It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Filed By Matt Drudge
Originally posted by deeprivergal
You really need to provide a link for your source. Otherwise you're taking someone else's work as your own. I also read this story on www.drudgereport.com...
I thought it was convenient as well.
I also question the purpose of this post. An inflammitory subject line, followed by an irrelevant and rather uninteresting article...
Originally posted by dgtempe
The fat lady aint sung yet
I tell ya Republicans are desperate today
Originally posted by sensfan
How does the story, or lack of story any way relate to your post title "It's all over for Kerry" ?
Originally posted by ThunderCloud
Well, it's not officially over for Kerry (or Bush) until the 538 electoral votes are counted in December, and one or the other has at least 270 of them.
Originally posted by Intelearthling
Hey! Maybe this'll be athe beginning of something new! Two preidents! One for the left and the other for the right!