terryfrank.net » Follow up

Follow up

Christian Grantham, of WKRN Channel 2, wrote this in the comments section as a follow up on my uranium story:

Terry, I’m certain you’ll forgive the “incompetence” of those of us that brush aside “exclusives” on the truth for actual proof. We’ve all had our fair share of incompetence over the past 6 years, and it’s not from those Americans willing to demand more from our leaders before committing American soldiers to war.

Until you produce the document you claim to posess, it isn’t worth a box of Lucky Charms, and you should get used to the American people demanding that level of “put up or shut up” before committing American soldiers to war. There are higher prices paid by over 3,200 American soldiers and their families, not to mention the thousands who have lost limbs over the same claims… so spare us the charges of incompetence and produce the documents.

By Christian Grantham on 02.23.07 11:05 pm

Here is my response:

Christian–I’ve shown the documents to mainstream media who have called and asked to see them. I will be putting one source page up either tonight or tomorrow with a new story that will accompany my interview on Channel 6 in Knoxville.

However, you and many others on this site, including many “bloggers” who claim to seek truth, have tackled my story with a rudeness and indecency that is shocking.

You aren’t “brushing” aside an “exclusive”, Christian. You are lazy and rude and lacking in any personal skills. That doesn’t make you an exception, no, you are the norm in a media world filled with incompetent boobs like yourself who couldn’t debate your way out of a paper sack. You are a ewe, led by the nose by your liberal shepards at bigger media outlets.

Do you seek documentation with such ferocity from your idols at the New York Times? From CNN?

I try, for the most part, to allow my critics to question or berate me. However, I try, though sometimes I fail, to respond in a way that is not as vindictive as those who attack. I seek on my blog to treat people as I would treat them face to face. I often criticize corrupt officials, or editors, like Jack McElroy at the News Sentinel. But I don’t type anything that I wouldn’t say to them in person. In fact, I introduced myself to Mr. McElroy this summer and told him personally that I was often critical of him on my blog and that I only felt it was fair to introduce myself to him.

There is rudeness that pervades the blogsophere that is detrimental to the cause of the free flow of information. It amounts to road rage via the web. And I might add that I believe it finds its roots in a collection of people that find strength in anonymity.

Representing your WKRN “News” in Nashville, you didn’t come on this site and ask me any questions about where I got the documents. No one asked, “do you have a source, Terry?”

No one, that I can see, even asked any follow up questions on some of the information I put forth, such as “one site.” Does that mean there may be more?

No, Mr. Grantham, you indeed showed your incompetence, nay, your ass, by putting up some snarky comment about purple horseshoes and blue diamonds.

You are a stain, as is Brittney Gilbert, on a station that claims that they want to lead a new frontier in media.

Basically, I have learned in less than 50 comments, that there are few who actually ask questions.

But you Christian, you represent a class of media that aren’t interested in facts. History is filled with the likes of you…knaves who do the bidding for their failed ideologies…fools who are blind to reality.

Whether my story is believed, appreciated, or even carried forward is irrelevant to me. I had the guts to put it out there and suffer the pathetic commentaries of do-nothings like you.

I made no claims as to a cause for war nor as a reason to stay. My article only offered up inventory tabs at one site alone and questioned why this information isn’t more widely discussed. That was my question in black and white…no more, nor less. People can use the information to question and berate the administration and cause for war, or defend it.

My show will go on, so to speak. And whatever paltry or minimal influence I have on this world, will be spent on building people up who have the courage and guts to ask questions and make a difference.

That is a promise that doesn’t only apply to my conservative friends. I offer equal respect to liberals in search of information–people like Sharon Cobb and Randy Neal–with him I share few, if any, threads of ideology, but yet share a devotion to the belief that the free flow of information is good for a body of people.

There are still good reporters out there. There is good “media” that seeks to question no matter the impact on agendas. But when we see a tsunami of coverage regarding Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Anna Nicole Smith, is the media giving us what we want to see? Or is it covering the only topics that it is capable and qualified to handle?

Perhaps the most telling response, or lack therof, is the general consensus among many in the media that ordinary people can’t do extraordinary things. There is an elitism that is rampant among a group of people who claim to look out for the little guy. It turns out that claim is rooted in a desire to control, not a desire to empower.

211 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Donna Locke said it right about clubbing the messenger. Those of us who believe in the free flow of information travel that highway stopping at those places we believe offer the best sources. terryfrank.net does the best job of that and I’ve been to plenty. She gives us insight into many issues then links us to the sources that provide us with the full picture and leaves it up to us to decide. Christian, your green-eyed monster inside you has escaped! Terry has her own “exclusive” and it’s obviously killing you. You are such a loser!

Terry Frank, you are a foul human being. Even if you have some “special” insight that no one else has, which I serious doubt, the manner in which you conduct yourself is very unbecoming.

Coming from you, Kevin…that is a compliment. If you praised me, I would need to reasssess my direction.

I agree with Terry. The media should spend less time on Anna Nicole Smith. They should spend more time covering the real news that the British are drawing down forces in Iraq to concentrate on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan even though the U.S. Pentagon reports escalating Shi’ite strife in oil-rich Basra. The media should also spend less time hounding K-Fed and more time hounding D-Chain (Dick Chaney) for his misleading comment that the British are leaving Basra because we are winning in Iraq.

Why did you post your EXCLUSIVE!! on your blog if you weren’t planning to reveal the facts and evidence on your blog? You really expected people to just accept your statements as truth without any proof of what you are saying? For you to make such BOLD CLAIMS!! without a shred of evidence is totally laughable. You can’t cite the documents without also producing them or you look like a fool.

Amen and amen to that last paragraph. The professionals can be lazy and unprofessional and regularly are and deeply resent being shown up.

It’s too much a pablum word. But some of us appreciate the meat provided by real journalism that digs deeper, provides facts and yes, dares to empower the population.

I’m looking forward to seeing the rest of your report, Terry. Thank you.

This is funny:

“Do you seek documentation with such ferocity from your idols at the New York Times?”

Neither of those organizations plays peek-a-boo with their readers, Terry. If the NYT has an unclassified document which relates to a particular story, they usually post the doc as a PDF along with the story itself.

In answer to calls for clarification, you just wrote about 750 words explaining why the news stinks. Most reasonable people will agree with you that the news does indeed stink, however none of that explains why you didn’t just post your proof in the first place.

A stipulation and a couple of questions:
Stipulation: Terry Frank has the documents in hand and they are authentic.
Question 1: Based on comments in the original thread and elsewhere, this SOUNDS like information that has previously been released – Question: Terry, are you saying this is different information than appears to have been released in earlier media?

Question 2: If this information is supportive of the Bush admin contention about Saddam’s pre-war ‘WMD’, why hasn’t the Bush admin been shoving this ‘in our face’ and proclaiming something to the effect of “WE TOLD YOU HE HAD NUCLEAR CAPACITY” or some such?

I totally believe Terry has something interesting here..I’m just not sure what it really means.

thanks..

Well WKRN it sounds like you have been called out. It is put up or shut up time. Terry has said she will release to MSM (I would say you qualify) But I would think the exchange would be a story on the TV news possibly with credit given where it is due. It has been said a good reporter will dig for the story. I don’t think for this story much digging will be needed. Will you still present the facts on the news if it hurts your agenda or will you cop out?

*But some of us appreciate the meat provided by real journalism that digs deeper, provides facts and yes, dares to empower the population.*

I’m still waiting on those facts. If you’ve seen them, Kay, maybe you could share. Terry doesn’t seem to be able to.

P.S. Terry, you have a column and a radio show. You are the media.

Ha! This business about blaming the news (WKRN specifically, for some reason) is a joke and a lame attempt at distraction. It’s Day 3. Where’s your evidence.

I dare say that this is why media people often think bloggers are a complete joke. No facts, no evidence, just hot air.

The offer is made MSM. Will you step up or will we get more snarky comments? I would say it is news worthy if it is true. Are you scared she might be right and have the facts? Why not make the deal and see. In poker if you think the other person is bluffing you put you money on the table and call. People turn over the cards and one person is right. I don’t see the money…..

A serious question, are you going to give your newspaper this exclusive on this information?

What the heck are you talking about? No one has contacted my station about this story. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. (Per usual…)

“Terry has said she will release to MSM (I would say you qualify) But I would think the exchange would be a story on the TV news possibly with credit given where it is due.”

Don’t you read the other comments?

“It has been said a good reporter will dig for the story. I don’t think for this story much digging will be needed.”

How lazy of a reporter are you? Do you have to be spoon fed? Do you Have to have it handed to you on a silver platter? Do you get paid for this sort of work? Hobbs, Frank and others do a lot more for less. Step up.

Okay, this ship just drifted from Crazy to Unintelligible.

Offer a TV story to see the proof.

Simple enough.

What, so we can report 18 month old news?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

BREKING NEWS… from 1993!
.

You just admited her story is valid.

Not without those documents she’s going on about. No docs, no story. She posted the story on her blog, but is saving the docs for mainstream media? Why post it to your blog at all then?

What a joke.

And under reported or more people would have already known about this.

Can you say “I admit, Saddam was clearly seeking nuclear WMDs. Yes, it was against the rules in his agreements and resolutions. He was a threat” .

Just remember that it’s a Republican tactic to vilify their fellow citizens who happen to come to different conclusions about the issues that face our country.

Liberals just want the conservatives to stop playing fast and loose with the facts. They want Republicans to start thinking that the excuse, “I forgot,” is dishonorable (Reagan and the Iran Contra affair), and that the admission, “I was wrong.” (Bush jr and his administration) is honorable.

You just admitted that she doesn’t have an exclusive as she claimed with such vigor.

Why does Terry Frank not care about the facts? Why would she say she had new and exclusive info and then not show the actual info? This is a question yet to be answered. And I’m not holding my breath.

So, lemme get this straight: Terry Frank demanded proof of the existence of a young girl from Afghanistan who was featured on a Christmas card painted by the Governor. But when she openly and excitedly claims that she has her paws on EXCLUSIVE, THIS IS HUGE evidence and those of us who actually want to see these documents say so, we are suddenly rude, indecent, incompetent boobs, ewes, knaves, fools and stains.

GOT IT! Makes perfect sense.

To get REAL reporters to take notice, get off their butts and call to verify it and report it on the MSM.

You cant or wont do either. You admit it is true in one breath and call it old news and in the next say there is no proof.

Make up your mind. Stick with one dodge. You will look less foolish.

Actually, one of our producers did inquire about the docs from WATE. So, your crap about “can’t and won’t” is utterly false.

Par for the course for you, Rep.

I have always believed Saddaam was a threat, and I have always believed that the government had more information than it wanted to share with the rest of us for security reasons. I’ve said as much to John H. and others.

However I still cannot figure out why there isn’t more here about the actual documents. Without at least a .pdf of the docs in question this blog entry is about as newsworthy as my opinions on Grey’s Anatomy.

Also, Rep, you say the story was ‘under-reported’ when it initially appeared. If that is so, then this is hardly an EXCLUSIVE!!!!

I have a scanner, Terry. Email me: brittneyg@gmail.com

If a tree falls in the woods….

Will you report on the MSM if she shows you the proof? Why not go to the source?

I’m obviously not a reporter, but isn’t it kind of hard to report on a story if the person who has the information doesn’t share the source of the information or shows some documentation to reporters?

If Terry wants an exclusive on this, then she either gets the exclusive, ‘puts up’ and explains adequately why this is a ‘new story’ and not a re-hash of old news, and what exactly makes this exclusive.

Piling on other media outlets for not reporting this as news seems more than a little unreasonable if Terry wants to report this herself.

I have. Here I am. She won’t give them up.

Damn, you are dense.

I am offering my scanner, Stacey. How much more reaching out to Terry do I need to do to get those documents.

I bet Terry wishes you would stop. You are embarrassing her more than she has already embarrassed herself.

Just to be clear. You will report this story on TV if you get to see the report. Yes or no.

Can you say “I admit, Saddam was clearly seeking nuclear WMDs. Yes, it was against the rules in his agreements and resolutions. He was a threat” .

Yes, I can. In 1990.

In 2003? Eh… not so much.
.

*Just to be clear. You will report this story on TV if you get to see the report. Yes or no.*

That isn’t up to me. But if I get them, which I won’t, I’ll pass them along to the people who make those decisions.

Last time I checked, Brittney (who is an excellent manager of NiT) isn’t the news manager of WKRN.

There is more to the story than just looking at documents. As stated earlier, do the documents in Terry’s possession break new ground? Is there something in these documents that hasn’t been reported before?

If docs are authentic, why hasn’t White House and Dept of Defense come forward with said documentation and show it to us?

I thought you do a report on TV about what people are talking about. YES or NO.

I thought you do a report on TV about what people are talking about. YES or NO.

And I thought you were a duly-elected representative of the people of your district, not Lee & Terry Frank’s publicity manager.

Yes, Brittney has a five-minute segment on every Friday afternoon where she covers topics that have been heavy in the blog world. She’s done stories on what we’ve said about Pac Man Jones, The Franklin Theatre, etc.

I don’t believe, however, that she is the actual producer of the segment. Confusing her with that role is like confusing you with the governor. Yes, you’re both elected officials, but your duties and responsibilities are quite different.

All that being said, I cannot believe that if this is as ground-breaking a story as Terry (and now you) claim, that you’d want it to first appear on Brittney’s segment next Friday afternoon.

If Terry has already gained an interview with a media outlet she has no reason or necessity to show them here, necessarily.

If I have an exclusive then I’m not just going to scan and send to let someone else get the scoop on me who might have better connections. That’s just smart journalism. I don’t think Terry’s trying to justify the whole war, but she’s trying to say, “Hey, they had the means and this may have been overlooked.”

I think the President has mismanaged this war in a lot of ways. Do I think he may have missed important information that was published in a report? Better believe it — certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

What about this? We, the U.S., gave and or sold a lot of munitions to Saddam back in the day. Do you think if they were then weaponizing stuff that we gave them that the President would want to advertise that? This is a very real possibility if information is coming through O.R. where a lot of this material is processed.

I think these are the questions that Terry might be talking about. This could be a big story, honestly, for either side.

One more thing — this certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a lowly civilian uncovered important information, or one woman broke a huge story. I mean, what about Erin Brockovich, goddess of law? She was a secretary who broke a story by reading reports that everyone had access to.

I’m standing by Terry on this and I’m anxious to see the report and the paperwork.

Ha! Yes, Katherine, I will break this WORLD EXCLUSIVE on my petty little one minute piece. Me and you, Terry Frank, are gonna change the world.

“Hey, they had the means and this may have been overlooked.”

Except they didn’t, and it wasn’t.

Knowing that the IAEA had inventoried 550 tons of yellowcake in Iraq in 1993, and having seen the complete obliteration of the centrifuge sites, no one was worried about 550 tons of yellowcake.
.

I understand. And maybe this is the same report. But I don’t think so. And at this point, you can’t make that claim because you don’t know what she’s holding.

Maybe she’ll have a flush, or maybe she’ll have a pair. But until you see the cards, as Campfield said, you can’t call the bluff for sure.

“Yes, Brittney has a five-minute segment on every Friday afternoon where she covers topics that have been heavy in the blog world.”

I think this meets the mark.

“And I thought you were a duly-elected representative of the people of your district, not Lee & Terry Frank’s publicity manager.”

I am also a citizen and can talk for myself as I see fit on my time.

This is fun.

Maybe she’ll have a flush, or maybe she’ll have a pair. But until you see the cards, as Campfield said, you can’t call the bluff for sure.

Sure I can. I’m trying to get Terry a little national attention. Call it “preemptive laughingstocking.”
.

If I get those docs you can bet your sweet rump I’ll cover it in my piece (considering the boss gives me the go-ahead). Little else would bring me as much pleasure.

No docs, no dice. What do you say, Frank?

Brittney – if you break this story on your 1 minute segment, does this mean I won’t be highlighted for my piece on how a teenage convenience store clerk will be able to figure out if I have TennCare when I come in to collect my $10.00 winnings?

I am also a citizen and can talk for myself as I see fit on my time.

Does that mean that I, as a citizen, can come to the Bloggers Day On The Hill and say what I want? It being ‘my own time’ and all….

Or is it still ‘no libertarians allowed?’

However, if I’ve surmised wrong, I’ll eat my crow.

I’m guessing Terry’s going to get a little red in the face for “breaking” a 14-year-old story, not show the docs to anyone, and most people will forget what an embarrassment she was for bringing it up in the first place (rather than researching it, finding out that it was VERY old news, indeed, and of no consequence in 2003).
.

Please. The Rep is just trying to peddle this story because it’s the first time in a while that people have quit making fun of him for his death certificates for abortions idea. Who can blame him for wanting to keep it alive?

*Does this mean I won’t be highlighted for my piece on how a teenage convenience store clerk will be able to figure out if I have TennCare when I come in to collect my $10.00 winnings?*

We MSM-types must go with the most EXCLUSIVE!! stories, lest we are accused of being lazy. Sorry.

Freedonian, that is an excellent observation.

[...] I guess my question is because I don’t know all the details. Ms. Frank adamantly says she has information that no one else has. Okay, I get that. But where does the newspaper she works at fit into all of these. Rep. Campfield said in a hot thread this morning over at Frank’s blog to Brittney G. from NiT and it concerns me: Why not make the deal and see. In poker if you think the other person is bluffing you put you money on the table and call. People turn over the cards and one person is right. I don’t see the money….. [...]

I don’t know that we’ve quit. We’re sort of on a hiatus.

Coble,

As I said on Dave Oatneys blog

“I say bring them all. We should have nothing to hide from either side. On some issues left and right agree. I think the left will be let down at the inaction of their heros on some big issues that they think are important.”

Brittney,

My lottery bill will be for winnings you have to mail in for (I think the number is over $500.00 in prize money) If you cant afford food ect. and the state has to pick up the bill for you then you shouldn’t have the money to play lotto.
A good reporter will call the person in question and ask for more details previous to makeing claims.

I’m not “left”, doggone it. I’m libertarian. There are more than two sides to politics this days. Just sayin’.

As for the lottery bill (I’m still against the State running a game of chance, but who cares about that?), how exactly would The Poor prove that the winning ticket wasn’t a gift?

Please, Rep: “English First”

Most good state reporters know that because of the short window to produce bills before filing deadline many bills are filed as a caption that opens up a section of law pertaining to an issue they want to address.

The legal staff will do a brief synopsis of the idea, open the caption of law and give it back to the legislator to look over and change and edit as time allows after filing deadline.We only have so much legal staff and they do many bills for many legislators in a short window before bill cut off. They could spend tons of time doing the in and outs of one bill at the costs to many others or they could get all sections opened and back to the legislator for future work.

What the legislator gets back and files may be way off from what actually moves forward. When time allows the legislator has legal drafts amendments to be more specifics as to the goals of the bill, get rid of the bad and add to the good. Most bills of significance are amended many times. Some over years before they are ready for passage. What you may read at the first of the year may be quite different at the end. A good reporter knows this and will ask for more detail from the legislator about the goals of a bill previous to scurrying off to make a salacious report.

If I get time this weekend, I’m gonna do a little Googling, and start a “Hall of Shame” for all the winger bloggers who continually rediscover old, inconsequential news stories, starting with this “550 tons of yellowcake” story.

Terry’s most assuredly not the first… which makes it all the more laughable, IMO.
.

S town,

I do support the “English first” law.

J.P.

I guess since the MSM seldom, lightly or never reported about it this could continue to happen.

That is if this is the same story as neither of us know.

I am also a citizen and can talk for myself as I see fit on my time.

Unintentionally ironic comedy?

Well played, Campfield. Well played.

I guess since the MSM seldom, lightly or never reported about it this could continue to happen.

That could be because no missing white women were involved. Seriously though, it was reported, and pretty much ignored, ’cause it wasn’t very noteworthy. I was alerting people to this when the “16 words” in the SotU address were still newsworthy (”WTF? Why do we care — he’s already got 550 tons of the stuff!”).

That is if this is the same story as neither of us know.

I guess until we see what Terry’s holdin’, we’ll just have to speculate. It’d be irresponsible not to speculate. But I’ve made my prediction; either I’m right, or I eat crow.
.

Even if we take this news as legitimate, the revelations do nothing to change the discussion of the invasion. We knew long before the invasion that Saddam had raw uranium, but no capacity to enrich it, much less capacity to turn the enriched material into a warhead or fit it with a detonator or strap it to a long-range missile.

A small stock of UF4 just underscores the fact that his nuke weapons program hadn’t even gotten to the enrichment stage.

Don’t you just love rainy Saturdays? And where is the Queen of Rudeness herownself?

From Terrys origional article

” he did possess WWII era enrichment equipment called calutrons—kind of the Model-T of enrichment equipment. Also, Saddam had tried to import enforced aluminum tubing which some think could be used to build centrifuge enrichment process—the modern method of enriching uranium.”

But the aluminum tubes were completely unsuitable for uranium enrichment. That comes from our own Department of Energy, and Condi Rice had that information a year before trying to peddle the “aluminum tubes” drivel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&pagewanted=print&position

Stacey, UF4 is the stuff you put in an enrichment machine. Actually, for modern centrifuges, you must first convert it to UF6, a gas. I have no idea how obsolete calutrons worked, but the fact that you are relying on “the Model-T of enrichment equipment” to prop up your argument is both funny on its face and an indication that you are missing the point.

These stocks of uranium ore and UF4 are proof that Saddam’s attempts to enrich uranium, whether by centrifuge or calutron, had gotten nowhere. His uranium was all in pre-enrichment form.

Terry, you could have spent far less time crafting a long-winded personal attack on me by simply sharing your supposed “exclusive” on the truth.

First, you attack me personally by calling me “incompetent.” Then, you launch into a multi-paragraph rant of more name calling. I’m proud to have not stooped to that level with you.

Since you are sharing the documents with mainstream media, I look forward to you sending them to us. You can fax them to WKRN-TV in Nashville in care of me at 615-369-7329.

How would Frank “find” any such articles, unless someone who actually was expert in this field give them to her.

Which begs the question, why Terry Frank? Is she an A-list blogger? B-list? C-list? …..M-list? etc.

Only Terry Frank could find something that no one else could?

Lets just say most of the world is skeptical of this rightwingnut name caller.

Maybe the reason she does not want to post it on line is because it would “out” someone who was mentioned in the info and might be outed if it was put online.

All you naysayers are pathetic! And poor, poor Christian. Did him get him’s feelings hurt? Waaaaahh! I hope Terry lets you all embarrass yourselves to death before she lets you see the documents. Do you believe for a minute that Gene Patterson of WATE-TV would interview her on the subject if the docs WEREN’T authentic! Or is he part of a vast conspiracy to make terryfrank.net look bad? Dream on, fools, dream on!

Mr. Campfield,

Don’t you have clogged big-government legislation to pass? Shouldn’t you be doing that instead of trolling on one of the state’s “most widely read blogs?” We mustn’t be blogging on the taxpayer’s dime, shall we?

Do you believe for a minute that Gene Patterson of WATE-TV would interview her on the subject if the docs WEREN’T authentic!

Yes, I do.

Journalists are, in this era, quite lazy, and willing to latch onto the sensational. No one can accuse them of having an interest in historical events, accuaracy or evidence.

As I said, once this one gets put to rest for the nth time as something that’s more than a decade past being “news,” we will all point and have a nice laugh at those who think clapping louder will keep Tinkerbell alive.
.

Do you believe for a minute that Gene Patterson of WATE-TV would interview her on the subject if the docs WEREN’T authentic!

It’s a distinct possibility. I’d interview her, but I’d play it for laughs a la “The Daily Show”.

Last time I checked, buying into a story that the source feels no need to back up was a much greater sign of incompetence than treating this story with well deserved skepticism could ever be. When I think of incompetent journalism, I think of Fox News, Judith Miller, and Beinart at New Republic, none of whom ever really bothered to ask questions.

A good journalist is easy to spot. They’re the ones that look at a story and say “prove it”. Anything else is just hackery.

The Rep, while you are speculating as to why Mrs. Frank won’t provide the document to a discerning public instead of selected media outlets, consider this fact. When Mrs. Frank was interviewed by WATE’s Gene Patterson, he asked her if she used a “Freedom of Information Act” request to obtain the document. Mrs Frank refused to answer the question.

Mrs. Frank has a good reason not to answer that question, but it has nothing to do with her source and everything to do with her personal credibility.

“…it has nothing to do with her source and everything to do with her personal credibility.”

which wasn’t that great to begin with

all more reason to protect what little there is

Try something else. Gene Patterson in anything BUT lazy. If it weren’t for him we’d still have that lying, cheating, thieving Schumaker as president of UT. And Christian, call Bob Woodward and ask him about HIS source!

Try something else. Gene Patterson in anything BUT lazy.

Well, why didn’t you just say so? I’m convinced now!
.

Brittney- “you and me, Terry, are gonna change the world!” You, Brittney, I doubt, are brave enough to do anything that could change the world or even a small part of it. But if you don’t think one person can, research Marie Ragghianti and see if this one little lone lady didn’t change the world for many people in Nashville and Tennessee. You can rent the movie “Marie: A Story” or read “FBI Codename TENNPAR”. You look “stupider” and “stupider”. It’s time to shut up.

Why does TNOPINION so desperately want to talk about anything other than what Terry Frank says she has, and has yet to share with anyone for corroboration?

Funny, that.
.

SHARE WITH ANYONE?
Where have you been? Or should I say what have you been smoking?

You’re saying someone has seen Frank’s documents, and prolaimed them to be of some import, and not some re-hashed, re-remembered story from 14 years ago? Really?

Funny I haven’t seen any such reference to that corroboration that we could all read for ourselves. You?
.

(or maybe you’re saying her documents are so top supersecret, they can’t be shared… in which case, I have gnomes in my sock that I can’t show you, either, but they’re there, man.)
.

In any case, she references 550 tons of yellowcake, as reported here, in April, 1993. No secret, no story. Just more wishful clapping for Tinkerbell. It makes it appear as if that’s all she has — a breaking non-story.
.

Hey gang, if Terry’s so insignificant and lacking credibility and rude and “nutty” et al and if this story is “old news” or fabricated, then why are you hanging around here and hectoring her?

(accidentally left off) . . . you’ve made your point.

Because, Ned: It’s fun to ridicule BREAKING NEWS!!!! that isn’t. It’s a winger specialty. Think Rick Santorum and the rusty shells. How’d that work out for him?
.

JP, I saw your (or someone else’s) reference to that above . . . I don’t believe that’s what caused Rick Santorum to lose.

I don’t believe that’s what caused Rick Santorum to lose.

One thing’s certain: It didn’t help him retain his seat.
.

Understand,”REP”,that Terry Franks reputation in news/information circles[among those few who have even heard of her] is that of a “wanker” for various right winged politico’s and lost causes.And you,sir,are not much more than 2nd rate comic relief.This attempt to keep alive the false belief in WMD’s is pathetic and beneath comment by legitimate media.While I am no great fan of what passes for media in this town[WKRN included,sorry],I am confused as to why they even give you “stooges” the time of day.REALLY!

I’m older and have more patience.

The news here is interesting. The comments inane. From my reading here I have come to a few conclusions. Terry indeed has the documents. Christian and Brittney expect their news material to come to them as usual, over the AP newswire complete with parent affiliate footage to boot. Brittney Gilbert is particualrly appalling. Here is her comment on Terry: “You’re on your way, Terry Frank. Look out, Fox News. She’s not that young or cute, but she’s got fire in her belly.” Young and cute? Apparently we all know how Brittney got her job. I think what Brittney has got in her belly is the same thing that was on Lewinski’s dress. Terry, I for one appreciate your quest for the truth and your willingness to share at great personal expense. Few would be willing to take the ridicule you are for sake of bringing out the truth. You’ve got many detracters here claiming it is old news as well, but I feel safe in saying that if it is, it was still news to them. If it weren’t they would not be at your site. I hope you get your just dues for bringing this information out. I agree with an earlier comment that you shouldn’t try to seperate yourself from the media, because you are every bit as important to the world (actually more so) than any Christian Grantham or Brittney Gilbert. After all they are simply low-paid models who can read off a telestrater. You are what the media can and should be. Christian’s comments clearly point out that he’d clearly take up the bong and the guitar before he’d ever lift grab an assault weapon to fight for freedom. You stated in your last paragraph “Perhaps the most telling response, or lack therof, is the general consensus among many in the media that ordinary people can’t do extraordinary things. There is an elitism that is rampant among a group of people who claim to look out for the little guy. It turns out that claim is rooted in a desire to control, not a desire to empower.” Brittney could not have crystallized the truth in that anymore by her comment that “Ha! Yes, Katherine, I will break this WORLD EXCLUSIVE on my petty little one minute piece. Me and you, Terry Frank, are gonna change the world.”

Anyway, well done. One person can make a difference and you are proving it.

Terry, is that the material you posted about that someone mailed to a newspaper but which was apparently directed to you and which was opened by people at the newspaper?

Is it legal, ethical or patriotic to withhold material evidence relating to the raison d’etre for a war our country is involved in?

Sorry, I should have asked this in the other comment I made – sorry to clog up this with lots of comments.

Are these documents the same ones from the 1993 IAEA on-site inspection which were released almost 15 years ago? Do they relate to that same event? A simple confirmation or denial will do.

If not, do they relate to the same uranium found at that time, or a new additional cache that the UN had not (or has not) yet identified?

Terry didn’t check the kerning; that much is obvious.
.

“I think what Brittney has got in her belly is the same thing that was on Lewinski’s dress.”

“Malcom Tent”:

You, sir, are a disgusting sexist pig and I would be stating the same had you said that about Brittney Gilbert, Terry Frank, or any other female listed or discussed in these comments.

You, sir, owe Brittney Gilbert an apology. I sincerely hope that you’ll prove that you’re not a disgusting sexist pig and issue the apology forthwith.

People talk big from behind their monitors and keyboards. I don’t care who you are nor how “anonymous” you are. Until you apologize for that disgusting statement, you should be ashamed to look at yourself in the mirror and Ms. Frank should instead be banning your IP from posting on her blog and be as disgusted and horrified as any female in their right mind in this country should be.

And PS “Malcom”:

Any moron would realize that Brittney’s statement to begin with was in reference to Fox News’ habit of hiring young and cute female reporters. Idiot.

My apologies to Terry . It was a lapse in judgement on my part and Terry can feel free to edit/delete my post. Her blog is for serious discussion and I soiled it.

I think it’s instructive to see the sincere practice of the much-implored calls for civility (comment #2) on the right.

Instructive. Can dish it out; can’t take it.
.

Anyone who can parlay a 14-year-old document into an appearance on local TV has a real shot at getting booked on this show, I believe.
.

I find it rather humorous that Malcolm Tent’s comments poked at the liberal scoundrels’ “rudeness,” while at the same time, wallowing in his own proverbial filth. The irony is too rich.

Yep, only 12,600 URLs available. Exclusive! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
.

Malcolm, thanks and props for being man enough to admit an error in judgment.

It’s something we don’t see enough of, not only from people who have kept anonymous behind the Internet and a keyboard and monitor, but some who sign their name to everything they post… I know a politician who could learn something from you about admitting mistakes and errors in judgment.

Anyway, again, props for owning up to it.

Lynster,
Being the only person who I have ever had to edit their comments for (Because of rude, crass comments) do you feel you owe me an apology as you have called for others to do?

Britney,

Did you get the OK to do a real story on your station yet? Have you called Terry on the phone yet?

Lynnster — The fact that “he” restricted “his” apology to Terry, I wouldn’t consider “him” much of “a man.”
.

The Rep — Have you learned to use The Google yet?

Maybe there’s a reason this story’s going nowhere. Consider.
.

Of course, I urge you all to push WKRN to cover this, since the story is about a so-called journalist not being able to use Google before coming out with an “EXCLUSIVE!!” that was anything but.
.

What big MSM did a story about this since the war started or since Saddam was deposed? I missed it.

What big MSM did a story about this since the war started or since Saddam was deposed? I missed it.

Are you saying you depend on the liberal MSM to assure you of reality? Do you not know The Google?

Stacey, you’re a national laughingstock. Honestly, don’t change a thing, babe. I love you just the way you are.
.

So you are saying none, right?

So you are saying none, right?

I’m saying you’re making Terry Frank sound like a yokel, who had to depend on the MSM to alert her to the fact that her “EXCLUSIVE!!” wasn’t even close to an exclusive. This, despite the fact that she’s a long-time Internet user, and has not, to my knowledge, been blocked by anyone from using Google.

But please, do go on!
.

Why do you think people would look up something they don’t know about? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it people dont turn around to look. That is what the MSM is supposed to do, make the sound.

Why do you think people would look up something they don’t know about?

Um, Stacey… Terry was given something (what, only she and the guy from WATE, presumably, only know). She had two choices:

1.) Scream EXCLUSIVE!!
2.) Research the claims.

Speculation is that she chose #1 over #2, because it was a claim she wished were somehow relevant, for ideological reasons.

When we don’t see her documentation (or when it turns out to be based on the April, 1993 assessment of the IAEA), she’ll only have her credibility damaged.

Now you know what it feels like to hug a boat anchor, tightly.
.

So are you sticking with no MSM coverage?

The interview on WATE has aired. No documents were shown, and Gene Patterson asked softball questions. Nothing beyond what Frank has posted here was said.

It was quite underwhelming, and Patterson has now associated himself with the selling of this story, not the telling of it. Where are the documents, and what do they really prove?

So are you sticking with no MSM coverage?

I never was — that was your line.

Use The Google, like Preznit Bush does. There’s only 12,600 cites for it, as I linked to, above.

But please… do go on!
.
.

I do find it priceless that Campfield thinks wingers should depend on the liberal MSM to alert them to reality, though. The jokes write themselves, here.
.

“What big MSM did a story about this since the war started or since Saddam was deposed? I missed it.”

So you say 12,600? Is that your final answer?

So you say 12,600? Is that your final answer?

Stacey, I am not tasked by your pathetic intellect to do your homework for you. I would like you to keep insisting that some unknown number (which will no doubt increase, as you discover the actual number) of MSM reports on this would somehow be relevant to “breaking this EXCLUSIVE!!”, though. Please, do go on.
.

Was that all on FOX or was CNN in on it as well.

Was that all on FOX or was CNN in on it as well.

Just WATE, I think.
.

So it was not 12,600? is that what you are saying now? Do go on….

Stacey, pretend you don’t know the difference between Google and the MSM. That’s fine by me, if not considered a tad disingenuous by your constituents.
.

And yes, I have archived this for your opposition to demonstrate how intellectually honest you are in interacting with Tennessee citizens. Keep up the great work!
.

Only one MSM, A local station not national. Do go on…..

I get the feeling that Stacey Campfield might still think Stephen Colbert is on his side.
.

I just saw Terry’s interview with Gene Patterson. Mr. Patterson (respected in these parts) was obviuosly reading from Terry’s source documents. The most interesting thing to me was the 600 lbs of UF4. I haven’t seen this reported elsewhere in the mainstream media. UF4 only has one purpose that I am aware of and that is part of the conversion process from uranium in gaseous form (no good for weapons) to uranium in a metal state (required for weapons). Finding this UF4 in Iran is what has gotten them in hot water. The Iraq UF4 inventory is not guarantee of a weapons program, but certainly shows an intent. Terry’s main thrust was “why hasn’t this been discussed before”? Terry also said she had a person source, not just a document source. This exlplains a little of the reluctance about releasing the documents. Maybe the person source didn’t want her to. Terry also discussed a training program in Oak Ridge for Iraqis to sample this material. Not sure what all Terry has, or what it all means, but I have to definitely give her an A for effort. I want to know these things, whether or not I like the outcome.

The Iraq UF4 inventory is not guarantee of a weapons program, but certainly shows an intent.

So, if it turns out this was all declassified and reported in 1993, and had no bearing on events in 2003, what then?
.

Go for it. If asking why the big MSMs arn’t doing their jobs by asking questions or telling facts that may have lead up to the war and proved that the Bush claims were true, then I stand guilty as charged.

If asking why the big MSMs arn’t doing their jobs by asking questions or telling facts that may have lead up to the war and proved that the Bush claims were true, then I stand guilty as charged.

I think you’ll be judged too lazy to find out whether the MSM reported it, even when given links to start your quest, given your childish antics this afternoon. But that’s just me, surely.
.

I’m not sure what that would mean Mr. Prestonian. I would like someone with knowledge to tell me why Saddam having this (UF4) wouldn’t matter then, but it does (even to the IAEA) that Iran does now. Terry also mentioned in her interview a report on the Iraqi material that is due to the IAEA later this year. If all of this was common knowledge since 1993, why is the Iraq report due to the IAEA even later than the Iran report? Seems like there is a chance that Terry got wind that a report similar to the one just done on Iran was due from Iraq and followed the logic that something was up.

I may be wrong (You can use Google if you want) but wasn’t part of our agreements and deals with Saddam that he would not have or start a WMD program?
I think this would show intent. Against the deals.

wasn’t part of our agreements and deals with Saddam that he would not have or start a WMD program

That’s precisely why the dates are important. None of these materials were enriched after the first Gulf War — and that is what the IAEA clearly documented, in April, 1993. Blix and several others did the same, in 2002-2003, before Bush gave ‘em the heave-ho, ’cause he didn’t like what he was hearing.
.

J.P.
I missed where you linked to the 12,600 big MSM reports as you claim I am waiting. Link, link,link. All national TV or national print I am sure. Please do go on…

As I said….

“I think this would show intent. Against the deals.”

Ms. Frank – are you going to continue to let Rep. Campfield run your show here in comments? Because honestly, he’s just making you and your efforts look worse (as he is so apt at doing for his own self and often).

It is rather disturbing that he has made tons of comments in this thread while you yourself have only responded a couple of times.

I missed where you linked to the 12,600 big MSM reports as you claim I am waiting.

I think you’re going to have trouble locating where I claimed what you claim I claimed, since I never claimed what you claim I claimed.
.

Stacey Campfield bears false witness!
.

Lynster,

Is your hypocracy hurting you that much or are you ready to say you are sorry to me?

Oh, more attempts by the mature state representative from the east to talk about anything other than what Terry Frank has or does not have in the way of an “EXCLUSIVE!!”.

Did anyone else see that coming?
.

something weirdly pathetic about a state rep who spends so much time on a sunday afternoon on the web defending a crackpot

My words

“What big MSM did a story about this since the war started or since Saddam was deposed?”

Your words

“There’s only 12,600 cites for it, as I linked to, above.”

Please do go on….

C.S

I guess we are birds of a feather.

Stacey Cempfield bears false witness, plays dumb (which doesn’t seem a huge stretch for him, considering); leave out full quote, to wit:

“Use The Google, like Preznit Bush does. There’s only 12,600 cites for it, as I linked to, above.”

Just like a Republican — try to get someone to do your work for you, and not compensate them for it.
.

Stacey, I am going on.

I made no claim about any number of MSM reports, since it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Terry Frank has an “EXCLUSIVE!!” Unless, of course, you want to advance the idea that conservatives in eastern Tennessee are incapable of researching information on “550 tons of yellowcake in Iraq” unless it had been all over the news every day for the past 14 years.

I don’t see how this is a winning argument for your side, um, frankly.
.

Rep-
Your endeavor here is admirable and yet fruitless. Unless you just get a kick out of debating these people, I would kick back, order a pizza and watch the race. You will never be able to use logic to silence the likes of J.P. becuase he already knows everything and has a catty remark for everything. It’s like playing tic-tac-toe. You can waste a lot of ink and yet never win. You know this, Terry does have the inside scoop and the truth will always silence the skeptics. Without anyone to answer his witless banter, J.P. will have to go back to playing World of Warcraft.

Later and by the way keep up the good work in Nashville.

Future breaking news from Terry Frank: EXCLUSIVE!! Lindburgh baby kidnapped!

(well, hey, no MSM coverage of that in the last 14 years, either… how could she know?)
.

I don’t see any that meet the criteria mentioned (”what big MSM did a story about this since the war started or since Saddam was deposed?”) much less the 12,600 you say you linked to.
Just like a liberal. Unable to present facts to back up their claim when called out. Resort to name calling and subject change.

Please do go on..

I don’t see any that meet the criteria mentioned

I know you demanded I show you MSM reports. I essentially told you, “That’s not my job. It’s completely irrelevant as to Frank’s claims. But here’s 12,600 references on Google for you to waste time trying to find MSM reports — I bet there’s several in that 12,600 references from Google, if you’re not too lazy to find them, since YOU think that would somehow be relevant.”
.

not really

i was just stopping in while checking the real news figured i’d give T.F. one last shot to prove herself all i see is a bunch of nonsense from you

i used to think state legislators were underpaid my mistake

Stacey, the only relevant facts (as you say) are these:

1.) Terry Frank claimed to have an exclusive story;
2.) No one outside her cadre has seen any proof that her “exclusive” is based on anything outside a 14-year-old IAEA report.

IOW, not much there, there.
.

To append item #2, above: “…that anyone could have found, using Google, in the past ten years, at least.”
.

So you admit you cant find any to back up YOUR claims. I never mentioned 12,600 that was YOU. You who said more or less that it was everywhere and now you cant back it up with even one or two national reports on the MSM. As I said, just like a liberal.

I never mentioned 12,600 that was YOU.

Yes, Stacey. I’ll type extra slow this time for you.

12,600
references
ON GOOGLE
to
“550 tons of yellowcake in Iraq”

That you demanded that I find what YOU want to find is completely irrelevant, to this, or any discussion.
.

Gee, if I could find 12,600 references on Google about something that had been documented for 14 years, would I claim to have an exclusive?

Only if I thought the kool-aid drinkers who made up my audience were idiots, and would ignore the fact that I was rehashing an old, old, old story, since it could be advanced as telling such a pretty story that fit my ideological fantasies.

Then, reality comes knocking.

Old story. Of no consequence. IAEA knew all this in 1993. It was of no concern.

Aw, too bad. So sad.
.

You more or less made the claim it was “everywhere” I am just asking you to back it up.

And you failed…

You more or less made the claim it was “everywhere” I am just asking you to back it up.

No; that I did not do. You’re bearing false witness, Campfield.

What I said was there were 12,600 references on Google for “550 tons of yellowcake in Iraq” (w/o quotes — go ahead; try it yourself), and if someone handed me some documents such as what Frank describes, I would have taken 30 seconds to run it by Google.
.

30 seconds with Google, or years of derision. Oh, what choices we make.
.

Really, Stacey — what does the MSM have to do with this?

Are you saying Frank is an idiot, who must be told by the likes of Dan Rather about such matters, rather than relying on her journalistic talents and tools? That if Dan Rather didn’t report this, she can’t be blamed for thinking she had a scoop?

Is that what you’re saying?

If not, what ARE you saying?
.

No national MSM reports. Ends “Bush lied people died” cries, backs up Bush claims made as lead up to the war. Sounds like news to me.

backs up Bush claims made as lead up to the war

Exactly how so?

Why was there this push about the “16 words,” when Bush knew perfectly well about the 550 tons of yellowcake already inventoried by the IAEA?

What can you do with yellowcake, Congressman?
.

Is timing important here?

If we knew that these stockpiles were amassed prior to 1991 (history buffs: why did I choose that year?), and the IAEA says “yep, it’s here, under seal” in 1993… can you see how little bearing this has on events in 2002-3?
.

Let alone 2007… EXCLUSIVE!!
.

I find this quote from ‘The Rep’ particulary interesting:

“Just like a liberal. Unable to present facts to back up their claim when called out. Resort to name calling and subject change.”

HELLLLO…

“Saddam gassed his own people!”

In 1988.

“Hitler had cyanide gas!”

We should bomb Germany, clearly, using wingnut logic.
.

If the thought of Saddam getting nukes or gearing up to make them against a treaty doesnt bother you then you are lost.

Stacey, if you think all it takes is 550 tons of yellowcake to make a nuke, then you’re too stupid to represent the people of your district, I posit.
.

… and AGAIN, you ignore the TIMING!

These materials were acquired prior to 1991!

What happened in 1991, Stacey?
.

See how relevant that is, Congressman?

When were the materials acquired?

When did the U.N. resolutions (not treaties, sir) go into effect?

Does that matter?
.

Was it against the treaties we made?

Yes or no

J.P.
Just FYI we did bomb Hitler and Germany.

Yes or no

No; there was no treaty between the U.S. and Iraq, prior to 1993, that said Iraq could not acquire uranium oxide ore.
.

Just FYI we did bomb Hitler and Germany.

Uh, yeah. What I mean is that using your logic, we should bomb Germany today based on the fact that Germans once gassed their own people.
.

When you find that treaty that I say doesn’t exist, Stacey, be sure to come let us know.
.

No UN or US resolutions pre or post 93?

No UN or US resolutions pre or post 93?

I believe you said “treaty,” which implies that two nation-states willingly entered into an agreement.

Would acquisition of materials prior to a treaty or a resolution be a violation of a later treaty or resolution?

Looks like you have a lot of homework… all far afield of whether Terry Frank has an “exclusive,” or not, I must admit, but you’re steering the ship.
.

Stacey, the real question is why didn’t the MSM report this information before the war while Cheney and Rice were busy lying about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities? It was known then that he had uranium stocks but no way to enrich them, and some honest reporting then about the sorry state of Iraq’s military could have kept us out of Iraq and focused on terrorism.

I don’t know where you get the notion that this evidence supports Bush. It does the opposite. Bush said Iraq could reconstitute their nuclear weapons program and have a nuke within one year. Every intelligence service foreign and domestic, public and private was saying it would take Iraq at least five years, even with sanctions lifted. That was the debate: one year like Bush said or five like all the experts believed.

Perhaps part of the reason why this “news” is popping up four years later is because you Republican dead-enders have forgotten how bad the lying was that got us in this costly mess. You’ve been living in your black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us world for so long you can’t even remember what the argument was about.

Yellow cake and green salt are evidence that Iraq had no equipment to purify those raw forms. This “exclusive news” is proof Bush was wrong.

I said I hought it was news not reported by MSM and thus news to most people and I then stated the reason it is news. Ask 50 people on the street “Did Saddam have plans or parts to make a nuke?” I bet 45 or more say no.

I bet 45 or more say no.

Could Saddam have built a nuke with what he had?

Yes or no (to use your 2nd grade not-passing example)?
.

Let me re-edit that:

Could Saddam have built a nuke with what he had in 2002-3?

Yes or no (to use your 2nd grade notE-passing example)?

Terry is under no obligation to allow folks to post personal attacks on her on her Web site. But she has generously allowed this. All that some of you are doing is revealing personal pathologies.

I’ve noticed, can’t help but notice since I am sometimes a target, that some bloggers and blog commenters appear to spend their down hours cleaning their fangs that they may arise anew to scour the Web for fresh and old targets for insult, insult that adds nothing — zilch, nada! — of any value to the debate or conversation.

No one is under any obligation to turn his or her other cheek to you. Don’t be surprised when you meet an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, don’t be surprised when your behavior comes back to bite you. You aren’t the only ones with teeth.

Some of you “liberal,” “libertarian,” “progressive” folks are the worst offenders and the least tolerant and respectful in blogdom and elsewhere. In light of the posted subject inspiring all this cyberinsult, I am myself inspired to make a pun about half-lifes but shall rein myself in.

Katha

From the report

” he did possess WWII era enrichment equipment called calutrons”

Donna,

You are right and I have places to go so I will see ya all later.

Stacey, I have to agree with you that 45 out of 50 people on the street have no clue what the facts are regarding Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, and the MSM surely bears some of the blame. I believe back when the question of whether to invade was fresh, the MSM was busy feeding us every possible detail of Laci Peterson’s murder.

The ignorance of Americans and superficiality of American media is indeed a big problem, and it is one of the main reasons why we are so easily manipulated into a foolish and poorly executed invasion. I’m glad you recognize this problem. Perhaps you can find some way to promote informed and vigilant citizenry using your power as a representative.

From the report

Which report?

I missed the link to that.
.

Back to the calutrons again? I answered that yesterday, and I should just add that the odds of those old machines being functional are low, and the fact that Saddam had so much unenriched uranium strongly suggests the calutrons were inoperable.

Donna Locke — As I said before, there are only two facts to consider, here:

1.) Terry Frank claimed to have an exclusive story;
2.) No one outside her cadre has seen any proof that her “exclusive” is based on anything outside a 14-year-old IAEA report.

That is it, bottom-line. All these other direction and distraction by Campfield and others are, exactly, that. Nothing more.
.

Why don’t you have the patience to wait for full disclosure and then draw a conclusion?

Why don’t you have the patience to wait for full disclosure and then draw a conclusion?

Why should I? I’ve placed my bets.
.

I mean, some have forgotten that we seem to be where we are because some were too timid to challenge the less-then-credible claims of “journalists” trying to “break a story.”

Why continue that losing strategy?
.

And honestly, I don’t think there will be “full disclosure.” I think Terry Frank will be embarrassed by not Googling the 550 tons of yellowcake before proclaiming her scoop, and then judiciously try to pretend none of it ever happened.
.

See, Terry placed her bet with “EXCLUSIVE!!”

I placed my bet with IAEA, April, 1993.

My cards are on the table. Where are Terry’s?
.

This is a stunning over reaction. 195 comments? Is Terry Frank that much of a player in the blogsphere? Who knew?

Jeffraham Prestonian, you might want to get some counseling. You seem a little obsessive.

Carry on.

Far be it from me to interrupt the mocking of Terry Frank. (I’ll admit that, after watching her insult my friends, it’s good fun to see her get a little of what she gives out.)

BUT, I must say that, I do think she’s uncovered two interesting things that, had she put the focus on them, instead of on this ridiculous claim that no one knew Saddam had uranium, would have made for an interesting story.

As I said over at Tiny Cat Pants, back in 2004, the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration was being criticized for leaving over 400 tons of uranium in Iraq. Frank is the first person I’ve seen talk in specifics about what kinds of uranium we left there.

Also, I watched her WATE video and she seems to be the first person talking about the fact that we have Iraqis over here being trained in how to handle and further inventory that uranium stockpile. This seems to me also extremely interesting, because it suggests that the uranium, which was under the watchful eye of the IAEA and then under the guard of the U.S. (after some brief looting) is now either under the control of the Iraqi government or being transfered to their control.

This seems to me to be HUGE. Is the Iraqi government stable enough that we all as a world feel comfortable handing them control of 400 tons of uranium?

So, yeah, put me in the column who think her “exclusive” breaking of news that was well-covered in the mainstream media in 2004, if not earlier, is hilarious.

But also, put me in the column of folks who think she may have some interesting news here and, if she puts her pride aside, she should get busy on reporting it.

Jeffraham Prestonian, you might want to get some counseling.

I wrote 2000 words on handguns, but realized I didn’t need to publish them, once I re-examined my genitals, and discovered they were of normal dimensions.
.

Number9, you’re right. JP does seem a little obsessed.

B.,
In total agreement. I saw the news snippet and am ready to see the documents she has or hear why she’s holding on to them.

B, I have to agree, too. The IAEA report years ago showed as much detail about UF4 as what building and in which hallway the processing would occur. That part has been widely available for over a decade.

How the Iraqis are handling the program today would be an interesting story. Maybe Mrs. Frank’s mischaracterization of the inventory of uranium as a breaking news exclusive was a mistake, but I’m not sure what to make of the time she spent calling people names who asked to see the documents she had.

To try and answer a few questions:
Newscoma–I don’t work for the paper. I only write a column. I’m not paid.

Aunt B: story on training is up on another post.

Donna Locke: no, the stuff that was mailed to me was the story on the Bredesen administration not paying their employees for overtime and the intimidation within the Dept. of General Services. I posted that one on Monday, I think.

Tom Hibbs: re your question is it the same uranium for 93 IAEA report. I have no idea. The report I have is from one site and is a 2006 report. The site is lettered C…so I don’t know if that means there is an A or B. I don’t know why we would be helping them inventory if we already knew everything that was there. I also know the U.S. removed 2 tons in July of ‘04. I just don’t know but I can certainly ask my source more questions if you like.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I will make note of it. I appreciate your answer.

I found this link regarding yellowcake found in Iraq from May 22, 2004
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/9/110630.shtml
The above is a link that claims that the find was enough to potentially make 142 weapons.

Mr. Campfield -

(1) What you call “rude and crass”, most people call “a matter of opinion”. Not to mention that obviously an overwhelming majority of online East Tennesseans agreed with me and were calling you out on what was by far one of the most crass, rude, tacky, and done in poor taste moves of 2006 – and I note is something that still remains on your blog, unfortunately. Your posting that in the first place was far more crass than anything I said to you in your comments. But it’s your blog, and your rules – however, I would suggest you look toward refraining from calling yourself a “public servant” in the future since anyone who professes to be a public servant should not be making such rules for their blog. Either take the heat of ALL comments positive or negative from the PUBLIC, or stop being a public servant. It’s that easy.

(2) I owe, and will owe you, no apology for anything until and unless you (A) remove Christy Conley’s mug shot from your blog; (B) admit your error in judgment in posting same; and (C) issue an apology to Christy Conley for your poor taste and bad judgment in posting what you did. Preferably your apology would be to Brian and Christy Conley, but I’ll settle for one to Mrs. Conley. Since I feel pretty certain you will do none of the above, I think we can safely assume I’m not apologizing to you for anything. And the only thing I would consider apologizing for if I did would be to have been a little heavy-handed in my response – I’m NOT apologizing for calling you out on your action and behavior in the first place because it was in poor taste or done in bad judgment. Dozens of your contemporaries stated the same at the time, but obviously you didn’t listen because it’s still on your blog.

(3) It’s your call whether or not you apologize to the author of Salem’s Lots, however, first, I think you should probably take heed (much like you should have taken heed that many of your East TN peers stated much the same as I did about your poor taste in posting Christy Conley’s mugshot) that not just me, but hundreds of other bloggers of all kinds and all political affiliations have stated the same about you owing John H an apology. And now that you have so blatantly and snarkily addressed the issue in the manner you have, I think you can pretty much guarantee yourself that if there is no apology, the thousands of TN state employees there are will soon be finding out who Stacey Campfield is, if they don’t already know, and what Stacey Campfield thinks of their jobs (that they don’t have “real” jobs, if you need reminding).

I hope you had no political aspirations outside of your current district in East Tennessee.

You think I’m bluffing? Try me.

You have not chosen your battles well, Mr. Campfield. Not only do I have ties to some of the Republican support you likely crave in East TN, but one of your past campaign contributors is personally very close to me.

The next time you choose another tiger to tangle with and think you can safely do so just because it’s some random person on the Internet, I hope you’ll keep in mind next time that that person might have ties and affiliations you’re unaware of.

I’ll also remind you, in case you missed it on NIT, that I have a parent who is a longtime state employee in the dept. of education of relatively high rank. One who is not particularly happy to hear that an elected official in their own Republican party thinks their job is not “real”.

To be a public servant means you listen to the negative as well as the positive, and should be treating every public citizen as if they were a potential vote, or a tie to a vote. Your blogging behavior and activity is truly becoming your own worst enemy in that regard.

A sincere apology to John H and we can put all this behind us. It’s totally up to you, Mr. Campfield. I really do not have the time nor particularly the motivation to see your political career ruined – and some of the damage has been done already – but without that apology forthcoming to John H (and, one would surmise, TN state employees in general) – I’ll make time.

Ms. Frank, apologies for taking your comments thread off topic here, it won’t happen again because I won’t respond again. Mr. Campfield knows where he can find me if he wishes to comment further (and I, unlike him, don’t edit or delete non-spam comments).

Interesting stuff, Whitehorse. Will you post it on the Iraqi training story that has the document?

I wrote 2000 words on handguns, but realized I didn’t need to publish them, once I re-examined my genitals, and discovered they were of normal dimensions.

Too much information. I am guessing you are not a big fan of the President.

Too much information.

That’s why you might tend to the mote in your own eye, before tackling the splinter in mine.
.

[...] I have been keeping up with the recent “Exclusive Hussein Uranium News” from TerryFrank.net and I thought it would be a good time to weigh in after more details have surfaced with regards to Frank’s source. If you haven’t been following this story let me get you up to speed with these links. It all started with this post claiming documents that proved Saddam had over 1 million pounds of Uranium. And then there was this follow up post. Next was her appearance on Tennessee This Week and finally her most recent post which can be read here. [...]

If even one person dies because you didn’t come forward here on this blog and show the world these documents – if you let people die in your quest for an exclusive – then you are responsible for their deaths.

“Responsible” = able to respond.

I don’t necessarily doubt you have these documents, but for some reason you are shopping around, trying to trade them for some kind of fame, while people die. I know that if I had them, I’d put them up on the web – I don’t need popularity or credit; the truth is worth more.

[...] blog post I have ever read Terry Frank has written a follow-up to her revelation that Saddam Hussein had over one million pounds of uranium. On cue, the anti-war, [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow up

Archive

Search

Sections

Home

Book Reviews/Recent Reads
Columns
Daily News & Comments
Fact Roundup

About

Contact

Paper Editions*
Chattanooga Times Free Press
Farragut Press
Halls Shopper News
Metro Pulse
Nashville City Paper
News Sentinel
The Knoxville Journal
The Oak Ridger
The Tennessean
TriCities.com
Wall Street Journal

*Environmental Warning: Trees used in production of these materials. Unworthy editions subject to transfer to pet rabbit's litterbox.

Favorites
American Enterprise
Brigitte Gabriel
Club for Growth
Criminal Search
Joel Rosenberg
National Fatherhood Initiative
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Rocky Top Brigade
TN Center for Policy Research
TN Tax Revolt

Follow up

Archive

Search

Sections Home Book Reviews/Recent Reads Columns Daily News & Comments Fact Roundup About Contact

Paper Editions* Chattanooga Times Free Press Farragut Press Halls Shopper News Metro Pulse Nashville City Paper News Sentinel The Knoxville Journal The Oak Ridger The Tennessean TriCities.com Wall Street Journal

*Environmental Warning: Trees used in production of these materials. Unworthy editions subject to transfer to pet rabbit's litterbox.

Favorites American Enterprise Brigitte Gabriel Club for Growth Criminal Search Joel Rosenberg National Fatherhood Initiative Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Rocky Top Brigade TN Center for Policy Research TN Tax Revolt

Sections

Home

Book Reviews/Recent Reads
Columns
Daily News & Comments
Fact Roundup

About

Contact

Paper Editions*
Chattanooga Times Free Press
Farragut Press
Halls Shopper News
Metro Pulse
Nashville City Paper
News Sentinel
The Knoxville Journal
The Oak Ridger
The Tennessean
TriCities.com
Wall Street Journal

Favorites
American Enterprise
Brigitte Gabriel
Club for Growth
Criminal Search
Joel Rosenberg
National Fatherhood Initiative
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Rocky Top Brigade
TN Center for Policy Research
TN Tax Revolt