UN Weapons Inspector Bill Tierney weighs in [drops bomb, on Hannity & Colmes]!

Fox News Channel ^ | 1/27/03 | Hannity & Colmes

[4Liberty]

Former UN weapons inspector Bill Tierney was interviewed by Mr. Colmes a few minutes ago. Colmes shows him a clip of IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei stating that, to date, information obtained shows no evidence of nuclear weapons development in Iraq: "To conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s." Colmes cuts back to Tierney and says: "Do you agree with that assessment?" Tierney says: "No." Colmes: "Well, do you know something that he doesn't?" Tierney then says, "YES." Everyone on the HC set went nuts, - asking "What do you know?! Will you tell us what information you have!?" Tierney said "Yes" that he would tell them; and that he would "make the information known at the proper time." Hannity jumps in and says, "Well, we expect to have you back on Hannity & Colmes VERY soon!"

[blam]

"This guy's been saying this on Hannity's radio show for weeks, nothing new."

He must be waiting for his book to come out.

[Howlin]

Phi, did you happen to read a thread about this guy on here this very day?

I am positive I did and now I can't find it.

[per loin]

Promises of future evidence are easily made.

[ellery]

bttt

[PhiKapMom]

I thought I recognized the name too from something I read but I cannot remember what it was. I keep thinking I saw him on TV as well.

Other than that I cannot feature why we would have recognized the name!

[virgil]

Is there something to connect the clintons and Iraq?

I thought it might be too far fetched with all the stuff that has been said about Clinton, but I'm starting wonder about this too. I'm beginning to think that maybe the Germans were somehow involved in the WTC attack too. I think perhaps there has been spun a black and evil web of malice and deceit by our so-called friends. Why else all the secrecy by Bush? If they know something then why won't they just tell us? Why else are the democrats, the Germans so recalcitrant? They must be guilty of something really bad, much worse than selling materials to Saddam. They have survived that scandal before.

[BenLurkin]

Hey Saddam!

[RoseofTexas]

OMG, The suspense is killing us! This is what you call A slow but painful death!! C'MON W reveal, reveal, reveal, so that we can get a good nights rest!! :) LET'S ROLL!!

[Gorilla44]

Another interesting twist:
(clip)
He works in Tampa for a firm that does background checks on companies and individuals and has worked as a civilian - ironically, for the PENTAGON - HELPING TO INTERROGATE AL-QAIDA AND TALIBAN SUSPECTS AT CAMP X-RAY in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://www.tampatrib.com/Features/MGAK7145D9D.html

[daviddennis]

I believe the primary reason for the secrecy is exactly as stated: Bush has informers within Iraq who are playing a very dangerous game, and he needs to protect them. (Trust me, we'll need all the friends we can get once we're down there).

If he lets slip even the tiniest hint that someone's involved, that someone will have a nice chat with Saddam and an appointment with their torture team. I don't think I need to tell you what happens next.

D

[basil]

I personally admire anyone who has the guts to "play the game".

[niteowl77]

I believe the primary reason for the secrecy is exactly as stated: Bush has informers within Iraq who are playing a very dangerous game, and he needs to protect them. (Trust me, we'll need all the friends we can get once we're down there)

It is well to remember that. There is no armchair espionage in Iraq, and anyone helping us is deserving of not only protection, but respect.

[RandyRep]

Interesting thought. There are articles about CIA operatives working in Iraq now, doing liaison with the Kurds in the north. Who knows, there may be good guys near this particular palace, monitoring traffic and just waiting to light it up for the bombers. Or looking for a useful idiot or two to kidnap and interrogate.

My other thought is that W is trying to sucker-punch the Rats - by not divulging anything until they all say something really stupid (like after the SOTU speech) and then hitting them with the smoking mushroom cloud.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

i wonder if a smoking-nuclearbomb is enough for the liberals?...never mind-dumb question.

Carter wanted to weld the missle hatches closed on our nuclear submarines. Clinton wanted to change our nuclear response protocol from "launch upon confirmed launch" to "launch upon impact". Gore/Hitlery!/Daschle/Edwards/Pelosi et. al. would probably advocate the following protocol: "grovel upon first threat, pay them all off, then surrender".

[GirlShortstop]

What Bill Tierney says or does is interesting. But not as interesting as listening to or watching Colin Powell. Powell knows something too. It's obvious.

You called it dead on.... couldn't agree more!   FReegards!

[elbucko]

Bill Clinton, fundamentally changed the purpose of the United States military from fighting and winning wars to crisis management and keeping his poll numbers up.

I agree with the above statement, but Clinton was not the first "modern" president to use the U.S. military for crisis management and personal ambition, Lyndon Johnson was.

Now, if you're not out to win, there's no need to take risks.

Exactly. Johnson didn't care about victory in V'Nam, only that Saigon did not fall to the Commies before his re-election in 1968. Clinton did not want Bin Laden, he wanted the Nobel Peace Prize for "Peace" (?) in the Middle East and a "Third Term" with Al Gore as the pseudo Prez. Just as Johnson could not get what he wanted by incremental escalation in V'Nam, Clinton's predictable "incrementalism" only gave Muslims the encouragement to invade the U.S.

1975 (the fall of Saigon) and 2001 (Sept. 11th) have a lot more in common than most people think.

[no-s]

Gore/Hitlery!/Daschle/Edwards/Pelosi et. al. would probably advocate the following protocol: "grovel upon first threat, pay them all off, then surrender".

And we know what comes of that, eh? to wit (to kipple):

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
    To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to says:—

“We never pay any one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!” 

Kipling came to mind when I read about what happened to the money we gave the North Koreans...

[RightField]

Another sign of sinister activity: As Tierney and his team were being turned away, a U.N. helicopter attempting to overfly Jabal Makhul nearly crashed when an Iraqi official on board lunged at the controls.

"That was a distraction to keep that helicopter from going over to the other side of the mountain to see what they were doing" at the facility, said Tierney.

I wonder if we have satellite pictures now?

[elbucko]

My other thought is that W is trying to sucker-punch the Rats -

Good point. I certainly hope so.

[ezo4]

Maybe they'll drop it on Hollywood.

Clooneys house would be a good start