Good Journalism From The Boston Globe

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:09:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

We spend a lot of time decrying hack journalism, but let me highlight some of the good work being done. Here is Peter Canellos of the Globe truthsquadding the GOP Presidential candidates:

-- In defending the Iraq war, leading Republican presidential contenders are increasingly echoing words and phrases used by President Bush in the run-up to the war that reinforce the misleading impression that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
. . . Senator John McCain . . . suggested that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would "follow us home" from Iraq -- a comment some viewers may have taken to mean that bin Laden was in Iraq, which he is not.

Former New York mayor Rudolph Guiliani asserted, in response to a question about Iraq, that "these people want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago. " However, none of the six people arrested for allegedly plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey were from Iraq.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney . . . said [terroristgroups] have "come together" to try to bring down the United States, though specialists say few of the groups Romney cited have worked together and only some have threatened the United States.

I found this part ironic:

"The larger point shouldn't be in dispute," said Randy Scheunemann , McCain's foreign policy adviser. "If there's a territory where Al Qaeda is left unmolested, free to plan, conduct, and train for operations, they will do so."

Begging the question why did we reduce our efforts in Afghanistan/Pakistan, where bin Laden actually is?

< Chavez closes nation's one private TV station | Faith vs. Science >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Good Journalism From The Boston Globe | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Do you not think (none / 0) (#1)
by Green26 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:35:48 AM EST

Al Qaeda would like to attack--really continue to attack--the US and US interests, whether in the US or abroad? Do you not think it's possible that engaging Al Qaeda in places like Iraq may be an important battleground and/or at least distracts them and takes some of their resources.

When McCain says Bin Laden might follow us home from Iraq, do you really think that McCain literally believes that Bin Laden himself would come to the US? Would you feel better about the statement if McCain had said that some of AQ might follow us home from Iraq and Bin Laden might follow us home from Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Talk about being picky and stretching to try to make a point.

AQ is a puppy dog!? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:36:02 PM EST

and will 'follow us home' from iraq? Do you not think AQ can multi-task?

They weren't in iraq until bush invited them and provided the greatest recruiting tool they could ever desire. They are still a tiny minority of the fighters in iraq.

IF bush was sincere about AQ and OBL he wouldn't have abandoned afghanistan to them and wouldn't be partners with pakistan who makes treeaties with them.

And using Americans as bait is the most disgusting strategy I have heard of since Gen Wastemoreland's 'war of attrition.'


: Bait (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:43:49 PM EST

Is just what our troops are. Absolutely disgusting.

The flypaper theory (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:46:32 AM EST

Ok.


Don't tell Green26 (none / 0) (#3)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:26:33 AM EST

but there was an item in the news yesterday about how Iraq is now exporting 'terrorists' to surrounding countries. So much for Green26's theory that the US has them pinned down in Iraq.

The real irony is that it is Bin Laden who implemented the flypaper theory when he attacked the US on 9/11 and got the neocon flies to go straight for the Iraqi flypaper.


Collusion by Default (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:14:35 PM EST

al-Qaida also is a big fan of the flypaper theory. They love the fact that we are over there as sitting ducks with all our dreams of oil and military bases.

Why would they bother to fight us here when we are there. The war from their point of view is also an economic one. We are spending lots of money and they are happy to see us weaken by fighting an impossible war.

Win Win for al-Qaida and The Chimp.


: Win Win for al-Qaida and The Chimp? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:17:52 PM EST

Stop that! You're giving away Bush's plan.

I don't remember (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:25:45 PM EST

What was Canellos writing back in late 2002 and early 2003?

They already did follow us home... (none / 0) (#10)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:45:58 PM EST

From our lovely 1980s "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Reagan/CIA strategy of dealing with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Oh and see how effective these arguments are once you start drafting upper crust Republican kiddies.

Flypaper (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:07:13 PM EST

I keep wondering when the apologists are going to try dropping this line about fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and switch to the logical extension of their 'history doesn't matter - we have to deal with the situation as it is now' argument, to try to bolster their 'fightin' 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here' crap?

i.e. Can't pack up and leave now. Some Iraqis, not being overly pleased with the killing of nearly a million of their children and women, might follow us home.......

Or would that be too close to admitting they are creating terrorism?

Maybe some of the wingnuts can explain why not and tell me again how happy the Iraqis are with their 'liberation'... without getting stuck on the flypaper.

I would like to see the anti-war (none / 0) (#12)
by Green26 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:15:06 PM EST

crowd try to address how the war should be ended or otherwise dealt with, without pointing fingers at the Bushies or looking backwards. Many of the anti-war crowd seems so influenced or blinded by the past, that they can't look forward and help come up with workable solution.

What's the support/back-up for the earlier comment that AQ is a "tiny minority of fighters" in Iraq? This quote is from the Council on Foreign Relations website in April 2007: "Al-Qaeda in Iraq's ranks may have swelled to as many as 60,000 fighters, according to a January 2007 Center for Strategic and International Studies report."

Zarqawi, who was the head of what later became known as Al Qaeda of Iraq, was in Iraq before the US went to Iraq. Doesn't he count as AQ? Or are you relying on the "good (and picky) journalism" argument that he and his people weren't Al Qaeda because they hadn't originally called themselves Al Qaeda.

: You could start by reading Big Tents posts (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:26:44 PM EST

on not funding the occupation, and the mountains of other writing available in print and on the web about foreign policy and international relations, instead of ignoring all of it and pretending the topic hasn't been addressed ad infinitum here and elsewhere for years.
A really good start would have been not invading in the first place.
Did you just arrive on this planet?

: Huh? (none / 0) (#21)
by Repack Rider on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:41:47 PM EST

Many of the anti-war crowd seems so influenced or blinded by the past, that they can't look forward and help come up with workable solution.
There is no "solution." There is only leaving as quickly and efficiently as we can, with a minimum loss of life. The alternative is to wait long enough so our people get routed and slaughtered, which doesn't sound like a "solution" to me.
Please define "blinded by the past." I am a US Army veteran who served during the last bogus war, and I did everything I could to prevent this disaster, but it wasn't enough.
If you did not do all you could to prevent the war, then it would not surprise me that you do not care to have its origins examined, because you might have to look at something ugly within yourself. Those who called for war even after the president and his minions had been repeatedly caught lying about the reasons for it are just as guilty as the president for the deaths and the looted treasury, and unfortunately that includes most Americans, but not me or most of those posting here.
You sound like someone who wouldn't care to catch murderers, because after all, catching the killer won't bring the victim back to life, so what's the point in looking back at the crime?
I believe that people who do this kind of harm should pay consequences, and that requires looking back at what they did. The alternative is to let these guys off the hook for war crimes as well as the worst decision in American history, and I'm not that forgiving.

Edgar just proved my point. (none / 0) (#14)
by Green26 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:46:35 PM EST

He can't make a comment on Iraq without looking backwards. Talk about ignoring evidence and facts.

: Good point there green (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:52:13 PM EST

If you won't look back at what has been written, you are ignoring evidence and facts.

There is a big difference, Edger, between (none / 0) (#16)
by Green26 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:16:42 PM EST

looking at what has been written, which I do, and being unable to make a comment without blaming the Bushies for something in the past--which is what you did above.

I also point out that one of your above comments (2 posts above), which I assume was directed at me, was nonsensical. It didn't even address what was being discussed in this thread, at least by me. Perhaps you are the one who ought to bone up on the Iraq war. At least, you might want to be a bit more specific, than citing everything BT or anyone else has ever written on Iraq.

: Now you are being plain silly. (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:28:19 PM EST

And trolling, IMO. Also not worth responding to any longer, IMO.

: The past is prelude (none / 0) (#19)
by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:57:56 PM EST

I would like to see the anti-war crowd try to address how the war should be ended or otherwise dealt with, without pointing fingers at the Bushies or looking backwards. Many of the anti-war crowd seems so influenced or blinded by the past, that they can't look forward and help come up with workable solution.
Ahh, the current wrongwing talking point 'we don't admit bush f**ed up, but we're there now, so what the f*k are you gonna do about it?'
You can't separate how to solve this debacle without examining why you wanted this war. (Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.)
Look, you guys went to war because bush lied, or maybe you just like war.
We were against it from the start, as was THE REST OF THE WORLD! (not some of their political leaders, just the PEOPLE.
We've also said from the start of the invasion, and all thru the occupation: Get the UN involved. Reach out to neighboring countries. Stop supporting terrorism in iran, lebanon and syria.
Stop invading/threatening countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
See, it's very simple, stop waging war against countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and reach out diplomatically to them ... instead of refusing to talk to them.
Talk is cheap, war is expensive, especially in American's lives for lies.

I wonder if you even have a response. (none / 0) (#18)
by Green26 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:47:06 PM EST

I follow this war a bit more closely than some of you, because I have a son fighting in it. What a cop out by you. Just because you don't have a response or don't want to discuss, doesn't mean that you can hide behind the troll word.

A question for Sailor. (none / 0) (#20)
by Green26 on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:23:18 PM EST

Could you further explain this statement of yours:

"You can't separate how to solve this debacle without examining why you wanted this war. (Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.)"

I'm curious as to why your statement would be true for ending the war. While what you said is often important in terms of making better decisions and trying to avoid making the same mistakes, I would have thought what you said was more important for making decisions to start or enter new wars, not for ending the current one.