Posted on 10/26/2004 7:58:26 AM PDT by crushelits
Yeah, I said it in the title. The New York Times Iraq explosives story was an October surprise. It was to the Presidential election, what the L.A. Times groping story was to the California Recall election. I said last week that Bushs campaign should be preparing the public for the dirty tricks to come, like Arnolds people did in California. If they had done that, they could be pointing at the big, gooey yellow yolk of the egg on the N.Y. Times face right now. They can still do that, but it would have received much more attention if it had been publicly predicted.
Here are some quick off the cuff points that occur to me can be made from the example of the New York Times Iraq explosives story:
1 - somebody rushed to report this story without fully investigating it and without checking with allies in the media to verify it
2 - somebody misled the public about the location of weapons in Iraq
3 - somebody has not admitted they were wrong about the weapons in Iraq
4 - somebody has not apologized for the mess they made of this story
UPDATE: At 2:30 a.m., MSNBC was still running the NYT story as fact with video of the related Kerry attack on the President, and with no mention of the NBC report from 2003 refuting the story. This is MSNBC and they are not reporting their own information that, at the very least, calls into question the story they continue to run? Just when you think that Chris Matthews attack on Michelle Malkin, or Lawrence ODonnells lying creepy liar speech or almost any episode of Keith Goobermans Countdown is the lowest MSNBC can go, they lower the bar. (Even though ODonnells meltdown took place on Scarborough Country, it is still one of the few shows on MSNBC that is actually consistently good.)
Thanks for input.
Do I smell Soros?
I feel your pain!!!! Ha! I know what you mean my friend. I quit watching him long ago. I read part of his first book. My wife had bought both for me at Costco (thankfully at a reduced price). Because I hated the first one, and threw them both in the trash. It was garbage. He is garbage. He has got to big for his liberal pants. Used to say he was in the middle. It was a big lie all the time. He is a stinking liberal, votes dem in my book.
I think you are right. I've also been wondering if there might be a back door attack through Cheney with some 'new' revelation about Halliburton, that evil empire. All they need is a 1-2% swing or a similar reduction in turnout.
On the other hand, what type of revelation about Kerry would dissuade his base from coming out? Let's see - they are pacifists, yet give him a wink about his war hero status. He is filthy rich because of his use of women, yet he gets a pass from the feminists. They are animal rights activists, yet he kills a goose. The worst thing that could be leaked about him to suppress his base would be???
Turnout is key, of course.
A_R
You are right, O'Reilly is as phony as they come.
So its being manipulated by some Kerry freak. That would explain the drastic change. It appears to be coming back up in the last hour.
It's a beautiful strategy if you can make it work. And it's an instructive example of "unintended consequences" at work. Someone thought these kinds of markets would be a real nifty way of gauging public opinion; now they've become one more way of trying to shape public opinion.
O'Reilly is supporting Bush because Kerry wouldn't come on his show, otherwise he would be sucking up to the Senator like he did to Rosie O'Dumbell
Watch for fRance to leak a false document about a french Halliburton subsidiary being on the take with Saddam's oil for food
You've hit the nail on the head. He's invulnerable to attack because even among his supporters, there is a pretty clear recognition that there's no there there. He's been invisible in the Senate for 20 years. They're not buying a leader, certainly not a moral example. He doesn't have to be anything...so long as he's not BUSH! That's the campaign in a nutshell.
I believe it was due to a film that apparently only FOX employees and supervisors went to see - called, Outfoxed. They seem to have been utterly embarrassed by the complaints of the film. And that seems about the time they decided to try to become somewhat LM themselves. It's a shame. These people are supposed to be adults. They should know better than to be persuaded by leftist propaganda. They SHOULD . . know better.
A_R
Another gem from the Daily Recycler:
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html
I knew immedietly it was phoney because I remembered all the reporters showing us bunkers, schools, you name it, all full of weapons, explosives, etc... I remember a truck parked just full of stuff. They said it would take 10 or more years to blow everything up if we blew it up every day.
I'm mad that no one is covering the Kerry Vietnam stuff in the NY SUN today. I guess if the cables can't get if off the NY Times, it's not news.
The rules behind this sort of politicking are such that the ordinary standards of evidence do not apply - a shrill enough accusation will suffice as long as it can last three days. Corrections later on page 39, below the fold, as per usual practice.
And the MSM continues in its death spiral into irrelevance, and they wonder why.
Take heart, like the SeeBS story, this is going to back-fire and actually help Bush. They will next try to claim that Rove planted this false story to set them up...
I've heard of the film, and that it was a really easily debunked hatchet job. But it could well be that Fox is running scared. Maybe WE will have to scare them back!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.