I agree, and I’d still be wary of the “ultra” label. You gotta save that for the few outliers way off in left field, else it loses it’s specific meaning. Ultra- doesn’t mean pretty- or even very-. It means extreme. It means you can’t get any more liberal.
What’s worse, ultraliberal or hyperliberal? The former means, you know, wicked liberal, but the latter is kind of in a class all it’s own, so liberal it transcends the status of “liberal” and enters an entirely new plane. Does one then become so left they do a 180, or must we invoke extra dimensions to truly describe the phenomenon?
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=122
Many Dems Reject War Resolution
The Resolution also contained restrictions that would have denied authorization if certain conditions were not met.
http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm
The wording on the Authorization required the President to determine the existence of a “clear” and “imminent” threat. Needless(?) to say, no such facts existed. The weasel capacity exists in that the President was authorized to determine such facts at his own discretion, which, in this instance, included utter bullshit. If he were to determine that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were in cahoots with Saddam and posed the aforementioned “imminent threat”, he was entirely empowered to do so.
And of course that’s 100% true. But we’re not arguing about whether or not Democrats voted for/against the war, we’re arguing about whether the vote was, in fact, a vote for war. Your cite calls it just that: a vote for war.
Also, we were talking about the Senate in the earlier posts, not the House. Not that it’s all that important, it’s just easier to keep track of Senators since there are few of them. And they tend to have better name recognition as a whole.
Under certain conditions. Conditions that, of course, were not met. The Authorization included the trapdoor of permitting the President to make that determination on his sole discretion. So, even if he were wrong, he was still authorized. You will recall, I’m sure, how strenuously The Leader denied that the resolution was a committment to war, since he was entirely dedicated to “disarming” Saddam by peaceful means if at all possible. Heck, if you can’t believe the President…
But this is about the* NY Times*, so I recant the hijack and officially shrug.
Yes, I do recall. I didn’t believe him for a minute, and I doubt you did either.
Good call (for an ultra-liberal). 
Just taking a blind guess here, but I’d imagine that’s because the New York Times is a paper situated in the United States, and therefore atrocities committed by its fellow citizens are more newsworthy than atrocities committed by “foreigners”. E.g., “gunman kills six at Chicago mall” will get coverage in the NYT whereas “gunman kills six at Sri Lanka mall” won’t.
Well, of course the New York Times is pro-terrorist. But they are moderately pro-terrorist.
I interpret this as a gentlemanly effort at polite discourse, and appreciate it as such. Please be advised that I am entirely content with the term “radical”. We have a proud tradition going back to Thomas Paine, and part of that tradition is: we don’t really trust liberals.
Moreover, chappachula’s linked WSJ editorial describes this victim of torture by Arab terrorists as a member of an “anti-American” organization:
So the WSJ editorialist is complaining that the Times isn’t giving enough prominence to stories about terrorists torturing members of anti-American organizations. But wouldn’t that just encourage sympathy for those nasty anti-Americans? Why does the WSJ editorial page hate America?
That’s fine, but I meant it as a joke (hence the wink). As I said above, I think the temr “ultra-” isn’t of much use in this instance-- it obscures rather than clarifies what we’re trying to talk about.
Not really, it seems pretty clear that What Exit means a track record as a reliable news source. It’s easy to establish a reputation as an unreliable source: just lie to me once. Establishing a reputation as someone to be trusted takes far longer.
And to clarify, my “not really” refers to your first sentence. I do in fact think they have a track record of bias.
Like Edward R. Murrow?
Heaven seems like a great place to light up. I mean, we’re gonna live forever up there anyway!
Try this – from an [url=]insider.
I don’t know what you mean. Can you clarify, or was that just a joke?
BrainGlutton, your link doesn’t work.
But that’s not what he said. He said they lack a track record to accurately assess their journalistic integrity.
But the New York Times has been wrong – even fraudulently wrong – before. For example, Walter Duranty. And Jayson Blair. And they’ve got that whole “Corrections” section that runs pretty frequently.
And of course Janet Cooke of the Washington Post had to return her Pulitzer after it turned out that her reports were fictionalized. And a USA Today reporter lied in major stories. And a Reuters photographer digitally manipulated photos.
All news organizations rely on people, and as such, are subject to their flaws. If your standard is actually that you don’t believe anyone that’s lied to you, then I have to wonder where you’re getting your news from.
Yes, the Times has been wrong, many times. However, they have been right far more often. They have been reliable and they have earned my trust. This is coming from a Pro-Reagan Navy Vet. Fox News has a much smaller track record. So far they have appeared to be very heavily slanted anti-Clinton and Pro-Bush in their short existence. More-so than an objective news agency should be. They have had many inaccuracies and have done nothing to earn my trust. I am not a liberal, as should be obvious. I have made a point of the fact I trust the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. When reading either publication, I keep in the back of my mind that each is indeed slanted. How about you forget the semantics for a moment and tell me why I should trust Fox News. I have seen no reason to.
Jim
Um, the conservatively-oriented Wall Street Journal has one of those too. So does USA Today, for that matter.
Every reputable news periodical needs to run “Corrections” items frequently, because mistakes always happen, and it’s more journalistically responsible to explicitly acknowledge them than to let them slide. What, you imagine that if a periodical doesn’t print “Corrections” items, that means they never make any mistakes? Dream on!