Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Fox Guest Uses Possible Terrorist Milk Threat to Bash NY Times

Reported by Donna - June 29, 2005

Under the banner, Health Officials Worry Report Provides Road Map for Terrorists, Shepard Smith on Studio B spoke with former CIA operative, Wayne Simmons.

Smith said that The National Academy of Sciences published a paper that said the U.S. milk supply could be vulnerable to terrorists. However, he added, Federal health officials are expressing concerns that giving out this information is providing a (quote) roadmap to terrorists (unquote).

Smith then brought on Wayne Simmons, who was identified as a former CIA Operative to speak about the paper. Simmons was also covered by fellow News Hound ChrisH in a June 1st story, http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/01/wayne_simmons_says_aclu_and_american_press_are_in_terrorists_pocket.php Wayne Simmons says ACLU and American press are in terrorists' pocket

The following is my transcript (paraphrased, pretty much verbatim):

Wayne Simmons: Well, Shep, you've heard this before. If you want to look up the definition of journalistic irresponsibility, clearly that definition would be this case with the National Academy of Sciences and anyone, really, who touched this. (Does that include Mr. Simmons talking about it on Fox?)

They released a summary about 30 - 45 days ago which was reprinted in the NY Times, another bastion of responsible journalism (I believe he was being sarcastic here).

Shepard Smith: Careful, now.

WS: And look, this is not like going to the web and learning how to make an atomic bomb. Great, you can do that, but, you know what, we don't have the parts, it's virtually impossible to get that. In this instance it is a roadmap telling even the domestic yahoos out here, the terrorists that want to create havoc, how to do this. It is absolutely beyond belief that somebody would do this.

SS: Wayne, do conservatives bash the NY Times because they disagree with their reporting or do conservatives bash the NY Times to keep people from reading the NY Times, in an effort for more detailed analysis and detailed reporting to be out there?

WS: Well, that's a great question. I think if, in fact, conservatives do that, and I don't think they do........

SS: Wayne, what did you just do?

WS: ....I think it's because they, I think they have a habit of not telling the truth many times. (And the proof of this?) So, it would be nice if we knew the truth was being published. That would be great. This is not a conservative/liberal issue (ahem...you attempted to make it one by bashing the NY Times).

SS: Really? Cause I don't hear liberals bashing them, I only hear conservatives bashing the NY Times, I just wondered.

WS: Then all I can say to that, Shep, is that the liberals need to stand up and say this should not have been done. This is not a first amendment issue. This is an issue that -- where the National Academy of Sciences clearly had an opportunity to sit with the government and work this out. This is a very deadly situation.

SS: Yeah.

WS: Shep, you can imagine the ideas, the knowledge that guys like me, that gals (gals?) like me, have. (No modesty here) Very similar to this type of op and we're not out their talking about it. (You are right now)

SS: You know what they said and I'm not going to go into it obviously, what they said they had is a (reading) mathematical model of cows to consumer supply chain associated with a single milk processing facility that is the victim of botulinum toxin. And then they go on about how many people you could affect by going through just one place. To say it is a roadmap is, well, I think that's dead on.

WS: Well, it absolutely is a roadmap. We're talking about 1/2 million people affected in the example you are citing. So, exponentially, growth, you could affect millions, literally millions. And this is another example, if you recall, of terrorists potentially attacking our water supply.

SS: Yeah.

WS: Well, we beefed up the water supply. And, of course, we are going to do that. (Which one?) But, this is just not responsible journalism and I think it should have been worked out with our Federal authorities.

SS: A lot of people agree with you.

Comment: Yes, the subject is serious - then why did Mr. Simmons interject politics? He started bashing the NY Times and Shepard Smith called him on it. The paper was originally posted by the National Academy of Sciences and this is what he should have concentrated on.

And how does he explain his part in this? He is, after all reporting on the story on cable news and telling people where to go to get the information. I don't know how he rationalizes this. If it took a story for us to beef up the security of our water supply (by Mr. Simmons reply we may have or we will soon do this), then maybe it will take a story to do something to protect our milk supply. This administration has not been particularly proactive when it comes to actually doing Homeland Security at home.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.