Dr Guy Dr Guy

Anatomy of a Smear, Part 2

▼

Anatomy of a Smear, Part 2

Does this surprise anyone?

from JoeUser Forums
In September, we had Rathergate, forged documents that were proven forged by little old bloggers, not the 'main stream' media with their wealth of resources. We should have learned from that, then and there, that some members of the mainstream media were just not playing with an unbiased book. Indeed, CBS and Dan Rather have never apologized for the smear they tried to perpetrate.

Now we appear to have caught the NY Times, that [sarcasm] bastion of non-partisanship [/sarcasm] with their pants down. They reported a story that was 18 months old as if it happened in the last month. OMG! 380 tons of weapons just up and disappeared on the Bush Watch!

But alas, it was not the blogosphere that outted this as another attempt at a smear. It was NBC News that reported it 18 months ago. Why? Because they were there!

But today, more dirt has surfaced. It appears that CBS also had the false story before the NY Times, and was going to run it on Sunday, October 31st, just 2 days before the election! The reason they did not? They did not think it would hold until then! Not that they wanted to report the truth, for it would only have taken a few hours, not 5 years, to reveal the truth to this lie. No, they wanted to sabotage the Bush campaign again. And behind it all, was none other than……drum roll…….Dan Rather!

These 2 episodes are not isolated incidents; just the most overt examples of what the main stream press, and in particular, the NY Times, CNS and Dan Rather, are really all about. Not the truth, but smear, smear and smear.

Now some on this blog may be liberal, and some are conservatives, but no honest person can argue that the mainstream media is impartial. Not with this deceit and deception and outright lies that they push as news.

The really sad part about this whole sordid affair is that Dan Rather got a second chance to smear the president. That shows that CBS is rotten to the core, and as trustworthy as Saddam Hussein. I wonder when the CBS (VIACOM) stock holders are going to just pull the plug on this sleaze outfit? It is their money that they see spiraling down that toilet bowl.



Addendum - 10/27/2004:

f there was any doubt this was a planned smear, just check out this link:

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102604_obligation.html

It clearly shows that the day after the story broke, Kerry had an ad out. You cant produce an ad in less than 24 hours, without prior knowledge to the story. Just another example of the biased nature of the mainstream media, and how they have lost all claim to objectivity.
4,879 views 45 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa, no one said there were "no" WMD "MATERIALS." What was said was that they didn't pose a threat IF inspections were continued. The main point, as I have said over and over and over is that if the U.S. had allowed to IAEA to FINISH their job instead of rushing to war, this whole thing would be a non-issue. And they should have allowed the IAEA back into Iraq AFTER the invasion. To this DAY the U.S. is refusing to allow the IAEA back in? Why would you do that if you know you don't have the man power to monitor/secure all of these sites? It makes no sense whatsoever! You can't conclude that these marterials were part of Iraq's continuing WMD programs because that simply is not the case. These explosives had PREVIOUSLY been used by Iraq in an effort to produce a nuclear bomb but those efforsts both failed and were dismantled/destroyed by the IAEA in 1991-1998. The IAEA allowed Iraq to keep them, as long as they were monitored and inventoried (which they had been) because they were "dual use" materials that could also be used for civilian construction projects. I believe I said this before. You can not say that just because a country has "dual use" materials, then they are an international security threat or we will be invading every nation on earth.

As for Dana Lewis, what he actually said was that the sites were never acutally searched by U.S. forces and so he had no way of knowing whether those materials were still there or not. He simply said that he didn't see them...which is an entirely different matter. Just how much of this site did he '"see/fim?" This place is HUGE! He is no expert and he certainly would have no way of thoroughly checking this entire site because he lacks the professional skills to do so.

As a final point, this whole issue of whether they were there when Dana Lewis saw them or didn't see them is moot. The fact remains that when the IAEA was forced to leave Iraq by the U.S. they officially took over reponsibilty for monitoring and securing this site. I have already stated, but will repeat for the hundredth time, that we had been conducting 24 hour surveillence all over Iraq long before the invasion began. The idea that Saddam used a fleet of 40 trucks and just pulled up to this site and suddenly removed all this stuff before the war without being detected is absurd. And even if this DID happen, why the hell didn't we know about it? That would just underscore the level of the administration's incompetence/gross negligence and doesn't help your argument. Why weren't we watching this site after we forced the IAEA to leave? They had Predator, satellite imagery, and other technology. The other alternative is that they DID see it, but didn't do anything about it...again incompetence/gross negligence. But I don't think they were watching it because if they were, then we would known what happened to it, now wouldn't we? The administration has already conceded that they have no idea where this stuff is so that just proves they failed to monitor the site and thus were completely incompetent for not doing so and guilty of gross negligence.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know, you really need to stop getting all YOUR news at Newsmax, FOX, and Drudge. 377 TONS of explosive WERE there at that site, recorded by the IAEA! Get it! That's tons, dude, not easily movable, not back up the Ford F-150 and cart it down the road. That requires big equipment that should have been EASILY spottable and U.S. troops went by the facility and never checked even though WE KNEW it was an explosive dump. Now, not securing the site, that was MORONIC!
Not securing an empty site, when there are bad guys running all over the place is moronic? Your statement is moronic! You would have the farmer close the barn door after the horse got out! And for the record, it would take a company of soldiers a week to move that much stuff. Simple physics of the matter, It was proved it was long gone, and CBS, Dan Rather, and the Kerry Kool aid drinkers are the only ones trying to stretch credulity to suggest otherwise. And for the record, my sources came from NBC, CNN and your beloved CBS. I did not reference anything on Fox, but they sure can do a more honest job than any of the above! But in this case, it was your own precious liberal sources that outed the smear. Next, Kerry wil be saying we should have gone in earlier to prevent Saddam from spiriting them away! Now that is moronic, but then I never claimed Kerry was intelligent, just glib.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Doesn't the "timing" of the story miss the entire POINT of the real issues here? Who CARES when the story broke? You guys are so caught up in the political spin that you miss the real issue entirely
You accuse others of yoru own crime. Typical Liberal. The timing of the story is the story! The missing material was missing 18 months ago, and was not hidden even then. But apparently Dan Rather and you thought that springing an october surprise (ala a 30 yr old DUI - and you claim that what happened 30 years ago is not relevant? Hypocrit!) would torpedo the president. Your spin is too old to work, and too lame to be used by any but the most desperate and ignorant of people. I guess that is why Kerry Edwards and you are still trying to make it a story. Cause you dont have a clue.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy, the story wasn't even broken by Dan Rather. The New York Times in collaboration with CBS broke the story. Secondly, I had already stated in a prior post:

"The reason the IAEA didn't make it public sooner, via a report to the security council, is because they wanted to give the U.S. time to try and track these explosives down or explain what happened to them. The media didn't KNOW about this story until it got a copy of the memo. Leaks are an everyday occurrence. This is hardly a case of media conspiracy to get Bush. For God's sake, they gave him such a free ride during the run up to the war, it is inconceivable to think they waited to break the story on purpose because they are "out to get him." It's just nonsense. "

As far as your comment about me being a hypocrit about something that happened 30 years ago: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Did I ever mention ANYTHING related to 30 years ago anywhere in my blog site or in yours? I think you are going a bit off the deep-end Dr. Guy. I am not spinning anything. I am debating facts about the core issues related to this story in lieu of engaging in some ridiculous discussion about media conspiracy theories. Talk about not having a clue. Your constant name-calling, stereotyping, and basless accusations that have no relevance to anything is demonstrative that you CAN'T debate the real substantive issues so you resort to these petty scuffles about nothing. Posting a blog about a media conspiracy and then getting angry because people point out the weaknesses in your theory...is pretty childish.

And just for the record: " It was proved it was long gone, and CBS, Dan Rather, and the Kerry Kool aid drinkers are the only ones trying to stretch credulity to suggest otherwise. "

Here is exactly what NBC (who started this debate) had to say about the matter:

"NBC NEWS UPDATE: "Republican officials have sought to discredit the initial reports and seized on an NBC News account, broadcast Monday night, that said when troops from the 101st Airborne arrived at the vast site on April 10, 2003, they found conventional weapons but none of the extremely powerful high explosives, HMX and RDX, which can be used to set off a nuclear weapon. In an e-mail message sent to reporters on Monday evening, Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said, "The weapons were not there when the military arrived, making John Kerry's latest ripped-from-the-headlines attack baseless and false."

But Tuesday evening, NBC again reported on the issue. This time it reported that it had not said that the explosives were gone before American troops arrived at Al Qaqaa. Instead, it reported that troops from the Third Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne searched bunkers at the site and had not found the powerful explosives. NBC reported that it was not clear whether American troops searched all of the bunkers.

"Last night on this broadcast we reported that the 101st Airborne never found the nearly 380 tons of HMX and RDX explosives,'' Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchor, said. "We did not conclude the explosives were missing or had vanished, nor did we say they missed the explosives. We simply reported that the 101st did not find them.''

"For its part, the Bush campaign immediately pointed to our report as conclusive proof that the weapons had been removed before the Americans arrived,'' Mr. Brokaw added. "That is possible, but that is not what we reported.''

For the second day Mr. Bush did not speak about the issue, twice ignoring questions from reporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/campaign/27kerry.html

Who's been sipping on the Cool-Aid?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy:

The FACTS are that when the soldiers were advancing on Baghdad they "passed by" the dump and it went UNSECURED for 2 weeks that could have been used to take some or all of the explosives. The FACTS are that when they passed by the Iraqi soldiers were retreating and not mounting any offensive. The FACTS are that the millitary command did not ISSUE COMMANDS to take the supply dump so they passed it by.

This does not show incompetence on the part of the soldiers. This show INCOMPETENCE of our intelligence and chain of command, which starts at, oh, let me see, oh yes, the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Now that would be.......George W. Bush.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

And just for the record: " It was proved it was long gone, and CBS, Dan Rather, and the Kerry Kool aid drinkers are the only ones trying to stretch credulity to suggest otherwise. "

Quote: CBS News' "60 Minutes" was planning to hold the story until Halloween, two days before Election Day, according to the Drudge Report Tuesday. "Our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..." Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday "60 Minutes," reportedly said in a statement.

LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-fg-cbs26oct26,1,565561.story

"The reason the IAEA didn't make it public sooner, via a report to the security council, is because they wanted to give the U.S. time to try and track these explosives down or explain what happened to them. The media didn't KNOW about this story until it got a copy of the memo. Leaks are an everyday occurrence. This is hardly a case of media conspiracy to get Bush. For God's sake, they gave him such a free ride during the run up to the war, it is inconceivable to think they waited to break the story on purpose because they are "out to get him." It's just nonsense. "

Quote:NBCNEWS Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

Quote: MIKLASZEWSKI: , only three weeks into the war. NBC News was embed with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. (explosion, scream) But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX -- so powerful...

Trouble is, while Brokaw retracted NBCs original statement, the rest of NBC does not and the embedded reporter sticks to their story.

 

For the second day Mr. Bush did not speak about the issue, twice ignoring questions from reporters

How do you respond to a lie?  You cant.  To answer it is to validate it.  So he did the only thing he could do, ignore it.

Who's been sipping on the Cool-Aid?

The correct term is Kool Aid.

Did I ever mention ANYTHING related to 30 years ago anywhere in my blog site or in yours?

I never said you did.  But in 2000, it was the October surprise of the DUI.  IN 1992, it was Walsh indicting Weinberger on the eve of the election.  IN 2004, it is the 380 tons of explosives.

In the first case, it was 30 years old, something you have already argued should not be brought up about Kerry and his treason.  In the second, the case was thrown out laughably, and in the last case, running out of indictments and 30 year old stories, it was just a lie.

Everyone but you knows it was Dan Rather’s story, as he runs the news at CBS (otherwise, how do you explain an incompetent person staying in a high profile job?)

You forgot that your post contained no facts, just “maybe’s”.  This blog is about known facts.  You can post a rebuttal on your own blog site, and have at it.  I don’t read your stuff anyway as it is filled with half truths, propaganda and lies anyway.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dr. Guy:

The FACTS are that when the soldiers were advancing on Baghdad they "passed by" the dump and it went UNSECURED for 2 weeks that could have been used to take some or all of the explosives. The FACTS are that when they passed by the Iraqi soldiers were retreating and not mounting any offensive. The FACTS are that the millitary command did not ISSUE COMMANDS to take the supply dump so they passed it by.

This does not show incompetence on the part of the soldiers. This show INCOMPETENCE of our intelligence and chain of command, which starts at, oh, let me see, oh yes, the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Now that would be.......George W. Bush.

Your facts are based on the lies of CBS and the NYT.  You cannot base facts on lies and forgeries.

And besides, you dont even quote the facts correctly.  It was not bypassed. It was inspected and found to be empty.

Those are the facts.  Yours is just llies and myths.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason this is news now is that people didn't connect the dots until the last few weeks regarding just how many tons of explosives had gone missing. Apparently, the Bush government has known for months, but didn't bother telling anyone. Of course, that's not clear, because the Pentagon has been inconsistent in its responses to reporters' questions, and George Bush wasn't willing to say anything about this yesterday
An important qualification devoutly to be deleted by the Dr.& Co.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

An important qualification devoutly to be deleted by the Dr.& Co.

 

Beeep!  Wrong. I dont delete just because it is incorrect or stupid.  I let it stand as a testament.

And of course the quoted material is incorrect. Even the NYT is now backing off the story. Looks like the only ones that are not are CBS (big surprise there) and Kerry.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
The FACTS are that when the soldiers were advancing on Baghdad they "passed by" the dump and it went UNSECURED for 2 weeks that could have been used to take some or all of the explosives. The FACTS are that when they passed by the Iraqi soldiers were retreating and not mounting any offensive. The FACTS are that the millitary command did not ISSUE COMMANDS to take the supply dump so they passed it by. This does not show incompetence on the part of the soldiers. This show INCOMPETENCE of our intelligence and chain of command, which starts at, oh, let me see, oh yes, the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Now that would be.......George W. Bush.


MAN!......I have to keep reminding myself that it is the week before the election and the leftists will throw everything but the kitchen sink out there (actually I expect to see the sink too)
CrispE,
How many people do you think will actually buy in to these 11th hour attempts to sway their votes. You'd have to be a borg drone to assimilate this BS! I give you credit for this world record setting spin though.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
CrispE,
How many people do you think will actually buy in to these


What kind of man (you're a guy, right, CrispE?) would he be if he felt as strongly as he does about the possible consequences of another 4 years of Bush and yet said nothing. How could he NOT try to convince others? Wouldn't him sitting silently and ignoring his convictions be more wrong?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
As has been clarified in other threads on this topic, the allegation is hogwash. The only logical and tenable explanation for the missing explosives is that they were removed by Saddam during the month prior to the invasion and stashed in mosques & grade schools, just like he's done before. Doesn't anyone else remember all the footage of the huge weapons caches in schools & mosques right after the invasion? Where the hell did that stuff come from? Were the UN inspectors so stupid that the stuff was sitting in those schools & mosques all along? Of course not - the stuff was moved there in the runup to the war from all sorts of ammo dumps like al Qaqaa.

This is a totally manufactured campaign smear, one that will kick back hard. That Kerry is perpetuating this lie & bashing Bush relentlessly, even after his own advisors have admitted they don't know what happened to the explosives & when, is despicable. But, hey, that's just Kerry being Kerry.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Meanwhile, we know that the explosives were there right before the war, and we know the Bush administration had been warned of the importance of the site.


We do NOT KNOW that the explosives were all there immediately before the war....the BA was told that the site had been searched. The location was NOT marked by IAEC

the U.S. had allowed to IAEA to FINISH their job instead of rushing to war, this whole thing would be a non-issue.


And just how long do they need to finish......10-15 years? This is really a moot point, but one I just felt the need to point out
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
The timing of the release of this story is highly suspect, especially given that CBS has admitted they were sitting on an 18 month old report with plans to release it the day before the election. How obvious can you get?

Even if American troops had a yard sale with a big 'Free weapons for terrorists ... bring your own truck' sign, why else would a news organization wait until the day before the election to release the story, when they had known about it for so long?

Why not the day after the election, unless they were trying to effect the results? I mean if you've waited 18 months, one more day is not going to make that much of a difference, relatively speaking.

For those that don't see a blatant attempt by MSM to influence voters, suppose the day before the election Fox released a story about Kerry making a deal 18 months ago with the UN to release Saddam and let him go back to power in Iraq, if he was elected? Wouldn't that seem a bit suspicious to you, especially if Fox had known about it for all that time?
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought there were no WMD’s in Iraq: explosives designed to ignite Nuclear weapons isn’t TNT. The media double standard, in collusion with foreign institutions, permits kerry, the bum, to flip, flop, and say anything to expedite his pomp & circumstance desire to occupy the White House. I suspect that the lower this bum, kerry, descends, the greater the statistical differential in the outcome of the race will be.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
It pisses me off that the main stream media can't be truthfull.
Essentially, we are losing our freedom of speech.
I did my own blog on this subject awhile back. (The whole story)
Mine was more on Lybia. None of the main stream did a story on this. You know, when Lybia made a big step and surrendered WMD's? Why? Because Bush made a stand against terrorism. It didn't come out for a long time...
Did you know that large corporations own almost ALL of our mainstream media? Doesn't that scare the hell out of you?
Take TimeWarner for instance. Mr. Microsoft. AOL. We all know that Gates owns all of these, but did you know he owns like half of the cable companies in the US? Cox Cable Co. East Coast area. TimeWarner Cable Co. TX area, and Comcast in midwest area(like, NM). Just to name ones off the top of my head. All of which, I have used.
Independent news sources are becoming minute. There are only a few left that are reputable sources. This is big.
Extinction can not be an option.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Shhh!  Crazy Lady!  Dont confuse liberals with facts.  It makes them mad!  And nasty as hornets!

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your facts are based on the lies of CBS and the NYT. You cannot base facts on lies and forgeries.And besides, you dont even quote the facts correctly. It was not bypassed. It was inspected and found to be empty.Those are the facts. Yours is just llies and myths


Exactly right, Dr Guy.
But no big news coverage on that, huh?

CrispE,
try these out. I know it might be hard for you to read something so far right, but these are done from fellow bloggers. So you can't pick on the source. They have done their homework.

http://www.crushkerry.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=314&mode=&order=0&thold=0

http://www.crushkerry.com/article315.html
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
OMG my bad, Dr Guy!
We don't need any more confusion!!
Oh, and I loved the lies and myths analogy.