Because it constantly exploits 9/11. Remember what Rove said: "Liberals saw 9/11 as a tragedy; conservatives saw it as a career opportunity" That's not what he actually said (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23rove.html) but it's a close enough paraphrase. For conservatives, particularly of the neo- persuasion, 9/11 is the gift that keeps on giving. As long as no one screws up and actually catches Osama Bin Laden, 9/11 and Al-Qaeda is the goose that lays the golden eggs of Republican politics.

Glenn's quotation does not make it clear, but the "some other analysts" are not Pollack's words but the words of the authors of the Times piece and refer, inter alia, to Pollack. Pollack's words are only those inside quotation marks in the display quotation and the quotation itself comes from the Times article and not Pollack. Apparently Pollack didn't bother to insulate himself at all.

The last post should have been addressed to Little Brother rather than Rollotomasi. We regret the inconvenience.

Glenn: I'm hesitant to criticize the article because it at least examines McCain's increasingly reckless and exploitative use of the term "Al Qaeda" when defending the war in Iraq. And it also notes that McCain did the same thing with Iran, previously and repeatedly linking the Iranians to "Al Qaeda" only to retract the claim. So that's progress, at least.

To these I would add the fact that the authors put "Al Qaeda" in scare quotes in the title and the fact that they made it clear that there was no "Al Qaeda in Iraq" before the American invasion.

Other than that, I agree that it is pretty much the same he said/she said type of reporting that is the hall- and mintmark of contemporary journamalism where the reader is left to decide the merits of the competing arguments. If there is progress, it lies in the fact that what he says and what she says is more fully recorded.

If you read it carefully, however, you are able to make a clear distinction: The difference between Al Qaeda and the Iraq insurgency is that Al Qaeda hated our guts before we invaded Iraq.

Good news about the martial law revision. Funny I came across it nowhere else.

I too was astonished at how little coverage there was of this. I wasn't aware of it until breadbaker mentioned it here earlier this month. The revisions were passed at the same time as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and were perhaps overshadowed by that particularly horrendous piece of legislation. After all, when you are suspending habeas corpus, creating secret military courts, and immunizing federal employees who have tortured for their country from federal and international law, what's a small matter of making it possible for the president to declare martial law at the drop of a hat.

Perhaps the repeal of the revisions is covered by "state secrets". Maybe the fact that there has to be an actual rebellion or insurrection before the president can declare martial law, rather than "or other condition" as provided in the revisions, is something that the terrorists aren't supposed to know, like they aren't supposed to know that we listen to their phone calls.

May I suggest that people politely ask the NYTimes public editor, if this story is worthy of a lead editorial on a Sunday morning, then why is this story not newsworthy?

Why has there -- still -- been no mention in the NEWS pages of the NYTimes of the big story of what President Bush told ABC News?
— sysprog

Your questions have already been answered by Dan Drezner:

Shockingly, the press appears to be more interested in events that determine the future (i.e., who will be the next president?) than in events that look back at the past.
— Daniel W. Drezner, posted by Dan on 04.07.08 at 11:43 AM
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003778.html

Things that happened in the past just aren't news. Just like the Downing Street Memo, no "news" organization is going to waste space on something that happened in 2002. News isn't about what happened in the past, it's about what's going to happen in the future (at least according to Drezner and he claims that he knows).

Unless it involves something that Obama did when he was a Chicago City Councilman or something that involves Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, anything that happened in the past just isn't news.

This is why the the news media will report what John McCain says today but won't point out that it is exactly the opposite of what he said a year or a week or even a day earlier. That's the past, and besides, they've already reported on it.

Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
— NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
— NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

[EPU'ed from the previous thread because it's actually on topic here.]

The little noise in the background is Dr. Goebbels chuckling...
— Grumpop

The normally prim and prissy Goebbels would be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off about this.

"But clearly, the prime minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to -- not in private hands," she [Rice] said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080420/wl_mcclatchy/2915454

Sadly, apparently the Secretary of State has never heard of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On the other hand, perhaps her point is that the United States is not a "functioning democratic state". I can see where she might get that idea from.

Still, it is sad that America's representative to the rest of the world has no credibility at all. Oh, wait — that makes her a perfect representative of the Bush administration.