Its offically over for Kerry..

drudgereport.com
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...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge

Moderator Edit: Added source link.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by dbates]

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.

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.

How would someone condsider it his own work when it clearly says "filed by Matt Drudge" on the bottom of his post?

Is this a case of a network trying to set it up for exclusives in the future?

[edit on 26/10/04 by COOL HAND]

How does the story, or lack of story any way relate to your post title "It's all over for Kerry" ?

The fat lady aint sung yet

I tell ya Republicans are desperate today

Well...I don't know about you guys but now I will be voting for Bush

Just more righty word twisting. "its offically over for Kerry". How? Oh, I understand. Its over because he doesnt need to make a fool out of Bush because Bush does it well enough himself, so Kerry is guaranteed to win the election. Thats why its over. 'It' must be Kerry's uphill struggle for the whitehouse, as it appears it is all down hill from here, and he should be able to slide right into that position. Is this what you meant by the title of this thread?

I also question the purpose of this post. An inflammitory subject line, followed by an irrelevant and rather uninteresting article...

Try reading this... It may help in the future.

From ATS admin.
Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events,
please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

I also question the purpose of this post. An inflammitory subject line, followed by an irrelevant and rather uninteresting article...

Don't feed the trolls...

Originally posted by dgtempe

The fat lady aint sung yet

I tell ya Republicans are desperate today

I tell you I can agree with that, I live in a VERY republican state and lately I am having some conversations with older people around that is leaving me quite amazed, and the things they talk about are like been here in ATS, I don't want to ask directly if they are members of ATS I know they are not but these people know their stuff and they are angry with the Republican party and the war some of them have even conspiracies theories of their own, I just look at them and think hummmm...............the American public is not so naive after all.

And now go ahead and bash me but I am telling the truth, even I am afraid to speak badly too loud about bush but these older people do not even care who is listening, I just let them talk and laugh.

The beauty of older people is that they are not afraid to talk. One even call bush a communist he is a Korean vet like my father. I almost spilled my coffee at that one coment.

Marg, yes, i also know a lot of people who can really see things for what they are. The truth* I listen to my mother and some other elderly people and no, they're not afraid to talk. Why should they be? They've been involved in this process for so many years, and they've never seen things quite as they are now.
Im not afraid to speak out now...but if Bush is re-elected....I dont think we will have the liberty to continue posting our thoughts.
This country is headed for disaster

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" ?

This is the question I was going to ask.

It's all over for this topic. And Mark Reid is on a mission to sort out this imposter.

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.

That being said, it does appear that Bush has been slowly solidifying a lead over the last month or so:

www.electoral-vote.com...

So the missing stockpile of weapons in Iraq (which apparently happened in April of 2003, but was reported as if it happened last week) is the 2004 "October surprise." Is it always Democrats who try to spring "October surprises" on Republicans? Or does the reverse happen also?

P.S. -- CBS News and The New York Times suck. Not because they're liberal, but because they're dishonest.

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.

I think they'll be doing recounts until January with how things are going now! It wouldn't suprise me one bit!

Headline for Nov. 3, 2004:

America Has No Idea Who's President Yet!

Hey! Maybe this'll be athe beginning of something new! Two preidents! One for the left and the other for the right!


[edit on 27/10/04 by Intelearthling]

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!

There are actually suggestions closer to that than you might think!

In most democratic countries, there are actually two people, not just one, at the head of the executive branch of government. You have the Head of Government (Prime Minister) which usually deals with domestic issues. And, you have a Head of State (President) which usually deals with foreign issues.

In the U.S., the President is both Head of Government and Head of State.

I bet that, if the U.S. did adopt the mentioned idea, that most Heads of State elected would be Republican, and most Heads of Government elected would be Democrat.

I disagree about there being two people heading up parliamentary democracies. The head of state is almost invariably a figurehead: in a monarchy, the monarch; and in places like France or Italy, a president who doesn't do much exept call new elections when the government falls.