October 27, 2004
Deep QaQaa Indeed...The Big Lie Continues
George Neumayr nails it:
The New York Times, it is often said, not only reports the news but makes the news. This is true literally. It makes the news up. To nail Bush, Bill Keller and company were willing to manufacture a story where there wasn't one. Then with grotesque unfairness they gave an appearance of reality to their fiction by demanding that Bush respond to it. In a classic of their well-honed technique, the Times treated their fake story as a real campaign issue, titling a piece yesterday, "Iraq Explosives Become Issue In Campaign." The editors of the Times are like malicious mechanics who cause a car crash, then approach the scene like innocents wondering what happened.
"Fake New York Times Story Becomes Kerry Smear Tool In Campaign," is the real headline. Al Qaqaa is a good nickname for the dominant media as the Democratic donkeys in their newsrooms produce endless piles of manure. "Crooked Liberal Media Becomes Issue In Campaign," is the story the electorate deserves to hear.
The byline on the bogus Times story, "Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site In Iraq," lists 7 reporters working on it and "cooperation with the CBS News program '60 Minutes.'" (Steve Kroft can't blame this one on the second-stringers at 60 Minutes II.) Not one of these journalists knew that NBC had traveled with the military to Al Qaqaa and could disprove their story easily? This is as pathetic and shoddy as Dan Rather receiving forgeries from Kinko's. Evidently Bush hatred has left journalists at the Times and CBS so addled they can't even produce plausible propaganda that holds up for a day.
Watch as the Times and CBS, à la Dan Rather (who is so hapless he couldn't resist this fake story either), use the "fake but accurate" defense to change the subject. They will shift attention from the falseness of their claim that U.S. troops failed to guard 380 tons of explosives to what they regard as the "core truth" that explosives have gone missing since the U.S. invaded the country. Recall that the media and Democrats leveled wild charges against the military for letting "looters" steal the cultural patrimony of Iraq. That was a cheap attack on soldiers doing the best they could under difficult circumstances -- but precious PBS liberals who previously hadn't cared a whit about Saddam Hussein looting the country's cultural patrimony saw it as a convenient story with which to smear the U.S. war effort.
This is just another media Big Lie. Obviously false, easily disprovable if anyone bothered to check the record, but nonetheless widely believed by the voting public. How sad. The media are doing what they perceive to be their mission: changing the election. Based on lies.
How many have we seen now?
1. There was the "imminent threat" canard. Only Bush never said this. Anyone reading his SOTU speech will see he said we could not afford to wait until Iraq became an imminent threat. Quite different from what the media, and notably the NY Times (see a connection here?) continue to say to this day. Excuse me, continue to lie about to this day.
2. We went to war based on WMDs. Wrong. Check the record again. From the start, there were always three reasons given for going to war: WMDs were only one of three rationales presented. Again, the president's argument was distorted and oversimplified. And that is what the public continues to believe because they are too lazy to go back and check the record. And because they have been repeatedly lied to by the media.
3. This will be a cakewalk. No one from the White House said this. The source of this quote is Ken Adelman, a man who worked for Don Rumsfeld 25 years ago. It took me all of 5 minutes to find this out: you'd think our intrepid press corps with their vaunted investigative powers might be able to perform similar feats of detection.... But it's so much more fun to make stuff up. President Bush never said this would be easy: in fact, during every single speech he has given, he has emphasized that this would take years.
4. Saddam never tried to acquire yellowcake: wrong. Wilson was discredited and the Senate issued a report saying that Wilson was wrong. The media continue to sneer at the yellowcake issue obliquely, however and thanks to their misdirection, the myth is still alive and well in the mind of the average voter. As we'll see later in this post, Saddam was actually in possession of significant quantities of yellowcake uranium. Oh... you hadn't heard? How strange.
5. The 9/11 Commission found no links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Actually they never said this. The official report says the opposite. A small paragraph from a leaked unofficial report written by a minor staffer was flogged energetically by the media, John Kerry, and the DNC even though it was contradicted the very next day by two of the committee chairmen as well as by the committee's official report:
Thomas Kean, co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, went far beyond mere "links" between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
"There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," he said at a press conference on July 22, 2004. "Relationship" is also the word used to describe Iraq-al Qaeda contacts in an internal Iraqi Intelligence document, authenticated by U.S. intelligence and first disclosed on June 25, 2004, in the New York Times. When bin Laden left the Sudan in 1996, according to the document, his Iraqi Intelligence contacts began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location."
Rice is simply wrong when she claims that the 9/11 Commission "repeatedly" dismissed a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. In fact, the commission's final report details numerous "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda before concluding that the evidence it had seen did not suggest a "collaborative operational relationship."
In March 1998, according to the 9/11 report, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence." Iraqi officials traveled to Afghanistan in July 1998 to meet with representatives from the Taliban and later directly with Osama bin Laden. According to the 9/11 report, "sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."
Let's review: Kerry adviser Susan Rice claims the 9/11 Commission dismissed "links" between Iraq and al Qaeda. In fact, the 9/11 Commission co-chairman says there is "no question" of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. The final commission report notes numerous "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda and declares that bin Laden's top deputy "had ties of his own to the Iraqis."
I never cease to be amazed at the ability of the anyone-but-Bush crowd to duck and weave. If one argument doesn't work, they quickly discard it and shift to the opposite one with blinding speed. Getting back to the Al Qaqaa story, Neumayr comments:
The liberal media -- which have never acknowledged the existence of nuclear components in pre-war Iraq before and have been pooh-poohing the idea that Saddam possessed any dangerous materials to share with terrorists -- only now make these concessions. And why? In order to buttress a bogus story accusing American soldiers of not securing them. The media had previously said terrorists weren't in Iraq under Saddam. Now they say by April 2003 terrorists were stealing weaponry in Iraq. The attacks on the U.S. war effort are so convoluted that they end up proving the necessity for it.
In their missing-explosives hyping, the Times and CBS make Iraq into the dangerous place that they had been previously saying it wasn't. When David Kay said that Iraq was more dangerous than even Bush assumed, CBS and the Times didn't listen to him. But now that the nuclear-triggers-were-just-lying-around storyline fits their purpose they paint Iraq as a powder keg.
Which is it, folks? Was Saddam dangerous, or not? Are you willing to admit now that he had weapons he wasn't supposed to have in violation of 12 years of UN sanctions? We've already found one sarin-filled shell that only by the grace of God failed to explode. We confiscated 500 tons of yellowcake (which Saddam was NOT supposed to have, and which the IAEA singularly failed to detect and remove) from Tuwaitha. [Ed. Note: SADDAM DID NOT HAVE YELLOWCAKE URANIUM. HE WAS NOT TRYING TO ACQUIRE IT. THE SANCTIONS WERE WORKING...CONTAINMENT WAS WORKING... THERE WERE NO WMDS ...SADDAM HAD ONLY PEACEFUL INTENTIONS...LATHER, RINSE, REPEAT...] Now there are these explosives, which you seem to feel are quite dangerous. If Saddam was never a threat to us, why are you so worried?
Make up your minds. Or is defeating George Bush so important that the larger point: preventing another tragedy like the one that killed 3000 innocent people on September 11th, 2001, is lost on you?
Have you truly become that jaded? How sad.
October 27, 2004 at 07:19 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deep QaQaa Indeed...The Big Lie Continues:
» The New face of Al Qaeda? from BlameBush!
Something about this whole Al Caca thing has been grating on me, but I couldn't put my finger on it until this morning. Most of my blog entries are born from the fumes of ordinary household cleansers, but sometimes [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 27, 2004 9:39:53 PM
The NY Times really screwed this up. If they had waited until sunday nights 60 minutes, there would not have been time to refute the story.
On the otter heiny, we still have time for a second october surprise since the first one hasn't worked so goodly.
Posted by: Pile On® at Oct 27, 2004 8:16:26 AM
HOW DARE YOU MAKE SENSE THIS EARLY IN THE MORNING! I will find myself savoring this
article and reading and re reading it and doing my own searches for sources other than what you have mentioned.
Did I say that I enjoy this blog? Oh. Well, I enjoy this blog.
Posted by: Cricket at Oct 27, 2004 8:29:18 AM
No wonder Jayson Blair planned a tell all. He almost sounds credible.
Posted by: Cricket at Oct 27, 2004 8:49:53 AM
380 tons of material is alot of stuff to move overnight. You'd need 20 semis to haul all of it. How Bush could let 20 semis slip past him is beyond me. He's a dunce, but he's not blind.
So I'm thinking they used one of those clown cars - you know, the ones that magically have room for 100 clowns? I expect a couple of clown cars would be virtually invisible to satellites, and could easily slip though any checkpoints. After all, who is going to stop and search a little clown car? You'd have to talk to all those annoying clowns, with their big red noses and their loud horns. It'd be too much of a hassle. Best to just let the clowns on through, folks. I know I would.
However, if Iraq had no terrorist connections prior to the invasion, and Saddam had no dangerous weapons, then Bush let terrorists who were never there take dangerous weapons that were never there. I can't wait to hear him try to explain THAT. Best if he just says clowns stole the explosives.
Posted by: Liberal Larry at Oct 27, 2004 11:45:47 AM
This story infuriates me. My terperature gage is dangerously high. It would have taken approximately 48 dump truck loads to move all those explosives. Or 4 Hummers. In either event, it wasn't looting that caused the explosives to disappear. It was an organized effort.
Posted by: Hummer at Oct 27, 2004 11:50:26 AM
In either event, it wasn't looting that caused the explosives to disappear. It was an organized effort.
"Or the NYTimes."
Posted by: Cricket at Oct 27, 2004 12:08:39 PM
Is it just me, or is it amazing how fast Kerry got this story written into his stump speeches? Equally amazing how fast they were able to make ads attacking Bush on this story. Could there be coordination between the MSM and the Kerry campaign?
No I am sure that could not be, I can see the strategists at the Kerry campaign now, having coffee in the morning reading the Times. "Why lookie here boss the Times says Iraq Explosives Become Issue In Campaign, maybe we oughter write that into the stump speech, and quick make one of them there tv ads". Yep that's how it went.
I wonder what they are thinking at ABC News, where they determined that they didn't have to treat the campaigns equally because the distortions of the Kerry campaign were not central to his campaign. This lie has become central the his campaign in the final week.
Posted by: Pile On® at Oct 27, 2004 12:44:13 PM