powerclown, if you wrapped your quotes from 3rd party web pages, in quotes, I could quote the comments you make in your posts, in my responses. The way you are posting your supporting citations, I can,t quote only your actual comments...
I'll be brief...typing a post on a 700P does that to a man.....
I already responded to the core point in the NRO editorial that you posted. The NRO piece ignored the fact that appellate majorityruling commented only on the standing of the ACLU plsintiffs in the case. The one dissenting judge in the ruling, ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to sue...so he logically commented on the nearly year old Detroit circuit judge's initial, 2006 ruling, and he agreed that what the Bush admin. authorized, clearly was illegal. So, contrary to the NRO spin, the only two federal judges who examined the actual ACLU argument, and not solely the narrow generic issue of plaintiff's standing to sue.....ruled in favor of the ACLU's argument about the illegality of the Bush authorized, domestic surveillance. That is the exact opposite of what the NRO editors wanted their readers to believe that the recent appellate ruling meant...and that's spin....
Then you posted the opinuons of Chuck #1...the president of a "nonpartisan" advocacy group who hired the guy as a VP...Dan Bandow...after Businessweek reported that Bandow took payments from Abramoff to write promotional pieces for Abramoff's clients....disguised as oped articles.....:
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007267.php
Your last piece in your post was authored by Chuck Frielich, former asst. Israeli defense minister.....Don't tell me that you don't already know all this...but post it all, anyway....
contrast all of that with this, published yesterday by the NY Times readers' advocate:
Can you post any example of internal, organizational self criticism from any of the sites that you cite with linked articles?