Friday, January 15, 2010

Martha Coakley staffer attacks repoter.

After leaving her DC lobbyist fundraiser, Coakley fails to answer a question as to whether she stands by her comments that terrorists are not in Afghanistan. Coakley simply responds by asking if there are any more questions. When McCormack tries to follow up with Coakley, he is attacked by a member of Coakley's entourage and thrown to the ground as Coakley looks on. After he gets up, McCormack is attacked again, and not allowed to pass.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories


  1. I'm sorry, but I don't see either an attack or anyone throwing someone else to the ground.

    The fellow who asked the questions runs after the group, with his arms raised with what I assume is his tape recorder up, and seems to falls near the gate. The fellow beside him at the time (the one who later blocks him from catching up) *is* seen blocking him into the gate-blocked path...I'll give you that. But the felllows attempt to get over/past the gate is what likely caused him to fall.

    The candidate's entourage member is seen clearly behind him (it's hard to tell if he's in front or beside) with his arm by his side when he falls...he is standing upright the whole time the fellow is falling. His shoulders don't even seem to indicate he is lifting or pushing in any way, there's no movement to show he is exerting any force against the guy to "throw him to the ground". Then he bends to help him up. Throughout this, the candidate is walking away, with her back to the incident. She is not "looking on" as you claim.

    Then he blocks the guys path asking him questions, "are you all right? Do you have a press pass", etc.

    But at no time do I see him attack him or throw him to the ground...sorry, that's just inflammatory to claim.

    I don't know if you quoted that summary or if that's your own words, but this summary is just dishonest and irresponsible.

  2. Also, the reporter's question was waaaaaaay off from non-partisan reality: from

    Coakley was referring to Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan

    Coakley: "Let's focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is." Coakley's comments were made during a January 11 debate at the University of Massachusetts. Moderator David Gergen asked Coakley, "[H]ow do you think we then succeed in Afghanistan?" Coakley replied: "I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was -- and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They're gone. They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan. Let's focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is." She added: "[T]he focus should be getting the appropriate information on individuals who are trained, who represent a threat to us, and use the force necessary to go after those individuals."
    Military and security experts and officials agree that Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan is "diminished"

    Jim Jones: "The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. ... No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." On October 4, 2009, CNN's John King asked national security adviser Jim Jones, "[D]oes the return of the Taliban in your view, sir, equal the return of a sanctuary for al Qaeda?" Jones responded: "Well, I think this is one of the central issues and, you know, it could. Obviously, the good news is that Americans should feel at least good about in Afghanistan is that the Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases. No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." [State of the Union, 10/4/09]

    Wash. Post: Senior U.S. military intelligence official says Al Qaeda has "fewer than 100 members" in Afghanistan. Reporting on "the relative decline of Al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan, The Washington Post wrote: "Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official estimated that there are 300 al-Qaeda members in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the group is based, compared with tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents on either side of the border." [The Washington Post, 11/11/09]

    NY Times: Senior White House official stated that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported that a senior Obama administration official stated that "Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan." [The New York Times, 10/7/09]

    Petraeus: "Al Qaida, if you will -- is not based, per se, in Afghanistan." In a May 2009 interview, King said to Petraeus, "No Al Qaida at all in Afghanistan. Is that an exaggeration, General Petraeus, or is that true?" Petraeus responded: