Neither the NYT nor Mackey claimed this. I agree with all of your other criticisms of his post (in particular, the implicit position revealed by his choice of question at the end), but he's got you stone cold on the sub-headline -- it's inaccurate. The "NYT" didn't claim it, a reporter did;

That's absurd. What NYT reporters write is, by definition, what the NYT says. Did the NYT break the story of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program? Did the NYT report that Saddam Hussein was purchasing aluminum tubes for building nuclear weapons? Did the NYT report yesterday on the conviction of these terrorists?

Or did only the individual reporters do those things?

it wasn't a claim, it was implied; and it wasn't implied that the story was proof of necessity, only that it may help justify law-breaking.

There are many ways to advance claims, including by implication. If I write: "Are you being stupid or are you just ignorant?" -- am I claiming you did something wrong, or -- since it's merely in question form -- am I just "implying" it (that's honestly just a hypothetical, not directed at you).

The question he asked -- given at whom it was solely directed -- can only have one purpose: to advance the claim that this episode is evidence against those who object to illegal surveillance of Americans' email. It's perfectly permissible to call it a "claim," particularly in a headline which is followed by the full context and full quote.

As others have noted, I think it's commendable that you engage criticisms so directly -- both in your comment section and within mine. That said:

But it simply was not. The news blog I work on is not a forum for my views -- that is not how any blog on the news side of The Times works -- but, perhaps more importantly for you and your readers, I simply do not have the views you assumed I have or was trying to advocate by asking that question. You have assigned them to me.

If all ou were doing was asking an innocent question to provoke debate, why didn't you ask people who advocate eavesdropping outside the law whether this case -- which resulted in a disruption of a terrorist plot using legal eavesdropping -- changed their thinking any? Why didn't you ask if those who believe we can't give trials to Terrorists had their minds changed by this episode?

It's a little hard to believe you were doing nothing other than posing a neutral question for discussion's sake since you targeted only one group -- those who oppose illegal eavesdropping -- and demanded to know if this changed their views of things. That seems to be anything but neutral.

And you did so by basing your challenge in a false premise. I'm glad you have now retracted it, but given the very limited inquiry you posed and the false assumptions in posing it, you can't blame others for thinking you were trying to make a point.

But I think it is fair to say that you've made some large assumptions about who I am and why I wrote this post that are simply baseless.

What -- specifically -- did I write that was inaccurate? Don't use the sub-headline -- use what I actually wrote in the body.

The Friedman Constant

Very well-expressed.

Then there is the other thing that deliciously rubs salt in their wounded egos.

Articles on line now always have post threads. So Greenwald mentions you in a unfavourable light, you see his posters agreeing with him and slagging you then you turn to your own thread to find more of the same from your posters.

That's exactly why they hate both the Internet and those who use it to criticize them. But in Alter's case, he's a member of Journolist - and is like Joe Klein, Jr. - so the "snake" comment almost certainly has roots in that recent episode where I invaded the secret journalist club.

I appreciate that this is not the main thrust of this post but reasonable people can decide on their own whether these statements "paid lip service to the public option on his way to clearly signaling it would not be part of the ultimate plan."

Anyone who speaks Beltway weasel knew exactly what he was saying:

MR. GREGORY: Mayor Giuliani, you heard David Axelrod say notably, I thought, major reform is still achievable this year. Can he do it with Republicans?

MR. RUDY GIULIANI: Not if he has the public option. I think he gave up the public option. I was trying to listen carefully to what he was saying, but sounds to me like the public option is gone.

MR. GREGORY: A willingness to compromise there is what I heard.

See also: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/02/obama-wont-insist-on-public-option-aides-say/

The White House has been sending that signal for weeks in a way that only the blindest among us can't see it.

You're deeply confused about this entire topic. You repeatedly spout the conclusory claim that Obama isn't seeking the legal power that Ashcroft illegally exercised here without identifying a single difference. I doubt you even know what you're saying - you want it to be different but can't identify a single way it is.

Judging by the part you bolded, you seem to think that Obama wants preventive detention with judicial review is a difference. It isn't. Material witness arrests also require judicial approval, and Ashcroft got that here.

You can dress things up however you want but the essence of what Ashcroft did was imprison people he couldn't prove committed any crime. That's exactly the power Obama wants.