The NYT began their descent the day the ne'er-do-well scion of the principle owning family, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr., was brought in. With the subsequent retirement of Abe Rosenthal, it went into freefall.

I wish I could offer suggestions to restore the newspaper once regarded as the most reliable in the world, but I can't. They have jumped the shark, as evidenced by the declining value of their publicly-traded equities.

It's only a matter of time until their demise. Given their recent propensity to damage our national security, the sooner, the better.

The NYT is nothing more than Kossacks writing articles and getting paid for it.

Every day they lose what little they have left of their former decent reputation. And they did it to themselves. Hope BDS was worth it.

Yeeeeehaw.

Anything i see the NYT as a source for, or if i accidentally read something pubished in their toilet paper, i mean news paper, i immediately think to myself: "I wonder if thats true...". Usually it isn't and i can go about my daily life. I bet there is more news or non-fiction in a harry potter book than the New York Times.

Go. Partisan. Go

As I understand it, the Times thinks the biggest problem the US faces is being too tough on terrorists. What a joke! The NYT is still our most reliable paper - It can be counted on to reliably side with our enemies and against our leaders and our country at every turn.

The Times used to be one of the best papers in the world. Now the Times channels Howard Dean, and it indiscriminately mixes news and editorial content like birthday cake and gravy. The results aren't pretty.

America's birdcages deserve better.

Dave, your comment about reading anything in, or attribued to the NYT and then thinking: "I wonder if that's true...". is exactly right!

Except that these days I ASSUME it isn't...and occaisionally am pleasantly surprised to see them still report something accurately and fairly!

They cannot go bankrupt fast enough for my tastes, since there are still too many that say "According to the New York Times..." in hushed reverant tones. THOSE people (mostly Democrats) are the "useful idiots" Marx spoke of.

The New York Times would have us go through all the steps, one at a time, of striving (against hope) to get morality back into the executive branch of the Federal government. The newspaper encourages our government to commence forcewith with undertaking all the measures to

stop the lawlessness,
ban the torture,
shut down Guantanamo,
stop extraordinary renditions,
halt the illegal spying,
etc.

Alas, the newspaper's proposal does nothing to address the root cause of the problem.

Fortunately, there is a shortcut to get rid of THE IMMORAL, WICKED GOVERNMENT THAT ALL YOU REPUBLICANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, TO YOUR EVERLASTING SHAME!!!! Namely,

IMPEACHMENT

An excellent albeit brief instructive video on impeachment can be found here

(Be forewarned: not once, but twice during the video Bush shows how childish he is through obscene gestures with his hand)

You libs think this is bad, just wait until the next terrorist attack. The resulting legislation will make you all puke your ACLU-loving guts out.

As a lawyer, who cherishes our most liberal (in the classical sense) personal liberties, I find this whole argument on the left to be completely without merit so far.

But if they keep ham-stringing the national security authorities, things will be much worse later on.

...I might try to come up with a "must do" list of things the New York Times needs to do to stop serving the interests of the enemies of this country.

Lorie, the Bush administration has, in fact, given the terrorists America. America is not just a country. It's a set of beliefs and ideals and laws and principles. Without those principles, we are not America in any meaningful sense of that word. Bush has given the terrorists that which makes us who we are, and in doing so he has served the interests of the enemies of this country so masterfully that the New York Times could not even hope to compete.

The root cause is Bush? We've had terrorist attacks before Bush ever thought of running for president. The problem is not who we have in office, but what we face in the middle east. To name Bush as the problem is so ridiculous. A man that was elected by the people of this country to defend this country is being criticized by a bunch of people that would be criticizing no matter what he did. If we didn't go to war in the middle east, he'd be called names all the same. If he would have sent troops into Darfur, we'd get nothing but news of the slaughter of the innocents over in Africa and it would all be Bush's fault.

Nothing George Bush has ever done, is doing, or ever will do will ever be enough for you liberals. Instead you label someone who is trying to solve a problem, albeit in a way you don't like, you call him THE problem.

You libs need to step back into reality and pull your heads out of "Bush hating land". Instead of being a bunch of critical tools, try to contribute to the conversation by promoting actual ideas to solve the actual problem.

Oh, and if you lefties don't get it by now... BUSH IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!

Kathy and her gang never point to any facts to support the wild assertion that Bush has done more harm to us than terrorists.

This is so crazy, it doesn't bear up to even an attempt at scrutiny.

Those in a position of no responsibility are the loudest critics of those who take their responsibilities seriously. Mr. Bush takes it very seriously, but Kathy does not.

But one day, Kathy's family might just get wiped out, but not by Mr. Bush. She's not focused on the real threat.

The next attack will likely be nuclear, courtesy of Iran, North Korea or both, and we'll likely be rid of both the Times and 6 million libs. I blame Obama.

Hey Herman and Kathy,

I watched your rediculous video. The pictures in there are photoshopped, and the words are obviously made for simpletons such as yourselves. I-M-P-E-A-C-H... How original...

As was said above; why don't you start coming up with some solutions to the real problem... the terrorists. Instead, all you can do is criticize everything that President Bush does while providing no evidence that it is wrong or illegal other than your own opinion on the issue. I've got a new song for you G-R-O-W ... U-P!!

Jim C