Decrying the loss of the non-existent
Tony BeamDr. Tony Beam's Weblog
- 2004 Oct 28
Is it possible the 2004 presidential election could be decided because of a last minute lie being pushed on the American electorate by the Kerry campagin and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media? The story about the supposed movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance, which allegedly took place after American forces moved into Bagdad, is the number one story in America. The New York Times broke the story (apparently with the cooperation and permission of CBS and 60 Minutes) suggestinng these dangersous explosives are now in the hands of terrorists and are being used to kill American soldiers. President Bush is accused of carelessly allowing these weapons to fall into the hands of the enemy, which raises questions about his competency as Commander-in-Chief. The New York Times and the Kerry campagin want you to beleive the president was asleep at his post, thereby allowing these weapons to pass over to the enemy with disastrous consequences.
Enter Bill Gertz and the Washington Times. Instead of taking a questionable story and rushing to publication in order to hurt the president, the Times conducted a genuine journalistic investigation and discovered those weapons were moved by Russian special forces long before the Americans arrived. According to The Times, "Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation." John A. Shaw, deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security said, "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units. Their main job was to shred all evidence of any the contractual arrnagements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units." This information came from "reliable information on the arms dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration." Later in the article a second, unnamed defense official said, "Documents reviewed included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missle components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons." The Russians were obviously concerned the world was about the disover the extent to which they were supporting the murderious regime of Saddam Hussein. In fact, this move by the Russian government has the look of a common criminal returning to the scene of a crime to wipe clean any fingerprints he may have left behind.
So, the reality is, we know when the 377 tons were moved from the Al-Qaqaa facility and we know where they are. But that news matters not to John Kerry or John Edwards. They are out on the campaign trail continuing to hammer away at the president with a story, they must know by now, is just not true. Perhaps if John Kerry and John Edwards had attended just a few more Senate Intelligence meetings they might know what is going on. But I doubt any amount of truth will change their behavior at this point in the election process. It seems odd to me that Kerry is now concerned about missing weapons which he previously claimed did not exist. Why be worried about missing weapons which were never there in the first place? This is the kind of nonsensical, circular thinking we have come to expect from Kerry and the Democrats.
We must not allow this kind of campaign of mass distortion of the truth to succeed in changing the outcome of the election. If this is the "October surprise" Dick Morris and others have warned us about it, it should leave us unimpressed. Bush has constantly been accused of "rushing to war over oil" even though he went to the United Nations at least twice seeking the approval of the Security Council. Perhaps the ones who are truly guilty of "rushing" are those like CBS News, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times who constantly rush to publish or broadcast negative stories about the president without checking the facts. It appears Dan Rather is not the only one who uses questionable sources. Our election process must be based on an informed electorate who are given the true facts, not distorted sound bites, by the media so we can make an intelligent choice for president.