CNN kept their mouth shut about Iraq for a decade

[Guest Ascalon]

All i have to say is...

No shit...big surprise.

Wade outside the Fox controlled media of the US in the 90's and most likely you would find news about US incursions into Iraq since the end of the Gulf War.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Who is Wade?

[Guest Some Guy]

O'Reilly is a populist who wins arguements through pure volume. If more of his guests employed the Bullhorn Effect, he'd start feeling the heat more.

I'll grant you that.

 

They were not illegal missiles. Fox implied this proved the U.N. inspection team was a failure, implying the very weapons they were sent to deal with were now being fired on our troops. You're probably right when you someone got carried away editorializing it. My guess is the anchor with their face in the camera.

 

They were Illegal missiles. The went further than the UN resoutions said they could.

 

They were being fired a distance determined illegal by the 1991 ceasefire agreement, but so what? You don't abide by ceasefire agreements or no-fly zones when you're in the middle of WAR. Yes, there are wartime agreements such as the near-universal agreement to not use landmines in war (an agreement the U.S. has repeatedly rejected, btw) but the ceasefire as things like the no-fly zone was a peacetime agreement. To assume they'd follow it in a war that was brought to them is stupid.

 

The point is that they were firing missiles with a range that exceded the legal distance for Iraqi missiles. Why don;t you get that? They were not supposed to have missiles that flew further than 150K and they did, we know this because they fired them at Kuwait.

 

The Fox Anchor said, and I quote:

 

“Now, Iraq is not supposed to have Scuds because they have a range of 175-400 miles. The limit by the UN, of course, is like 95 miles. So, we already know they have something they're not supposed to have.”

 

Ok, so the only mistake that was made is that they mislabeled the illegal missiles as Scuds, which as I've said at least twice is understandable because Tommy Franks' spokeman said they were. You're fighting a losing battle here.

 

The missiles they fired, regardless of what their name is went further than 150K. They were not allowed to have missiles that flew further than 150K. The fact that they fired missiles that went further than 150K proves that they had missiles that went further than 150K. The fact that they had missiles that went further than 150K proves that they were in violation of the law. Or that "they have something they're not supposed to have."

 

How hard is that to understand?