Author: Dan Kennedy

Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks has been everywhere recently, talking up his new book, “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.” Ricks comes across as moderate, pro-military and shocked at the incompetence that led to the war and that has defined the subsequent occupation. You should listen to interviews he did with Tom Ashbrook and Christopher Lydon (joined by Noam Chomsky!) if you get a chance.

This month, Ricks also learned a lesson in the hazards of shooting your mouth off on live television. In an Aug. 6 appearance on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” he made an assertion that he has come to regret. In the section that follows, he’s being questioned by the host, Howard Kurtz, who happens to be the Post’s media reporter. From the transcript:

KURTZ: Tom Ricks, you’ve covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don’t have two standing armies shooting at each other?

RICKS: I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they’re being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you’re suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of its firepower, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public-relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that’s what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That’s an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral-high-ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well.

Last Friday the New York Sun reported (via Romenesko) that former New York mayor Ed Koch had reacted with outrage at Ricks’ “blood libel,” and that Post executive editor Leonard Downie had taken Ricks to the woodshed. Downie wrote to Koch, “I have made clear to Tom Ricks that he should not have made those statements.” And Ricks told the Sun: “The comments were accurate: that I said I had been told this by people. I wish I hadn’t said them, and I intend from now on to keep my mouth shut about it.”

Now, you could defend Ricks on the grounds that he was merely passing along what he learned in the course of his reporting. After all, he was careful to attribute his extraordinary claim to “U.S. military analysts.”

But was that the case? CAMERA, the Boston-based organization that monitors the media for what it considers to be anti-Israel bias, has published the text of a note that he wrote to Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in which he said that his comments “were based on a long conversation I had with a senior Israeli official a couple of years ago.” He also said that, following his CNN appearance, he had “since heard from some smart, well-informed people that while such a strategy might be logical, that the Israeli public just wouldn’t stand for it. And they were pretty dismayed that I has passed on the thought.”

I am a little concerned that I can’t find Ricks’ note anywhere on washingtonpost.com. But I have no reason to believe CAMERA got it wrong.

I wish Downie had been a little more willing to defend his reporter. After all, Ricks’ comments were not based on nothing, and the standards for blabbing on live TV are not the same as they are for writing a news article. But obviously Ricks wishes he had been more precise. And given that he was basing his remarks on a years-old conversation, he probably shouldn’t have said anything at all.

One aspect of Scott Allen and Sean Murphy’s Big Dig story in today’s Globe strikes me as a significant advance in our understanding of what went wrong. They write:

In the end, the connector tunnel got a ceiling like few others in the United States, counting on bolts that essentially have been super-glued into the roof to each suspend 2,600 pounds of concrete. [University of Texas professor David] Fowler and other outside experts could name only one other tunnel, in Virginia, that used a similar bolt system for such a heavy ceiling, and they say few are likely to be built in the future because of the Big Dig’s problems.

Haven’t we been told from the beginning that the epoxy-and-bolt system of connecting those concrete panels was actually a tried-and-true technique used in many projects around the country? Indeed, at one point the Big Dig accident raised the specter of massive, nationwide inspections.

The Globe story casts serious doubt on that assertion, and raises the distinct possibility that the fatal accident of July 10 wasn’t just the result of incompetent workmanship but also of a deeply flawed design.

Thanks to a friend who helped me find it in an obscure corner of the Internet (shhh!), I’ve been able to download Bob Dylan’s weekly XM Radio program, “Theme Time Radio Hour.”

It’s a hoot. More than anything, I think Dylan’s comeback over the past decade is rooted in his rediscovering his sense of humor, and it’s certainly on display here. Every week, Dylan does an hour of music on a particular theme, spinning everything from Jimmie Rodgers tracks recorded in the late 1920s to Chuck Berry, Van Morrison and beyond.

This week’s theme was dogs. Here’s how Dylan opened: “Welcome to ‘Theme Time Radio Hour.’ Today we’re going to talk about a highly variable, carnivorous domesticated mammal — man’s best friend. And if you’re thinking dog, you’re right, buddy. So get off the couch, get yourself a bowl of water and heel.”

Dylan’s new album, “Modern Times,” will be out by the end of the month. I heard a preview recently, and it sounds pretty much like his last album, “Love and Theft” — or “‘Love and Theft'” as the Times fussily puts it in this piece by Jon Pareles. (Dylan was quoting, you see.)

All in all, it’s been a remarkable late-career return to form.

The New York Times’ Jack Curry offers a fairly brutal assessment of Josh Beckett, noting, among other things, that the Red Sox’ supposed co-ace has a 6.80 ERA against winning teams.

Media Nation is surprised and not surprised at the Sox’ collapse this weekend. On the one hand, the team has struggled against good teams all year, building up its soft first-place lead by feasting on the National League and the likes of the Baltimore Orioles.

On the other hand, I’m amazed at Beckett’s struggles, and at the huge differential between Coco Crisp and Johnny Damon. Beckett and Crisp seemingly have the swagger and the confidence to do well here. Maybe they will, but not until next year.

One more thing. I’ve heard enough stupid comments from people complaining about the Sox not making a move for Bobby Abreu. The Yankees made their deal for Abreu on the same day that Trot Nixon was hurt. Nixon was not exactly burning up the league, but he was having a decent season, and there was really no reason to replace him in right. The Sox have made some dumb moves this season, but that wasn’t one of them.

Here we go again.

Because campaign-finance regulations are, by definition, an abridgment of free speech, we should not be surprised that the sophomoric hijinks of an anti-Deval Patrick activist who goes by the name “Stop Killer Coke” may well be deemed illegal.

To backtrack, for those who have not been following this closely: On Aug. 7, the Globe’s Frank Phillips wrote:

The New York-based Campaign to Stop Killer Coke, a group of labor activists that seeks to expose Coke’s alleged misdeeds around the world, is launching a campaign to portray Patrick as a greedy corporate executive who has become a multimillionaire defending the two companies. [Texaco was identified as the second company.]

Then, in a nifty piece of investigative reporting, the Web site Blue Mass Group, which follows Democratic politics in Massachusetts, discovered that Stop Killer Coke isn’t really an organization. Rather, it’s some guy named Ray Rogers who’s based in New York and who owns a private consulting business. (The direct link to BMG’s exposé is here. Also, thanks to the miracle of tags, you can read all of BMG’s Killer Coke coverage here.)

Next up: a classic column by the Globe’s Joan Vennochi last Saturday, in which she lovingly reproduced some internal e-mails by David Guarino, communications director for Tom Reilly’s gubernatorial campaign. Guarino discussed plans to hook Rogers up with local media types in the hopes of scoring some points against Patrick. Good stuff.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when the exposure of slightly sleazy political shenanigans is no longer its own punishment. Rather, it must be subjected to hearings, fines and stern letters of reprimand. So, naturally, the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) is looking into this to see whether Reilly’s campaign or that of the third Democratic candidate, Chris Gabrieli, might have violated any regulations regarding financial reporting and/or improper coordination. The Herald’s Kimberly Atkins reported on this development yesterday, and the Globe’s Phillips has a more detailed story today.

The complaint to the OCPF was filed by five pro-Patrick union leaders last week, with Blue Mass Group cheering them on. (I would link to Adam Reilly’s report, but the Phoenix’s Web site is down at the moment.) This is a perfect example of people who suppress freedom of speech in the name of doing the right thing.

And you know what? The case against Rogers and/or the Reilly and Gabrieli campaigns is probably pretty strong. The larger question is: Why do these regulations exist? What public purpose is achieved by curtailing political speech in any way? And what exactly is Rogers supposed to be doing wrong?

Ray Rogers is the modern equivalent of the lonely pamphleteer, the very essence of who the First Amendment is supposed to protect. It shouldn’t matter whether he’s right or wrong, where he gets his money from or which campaign or campaigns he’s talking to. Let him get his message out, and let Deval Patrick get his message out.

In fact, that’s already happened. What’s the problem?

Two excellent Red Sox pieces today.

The must-read is by Globe columnist Bob Ryan, on the 39th anniversary of the day that the late Tony Conigliaro got beaned. Ryan:

But Aug. 18 is always a somber date for me, and, I’m sure, for many others. Tony C is the greatest of all “What-Ifs?” in Boston sports history. When he stepped into the box in that fateful fourth inning, he was 22 years old. He was the Golden Boy, en route to the Golden Career. Who among us wouldn’t have traded places with Tony C?

The should-read is a feature in today’s New York Times in which John Branch attempts to determine the exact border separating Red Sox fans from Yankees fans. He focuses on Connecticut, but eventually makes his way to Vermont and upstate New York.

There are a lot of unfortunate references to “Red Sox Nation,” but that phrase, like the loathsome “blogosphere,” appears to be beyond stamping out at this late date. Otherwise, first-rate.

“Tigers attack in Sri Lanka north.” Oh, my. What about lions and bears?

A closer look reveals that the story is about the latest raid by the Tamil Tiger separatists.

This is truly outrageous. A nurse at Merrimack Valley Hospital in Haverhill marries her same-sex partner. She asks that her spouse be covered under her Blue Cross plan. And she’s refused, because the hospital’s Tennessee-based owner is self-insured and is thus governed by federal rather than state law.

What is the point of having legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts if gay and lesbian couples can still be discriminated against on something as basic as health insurance?

I don’t want to pretend that I know what the right decision should have been in the Katrina insurance case decided yesterday. But I found this quote from insurance-industry flack Joseph Annotti, reported by the Associated Press, to be astonishing:

From our perspective, it lifts a very large cloud of uncertainty that has been hanging over the insurance market of the Gulf Coast. A healthy insurance market is absolutely key to a rejuvenated economy down there.

Except that, to Annotti, a healthy insurance market requires not paying people for the losses they suffered. How is that going to rejuvenate the economy?