Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BUSTED! The dimwits at Fox and Newsmax think they have disproved the Times

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:28 AM
Original message
BUSTED! The dimwits at Fox and Newsmax think they have disproved the Times
article on the missing explosives in Iraq. Check out this "scoop" from Fox that has Fox, Newsmax, and the freepers in a frenzy.

__________

from Newsmax:

Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2004 10:33 p.m. EDT

Feb. 2003 UN Report: Saddam Moving Explosives From Al-Qaqaa

The United Nations nuclear watchdog group first reported that Saddam Hussein had begun moving stockpiles of explosives from his Al-Qaqaa nuclear weapons facility a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The February 2003 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, first reported Tuesday by the Fox News Channel, severely undermines claims by the New York Times, CBS News and the Kerry campaign that the Al-Qaqaa explosives went missing only after the U.S. gained control of the facility.

Fox correspondent Bret Baier detailed the chronology of events at Al-Qaqaa for "Special Report with Brit Hume":

* "In January 2003, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency went to the Al-Qaqaa storage facility, tagging and sealing the large stockpile of powerful conventional explosives, HMX and RDX.

* "In February 2003, IEAE chief Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council that some explosives had been removed from Al Qua Quaa - 377 tons remained.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/26/223708.shtml
__________

But that's exactly what was originally in the NY Times article. Here it is:

The Qaqaa stockpile went unmonitored from late 1998, when United Nations inspectors left Iraq, to late 2002, when they came back. Upon their return, the inspectors discovered that about 35 tons of HMX were missing. The Iraqis said they had used the explosive mainly in civilian programs.

The remaining stockpile was no secret. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the arms agency, frequently talked about it publicly as he investigated - in late 2002 and early 2003 - the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was secretly renewing its pursuit of nuclear arms. He ordered his weapons inspectors to conduct an inventory, and publicly reported their findings to the Security Council on Jan. 9, 2003.

During the following weeks, the I.A.E.A. repeatedly drew public attention to the explosives. In New York on Feb. 14, nine days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented his arms case to the Security Council, Dr. ElBaradei reported that the agency had found no sign of new atom endeavors but "has continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX."
<snip>

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 10, Dr. Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote a letter to the I.A.E.A. to say the Qaqaa stockpile had been lost. He added that his ministry had judged that an "urgent updating of the registered materials is required."

A chart in his letter listed 341.7 metric tons, about 377 American tons, of HMX, RDX and PETN as missing.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?pagewanted=3
__________

Am I missing something? The Fox scoop is identical to the NY Times article. They didn't bother to read the entire article, then misrepresented what the Times says by stating the article says "that the Al-Qaqaa explosives went missing only after the U.S. gained control of the facility." No, it doesn't say that. It says 35 tons were missing when the inspectors came back in 2002 (before the invasion).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Morons piled on morons. Can't they READ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bush equals idiot Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. These assholes would think they have to study for a blood test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthpusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yikes..they are really getting pitiful...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. PR operatives spinning
like a circle in a spiral
like a wheel within a wheel
never ending or beginning
on an ever spinning reel
as the images unwind
like the circles
that you find
in the windmills of freeper minds.

(apologies to Dusty Springfield)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. I just realized how Fox came to their brilliant conclusion...
The Fox reporter never read the NY Times article, only the reports about it. The NBC story then shifted the focus to whether or not the explosives were there when the U.S. arrived. Since this story, seeming pro-bush, at first suggested the explosives were already missing when our troops got there, the Fox reporter assumed the Times story must have said the opposite--that the explosives were there when the U.S. invaded. When the Fox reporter came across the information about the 35 tons that were missing before we invaded, he thought he had a scoop that disproved what the Times had said. But he was wrong in his assumption about the Times article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeinesRed Donating Member (735 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. I was wondering why the descriptions...
that he was giving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. picture a dog chasing its tail
Interesting and funny for awhile, and then the dog finally gives up and lays down and goes to sleep. Maybe these loonies will too. Either that or their heads will explode.

Sonia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. They aren't stupid, they just lie. Lie lie lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RafterMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yeah, that's it.
Bushie Ken Mehlman was spewing this out on Charlie Rose tonight. He was in a near-panic.

It's pretty clear they don't even really expect to be believed, they just desperately hope to muddy the waters for one more week. I don't think it's going to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gavodotcom Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Charlie was awesome with that, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeinesRed Donating Member (735 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Precisely....
just repeat, repeat, repeat....they know the press is too lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VoteJohn04_com Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
7. Spin

They've got no news but this to report?!?!

JEESH! Morons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeinesRed Donating Member (735 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. Brit "unfair and unbalanced" Hume
was just breathless as he led with this story tonight.
I like to check into the parallel universe sometimes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeinesRed Donating Member (735 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I just say "unparallel" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Did he say that it undermines the Times article? Fox may realize how
dumb they look with this--I just checked their web site, and their story about the explosives is mainly picking up from the AP. No mention of what Newsmax says or what Fox said on air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. I think they edited out an answer from that reporter in Moscow.
Brit asked a question and it seemed to me that the answer wasn't for THAT question. I'm guessing his answer wasn't what Fox wanted us to hear so they just cut it.


Did anyone else notice that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
17. Ugh! I just took a look at the Newsmax site--it's front page has two
Edited on Wed Oct-27-04 01:51 AM by milkyway
different stories on the missing explosives that are so stunningly misleading it's hard to believe anybody would fall for this garbage (I know, it's really not that hard to believe). I won't go through it all, but two things:

First, they make a big issue that this is all old news, and that the Times is just dredging it back up to win the election for Kerry. Well, it might be old news to Newsmax and the freepers, but it isn't old news to george bush. According to Scotty McClellan, bush just found out last week, and boy was he pissed.

Second, they lead one story with, "NBC News reported Monday night that 380 tons of missing explosives were already gone when U.S. troops arrived at the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation in April 2003 – one day after Saddam's government was toppled. NBC should know. It had a reporter embedded with the U.S. troops when they arrived at Al-Qaqaa in April 2003." Even originally NBC never said that, and now they have made it clear that they didn't know much of anything (gee, and I thought all NBC reporters were certified weapons inspectors).

Excuse me while I go take a shower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
18. a morning kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
19. ROTFLMAO!!!! Oh man that is THE STUPIDEST they've been yet!!!
In 2002 Iraq used 35 tons for cement blasting.

In 2003 IAEA took a new inventory and found 350 metric (380 US) tons remaining.


In 2003 April 4, the first troops to Al QaQaa found the explosives.

ON APRIL 4, 2003 THE EXPLOSIVES WERE AT AL QA QAA.

In 2003 April 10, the second group of troops, 101st AB, didn't searcht he site so it's unknown whether the explosives were still there by then.

Faux Moos; where misleading 80% of their viewers is a proud tradition!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. But at least discussing this KEEPS it on the FRONT burner
It makes the MEDIA concentrate on the IRAQ issue?

Focus Media....FOCUS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flubadubya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
21. OBFUSCATION... pure and simple!
They know the truth of the story... they just don't want the American people to know. They are deceivers of the highest order. Shame and fie upon you FAUX & Newsmin ! :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC