The Fog of Deceit: NYT, CBS, IAEA

So we have another MSM scandal on our hands, and this one even closer to the election. When I picked up yesterday's NYT well before sun-up, the headline screamed "Partisan" before I read the story. And a weak story it was, even before it was sunk by NBC's memory that, in fact, the weapons had "gone missing" (a Briticism that, like harassment, has infiltrated America over the past couple of years). (The transcript, via Jim Geraghty, is here.) While I've followed developments in Iraq fairly closely, I don't claim to be a pundit on the situation there; yet it was clear that this was old news resurrected this week to harm Bush. Yawn.

Today the Times, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, runs another front page story titled "Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign." In the old days, this common practice of creating and then reporting on a story as it impacted across the land could be practiced with abandon. Today, the Times would admit to the error of its ways -- or, better yet, learned not to engage is misleading reporting -- were it not stuck in the past along with the rest of the liberal establishment. Or, as Captain Ed puts it, "If we are to follow the Times' logic, the weapons were not dangerous at all and would have never ended up in the hands of a madman while the IAEA allowed Saddam control of the explosives, but removing Saddam's control suddenly made them doomsday weapons and their availability a dire threat. If that makes sense to you, your name is Joe Lockhart or Pinch Sulzberger."

That is backed up by a curious report now on MSNBC's website, which notes that the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Monday that "the explosives had been looted from the sprawling Al-Qaqaa military base, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, since January 2003 [emphasis added] due to a 'lack of security' at the former Iraqi military facility. An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war [emphasis added] in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives." Since American forces didn't arrive at Al Qadda until April, 2003, the IAEA is charging Saddam with "lack of security" at his own base! As I'm sure others have asked, does this mean that we waited too long to invade?

But the MSNBC report is self-contradictory. For just below the paragraph quoted above, they say: "It remains unclear, however, how extensively the U.S. forces searched the site in the immediate aftermath of the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein. . . . The State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said that coalition forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at Al Qaqaa [emphasis added] facility after the war, looking for weapons of mass destruction. He said the troops found none, but did see signs of looting."

They've just answered questions, and provided evidence, that they try to ignore within the story itself. Why? Because they're being credited with undermining the NYT story, of course, and it doesn't sit well. All the wrong people are praising them, after all. Can't have that. All of which raises a question: Would NBC have regained its memory absent New Media's ability to fact-check this story?

Wretchard at Belmont Club puts things into perspective: [T]he loss of 380 tons of RDX is similar to worrying about a toothache after being diagnosed with AIDS and Ebola. Some 600,000 tons of explosive are said to have been dispersed throughout Iraq prior to the conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Like most folks, I suspect, I learned of NBC's memory from Drudge, who by last night had his siren lights up and spinning. And this morning he's reporting that "60 Minutes," apparently not satisfied with botching their Rather-inspired attempt to throw the election via forged documents, planned on airing the explosives story on election eve in order to "knock the Bush administration into a crises [?] mode." And Dan Rather led off his nightly broadcast yesterday by noting that Ed Bradley of CBS News and the NYT were working together on the story, as others have noted. Corrupt collusion, anyone?

CNN is reporting the story now, although it isn't mentioned on Fox's web site (but this is). But they did report on the initial discoveries at Al Qaqaa back on April 4, 2003 (hat tip, JustOneMinute). Back then, Fox reported:

"The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least a dozen times, including as recently as Feb. 18. The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa."

That's the same IAEA, you'll note, that decided suddenly this week that looting of the "al Qa Qaa" complex was a new story. As JustOneMinute notes (quoting news sources): "While the White House sought to minimize the importance of the loss of the HMX and RDX - two commonly used military explosives that can also be used to bring down airplanes or to create a trigger for nuclear weapons - the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, took the unusual step on Monday of writing to the United Nations Security Council to report that the explosives were gone. He usually sends a report every six months, and his last was just a few weeks ago."

Of course, Mohamed ElBaradei is a protégé of Hans Blix. On January 23, 2003, he told the UN Security Council that "Inspections are time consuming but, if successful, can ensure disarmament through peaceful means." Of course, we now know that UNScam allowed Saddam to do just about anything he wished.

Lastly, let's not forget that Jill Abramson is the managing editor of the Times. As Truth Laid Bear writes: "Ensuring that a story like this is properly vetted falls squarely in the ME's realm of responsibility, so I think it's fair to ask Ms. Abramson what happened here, and why she's allowing her news pages to become an adjunct to the Kerry campaign’s attempts to smear Bush's record on Iraq."

This is the same Jill Abramson, after all, who co-authored Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas, which was little more than a recitation of liberal shibboleths about Justice Thomas.

More at Michelle Malkin , Say Anything, and Power Line.