catapult magazine

Here’s an article claiming Bush’s strongest support (for fighting terrorism) is unfounded. It raises some interesting (and valid) points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

Ouch. That had to hurt Bush below the waist.

Okay, lesson number one: that’s not an “article.” It’s an OP-ED PIECE and says so on the top of the page.

Lesson number two: The New York Times is a well-known, widely-accepted newspaper with a liberal bent it doesn’t bother to disguise (I’ll give it credit for that). This guy is repeating the same information we’ve heard before. It’s nothing new. I was actually kind of pissed off that I had to enter all sorts of personal info only to read some silly editorial of regurgitated spin.

Lesson number three: The information may be the same, but the difference now is that the “real” race for the presidency has started and Bush has started running his own commercials, meaning Kerry is no longer on the airwaves unopposed. Being a newspaper notoriously friendly to Dems, the NYT is just doing its part to counteract the opposition.

And there are Republican-friendly newspapers and other media outlets that will do the same thing for Bush.

since when were we teaching each other lessons here?

mrsanniep,

you may have heard this all before—i haven’t.

the implication that bush is responsible for the spanish attacks because he gave al qaeda a breather as he waged an unrelated war in iraq is something i haven’t heard discussed. instead of smearing the times for being liberal, why don’t you engage that idea? one thing i really hate is when an idea is presented and then it’s discarded not on merit (or lack of it) but by an attempt to tar and feather the person, or the publication and take the focus off of what is brought for discussion.

Here’s an article on the issue:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4613087&section=news

Richard Clarke, Bush’s top official on counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity board, told CBS “60 minutes” in an interview to be aired on Sunday he thought Bush had “done a terrible job on the war against terrorism.”

“I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11,” Clarke told CBS.

Here’s another related article: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040320.wrumy0320/BNStory/Front/

?Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq,? Mr. Clarke said. ?We all said, ?But no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.‘? Mr. Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Mr. Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that ?there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.?

[/url]

And a viewpoint from Australia…

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079823239710.html

here’s the white house rebuttal. (sorry, you may need to fill out one of those forms…)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14760-2004Mar22.html

it’ll be interesting to see what comes of the commission’s questioning and cross-examinations.

Lary, just wanted to point out the disconnect in your thought process. If you say Bush allowed the Spain attacks because he let up on AQ to go after Iraq, then you are missing the connection between AQ and Iraq. 3 weeks ago many liberals were disputing that connection, but AQ kinda took the firepower out of that argument by bombing Spain for being in Iraq.

i don’t think there’s a disconnect in that implication. the argument that this former anti-terrorism czar, clarke, is making is that the iraq invasion played right into a.q.’s propaganda—that the u.s. was going to invade and occupy an oil-rich arab nation, and that because the u.s. has done so, a.q. has attracted more converts, who have made the world less safe (especially for americans). as well, the focus and the drain of resources in iraq has effectively taken the heat off of a.q. since there was no connection. (i believe bush has admitted this lack of connection, as has all credible intelligence).

i haven’t heard anybody claim that the spanish attacks prove a link between a.q. and iraq, or that any new evidence has come out, except you seem to be implying that. have i missed something recently or are you just speculating?