Fox NEWS vs Scholastic
Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling was recently criticized in a Huffington Post article for accusing school textbook publisher Scholastic of “pushing a liberal agenda.” Bolling had supported his claim by characterizing statements he found in Scholastic 5th grade textbooks (such as “George Bush went in [Iraq] because he heard there were weapons of mass destruction and they were never found”) as “very liberally biased.”
After linking to the Huffington Post article that called him out for his stupidity, Bolling made the following claim: We (America) ‘went into’ Iraq because radical Islamists killed 3k of ours + Saddam financed.”
Who is correct? Scholastic, the publisher of the 5th grade textbooks in question? Or Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling?
I want to discuss the following claim that has now been propagated on Fox NEWS:
“Did we (America) ‘go into’ Iraq because Saddam financed the 9/11 attacks?”
I will play the role of “Pro,” and defend the premise that Scholastic is correct in asserting that the American invasion of Iraq was prompted by the search for weapons of mass destruction. Con will assume the Burden of Proof and defend Fox NEWS’s claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for funding the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed “3k” Americans – and the Iraq War was retaliation for this act.
In order to meet the BOP, Con will need to demonstrate that Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling is correct, and that Scholastic is wrong. I ask that R1 be set aside for acceptance only. I also ask that we not resort to semantic games or “lawyering.” If these tactics are used, I ask that the judges and readers award their scores accordingly.
That said, I want to thank any readers willing to evaluate this contest, and encourage any who might be interested to accept this debate challenge.
Thank you and God Bless
I am happy that my debate idea was picked up, and thank you to my partner for having done so. I should mention that I certainly do not mind having the subject of whether or not “Saddam Hussein did provide operational and logistical support for worldwide terrorism including the al Qaeda network” discussed. This topic, however, is not relevant to this debate, and so I myself will not be participating.
Relevant to this debate is whether or not Eric Bolling is correct when he suggests that Saddam Hussein funded the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed “3k” Americans, instead of Osama bin Laden.
The Subject of This Debate
Most of us now understand that the 9/11 attacks were planned, financed and carried out by Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Muhammad. Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling, however, thinks that it was Saddam Hussein who carried out these terrorist attacks. He is using his celebrity status within the Fox NEWS network to advance this claim.
On January 11, Eric Bolling posted the following on Twitter: "We (America) 'went into' Iraq because radical Islamists killed 3k of ours+Saddam financed."
A poll, taken half a year after the invasion of Iraq, found that shocking levels of American ignorance as to the causes of the Iraq invasion were widespread. An appalling 70% of respondents wrongly believed that Hussein personally involved himself in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This misinformation was largely caused by false statements made by the likes of Fox NEW’s Eric Bolling. Today, even after the myth has been authoritatively debunked, Fox NEWS continues to present a platform for the spread of this untruth. (The poll can be seen here: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...)
This debate will analyze Bolling’s claim that Saddam Hussein, and not Osama bin Laden, was responsible for funding the 9/11 attacks.
The 9/11 Commission Says that Bolling is Wrong
The 9/11 Commission was created by the Bush Administration in 2002, and tasked with fully researching the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks. The full report can be found here: http://www.9-11commission.gov...
The Commission found that there was, “no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States.” This finding directly contradicts Eric Bolling’s claim.
The US Defense Department Report Says that Bolling is Wrong
It should be remembered that the Bush Administration was almost desperate to justify its invasion of Iraq as an act of “self-defense,” and not aggression. To this end, many repeated claims were made by high-ranking Administration officials that Saddam was likely to attack the US mainland with “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” A great deal of time and resources were also dedicated to proving that a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s September 11 attacks might exist.
In 2007, the Defense department issued their findings on the matter. The report concluded that, "Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq."
(A link to a CBS News article on the Defense Department finding can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com...)
Dick Cheney Says That Bolling is wrong
Dick Cheney, more than almost any other figure, might be expected to have the most to gain from a Hussein-9/11 connection. Cheney had made repeated statements that indicated that such a connection existed. (A Washington Post article listed many of these statements, and can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
However, Cheney himself was eventually forced to suffer the humiliation of retracting his own earlier statements, eventually conceding, "I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true." (The Cheney admission can be found here: http://www.cnn.com...)
I am aware that my partner wishes to establish a link of some kind between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. However, that is not the purpose of my debate here. I agree that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked – as was the Reagan Administration linked to the funding of bin Laden’s efforts with the Mujahedeen. This is not relevant; the “relationship” between Hussein and Al Qaeda was to kill Al Qaeda members on sight - this could not be correctly called a "cooperative relationship."
The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling is correct when he says that “Hussein financed the 9/11 attacks.” Bolling’s claim is directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission, studies conducted by the US Department of Defense, and Dick Cheney.
MikeFarquar forfeited this round.
MikeFarquar forfeited this round.
Thank you for your consideration.
MikeFarquar forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|