The New York Times management remains a sanctuary for neoconservatives. Why I don't know. I'm looking into this in my way (weissphilip@yahoo.com). Some datapoints:
1, last February, the Times endorsed McCain and Clinton for the respective party nominations. 2, neocon Bill Kristol is still a columnist despite everything (Andrew Rosenthal and Bill Kristol were playmates as children. Rosenthal is the editorial page editor.) 3, Jeffrey Goldberg is still bestboy for Times's Israel/Gaza ruminations; 4, "The Times's undermining of the one-state solution [a friend writes] was crude, laughable, a self-parody of Times tactical gaming, but it worked.
"[5,] In the same way the Robert Worth story yesterday on p. 1 about the prisoner released from Guantanamo in 2007 for lack of evidence who is now in Yemen and deputy-head of Al-Qaeda was meant to undermine the decisiveness of Obama's move toward the rule of law. This will be an endlessly citable case for Republicans who wanted to 'double the size of Guantanamo.' The crucial sentence is in the opening paragraph about the facts regarding the man and how they came to light: undated. It doesn't say "the Times learned yesterday." Doesn't say when at all. Because the Times learned it some time back, and they were saving the story until Obama made his move. Some at the paper wants the War on Terror to keep going strong. Most of all they want an assured attack by the U.S. on Iran. That is the function of Kristol."
