This is refreshing. Here's a bit that caught my attention.

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

Exactly.

Not as surprising as all that. The NYT editorial page is strongly liberal and opposed the war. At the same time as Judy Miller was hyping the the Chalabi-Cheney 'intelligence' on WMD's the editors were doing the opposite. I get the impression that few people on the blogs actually read the editorials, perhaps since they're tucked away on the website, even though they're free, unlike the the op-eds.

Here's some of what they wrote on March 9 2003

*Saying No to War

Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.

Even though Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said that Saddam Hussein was not in complete compliance with United Nations orders to disarm, the report of the inspectors on Friday was generally devastating to the American position. They not only argued that progress was being made, they also discounted the idea that Iraq was actively attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons. History shows that inspectors can be misled, and that Mr. Hussein can never be trusted to disarm and stay disarmed on his own accord. But a far larger and more aggressive inspection program, backed by a firm and united Security Council, could keep a permanent lid on Iraq's weapons program.

[...]

 Unfortunately, by demanding regime change, Mr. Bush has made it much harder for Washington to embrace this kind of long-term strategy. He has talked himself into a corner where war or an unthinkable American retreat seem to be the only alternatives visible to the administration. Every signal from the White House is that the diplomatic negotiations will be over in days, not weeks. Every signal from the United Nations is that when that day arrives, the United States will not have Security Council sanction to attack.

There are circumstances under which the president would have to act militarily no matter what the Security Council said. If America was attacked, we would have to respond swiftly and fiercely. But despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn't there. The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies in the region. It is natural to suspect that one of America's enemies might be actively aiding another, but nations are not supposed to launch military invasions based on hunches and fragmentary intelligence.

The second argument the Bush administration cites for invading Iraq is its refusal to obey U.N. orders that it disarm. That's a good reason, but not when the U.N. itself believes disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to work. If the United States ignores the Security Council and attacks on its own, the first victim in the conflict will be the United Nations itself. The whole scenario calls to mind that Vietnam-era catch phrase about how we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

President Bush has switched his own rationale for the invasion several times. Right now, the underlying theory seems to be that the United States can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a showplace democracy and inspiring the rest of the region to follow suit. That's another fine goal that seems impossible to accomplish outside the context of broad international agreement. The idea that the resolution to all the longstanding, complicated problems of that area begins with a quick military action is both seductive and extremely dangerous. The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the president is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick.
[...]

The Times editorial page has consistently been attacking Bush ever since. They do tend to support incumbent Dems and moderate Republicans, but if there was every going to be a time they wouldn't it would be in this case. In its coverage of domestic political news the NYT has a bad case of truthiness, homage to 'moderation', and juxtaposing truth and lies as equal in an obsession with 'balance. So if Adam Nagourney penned a harsh attack on Lieberman that would be a surprise, but this one, not so much.

Interesting article by Wayne Madsen in The Miami Herald on the Lieberman/Lamont race.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15141030.htm

Wow.  Just Wow.

Maybe there is a soul left at the NY Times.

Nah.....

What it is is that they are against Bush. And who could blame them after the DOJ starts making noises about taking action against them for publishing stories the Bushies don't like.

That simply isn't done old boy, don't ya know.

Not according to the rules of the game as set by the oligarchy.

I'll be applauding the NYT when they do a ten part series showing how Bush, Rice and the Neocons allowed 9/11 to take place in order to advance their anti-American agenda.

"Dynamite...that's the stuff."