I can answer that one for you: Because the Times Editorial Board doesn’t actually read the New York Times. The dissonance between their editorials on Iraq and Michael Gordon’s reporting would make a nice little op-ed piece all on its own.

Flying on a jet with an uncovered female: halaal or haraam?

Update: Better yet, via Bill Amos, how about some elaboration on this [NYT] policy: “We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack.”

HotAir, can’t claim the same policy as your own. Allahpundit supported the sabotage of Fred Thompson both when Jonathan Martin fabricated his own anonymous source and Carl Cameron fabricated the ‘sworn to secrecy rumor that everyone knows’, all perpetuated by Allahpundit who presents fabrications as fact.

When you lie to make one case, you lose credibility elsewhere.

1 – The New York Times endorsed Hillary and McCain.

2 – McCain has not get yet the full endorsement of Conservatives.

3 – The NYT saw that Hillary lost it.

4 – The NYT dropped Hillary.

5 – The NYT, in support of their other candidate (McCain) and to save face, thought of boosting his approval numbers among Conservatives.

6 – The NYT succeeded in ralling many Conservatives around McCain by publishing a story (true or false, it doesn’t matter).

7 – McCain wins. The New York Times wins. Conservatives got the shaft.

End of story.

1 – The New York Times endorsed Hillary and McCain.

2 – McCain has not get yet the full endorsement of Conservatives.

3 – The NYT saw that Hillary lost it.

4 – The NYT dropped Hillary.

5 – The NYT, in support of their other candidate (McCain) and to save face, thought of boosting his approval numbers among Conservatives.

6 – The NYT succeeded in ralling many Conservatives around McCain by publishing a story (true or false, it doesn’t matter).

7 – McCain wins. The New York Times wins. Conservatives got screwed.

End of story.

Will Fox News take the same? They’re a hopeless case. I will never forgive them for making McCain their golden boy and bashing Romney.

Instead of Fox and Friends in the morning I turn to the Discovery Channel and it’s a river over a brook type thing, kind of calming.

Screw Fox News.

TexasBella on February 22, 2008 at 3:39 AM

Don’t know, I’m not huge fan of Fox News, or more specifically Chris Wallace and others on Fox, for not reporting or under reporting and letting the Rudy Hit-Piece story perpetuate, The NY Times buried the retraction on page 35..

The story broke 2 hours before a debate, and Rudy had to answer for the BS charges at 3 debates in a row.

Fox, kept talking these charges up even after they story was debunked.

Will Obama take that polygraph test? LMAO..

Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 1:49 AM

Will Fox News take the same? They’re a hopeless case. I will never forgive them for making McCain their golden boy and bashing Romney.

Instead of Fox and Friends in the morning I turn to the Discovery Channel and it’s a river over a brook type thing, kind of calming.

Screw Fox News.

JustTruth101 on February 22, 2008 at 1:23 AM

Exactly…

The first question is better..

heck, at least he has an accuser. LOL

If rumor and innuendo are what you write articles about now, why don’t you run the story about Hillary Clinton having an affair with her assistant? Or what about the one with Barrack Obama and Larry Sinclair? If you DO print my question, please make it clear that I don’t believe either of those rumors, either, just as I don’t believe that McCain had an affair or gave special preference to the lobbyist, but you ran the McCain story on just rumors and unnamed sources. I don’t think you should legitimize any of those stories, but you did in regards to McCain only. Why don’t you treat democrats the same way?

And here’s an even better question for you: You endorsed John McCain for president while sitting on these rumors. Why would you do that if you believe the story enough to print it and think he is unethical? To set him up so you could knock him down? Is that what you call responsible journalism in 2008? And don’t hide behind the argument “the words were true while the impression left may have been wrong.” News should be factual, words are your business, you publish articles with exactly the impression you wish to leave, and if you say that you don’t, well that would either be a lie or an admission of utter incompetence.

I’m pretty sure you won’t answer these questions, but I just thought I’d confirm for myself yet again that you are unfair, partisan, not objective, and certainly not worthy of being considered the country’s paper of record.

I like McCain, just disagree with him ferociously.

And for me, it’s a matter of trust. If he expects my support, he’s got a long hard road ahead of him.

Not to offend Mr. McCain, but I never cared about him before and I’m not about to start now.

TexasBella on February 22, 2008 at 12:13 AM

ditto. I have seen him cry and it gets ugly

On the other hand folk may be misreading the NYT article

The article included reporting on Mr. McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee led by Mr. McCain

.

If I may be so bold to restate the above

The article included reporting on Mr. McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee led by Mr. McCain.

The hideous memory of an innocent toe tapper in a public restroom recently mocked and pilloried may be have prick’d the conscience of the editorial board, and set them on a crusade for equality

The facts don’t add up. Those lobbyists are some nasty broads and ug-g-g-ly. No one touches them and lives.

What the heck does that mean?

I don’t like him either, but what loss?

Here’s my question: Who is this Tony fellow, and why haven’t you published any stories about his connections to Obama?

Rezko defense reveals ‘clout lists’
Document names 40 people allegedly backed for state jobs; lawyers seek to limit use of record at fraud trial

By Jeff Coen | Tribune reporter
2:49 PM CST, February 21, 2008

Lawyers for Antoin “Tony” Rezko on Thursday made public nearly 40 names of people he allegedly recommended for state jobs, arguing that prosecutors should be barred from presenting the evidence at Rezko’s coming trial.

Rezko’s lawyers contended the government plans to offer the list at trial as evidence of Rezko’s involvement in state hiring, but the defense sought to block its introduction because the indictment doesn’t allege he influenced state hiring.

“While the indictment centers on Rezko’s alleged influence over the appointments to, and the activities of, two state boards, it is completely silent as to any allegation relating to the process of hiring state employees,” the defense filing said. “Moreover, the government’s key witness, Stuart Levine, does not provide any evidence of any impropriety in the state hiring process.”

Since you endorsed McCain and Clinton, and Obama wins the Dem nomination, will you now be endorsing McCain for President?

Just Words…