Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 253 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Nuclear Bombs Are Set To Explode Across America Any Minute Now! In 2005!

In 2004, this warning came from cracked reporter Stewart Stogel, from NewsMax. 20 nuclear suitcase bombs smuggled into the United States are set to go off at any moment!!!

Well, maybe it could happen any minute now, Stogel acknowledged, but maybe Al Quaeda would wait… but not long. He quoted Paul Williams, an “investigative journalist” as saying that “I expect such an attack would come between now and the end of 2005.” Between 20 and 50 portable former Soviet nuclear bombs were ready to off in major American cities at any time, we were warned.

Paul Williams spent 2005 talking to any AM radio talk show host that would listen to him that nuclear annihilation was just around the corner. Republican politicians like Tom Tancredo insisted that radical changes would be necessary to save us all from certain death.

In late October, a blogger humbly calling himself “American Patriot” predicted that, unless 300 million Americans went out to search the streets for the nuclear weapons themselves, “we are doomed!” American Patriot went on to propose the following course of action in order to prevent the imminent nuclear attack:

“- We can bomb and destroy the headquarters of the ruling regimes such as Iran and Syria that sponsor terror.
- We can go into Pakistan and get Osama bin Laden.
- We can build a 50-foot wall, if need be, across the Mexican border to prevent terrorist illegals from coming in.
- We can provide funding to make available the radiation sickness medicine, Neumune, that cuts the death rate of people exposed to radiation from 50% to 10%.
- We can send in 150,000 more troops into Iraq and win the war in Iraq.
- We can cut off all funding to the Palestinian Authority until they stop all terror attacks on Israel
- And we can deport every Wahhabi cleric that spouts violence against the U. S.

Only then can we possibly live in safety. If we fight, we will survive. If we do not fight, we will die.

No reasoning could defeat the certainty of many Republicans that nuclear annihilation was just around the corner. In late December, a writer for the right wing blog Hard Astarboard wrote, “While various former Soviet officials deny that such nukes were ever produced by the U.S.S.R., others point out that such denials are to be expected.”

Then, 2005 ended. The deadline for armageddon came and went. There were no attacks, nuclear or otherwise. No nuclear suitcase bombs went off. Paul Williams stopped appearing on cheesy radio shows with his atomic Paul Revere routine.

NewsMax has stopped reporting on the story. Stewart Stogel never wrote an article letting readers know that all the hype he gave them about an imminent nuclear attack from Al Quaeda never came to fruition.

There are still a few right wing blogs claiming every now and then that Paul Williams’s claims were based on accurate information, and that the legendary nuclear suitcases will go off at any moment now – but almost all these posts merely repost articles written about the scare back in 2005.

If all the right wing bloggers that repeated the outlandish claims of Paul Williams would go back and reflect on what really happened, they might learn a lesson about the real function of Homeland Security. So far, none of these blogs have taken up that challenge. It appears that learning from the past is not a part of their agenda.

32 comments to Nuclear Bombs Are Set To Explode Across America Any Minute Now! In 2005!

  • Murray

    This story has not died. There are credible news outlets that are still reporting this. Just because the bombs have not been detonated does mean they do not exist.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/mauro052506.htm

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/paul-williams091606.htm

    • stewart stogel

      This garbage in Irregular Times has so slanted MY REVIEW of a book I was directed to write by Newsmax founder Chris Ruddy that legal action is now likely. This so-called website is nothing more than a group of misfit political hacks with an agenda that would make the leaders of the old Soviet Union proud. But like the Soviet Union, Irregular Times is destined to the dustbin of history. It is clear that the editors of this site never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

      • Oh, for goodness sakes, Stewart, if Irregular Times is such an inconsequential “group of misfit political hacks”, then why are you worried? If this article is truly out of step with “the facts”, then what’s the problem?

        It seems to me that you’re more worried about what the facts in this article are. You wrote an article in which you promoted a crazy conspiracy theory, without including any skeptical voices that would have made your article balanced and more journalistic.

        If the fact that you wrote a sensationalistic, sloppy article is embarrassing you and is causing troubles for you in your career, it seems to me that the responsibility for that lies with you, Stewart Stogel. Don’t blame us at Irregular Times for the problem – we didn’t write that sloppy article promoting the conspiracy theory. You did.

        Besides, Stewart, we’ve asked you here, over and over again, to explain precisely what language in this article is libelous, and you have neglected to do so. You haven’t even told us where in the article there is libel, and how it’s libelous, so how can you engage in credible legal action?

        If you want to resurrect your career from the dustheap, Mr. Stogel, my suggestion is this: Write a memoir about the Paul Williams affair. Write about how so many writers and media personalities like yourself fell for his outlandish claims.

        That kind of book would go a long way toward re-establishing your credibility, Stewart. Engaging in a frivolous lawsuit against Irregular Times for pointing out the truth about your sloppy writing will only lead more people to read about your ghastly mistake.

  • Carla

    Just because you can’t prove there’s a slime monster behind my bathroom mirror doesn’t mean he isn’t there.

  • Canadafreepress IS NOT, i repeat IS NOT a credible news source

  • stewart stogel

    This report was blogged by an incompetent idiot. I never wrote the report he attributed to me. I REVIEWED the book for Newsmax.com. I DID NOT WRITE IT!!!!! In so far as being “cracked” the only thing “CRACKED” is the mentality of this blogger. Remove this libelous story or I will take legal action. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

    Stewart Stogel

    • Mr. Stogel, your article can be fairly interpreted as giving the warning, by repeating it without reasonable critical examination. Your article forwarded the warning. It came through you. It can be reasonably said that the warning came from you, as well as from the original conspiracy theorist.

      This article never said you wrote a book.

      So, Mr. Stogel, have you written any article explaining that these Homeland Insecurity delusions were just an element of national paranoia?

      No?

      I can understand that you feel embarrassed about having written an article, without skepticism, repeating the rantings of a paranoid hog who turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong. It must feel terrible to see your name, Stewart Stogel, next to such a rotten piece of work.

      Don’t blame me, though. It’s not my fault you wrote a trashy, embarrassing article.

      There’s no libel here, Stewart Stogel.

      Keep in mind, though, that if you keep coming back here and complaining, we’ll just have to write your name again: Stewart Stogel, and then this article will rise higher and higher in the Google search rankings.

      If you engage in a frivolous lawsuit against Irregular Times, we’ll just get lots and lots of attention, and you’ll end up having to repeat your story over and over again, the one about how you incredulously repeated a false story without doing enough independent research into the wild claims.

      If you want to save your “journalistic” career, Mr. Stogel, might I suggest that you avoid writing for places like NewsMax? Whining about your reputation here won’t make you seem more credible, you know.

      I just double checked, by the way, and you did indeed write: “Author: Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.” Your sloppy, one-sided article quoted only sources that supported the crazy story told by Williams. You didn’t seek out one single critical source, though you could have found one easily. Are you proud of your Yellow Journalism, Mr. Stogel?

      • stewart stogel

        You screwed up fool. I have a legal background and your are legally exposed. I did not take credit for the accusations and made it clear that I DID NOT ENDORSE IT. DO NOT FORCE ME TO CONTACT GOOGLE LEGAL AND GET YOUR DOPEY WEBSITE REMOVED FROM THEIR SEARCH ENGINE! YOU REFERRED TO ME AS “CRACKED” REALLY? WE HAVE NEVER MET….THIS STORY IS NOT NEWS IT IS UTTER AND COMPLETE GARBAGE! IT IS A RADICAL POLITICAL BLOG THAT MASQUERADES AS JOURNALISM…IT IS A DISGRACE PURE AND SIMPLE!

        • “Cracked” is a euphemism for mentally unstable, Mr. Stogel. Now, you’re coming here and writing in all caps. I think that, and your decision to write an unbalanced article promoting a crazy conspiracy provide plenty of justification for the word “cracked”.

          It’s an opinion. I have the right to write my opinion about you, and about your article.

          You never wrote in your article that you didn’t endorse the ideas presented by Paul Williams. What you did write was fawning praise, describing his weird conspiracy theory as “chilling allegations” and writing that his “contention is not far from what U.S. intelligence believes”, citing only a single anonymous source for that assertion, and that source provided hearsay about what someone else believed. You described Paul Williams’s ideas as “chilling” again – that’s your opinion, and endorsement of Williams’s claims.

          In spite of what you’ve written in your comment, you never had any statement in your published article that you did not endorse the ideas reported by Paul Williams. Your use of words, and your decision not to include even one source that is critical of the crazy conspiracy, strongly suggests the opposite, and that’s why I wrote what I wrote, and I stand by it.

        • Mr. Stogel,

          We at Irregular Times do not yet have in our possession the ArTex 455 Magnetic Neurotransmometor Mind Ray which would allow us to force you to do anything like “contacting Google Legal” to somehow get our website removed. Should we save up the money for the ArTex Mind Ray through our current cereal box top collection, we’ll let you know in advance so that you can prepare for the tachyon field pulse.

          Insincerely yours,

          Jim Cook

    • By the way, Stewart, did you ever write an article referring to Paul Williams, the guy who got this story completely wrong and led gullible people like yourself astray, as “an incompetent idiot”?

  • stewart stogel

    It is quite clear that your SHODDY reporting has been exposed. The only issue is whether you retract it voluntarily or under the order of a judge. Suggest you read libel exposure VERY CAREFULLY. I have no reservation in putting you and this CRAZY website out of business.

    • Can you look at the text in the article above, Mr. Stogel, and explain to me exactly what words you want to be changed? I’m having a hard time understanding your claim for a legal basis of libel. It would be helpful if you could get specific.

      Writing something that embarrasses somebody is not the same thing as writing libel.

      To libel is: “to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others… to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others… it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion.” See http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153 for the entire source I’m referring to.

      Please calm down and think this through logically:

      Point 1: My use of the word “cracked”, a euphemism for mental instability, is opinion, and therefore not libel. You have called me “crazy”, in writing. Could I sue you for libel for that?

      Point 2: This article clearly states that you are citing Paul Williams, who is the original promoter of the conspiracy theory.

      Point 3: This article describes a warning coming from you. Your article, Author: Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S., is a one-sided piece that describes the Paul Williams conspiracy theory as “chilling” more than once, and systematically attempts to convince readers that the Paul Williams conspiracy theory is credible. You avoid including even one critical source, and don’t question any of the premises of the wild claims of nuclear annihilation just around the corner. That, plus your choice to publish on a the right wing news site NewsMax, which is known for political opinion rather than hard news, makes my interpretation of your article as itself a warning quite reasonable, though you may disagree with it.

      Your legal case is extremely weak, Mr. Stogel. It’s of about the same strength as the case that Bill O’Reilly brought against Al Franken a few years ago. By bringing a frivolous lawsuit against Franken, O’Reilly made a fool out of himself, and actually made Franken more popular. File a lawsuit, and you’ll just bring more attention to Irregular Times, and to the rather unfortunate sloppy, one-sided reporting that you did on Paul Williams in the first place.

      Think about that. It’s just not worth it, Mr. Stogel.

    • Libel accusations coming from the breathless reporter on a Harlem “trial” supposedly proving that Barack Obama got his diploma illegally and is not a citizen?

      Oh, that’s hilarious.

      Can you growl for us some more, Mr. Stogel? Grrrrrrrrrr…

      • stewart stogel

        Again you frauds expose yourselves. Again I never endorsed nor attempted to endorse the Obama trial in Harlem story.

        Your sorry excuse for a news site is a disgrace. I feel that if this comes to legal action and you frauds are held accountable in a court of law for your libelous actions you will “sing” a different song real soon.

        The Internet does give you political hacks carte blanche to libel a private citizen,

        You may need to be taught a lesson in journalistic ethics the hard way.

        And no, we will not go to the Peoples Court. If we proceed it will be the real thing with real penalties.

        • Now it’s “libel” to say that you breathlessly reported on a story that you actually reported on?

          Yeah, sure, Stewart. Try taking that to court and you’ll likely be stuck with your lawyer’s bill and our lawyer’s bill too — for a frivolous lawsuit.

        • What’s the funniest thing about all this is that Stewart has spent his time writing for right-wing websites that insist troubles be handled through the market and not through recourse to government. When people say things Stewart doesn’t like, he’s Big Government all the way.

          Don’t trust any lawyer who agrees to take your case, Stewart. In this country in order to win a libel case YOU have to convince a judge not just that we said you’re kooky, but that we actually told an intentional and harmful FALSEHOOD about you. Nobody at Irregular Times has done so. The only lawyer who’ll take your case is someone who wants to take your money and leave you worse off at the end of the process — even more embarrassed than you are now and out of a few ten thousands of dollars.

      • stewart stogel

        I need to add a correction….THE INTERNET DOES NOT GIVE YOU CARTE BLANCHE TO LIBEL A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

      • stewart stogel

        Mr Cook

        You also have a big stupid mouth. Not surprising when you can hide behind a computer. Cowards like you can only operate when nobody can find you. But our legal dept. will track you down and you will be held accountable.

        • Oh, really? I’m a coward? Let me make it easy for you, Stewart:

          Jim Cook
          52 Conway Road
          Camden, ME

          Not that I’m the one who wrote this article anyway. But if you want to sue me for “libel” for saying that you wrote a silly and credulous article about a bunch of kooks holding a fake “trial” in Harlem to pursue the kooky theory that Barack Obama is a closet foreigner, you go right ahead. You’ll have to meet this standard (see http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm#What is Libel? ):

          Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to verbal statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

          In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

          The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be “of and concerning” the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.

          The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

          You can’t meet that standard. But you have the right to file a frivolous lawsuit and get smacked down in the courts anyway. I won’t shed tears. There’s nothing like a right-wing bully losing a few thousand bucks in a pointless.

    • Ralph

      Uh-oh! Now you, Stewart Stogel, have called Irregular Times SHODDY and CRAZY. Um, but isn’t it, like, libel to call someone “cracked?” Now, in your words, your are exposed. Stop exposing yourself, Steward Stogel; it is not seemly.

      Please do keep writing back and ranting, I find you very amusing.

      • stewart stogel

        the name is Stewart not Steward if you idiots cannot even get a journalist’s name correct what does that say about the rest of your reporting?

        • It says that Ralph is a reader on this site, Stewart, not one of the Irregular Times writers.. Love that attention to detail you’ve got there.

          Stewart, once again, I have to point out that you haven’t responded to our requests for explaining specifically what the libel is in this article. Could you please do that? A judge will require you to make a specific accusation based on the actual text, not just your embarrassed feelings in general.

        • Ralph

          Thank you for proofreading my post. The typo you found says nothing about my reporting, because I am not a journalist.

          Now it’s my turn. Your last post contains four errors.

          1. The letter t in “the” should be capitalized.

          2. There should be a period after the word “Steward.”

          3. The letter i in “if” should be capitalized.

          4. There should be a comma after the word “correct.”

          Now, what do those four errors in such a short post say about YOUR reporting, Stewart Stogel?

  • stewart stogel

    oh….may I also add that I was the first journalist to report in March 2003 that US troops would not find any WMD in Iraq. My accomplishments as a main stream journalist would put an idiot like you to shame. But as a legitimate journalist, interacting with an obvious fraud like you is waste of time. It is unfortunate that the web gives a flake like you a platform to spread lies, falsehoods and political propaganda.

    • “You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!” — Eros, Plan 9 From Outer Space

      • stewart stogel

        Getting nervous? You should be. Forget your website..you need an attorney.

        • Mr. Stewart Stogel,

          I have asked you for your specific recommendation about how the article I wrote could possibly be changed so as not to be libelous. You have failed to describe any specific language that is libelous. You keep on talking about generalities, and inaccurate generalities at that.

          Your lawyer, when you get one, will tell you that you need to make a specific offer to us of precisely what language needs to be changed. I’m starting to think that you are incapable of doing so.

          Why? This article simply isn’t libelous. It embarrasses you, I know, to be seen as a sloppy reporter who promotes weird conspiracy theories without a shred of credulity, but Mr. Stogel, libel and embarrassment is not the same thing.

          My advice to you is that, instead of coming back here and making this article stronger and stronger in the search engine rankings by adding fresh comments, you focus on creating some good positive publicity for yourself instead. You’d like to salvage your reputation, I suspect, but drawing more attention to this rather unfortunate story that you wrote a few years ago won’t help you in that department.

          It’s currently a habit for some people to attempt to control others by threatening them with lawsuits, even if the lawsuits have no merit. The gamble is that the expense of defense from a lawsuit will deter people from taking the case to court.

          We’ve seen this before, as when the National Pork Board threatened us with a lawsuit over our bumper sticker that reads Muskrat, The Other White Meat. http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/09/27/pork-board-muskrats/

          Their threat was without merit, as is yours. We didn’t back down. They did.

          If you decide that you can go after us where the National Pork Board has not, that’s your right. It’s our right to defend ourselves, and we will.

          It will also be our right to write another story about Stewart Stogel engaging in some rather ridiculous behavior. For your own sake, you don’t want to give us that story, Mr. Stogel.

          Libel laws don’t protect journalists from people pointing out problems with their articles. I suggest you grow a thicker skin, rededicate yourself to a better version of your craft, and move on.

          Or, you can stick around Irregular Times and become one of our regular trolls. That’s fine too.

    • Um, Stewart, if it’s such a waste of time to interact with us, how come you keep coming back and interacting with us?

      Why don’t you just prove that we’re a great big waste of time, and go away?

      • stewart stogel

        Shoddy journalism such as exhibited on your sorry excuse for a website needs to be exposed for what it is. You and your political hacks make it hard for legitimate journalists to continue practicing their profession. But a judge can decide if the propaganda you espouse is libel.

        • I’m confused, Stewart Stogel. If Irregular Times is a “sorry excuse for a website”, then how could it possibly interfere with the work of “legitimate journalists”. If we’re so incompetent and inconsequential, then why are you so bothered by what we’ve said about your lack of adherence to reasonable journalistic standards?

          I’ve asked you repeatedly to identify the specific language in this article that’s libelous. You have failed to do so. I don’t think that you can find any libelous language here. You’re just upset.

          I understand that you’re upset. You’d rather not have publishers you try to write for find out about your sloppy article promoting the Paul Williams conspiracy theory.

          If you’re embarrassed about that article you wrote, why did you write it in the first place?

          Better yet, why don’t you write an article NOW correcting your original mistake, advancing the profession of journalism forward beyond the Homeland Security fear mongering credulity that’s become dominant over the last decade? That move might help bring you back into some repute.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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