« the honest music critic | Main | another night, another lesson »

in which I drive my current catch phrase into the ground

Dear CBS: Shut the fuck up, Donny.* Same to you, NYT. JesusHChristonapogostick, do these people have no shame? Never in my life have I seen a news outlet so hungrily campaigning against a candidate. They're not even trying to be subtle about it. When they finally replace the CBS logo with a BushHitler sign, I won't even feign surprise. You know, I really want to be there when it's announced that Bush has won re-election and Dan Rather goes all bathtub/toaster. And while I'm briefly talking election, I'd like to ask a favor of my "favorite" lefty bloggers and pundits: can you please stop screeching like a wounded seagull? You're keeping me up at night. Thanks* *more, more, more *speaking of screeching.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference in which I drive my current catch phrase into the ground:

» Me Too! from my thoughts, without the penny charge :: political ::
Michelle @ A Small Victory has a great rant about CBS' obsession to bring down President Bush. You know, I really want to be there when it's announced... [Read More]

» New Kerry/Edwards Ad Planned from GOP and the City
GOP and the City take a look at the new ad being planned by Camp Kerry. [Read More]


God, let's hope it's not even close, so they'll have to be brought back to to reality and that they have to actually WORK WITH people they disagree with rather than spew venom.

"will they hurt us"....

"No Donny, these men are cowards"

The election scanario may become more protracted than we think


There are alot of people out to destroy the electoral college,a bedrock of our representative republic.They must not succeed.

Jeff Jarvis is another left-wing goon whose opinion means nothing.

It's funny how the righties embraced Andrew Sullivan as the gay dude who loved Bush, thus making Bush legit in the eyes of all who may have issue with him ("Look, a gay guy likes Bush! (ha ha) You see Bush, he's a centrist! Next up, hardline Islamists for Bush! Wait a sec, didn't Iran endorse Bush?).

CBS handed their material to the New York Times because the broadcast of clearly fraudulent material would have violated their broadcast licenses, but the NYT printing it prevents sanctions and threats against Viacom's cash-cow Owned and Operated Stations by the FCC.

OK. Let's be clear about this. Here's the timeline, which no one, even the military, disputes:

In January, the IAEA found hundreds of tons of explosives and placed them under seal. Inspectors were still in the country at this time, and the US had the area under tight aerial surveillance.

When US troops and the Survey Group visited the area on May 27, they found no explosives and found that the site had been, in the words of David Kay, "looted." Now, maybe David Kay is a partisan hack. But the President thought he was trustworthy enough to appoint as head of the Study Group.

So, when did the weapons disappear? They may have gone missing in the months leading up to the invasion, or in the months afterwards. We do not have definitive evidence at the moment.

Either way, is there any doubt that a major bungle occurred? We are not talking about a small amount of explosives. It would have required fleets of trucks to remove those weapons - from a site that had been marked as a major repository of explosives that could be used in a nuclear bomb program or to further a campaign of terrorism. Whether we allowed those explosives to move before the invasion or after, it was a catastrophe, pure and simple.

If you prefer to blink this fact in order to complain about the media bringing it to light, I'm just at a loss. This is information the electorate needs as it decides who to put in charge of the war against terror.


Please go see http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/that-missing-rdx-nbc-reporters.html

it addresses your points quite well.

"Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!"

OOUUCCHH!!! Not only has the NBC producer quoted in the link shot down the Drudge/Bush version, but NBC has now updated the story gutting the Repug spin. Looks like the NYT was right and it was CNN that drank the Bush kool aid big time (no surprise there).

Can't wait for Michele to demand firings at CNN for relying on Drudge or for her to correct her post re the NYT. That should come about the same time Bush admits a mistake.

The fact of the matter is that the explosives is yet another fuck up in a long string that includes failing to take out Zarqawi, failing to secure Tawaitha, fucking up in Fallujah, etc. Indeed, I'm truly curious, is there a Republican response re the Zarqawi fuck up?

Michele, "Sometimes a bowler just has to face the music."

No, Andy. It really doesn't.

It begins by minimizing it, "In this context, the loss of 380 tons of RDX is similar to worrying about a toothache after being diagnosed with AIDS and Ebola," all well and good unless your the guy blown up by the 'toothache'. The it goes on to blame others, "...most of the damage had already been inflicted by the dilatory tactics of America's allies..."

What it fails to do is account for the lack of intelligence despite monitoring of the site both on the ground and from the air.

Oddly enough, after Drudge shamed other media outlets and a zillion weblogs into mentioning the story, NBC has pulled it. It seems that the 101st Airborne was not the first unit on the scene and that when they and their embedded NBC team did arrive, they never searched the facility.

I'm not saying that the explosives were not moved before the US invasion. I don't know. It's unfortunate that Kerry has chosen to play politics with this because he doesn't know either. It's even more unfortunate that military and civilian leadership doesn't know, and they are the ones who should.

My problem doesn't lie with the story itself actually being reported in the first place, or the content of the story, but WHEN it was to be reported and WHY it was to be reported at that specific date, and by WHOM.

CBS tried to SIT ON THE STORY until 24 hours before the election, when it could do the most electoral damage to Bush.

That isn't journalism, that's politics. If you can't see that, pay closer attention, please.

Well, Big Ernie, I wasn't really talking about whether the crap was there or not. This particular post is about the fact that CBS was hanging onto this story until the last, bitter moment that they could in order to fuck up Bush's chances at re-election. That doesn't strike you as a bit dishonest, underhanded or, shall we say, partisan?

And Kerry making political hay out of this, as Al points out, is a bad, bad move.

McSwain: try not read into my posts what isn't there, ok? Stick to the topic at hand, unless you've got some kind of mind reading machine and you know what else I'm thinking on the subject.

What worrys me is the lack of intelligence as to the explosives EVER being moved and are there now elements plugged into the areas around the world to REALLY HAVE REAL INTELLIGENCE of the what and whereabouts of ALL dangerous materials such as this or worse. Places like Iran, Russia and China. Nuclear crap.

I'm beginning to think that those IAEA seals are to arms control what the paper band is across the toilet seat when you check into a hotel ... a fancy hotel.

Something you notice, but not something that stops you.

Bush's chances at re-election SHOULD be fucked up! The whole reason we went to Iraq was to get control of stuff that could be exploded to kill Americans!

Are you saying that what CBS did is worse than Bush and Rumsfeld letting the stuff slip away, or creating the conditions in which it could slip away, so that terrorists/insurgents could get it and use it to blow up Americans?

Wait--is that off-topic? Is it just that you don't want to talk about Bush and Rumsfeld's failure, and would rather rant about CBS and the NYT, even though THEY didn't get any soldiers blown up today?

"You know, I really want to be there when it's announced that Bush has won re-election and Dan Rather goes all bathtub/toaster."


Michele, I understand your concerns about the timing of the CBS story, but I'm not convinced it matters. Like I tell my kids when one of them tattles on another (I discourage that, nobody likes a rat), "If you hadn't done it there wouldn't be anything to tell." I punish them equally -- in other words, I won't watch 60 Minutes and I won't vote for Bush.

I'm not sure when CBS got this information but expect it wasn't very long ago (why it took so long to get out is another issue). It's understandable that they would hang on to it for their flagship news magazine rather than blowing it off in a few minutes of nightly news. If it falls just prior to the election, even better. After all, it's all about the ratings -- I don't think CBS is unique in this and look forward to the feature story on Fox News come 10/31 or 11/1.

Michele, with all due respect,I think it's rather shameful that you are focusing on the way NYT and CBS are reporting the story instead of the actual story itself.

Huh? I guess the "NYT" and the "more more more" links in your post weren't really meant to be read if you were limiting yourself to an anti-CBS screed & not discussing the substance of the story ... My Bad!!!

I guess your point is that when a producer for the Sunday night "60 Minutes" gets the story, that producer should not run it on the next Sunday night's "60 Minutes"???? When the hell should he run it? On Monday like the NYT? Or are you saying that the media should participate in the Bush team's cover up and not run the story until after the election? Now I get it ... How dare they blow the Cover Up!!

It looks like your drinking more than just kool aid: "Hey, I hope you don't mind, I got up a little early, so I took the liberty of milking your cow for you. Yeah, it took a little while to get her warmed up, she sure is a stubborn one, whew. [Takes a drink from the bucket]"


My understanding is that the story started with a letter from the Interim Iraqi authority to the IAEA on (I believe) October 15th. Why the Iraqis spilled the beans at that time instead of continuing to cover for Bush is the true mystery.

The Iraqis also state plainly that the explosives were looted after April 9th indicating this was a "failure to secure" fuck up. This is further supported by an AP report which contains the following tidbit: "At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity."

The dissembling from the left, synchronized, unsurprising.

It would take least two weeks to move this stuff, 40 tractor trailer loads (except they'd have to be special trailers, you can't throw this crap into the back of the standard trailer).

And at every checkpoint, they told the troops "it's baby formula, honest".

Either that or we are to believe 40,000 "insurgents" stuffed it into their pockets and ran away screaming "balalalalalalala" into the night.


Interestingly, the NYTimes (and CBS, which had intended to do the story Oct 31! October surprise!) knew very well there was a good chance they were wrong. In the article itself, a bit more than half-way in -
'A senior Bush administration official said that during the initial race to Baghdad, American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal."'

NZBear also noted this.

It may have been a very cursory inspection (April 10? One day after Saddam's statue was taken
down on TV?), but to know troops (and an NBC reporter) went through at least some of it and not try to find out is more than irresponsible, it is tantamount to a direct lie. Three sentences of a four-online-page article is not sufficient for a copout.

Note - Josh Marshall says the Pentagon says nothing like a search (except a quick look for enemy personnel) was done until May 27. No IAEA-sealed explosives were found at that time. Again, though, neither the Times or, apparently, CBS actually asked anyone. Notice the IAEA seems to
have sat on this for 17 months, until just before the election, out of consideration for us(?) needing time to find it. Just coincidence that the US has been making [subdued] noises for longer than that about removing the head of
the agency.

The out-patients are out in force tonight.

There were 600 thousand tons of ordnance spread around Iraq at the time. Some of it - one twentieth of one per cent - that was reportedly there at some time previously was not there later.

We don't know when it dissapeared, or where to. And that's pretty much the entirety of the story.

So yes, the fact that CBS chose to spring this story literally on the eve of the election is more interesting, and more significant, than the story itself.

Desperate time take desperate measures. This is getting pretty desperate

Hey Kool Aid!!! Pixy is on that dust again!

Pixy says --- who gives a fuck that 377 tons of the most dangerous and easy-to-use explosives were looted; other "ordinance" is out there too (How much of that is out there because of a failure to secure weapons depots Pixy dares not ask). In fact, Pixy says "600 thousand tons" of other "ordinance" is out there. Pixy's number probably comes from the same sources that told us there were tons of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq. Pixy also fails to mention how much, if any, of this other stuff can be used to make the IEDs and car bombs that have been the major threat to our troops.

Can't reasonable peolpe agree that it was a fuck up not to secure the Al Qa Qaa facility until May 27th?

Can't reasonable peolpe agree it was a fuck up not to take our shots at Zarqawi when the military said we had the chance?

Perspective, gentlemen, perspective. When it came to arms, Iraq was Satan's Toychest. That place was awash in it and the Corps of Engineers has been destroying the stuff as fast as possible.

We don't know when the stuff went missing - was it during the run-up to war, during the invasion, or in the aftermath? Likely in the run-up. The last thing I think anyone would want to do is concentrate many semis full of explosives under the eye of American sattelite and reconaissance aircraft during a hot war. Certainly afterwards it would seem that sort of organized movement of 380+/- tons of HE would be noted.

Life isn't perfect gentlemen, no matter who is POTUS. I think your expectations are a little extreme if you think that the DOD can plan for every little detail of an invasion and seizure of depots and not have a part of the plan fail. They are simply human, the troops executing the orders are humans. Mistakes will occur. To blame this on the POTUS is simply ridiculous. The Buck may Stop There, but he doesn't and can't take onto his head the actions of every federal employee and the actions of everyone of America's enemies. If you do put that on him, you are being ridiculously unfair and unserious. I'd say unmedicated, but I don't want to be too rude.

Every decision has risks. Going to war was risky. Not going to war was risky. Argue the points of the decision all you want, but be fair and keep your criticisms in the real world. Perfection can be expected from the Almighty, but not humans, even if the human is a POTUS.