Email: public@nytimes.com

Action: Politely inform the public editor that (1) 60 votes is NOT the amount required to pass legislation in the senate (you can refer to this article from the front page on July 14 which says:

While Mr. Bush almost certainly commands less loyalty than at any other time of his presidency, the White House has kept enough Republicans from siding with Democrats to keep legislation from reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to pass legislation in the Senate — not to mention the 67 votes needed to override a veto. At the same time, Democrats have often produced legislation that is viewed as hard for some Republicans to endorse.

which is one of many articles failing to call a fillibuster a fillibuster. (2) That same article gave front page coverage to the toothless Lugar-Warner proposal — accordingly, the article about Reid’s bold move for an allnighter deserved similar front page treatment rather than being buried in today’s frontsection! (3) Gently suggest that a piece contrasting the the oppositionism and fillibuster use now by repubs with their outrage at the dems usage just two years ago is a worthy article to consider.

Here is the context, highlighted frequently in the last 1-2 weeks by Josh Marshall among others-the Dem’s cause in fighting obstructionism is not helped by the obstinacy of the mainstream media, and the NYT in particular, to act as if 60 votes is the natural threshold for passing a senate vote. It is only the natural threshold in the presence of a fillibuster, and for the NYT to allow front page reporting with this blatant error in it is egregious! Now it is true that the dems need some backbone and theatre to overcome this. But holy moly, this piece from Saturday was stenography from an RNSC talking points sheet! And the editorial selection? Putting a piece about Lugar-Warner on the front page while burying the story about Reid’s all nighter? WTF??????

If the Firedoglake community let’s the NYT Public Editor know that we are watching this behavior it will be helpful!

Please send a quick note to

public@nytimes.com

DEAL!

But be careful out there, y’hear?!

And DO report back, please. ;->

fahrender @ 177

Rove may or may not be a genius but he is quite intelligent. We despise him because he is such a bad, vindictive little man. We shouldn’t make the mistake of neccessarily conflating evilness with stupidity, however, to do so means to underestimate him, and this has been done too often. Our country suffers badly for it.

i agree with everything you say here.

i don’t see that we have a problem, unless you have proof that he’s not filthy. i’ve never gotten close enough to find out, and i don’t plan to. ;->

Well, he told Sheryl Crowe not to touch him so maybe he wouldn’t let you get that close either. No ma’am, i don’t think we have a problem but i would get close to him if i could just to see if i could find some way to harass him.

“We assess Lebanese Hizballah, which has conducted anti-US attacks outside the United States in the past, may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland over the next three years if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or Iran.”

See, they aren’t going to attack America if they perceive a threat by the United States, they are going to attack “the Homeland“. That must be that new country Bush is making down in Paraguay. See…they never said anyone was going to attack “America”….maybe that’s what they’ll claim when hauled in for war crimes some fine day.

Hezbollah is obviously not going to attack us. They’re going to retailiate when Israel invades Lebanon again, which, to these people, qualifies as attacking the “Homeland”.

Adie @ 131

sadly, yes.
and advertising theory is based on it, eh?
and since rover scooped his schtick out of ad theory…
…badaboom…
rover ain’t no genius atall atall.
rover’s a filthy, parasitic plagiarist.

oh my. i think i am ready to see Harry Potter tonight. i just wish i could borrow his wand.

Rove may or may not be a genius but he is quite intelligent. We despise him because he is such a bad, vindictive little man. We shouldn’t make the mistake of neccessarily conflating evilness with stupidity, however, to do so means to underestimate him, and this has been done too often. Our country suffers badly for it.

i agree with everything you say here.

i don’t see that we have a problem, unless you have proof that he’s not filthy. i’ve never gotten close enough to find out, and i don’t plan to. ;->

Adie @ 145

one word: hahll-i-burrtin.

or maybe it was hallitosis. i fergit.

Adie – there would have to be more to it than Halliburton. I’m not trying to defend the company, but let’s bear in mind that even though it is a Fortune 500 company, its annual revenues (including KBR) in recent years have amounted to about twenty billion dollars, and its total assets are about fifteen billion dollars. Furthermore, its shareholders’ equity amounts to approximately seven billion dollars. Compared to ExxonMobil, Halliburton is quite small: ExxonMobil’s total assets, as of December 31, 2006, amount to 219 billion dollars and its shareholders’ equity amounts to almost 114 billion dollars.

true enuf! i was just indulging in being snippy – inappropriately, i might add.

jayt @ 108

Biodun @ 63

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is focused on American forces in Iraq. If we pull out they might extend to the region. They have no capacity at this point to extend to the US. The global Al-Qaeda network is what the US should have been (and should be) worried about.

When the NIE story was first leaked, the focus was on the fact that Al-Qaeda had once again reached its pre 9-11 strength.

Is anyone surprised that it is now being spun not as a monumental failure of the Bush administration, but rather as a newer and shinier reason to be scared, scared, scared?

Al- Qaeda has already released a far more destructive force on America George W. Bush, who has done more damage to the US than they could have ever imagined or planed for.

and Al Quaeda’s attack on 9/11 can really never be answered. They made Fuckwad’s Administration look like fools, for comparatively little effort, money and lives. They made the sham and futility of miltary might transparent. Fuckwad has simply underlined and megaphoned that for them. he is, after all, a cheerleader. he just doesn’t know when he’s actually helping his opponents so he has gone about giving them more and more opportunities …….

TEXB: I’ll wager 73%

Probably that many of those who;ve been activated, but only half are activated at any given moment. Their equipment on the other hand ……