucked anyway. It was a waste if air time. :mrgreen:

 

David Kay and then Charles Duelfer directed the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) looking for evidence of WMDs in Iraq (appointed by Bush):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169941.stm
"Mr Duelfer reported last October that he could find no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active programmes - although he said he believed Iraq's former leader, Saddam Hussein, still had the intention of reviving those programmes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/internat.../12cnd-wmd.html
"He reported that Mr. Hussein had built no banned weapons since 1991 and had little or capability of making them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/politics/12arms.html
"Mr. Duelfer issued a comprehensive report last fall that acknowledged that Iraq had destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990's, years before the American invasion of 2003."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/
"In October, Duelfer released a preliminary report finding that in March 2003 -- the month of the invasion -- Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles and had not started any program to produce them. The Iraq Survey Group report said that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991."

Finally, Fox News has a link to a summary of the findings of the report (very informative, I was surprised to find all this info on Fox News of all places, I didn't see the nice summary thingy anywhere else I looked):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144143,00.html

(click on the link to the key findings in .pdf format)

Some key passages taken from the summary:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

"He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."


So he did not have weapons after 1991, and was not producing weapons because sanctions made that impossible. He was actively trying to end or get around the sanctions, so that someday he could obtain WMDs again.

 

This finding kind of goes against UN RESOLUTION 687 (1991) [ The requirements placed on Iraq for a formal cease-fire between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States ending Desert Storm]

. . . don’t ya think?

Read it for yourself.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Here is some of the more juicy parts . . ..
- - - - - - -
Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph . . .

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
- - - - - -

Did he comply?
NO

Proof of the destruction of the WMD would have been complying. The fact that nobody could find WMDs is not proof of complying with the resolution . . . and the cat and mouse games did not help.

Proof Positive . . . there is no such thing as Proof Negative!

 

I agree, Saddam had no intention of complying with that UN resolution, as the Duelfer Report points out. And, he was actively trying to subvert sanctions (successully in the case of the UN Oil for Food program).

However, proof of the destruction of WMD would not have necessarily meant complying with the resolution. The resolution states that he had to destroy the weapons under international supervision, which he did not do apparently in some cases. As someone pointed out earlier, he may have wanted his enemies to think there was a possibility he still had WMDs.

However, did you even read the findings of the Duelfer report? They concluded, based on all the evidence they collected over the span of more than a year, that Saddam destroyed his weapons. It wasn't like they just said "oh well, we didn't find anything, so I guess we'll just assume that there wasn't anything there after 1991". That's not a safe assumption, clearly, unless supported by the facts. And certainly our administration has great reason to refute the findings unless they're supported by the facts.

Considering that the ISG:

1. was chosen by the president to officially determine the facts
2. spent over a year investigating the matter with access to all available evidence

If you do not accept their findings as fact, then there is nothing I can say that will convince you. I will not believe anything unless I find it more credible than the Duelfer Report, because that is our government's official report on the matter, and there are no other more credible sources (that I know of). If they say their evidence shows Saddam had no WMDs after 1991, then what reason do I have to believe otherwise? Gut intuition?

 

It was me who pointed out that Saddam wanted Iran to think there was a possibility of remaining WMD. (It was the USE of WMD (101,000 rounds) which saved Saddam's nice person during the Iran/Iraq war when Iran sent in the "human wave" attacks.

As stated in the Duelfer Report:

Saddam continued to see the utility of WMD. He explained that he purposely gave an ambiguous impression about possession as a deterrent to Iran. He gave explicit direction to maintain the intellectual capabilities. As UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation. He directed that ballistic missile work continue that would support long-range missile development. Virtually no senior Iraq; believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution.

SO YES, he did fool his enemies . . . one of them being the United States.
Saddam got what he wanted . . . but then he also got what he deserved!
(it was only a cease-fire, and Saddam repeatedly broke the agreement)

Those who try to use this as a political weapon against our president do so with a callous disregard for the facts. EVERYONE WAS FOOLED!!! But some, namely the French, Germans, and Russians were paid stooges of Saddam trying to prevent the truth from being revealed. And yet, we Americans are the bad guy??? BS

 

There isn't an iota of evidence supporting your baseless speculations.

A report by a high Bush administration official with access to classified intelligence information, following an almost two year investigation, does not suggest that such a transfer possibly took place.

I stand by my comment that it is preposterous to seriously suggest the WMD were not found in Iraq because Saddam moved them to another country before we invaded.

 

All I was trying to prove, is that there is no reason to believe (and overwhelming evidence against the idea) that Saddam had WMDs that he smuggled out of the country prior to the invasion. That's what this discussion has been about, or at least how this part of the argument started.

I would more likely use being fooled by Saddam as a political weapon against the CIA, not against our President (and we did finally restructure the CIA).

Why I completely disagree with almost everything Bush has done is an entirely different subject :mrgreen:

 

Yeah, but what about his stance on gay marriage (I wonder if this will get longer than the FWA post?) :mrgreen: