My point is that a) it is not uncommon for them to endorse Republicans when they think the GOP candidate is the better one and b) yesterday’s editorial was not pro-Democrat.

If Mike Bloomberg ran as a Republican, I wouldn’t be surprised if they endorsed him — they’ve been very supportive of his work as Mayor.

I am speechless.

This proves the NYT is not pro-Democrat how?

What is Bloomberg’s support among Republicans. 2%?

A pro-Democrat piece? I don’t think so. In other editorials, the Times has praised John McCain for his stand on torture (also his position on immigration). He does stand in marked contrast to Romney (double Guantanamo) and Giuliani (waterboarding isn’t torture). If Mike Bloomberg ran as a Republican, I wouldn’t be surprised if they endorsed him — they’ve been very supportive of his work as Mayor.

Perhaps the editorial board has joined the countless millions of Americans who don’t read the Times.

After all of this fevered, paranoid prose, the editors finally get to their real point:

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.

In other words: Elect a Democrat in 2008, or we’re going to stamp our feet and hold our breath until we turn blue!

Shirley the NYT wasn’t referring to Mde. Billary??? Somehow, I just don’t see her as the epitome of “integrity, principle & decency”. And most definitely not Jesse Jackson! Maybe they’re pulling for the Huckster, eh?

2) Determing how detainees are to be treated in a tinderbox situation like Iraq is the responsibility of senior Pentagon brass. It is not reasonable to expect someone like Karpinski to figure out on her own how to treat civilian detainees in an unprecedented war in a country whose culture is diametrically opposed to ours. Given the administration’s tacit acceptance of torture, and in the absence of clear guidelines, accountability properly resides with those above her level as well as below it.

3) Forget the Wahabbis. Ask the man on the street in Rome, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, whatever. Or talk to anyone whose been abroad lately. Our position in the world and our putative moral leadership is far lower than before 9/11.

4) The issue is not whether the FISA laws are wise or effective or productive. If the Bush administration thinks there is a better way to do it, then let’s hear their ideas. Rather, the issue is that the law is on the books and, right or wrong, the President does not have the authority to decide whether or not he wants to follow it.

5) Good.

6) Funny you should mention that. I am hard-pressed to think of anyone in public life I dislike more than Jesse Jackson.

2) It all comes down to training and Karpinski was it.

3) Times have changed and Wahabbis drove the festering hate, particularly with velocity within the last 20 years.

4) Like I said, check out Echelon. Bottomline, the NSA was not about eavesdropping on Joe Public, it was about getting at communications between foreign persons of interest and their contacts. On one hand, the contact might be a US citizen and on the other, comms between two persons outside of the US, but routed via US. In any case, so what?

5) More or less concur

6) Keep hope alive, eh?

2) If soldiers were sent to do a job without instructions or regulations on how to do it, that is a dereliction of duty for the senior officers.

3) I don’t know any way to prove that we are despised by vastly more people than ever before, and admired by far fewer people. However, based on reading foreign editorials, talking to people around here (about half the kids in my daughter’s class are foreign born), and talking to people who travel overseas, I don’t see how you can draw a different conclusion.

I used to live in Asia, and I’ve spent a lot of time in Muslim countries — Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia — and I’ve always been treated exceptionally well (except for the passport control guys in Dharan, but that’s a different story). This was all before 9/11.

4) FISA is crystal clear. The only controversy is a fake one generated by the Bush administration, which would argue that the moon is made of green cheese if it suited its purposes to do so. They can claim whatever they want, but if you read the bill, it’s all there in black and white.

5) I think people should be allowed to own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions (making sure they are not minors, felons, etc.). I don’t think people should own semi-automatic weapons (or at least their availability should be limited) for the same reason I don’t think people should have anti-aircraft tanks or Stinger missiles. However, I don’t think that any of this derives from the Second Amendment, which in my reading only allows ownership connected with the militia.

6) I will.

Happy New Year to you too! I hope that in the coming year, I will have enlightened you to the point where you will pull the Democratic lever in November!

1) The point is people tend to do what they have always done. Renditions is old hat to the CIA, hence it is logical that the players then are the same as those under Bush — Business as usual except nobody was the wiser until leakers decided to “nail” Bush.

2) Wrong, that is not how the UCMJ operates — Karpinski was the top of the chain unless she was unfit to begin with, but that’s a different matter of undeserved promotion vs the conduct of the troops.

3) I suggest that core feelings are relatively the same thruout. Except Schroeder & Cheinraq fanned the flames of anti-Americanism to divert attention from their deficient leadership. As for the “Euro -street”, regard for America didn’t much change unless one had a personal stake in what we were actually doing at the time.

IOW, we lost a lot of respect in Africa for the empty platitudes and sitting-on-hands during the 90s. We lost a lot of respect in the Arab world for pussy-footing with Saddam. And so on. The deal with Iraq is it was a convenient excuse for anti-western animus when the core problem really is Islamic extremism. Why else would dozens of Western tourists get slaughtered in Islamic countries in the 90s time and time again? Did you forget why the WTC was bombed in ’93? I recall getting plenty of “throat-slashing” and “gunfire” hand signs from Islamic youths back then, yet being welcome with open arms by Islamic merchants. This is long before the Cole incident and while we should have been nominally “loved” by the Muslims for protecting the Kosovo & Bosnian Moslims from the “Christian” Serbs.

4) If FISA is crystal clear, why all the debates and nuanced interpretations from all quarters? Seem like something so crystal clear should have been resolved in no time at all, yet here we are 3 years later still wrangling with it. Also, you should really check into Echelon, part of the rationale that stood the program up under Clinton is the same as why Club Gitmo exists. I have no doubt that had 9/11 happened on Clinton’s watch, we’d have Gitmo and waterboarding as a matter of fact. Like I said, Goose… Gander, I’m fine with it.

5) Glad we agree that you and I have the right to bear arms.

6) Dig a little deeper.

Happy New Year!