NY Times Editorial today....wow

[AnnInLa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

SNIP...go read

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

SNIP...go read

hese are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

[groovedaddy]

1. The neo-cons didn't panic - this was EXACTLY what they wanted

Lihop - Mihop - take your pick!

[bbgrunt]

3. exactly. They should read Klein's "Shock Doctrine"

[notadmblnd]

5. And my worry is that the next president

Dem or repuke, instead of undoing the damage, will pick up where he left off.

[EFerrari]

2. NYTs greases the wheels for those criminals and then wrings its hangs.

[Didereaux]

4. Wrote that...then hired Kristol...we live in interesting times indeed. n/t

[ixion]

6. If they're so outraged, why did they hire William Kristol

Big ass * supporter and neocon apologist?

[EFerrari]

23. Hasn't he been wrong about just about everything?

It's unreal that he gets paid to opine about ANYTHING.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

7. Looks like we were the real recipients of the old "Shock and Awe" treatment...

But in our case, it's the shock of the trampling of democracy and civil rights by a band of neo-con extremists...and the awe of the massive mess we have to clean up after in '09. 3,000+ troops dead, loss of trust and respect, and $9B and counting in debt in 8 years. Undoubtedly, the worst president, ever.

[ThomWV]

8. Jesus! That is the strongest Editorial against the Bush administration I've ever seen.

Those are not the words of a rant, that is a well thought out and persuasive editorial that in essence outlines the charges necessary for impeachment.

[RufusTFirefly]

15. Indeed. And its impact is not likely to last longer than a news cycle

Sad, appalling, but probably true.

We now return you to live coverage of Chelsea Clinton's callous snub of a school child.

[L. Coyote]

9. HELLO NYT: "We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom "

Where was the NY Times during the 2004 campaign? Sitting on a story that Bush was a felon, for illegal surveillance.

We the People can only hope the NY Times isn't sitting on another dozen of the stories
that impact the results of the election in favor of the reactionary NeoCons!

[robinlynne]

11. Not to emntion the 2 stolen elctions. The American people did not put him in office.

[EFerrari]

12. Where were they when Bush stole Ohio? Refusing to cover it. n/t

[stubtoe]

17. Interesting that they're going all out NOW with the editorials

since Bush is almost out of office anyway.

I'm hardly impressed with their newfound "courage".

[librechik]

10. and next week, the idiotarian stylings of William Kristol

how versatlie is Teh Paper of Record?

VERY!

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Johnny Come Latelys

. . . and look who just got a column with them? Yuck!

[tanyev]

14. Well, it only took them 7 years to figure it out.

I notice there's no mention of how their own reporter played a key role in selling the WMD justification for an invasion.

[UpInArms]

16. the NewWhoreTimes is a schizophrenic birdcage liner

that ran every Judith Miller lie on the front above the fold - that hid every *Co lie - that refused to publish the 2008 recount data after 9/11 because it wanted to rally behind the squatter-in-thief.

What freaking garbage - now they can say:

oooohhhh! but we published an editorial in fine print that warned of the madness after it all happened instead of reporting the truth at any point.

they make me :puke:

I shall not go to the link so that they can collect a single solitary red cent for advertising.

they should all rot in the hell that they created of our country and I hope their doors forever close.

[EFerrari]

18. NYTs Public Editor response to hundreds of requests to cover Ohio:

Dear Ms. Ferrari,

In the first few weeks after the election several readers wrote us about this issue. Mr. Okrent responded to these concerns on his web journal. I include the entry below (see post #35).

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/f...
dokrent - 5:40 PM ET November 21, 2004 (#35 of 40)

The Times and Covering Allegations of Election Fraud

Sorry to have been neglecting this spot for so long; I could give you a list of excuses, but none of them is especially good.

Now, though, my mailbox has begun to overflow with criticisms of The Times for not looking more deeply
into allegations of large-scale vote fraud in Ohio and Florida, a story (if true) that no one can ignore. In some of these messages, writers say that "now that the theft of the election has been proven ...," The Times must reveal this to the wider world.

Were the assertion even nearly so, I would do more than recommend that The Times reveal it ­ I’d be
demanding it publicly, loudly and frequently. But the evidence I have seen to date proves nothing, other than that there was a certain amount of error in certain counties, and an aggressive effort by some partisans in some areas to challenge some likely Democratic voters. To my knowledge, no one in the Kerry campaign’s vast on-the-ground operation, or in its armies of well-situated lawyers, has made the argument that what happened in Ohio (or Florida) could have changed the result of the election. Similar views were explained in "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread By Blogs, Are Quickly Buried," by Tom Zeller (Nov. 12).

And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if they find something, they’ll publish it. A good investigative reporter (much less a whole staff of them) turning away from a story like this one ­ if true ­ would be like a flower turning away from the sun. Careers are made by stories that detail massive election fraud.

But: the operative words here are if true. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Although it would probably pain him to have someone from The Times touting his work, David Corn of The Nation, in a recent column, offers plenty of reason to examine the allegations before I, or anyone else, should leap to give them credence. You can find Corn’s column here.

Since then, over seven hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. You may be interested in the following articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22poll.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.html

I raised reader concerns with Mr. Okrent and a few days ago he asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over.

The following articles have since appeared:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html

Mr. Okrent wanted me to write you back asking that you please stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

[Kip Humphrey]

19. Yeah well, just wait for their endorsement of neo-liberal Hillary

[EFerrari]

20. I was so happy the day I could afford to take the NYTs.

This century has really sucked so far.

[intheflow]

28. Take heart.

Last century sucked this far into it, too, but overall I think we made more gains than losses in the 20th Century. The pendulum will swing back and whack the neocons, progressive values have a way of triumphing over time.

"The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
~ Martin Luthr King, Jr., A Testament of Hope

[rocktivity]

21. They had to do SOMETHING to make up for hiring Bill Kristol!

rocknation

[October]

30. Really!

I was furious when I read this editorial.

They hire Kristol one day, and the next they are shocked, shocked by the state of affairs in our country.


Between Judith Miller's front page fiascos, Maureen Dowd's immaturity and now hiring one of the authors of PNAC...HELLO?

How Orwellian of them.

[The Stranger]

22. Did the Old Grey Whore sit on the illegal wiretapping story for almost a year at the request of the

Neonazicons?

[EFerrari]

27. Yeah, and they were still sitting on it WHILE they tried to make

hundreds of readers feel crazy for knowing our election was being stolen right in front of our faces.

We were just "internet conspiracy theorists".

[senseandsensibility]

24. It ends strongly

but I don't agree with the beginning, especially the part about "panic."

[SpiralHawk]

25. Commander AWOL & cronies panic because...

they are republicon chickenhawks...

[OzarkDem]

26. Something they forgot to mention

All of the abuses of power they describe accomplished NOTHING, yielded NOTHING except satisfying their desire for power.

We have lost more than our freedoms, but also trillions of dollars of our hard earned tax dollars.

Those two points alone win the entire argument against Bush's policies. Not mentioning them keeps debate going.

[sellitman]

29. Are you sure that wasn't a "Nance Rant"?

Excellent!

[Captain Hilts]

31. GREAT! So, why'd they hire Bill Kristol? nt