It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boston Globe's View on Afghanistan Depends on Who's President

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:44 AM
A great example of how the MSM has completely flip flopped on its reporting, now that a Democrat has the office.

In 2006 the BG said:

The administration became so distracted with the Iraq war that it cooled in its efforts to diminish the Afghani drug trade.

Afghanistan ignored

By Barney Frank | August 30, 2006
A WAR is missing. Sadly, it is not missing from the physical location in which it is taking place, and people continue to die as it is waged. But it has largely disappeared from our national debate, and that debate has been sorely distorted as a consequence.

You can almost feel Bawney Fwanks outrage and that of the Boston Globe.

They constantly reminded us that our troops were "stretch too thin".

Missions in Iraq, Afghanistan straining Army, a study warns

Troop reductions foreseen as relief

By Robert Burns, Associated Press | January 25, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a ''thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

This continued in to 2007:

the White House had "for years resisted calls by members of both parties" do more in Afghanistan.
Just before Obama's election, the Globe went after Bush one more time:

WARS are usually traceable to a failure of statecraft. In the case of the current Israeli assault on the Hamas regime in Gaza, that failure belongs not only to the leadership of Israel and Hamas, but, most tellingly, to the serial blunders of President Bush.

Obama has an enormous cleanup task ahead of him; he cannot put off for a single day the work of peacemaking and rehabilitation in the Mideast.

Now in the present time, everything has apparently changed.

"Our peace-promising president inherited a losing hand from his predecessor."

Obama's inaction is somehow Bush's fault. The calls for action now have gone and have been replaced with non-stop wining about Bush.

A few months later its become down right wise to waffle on Afghanistan. Even after his own hand picked General is telling him what needs done.

WASHINGTON—Former President Bill Clinton says he believes President Barack Obama is wise to step back and rethink U.S. policy in Afghanistan before approving the dispatch of additional U.S. troops there.

McChrystal Says He's Talked With Obama Once Since Taking Afghanistan Command

The disclosure that the president and his top Afghanistan commander have talked just once added to concerns that the administration is waiting too long to deal with a request for more troops.

Did the Globe care? Hell no!

WASHINGTON—A senior Republican congressman said Wednesday that President Barack Obama was endangering U.S. troops in Afghanistan by spending time weighing his next move in Afghanistan. The White House called the lawmaker's comment a "bunch of game playing."

Thats right, it made all the sense in the world under Bush, but now its just "a bunch of game playing".

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Wimbly]


log in