October 25, 2004: Surprise Attack on Democracy by New York Times, CBS |
|
October 26, 2004 |
Listen to Rush (...nuke the media's attempt to repackage old news as a false new story)
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
I told you yesterday that this New York Times story that ran was an old story, that these weapons have been missing for 18 or 19 months. It took NBC Nightly News last night and their report to prove it. An NBC embedded reporting unit was with the 101st Airborne April 10th, 2003. Baghdad fell April 9th, 2003. When the embedded reporters got to the Al Qaqaa weapons site with the 101st Airborne, there were no explosives in that cache that everybody thought were going to be there. They had been moved. This story the New York Times ran yesterday will now be listed on many dates that shall live in infamy: December 7th, 1941, an attack on Pearl Harbor; September 11th, 2001, an attack on our homeland, and October 25th, 2004, another attack by the media on our election process.
Yesterday the Democratic Party in the New York Times, and with CBS' 60 Minutes in close hot pursuit, launched an October Surprise, or an attempted October Surprise, a sneak attack on our democracy designed to turn the election, to throw a sitting president out of office, to remove a commander-in-chief in time of war with a totally misleading front-page story. John Kerry in the process showed what he is made of, ladies and gentlemen, and continues to do so today. He shows what kind of leader he would or wouldn't be. He bought the misleading story without checking; he ran with the misleading story and continues to do so even as we speak. He amplified the misleading story with images of deaths and destruction. He dramatized the misleading story as only a pompous orator can. He eagerly seized on the opportunity to criticize the United States. He eagerly seized on the opportunity to criticize the United States government. He eagerly seized on the opportunity to criticize a sitting president in time of war. He eagerly seized on the opportunity to criticize our troops. He tried to turn a false, old, misleading story into proof that President Bush is unfit to lead -- and guess what? In the process he proved that he, John Kerry, is unfit to lead. Here is a recap of what happened. Yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, the news "broke" about 380 tons of explosive that "disappeared" in Iraq. The Times made it sound as though the stuff had disappeared within the last week to ten days. There was a line in their story yesterday about how thieves were still looting the area and rummaging around in this area. The International Atomic Energy Agency was raising quite a fuss about this as was the rest of the mainstream press.
Oh, they loved this! The mainstream media loved this. After all, they were going to pin this on Bush. It was incompetence. This, folks, was the October Surprise. This was the story that was going to get Kerry over the hump that Bush is more qualified to deal with Iraq than he is. That's what all the polls say, that Bush is more competent and qualified to deal with the war on terror. This was the planted false story that was going to allow Kerry to spend the rest of this week claiming Bush is incompetent; Bush doesn't know what he's doing; Bush is reckless; Bush is endangering everybody -- and he, the reasonable orator, John Kerry, was going to be able to ride in and save the day. Except it blew up in their face because the whole story yesterday was made up!
The only thing missing in this story are the forged documents and Bill Burkett. We have a Mary Mapes in this story. Her name is Jill Abramson, the managing editor, New York Times. We have a Dan Rather in this story, and that's the reporter team that worked on this story for the New York Times. The only thing we don't have that we may want to consider is a standing independent prosecutor or special investigator that is on retainer to constantly investigate media excesses. If people can get together and sue Sinclair Broadcasting for causing controversy and thereby causing their stock price to plummet, thereby causing a bad deal for their investors, then it seems to me the same thing could be done to CBS. It seems to me the same thing could be done to the New York Times, because what we've learned today is that Sinclair Broadcasting is eminently more fair and qualified to report news than either CBS or the New York Times.
CBS, 60 Minutes, was going to run this story this coming Sunday night, 24 hours before the election. They were in a heated battle with the New York Times over who was going to get the story first. The question is: Where did the Times get the story? The answer to that is from the United Nations, most specifically Mohammed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It's ElBaradei -- and I'll source this for you in a moment -- who is under fire behind the scenes from the U.S. government for his own incompetence, for missing the Libya nuclear program and not be strong enough with Iran on their nuclear program and helping to forestall the United States dealing with Iraq. The United States, behind the scenes, are trying to get rid of ElBaradei. ElBaradei ten days ago leaked a letter to the media about this phony weapons cache that has never been there. It wasn't there when we got there. It was never guarded by U.S. troops.
It's not the size that could be spirited away overnight. You would need forty semi-trucks, semi-trailer trucks to spirit this stuff away. If you want to get into the details of what all this stuff was we can even do that today. The bottom line is that the media was set up just as they were by Bill Burkett and the forged documents because they wanted this story. The number of media outlets that covered this story yesterday was incredible. CNN thought they had died and gone to heaven. They covered it fifty times yesterday. ABC, MSNBC, all the other cable nets were covering this, but not to that extent. You can go to the Drudge Report front page if you want a breakdown on media mentions of this. The Kerry campaign jumped on the story before the ink was dry on the newsprint. |

|
|
It seems that the New York Times is the daily talking points for the daily campaign anyway, whatever is on their front page ends up being what Kerry talks about on a given day. He called it "one of the greatest blunders of Iraq." He trashed Bush for failing to guard a pile of explosives. By implication, he trashed our military that he so fondly supports -- these are the people that support the troops, folks -- and by implication, he trashed the military for being inept and incompetent and not being able to guard a cache of explosives that wasn't even there, as it turns out. It wasn't until last night on the NBC Nightly News. It wasn't the White House. It wasn't the Bush campaign. It was NBC News, that we were reminded again that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage dump on April 10th, 2003.
The last time that the International Atomic Energy Agency saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003. This is before the invasion of Iraq. No one, including Hans Blix and his inspectors, knows when they left Iraq or where they went, these cache of explosives. Nobody knows where this stuff is and nobody knows when it was spirited out, but I can tell you what happened because I have a decent modicum here of common sense. All of our flailing around and messing around at the UN trying to persuade the corrupt French and the corrupt Germans to join us in this war, they were bought off by Saddam, they were "the coalition of the bribed." We spent all those months, 14 months at the UN while we were posturing and threatening to go to war. We didn't because we were trying to get the world to go with us and it was during that period of time that this stuff gets spirited away.
That's the question: "Where is it now and who took it out of there?" because we didn't ever see it. It was never there. The New York Times story yesterday was entirely, totally bogus. Now, you might be asking, "Has the Times corrected the story?" Hell no, folks! They're still running as though the story yesterday is true. They've got stories today that are an exclamation point to the fraudulent story yesterday. Some in the mainstream press are also continuing to report the false story and John Kerry is on the campaign trail as though the story is still valid and still active because he's caught. He can't afford to drop it. It's the big thing that was going to get him past this little problem he's got in the polls ithat most Americans think he's inept and unqualified and incompetent to handle the war to terror -- and they are right. Wait till you hear the audio sound bites we have today from Senator Kerry from 1990 and the debate on the Gulf War.
I'll give you a little hint: When James Baker came up to the Senate to talk to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Gulf War in 1990, it was even back then John Kerry expressed a desire that the UN run the war, totally. He wanted the UN running the first Gulf War, and it turns out that Senator Kerry voted against it when it was learned that the UN would not be running the Gulf War. This is not a case, ladies and gentlemen, of President Bush "failing to guard any explosives." The real question now is, if you listen to Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry -- as they continue today to talk about this and talk about our incompetence and how we should have gotten there and we should have seen those weapons and we should have guarded them -- are we now hearing from senators Kerry and Edwards that we should have gone into Iraq sooner?
Are they making the case that we waited too long to go in because of 380 tons of missing explosives? Believe me, folks, this story is huge. It is not being made a whole lot of today on cable news networks anywhere. It's not being made a whole lot of in any outlet in the media that I can see. That's why I'm gonna focus on it today because it is huge. It is every bit as huge as Bill Burkett and forged documents at CBS, and had NBC not reported last night what they previously reported on April 10th of 2003, then this story today would be alive, and 60 Minutes would be planning on running this story again Sunday night.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want you to hear how Dan Rather intro'd breathlessly this story of the missing cache of explosives that vanished and disappeared right under the eyes of George W. Bush, a cache of weapons that we learned later in the day was never there.
RATHER: Good evening! Eight days to go till America elects a president and disturbing news from Iraq is again dominating the campaign. The White House acknowledged today that a huge stockpile of ultra-high explosives is inexplicably missing from Iraqi weapons sites [sic]. Senator John Kerry called this a, quote, "great blunder by President Bush and his administration." CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley has been working with the New York Times to break this story.
RUSH: That's the part I really wanted you to hear. "CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley has been working with the New York Times to break this story," but before I get into that angle, I can't let the rest of this bite go by. The White House did no such thing. "Acknowledged that a huge stockpile of explosives is inexplicably missing from a weapons site"? The White House said, Dan Bartlett said, whoa, put the brakes on! Let's get the facts here before we start running off half crazy about what happened. The White House did no such thing, admitted that there were weapons, inexplicably missing, high explosives -- and, of course, the gratuitous inclusion, Senator Kerry called this, "a great blunder by President Bush and his administration." |

|
|
More on Kerry in just a moment, because I want to get the media stuff out of the way first. Kerry is the focus. The media is going to survive all this as they always do. They're going to be damaged by it, but they're going to survive it. But Kerry is the candidate and Kerry's actions yesterday are what need to be focused on, his continued actions today, because he is demonstrating his utter irresponsibility, his utter lack of "integrity, integrity, integrity," his utter lack of concern for the decency of our troops in Iraq, his utter lack of concern for our victory in the war on terror. No, all that matters to John Kerry, even if it's a false planted story, even if it is so untrue that it can be documented in less than ten hours, Kerry will nevertheless use it to advance himself.
Now, what is this about CBS News 60 minutes correspondent Ed Bradley has been working with the New York Times to break this story? Well, the LA Times has a story on CBS and their desire to run this story. CBS and the New York Times, it turns out, were in a bit of a competition over the exclusive on this story -- and the New York Times went ahead and ran it yesterday under the exclusive banner thereby opting out CBS, which led to this statement from Jeff Fager, the executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 Minutes. He said, "Our plan was to run the story on October 31st but it became clear that it wouldn't hold. So the decision was made for the Times to run it." The decision was made for the Times to run it?
Who made the decision, Mr. Fager? Who are you talking to at the New York Times? Who are you collaborating with over there to decide who gets this story? Are you talking to Jill Abramson, the Mary Mapes of the New York Times? Are you talking to Bill Keller? Who are you talking to over there? This has the smell of a scandal here to me. "It became clear the story wouldn't hold"? Hold for what? Obviously that means hold for Sunday night: Sunday night, 24 hours before the election or thereabouts. "The story wouldn't hold"? It could mean one of two things. It means, "It's so big; it's such a blockbuster, that it wouldn't wait till Sunday, so the New York Times had to take it," or it could mean, "It wouldn't hold because it wasn't true," and I doubt that that was the thinking yesterday at 60 Minutes and the New York Times because they thought it was true.
But there were in-bed reporters with NBC who went to this weapons cache, this ammo dump, and there was nothing there the day after Baghdad fell, before we even got there, before we had a chance to protect this stuff, it was missing. And the New York Times story yesterday, as I pointed out, never once alluded to when these weapons went missing. They tried to imply the weapons went missing a week ago because of the utter incompetence of the president. Now, some questions about that. Why isn't the New York Times just as concerned about missing weapons of mass destruction which were probably also removed prior to the invasion?
If we've got some ammo dumps here that don't have things in 'em we thought was going to be, why aren't there also WMDs that might be missing, and why in the name of God is not the U.S. media interested in finding out if maybe, in addition to some high explosives being missing, some weapons of mass destruction might be missing? Do you people in the media realize just exactly how deep you're sticking yourselves in the mud here? With your own attempt to nail the president you are making his case! We have missing explosives. Oh, no, Bush is incompetent. They were never there when we got there. There aren't any weapons of mass destruction. Oh, no. They didn't vanish after we got there. They weren't there when he with when we got there. If we're going to ask, "Where were the missing explosives? Where are they?" then by God, folks, we need to ask once and for all: "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?"
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
So the New York Times and 60 Minutes at CBS, they're not concerned about missing weapons of mass destruction that were probably also removed prior to the invasion. They're all concerned about missing caches of explosives, but no missing weapons of mass destruction seems to intrigue them. I'll tell you why it doesn't. It doesn't fit the template that "Bush lied about there even being weapons of mass destruction." Oh, no, we can't begin to discuss that. Back to Mr. Jeff Fager, the executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 Minutes. Again his statement, "Our plan was to run the story on October 31st but it became clear it wouldn't hold, so the decision was made for the Times to run it. 'Fager reluctantly agreed when the New York Times said it had to go with the story. One person involved said,' adding that Fager was distraught but understood the Times agreed to credit 60 Minutes."
I'll betcha CBS rues the day they demanded a credit from the New York Times on this bogus, 100% false, phony scandalous story. You say, "How do I know that this was the United Nations leaking this?" A good guy by the name of Cliff May posted the following today at National Review Online: "Sent to me by a source in the government. For the record, I don't reveal my sources, so if that means I end up sharing a Sing Sing cell with Judy Miller at the New York Times, so be it."
"The Iraqi explosives story..." This is a source in the government to Cliff May, who is a good guy. You can rely on him. "The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when U.S. troops went to this site in 2003. The International Atomic Energy Agency and its head, the anti-American Mohammed ElBaradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media, to embarrass the Bush administration. The U.S. is trying to deny ElBaradei a second term. We've been on his case for missing the Libya nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program." |

|
|
It appears, ladies and gentlemen, well, to my in my mind there's no question the UN was the source of this story to the New York Times. It's Cliff May's source in the government who now names ElBaradei. The name is of secondary importance to me. The fact that the United Nations is attempting to affect the outcome of U.S. elections is what interests me and the fact that it is a corrupt institution as we all know now visa-ý-vis the oil-for-food program, and since John Kerry wants to totally turn over our defense to the United Nations, this is what interests me. But who else might have known about this ammo dump story? I have a surprise sound bite for you all. I'm going to go back to the October 8th presidential debate in St. Louis. Charlie Gibson moderated that debate. Listen to John Kerry, this is a 30-second bite. It gets real interesting about 20 seconds in.
KERRY: You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy. But winning the peace is larger than just the military component. General Shinseki had the wisdom to say you're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace. The military's job is to win the war. The president's job is to win the peace. The president did not do what was necessary, didn't bring in enough nations, didn't deliver the help, didn't close off the borders, didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.
RUSH: What dump, senator? What did you know back on October the 8th that the New York Times didn't report until October 25th? What ammo dump are you talking about, senator? Are you talking about the ammo dump that had no ammo in it that the New York Times made a big story of yesterday that's totally false and fraudulent? How did you know about this, senator, if that's the ammo dump you're talking about? The ammo dump with no weapons in it that therefore could be killing none of our troops? Which ammo dump are you talking about? Are you talking to the United Nations? You keep saying that you met with the UN Security Council when you didn't, trying to make yourself look like a big guy. What I've always said about Kerry: His stature doesn't speak for itself despite his height. He has to put other people down. He has to rip other people in order to make himself appear larger and bigger than everybody else.
He goes and makes up this story about talking to the UN Security Council before his vote in 2002 when he didn't do it. Why would they meet with him anyway, who is he? At that point in time he's a lowly U.S. senator compared to the president and the secretary of state and our ambassadors to the UN. Why would they meet with this guy? Well, he did meet with some of them individually, three or four of them. Now, this story about the ammo dump, this is old news. There's no ammo in this dump. There hasn't been since April 9th or 10th or before that, 2003, and yet Kerry is referencing it all the way back on October the 8th. Just something to ponder here, folks, as we wonder about how this story made its way to the New York Times and to CBS which has already indicated a desire to affect the outcome of the election with Bill Burkett and forged documents.
Now we have a letter from Mohammed ElBaradei or somebody at the UN that touts a non-story that can be proven by another media outlet, NBC News, and their eyewitness reporters who saw the dump: nothing in it when our troops arrived. There was nothing to guard because there was nothing there. There was nothing to lose because there was nothing there. But, there are some things that are conclusive from this even though this is a non-story. It shows that munitions were removed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, does it not? It also shows this: If liberal Democrats had had their way, the run-up to the war would have been even longer, if not endless. Had John Kerry and his boys had his way, we still might not have been there and these weapons and who knows whatever else might have been moved in even greater numbers than they were.
Why didn't these precious UN inspectors, led by the incomparable Hans Blix, see any of this themselves? We are told to let them go in and "finish their work" and all would have been hunky-dory and we wouldn't have had to go to war with Iraq, and yet this stuff vanished from Iraq right under Hans Blix's nose because the only people that were in there prior to us were the UN inspectors. So you tell me, folks, who's corrupt here. You tell me who's incompetent. I can tell you who isn't. It's not the United States government, as John Kerry wants to say. It's not President Bush, as John Kerry wants to say. It is the people at the United Nations and others in this country who do not recognize a viable threat to the security and safety of this country when it's staring them right in the nose. |

|
|
That's who we need to be concerned about, that's who we need to focus on. If we're going to talk about incompetence and blunders, let's look at the people who cannot see a threat when it stares them right in the face. The New York Times had to know when it ran its story yesterday that this issue was, "When were the munitions removed?" and the editors and reporters had to have intentionally omitted this information, as I pointed out having read the story yesterday, not one reference to when the weapons and the explosives went missing. All there was was an implication that it happened a week or ten days ago or sometime recently, but it was never specified. They had to take affirmative steps to either conceal the information or not to ask the most obvious question that might have ruined their political hit piece.
They had the story. They wanted it. The one thing that could destroy the story was the date that the weapons went missing, and interestingly that's the one thing left out of their bogus story, and apparently they knew because NBC knew or they didn't know because they didn't ask. In either case, it's journalistic malpractice. It is journalistic malpractice that went on yesterday at the New York Times, and apparently at CBS. They've got a story today by David Sanger, the New York Times does. It is an exclamation mark on their fraud. They as much as say that the allegation was intended to put Bush on defense. Kerry was on offense, and that it stirred up the campaign. Their story today is how exciting they are because this story has stirred up the campaign, put Bush on the defensive. The White House doesn't know what to say about it, and Kerry is out there making hay with it.
They are reporting on their own false story that they themselves pushed into the campaign in order to change the dynamics of the campaign seven days before the election, and it backfired -- and yet they're out there still pretending that their first story is accurate and operable when everybody that's paying attention knows their story was bogus and fraudulent and did not contain one grain of truth in it, as regards the missing cache of explosives from Al Qaqaa. Oh, and this aspect we haven't discussed. Well, we have, but I want to emphasize it. This obviously now a UN-planted story with the New York Times, intended for one purpose: to help John Kerry. There's no other explanation for the letter ten days ago.
The Pentagon said, by the way, yesterday, or the administration said, "We just found out about this missing bunch of explosives ten days ago. The UN sends us a letter ten days ago." The UN sent a letter ten days ago, and this is the first the administration claims to have heard about it? You know what that letter was? A cover! The letter was bogus itself. The weapons were never there, ladies and gentlemen, a ten-days-ago letter from the UN to us saying all of a sudden some explosives have gone missing? That's the cover to give the story to the media to get them all whetted so that they get all excited at their chance to finally knock Bush out of this race.
That letter apparently informed the Pentagon of facts it had already known, and that letter winds up in the hands of the New York Times and CBS in time to influence the election only days out by claiming that the U.S. military under this president is incompetent. That's exactly what Kerry said, which is exactly what the New York Times says: that the U.S. is "incompetent." Is this the man that you want elected president, a guy who jumps on a fraudulent, bogus story who may have known about it in advance? I mean, yesterday we got a big flash e-mail from Joe Lockhart to all the people in the Democrat National Committee who are registered there asking them to call all their friends and call all the media and really play this story up.
The smell of coordination is all over Lockhart's letter and it was Lockhart who got the call from Mary Mapes about Bill Burkett at CBS. Folks, there are too many coincidences here to ignore. There's too much here to call this just happenstance, and when we know that the media is in the tank for Kerry, we can watch what CBS has done all spring and summer long with 60 Minutes. We can listen to what Evan Thomas as Newsweek has said about how the mainstream press's coverage for Kerry is going to be worth five to fifteen points for him, and we can readily conclude we would have to use our intelligence guided by our experience to understand that the mainstream press has become fully partisan and yet attempts to act as though they are objective by putting what, in fact, are bogus columns on the front page as news stories.
END TRANSCRIPT
|

|
|