Just read this on Drudge...

http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 26 2004 11:02:38 ET XXXXX

In 1992 it was the Iran Contra charges brought days before the election... In 2000 it was the DUI charges a few days before the vote... And Now...

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE



News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. [VIDEO CLIP]

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

Developing...

Very interesting. Though, it is Drudge reporting it, so I'll be a tad skeptical.

What day did the NYT break it?

Not sure.

The NYT broke it yesterday. This is true ... 60 minutes was holding out until Sunday ... for some reason. I'm not sure why. ~sarcasm~

But judging the lack of traction this story has had since the NYT reported it on Sunday, I seriously doubt it would have caused any harm to Bush.

I don't see much of anything that could damage him like the DUI story did in 2000. For those who don't know/remember, Bush had been asked earlier in the year if he'd ever been arrested and he said no. Then this story came out the weekend before the election (interestingly, Fox News was the one to break the story). Bush was polling 3-5 points ahead of Gore before the story broke, but as we know, came up just short of Gore in the popular vote.

If something breaks like, Bush knew intelligence was faulty or he actually was AWOL and here's the proof, I can see that tipping the election to Kerry. Outside that, Bush is probably in the clear.

if anything, I think this particular story may have blown up in the Kerry campaign's face.

but even then, I'm not sure that matters. I think most people already know who they are voting for, and aren't really persuadable. I heard one guy today say he didn't care if it came out that Bush had sex with goats. He'd still vote for him at this point. And I'd wager a lot of people feel the same about Kerry (insert own Teresa joke here).

I really, really think the number of actual undecideds in this election is infintesimally low ... maybe too low to make any difference whatsoever.

I don't think Bush supporters need worry.

Fox News speaks to conservatives.

CBS News speaks to liberals.

They're only going to be preaching to the choir.

i'm not completely sure about that. I think most folks who watch Fox News believe it is conservatively slanted.

I think most people still watching network news are old people who just aren't that cynical. They actually believe the networks are giving you the unmitigated truth, completely unfiltered. Hell, until a few months ago, I believed that.

but it ain't the case ...

Being fair and balanced does not equal giving the president a free ride. If he fucked up, and boy did he fuck up, it is the networks' duty to report it. Personally, considering our attention span, I think the U.S. population needs to be reminded of Bush's screw-ups. After all, we all had to be constantly reminded of Clinton's penis.

For the most part, network news, even CBS, has been letting this administration off the hook for four years. Anytime anything that could in any way be seen as damaging to Bush's presidency is aired, Republicans get all red faced and start shouting out about being victimized. And it's worked; no one, and I mean no one, plays the victim card better than the Republicans.

rush limbaugh, please please please wake up and stop spreading the lies. Show me you can think for yourself and don't call the media liberal.

Our media sucks no doubt, but it certainly isn't liberal. If it was liberal you wouldn't have had the Dean Scream, Kerry and Cheney's daughter, KErry duck hunting being a joke, Al Gore inventing the internet, etc etc etc

It goes on and on how they've been equally as idiotic to both sides of the campaign. Our media's stupid not slanted.

i know i know but rush told you so

I only get red-faced and start shouting when the story turns out to be completely bogus and/or full of holes and/or based on forged documents. ie this missing weapons story. ie Rather-gate.

Republicans play the victim card? ha ha ha ha ha! If so, then they're stealing pretty egregiously from the Democrat playbook.

Al Gore did a pretty good job following the 2000 election, wandering around the country, looking like he was going to cry.

More sinisterly, how about getting blacks to the polls by scaring them (how about these Democratic get-out-the-vote pamphlets showing a 50-year-old picture of a black man being sprayed down with a fire hose)?

but not when the president says iraq tried to buy yellow cake when the CIA report stated otherwise?

Or when Bush said when he was pushign for war that when the IAEA was kicked out they released a report saying Iraq was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon, which was an outright lie?

Or when asked whether or not he thought he mislead the public with his 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' banner he blamed it on the Navy because they hung it up?

Or when confronted with the CIA disagreeing with what the administration had been saying in speeches and to the UN they said the CIA's memos 'slipped their minds'??

so it's the New York Times' job to fight these lies with more lies? I'm not sure I follow the logic. If all the above were true, why couldn't the NYT just slam Bush on thigs he actually did. instead of basically fabricating them? Why feel the need to embellish stories and/or make them up?

Or getting the Christian right to the polls by mailing out fliers saying Democrats want to ban the Bible and force you to marry someone of the same sex? Both sides pander. Republicans, however, have majority control of the entire U.S. Government, and yet they still claim to be the underdogs, the Washington outsiders, and the good 'ol wholesome boys being beaten down by the "Liberal Elite" - pretending, as it were, to be the ones taking the tough, unpopular stand of simply being Christian and Republican. To which I ask, since when has being Christian or Republican been unpopular?

Hundreds of tons of high explosives went missing after we invaded Iraq. What's to embellish?

who said it was their job?? You said

"I only get red-faced and start shouting [b]when the story turns out to be completely bogus and/or full of holes and/or based on forged documents[/b]. ie this missing weapons story. ie Rather-gate."

that would include the iraq/al qaeda connection and lot sof other things i mentioned and didn't mention....yet you don't seem so red-faced at those? Who said the NYT had to fight it with more lies? You said you get upset whenever these thingshappen, i just pointed out you ignore them when it's your side doing them

Or before, which seems entirely more likely.

Listen, which is more likely:

A) that Saddam, is the nearly year-long run-up to the war, moved the stuff prior to the invasion?

or B) that a band of looters moved 380 tons of anything, using 40 18-wheelers, down the only road out of town, a road infested with American troops and convoys?

Looters? We're not talking about a TV or a stereo. We're talking about 380 tons of stuff that could only be moved with 40 tractor trailers.

crazy.

I think it is most likely that Saddam did not have WMD prior to the current war....much more likely than the other two senarios.

to steal a page from the Clinton playbook, it depends on your defintion of WMD.

Chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? maybe not.

but if 380 tons of this particular explosive are such a big deal, then what is the 400 tons of it we've already destroyed?

Maybe it's not a tradition weapon of mass destruction, but it is a weapon that causes mass destruction. I fail to see the difference.

very nice, you quote me, delete what i wrote and argue something completely different...

were we talking about the explosives or how you pick and choose which bogus stories to be upset about?

Once again, i'll go slow...you said:
"I only get red-faced and start shouting when the story turns out to be completely bogus and/or full of holes and/or based on forged documents. ie this missing weapons story. ie Rather-gate."

I pointed out your defense of this administration and listed specific lies, like quoting reports that don't exist and using forged documents to try and prove an al-qaeda connection with iraq MONTHS after the CIA and Chech governments said the documents they had were forgeries and the FBI saying their surveillence shows him in the US at the supposed time and date of the meeting...

now i see why you like bush so much, you like dodging questions like him! First you say 'is it the NYT job to fight lies with lies? I say no, just tell me why you didn't care about these other lies told by the administration...instead you switch arguments to what happened to the missing explosives....why all the flip flopping?