Shameless Scribblers of the New York Times: An Endless Series

Love the photo caption, GV.

Posted by Allah at January 18, 2005 2:57 PM

Keeping it real for Allah, keeping it real.

Posted by Van der Leun at January 18, 2005 3:53 PM

The same New Yorker that lauded Peter Singer, Princeton's DeCamp Professor in the University Center for Human Values, as the "greatest living philosopher"

Whos last contribution is a review of the book, "Dearest Pet: Bestiality," after a detailed description of sex with chickens, Singer writes that "our physical similarities with other mammals...are so strong that the taboo on bestiality stems not from physical differences but from our desire to differentiate ourselves...from animals.

That New Yorker

Did the NAZI's stoop that low ?

Posted by Raymond at January 18, 2005 4:15 PM

She's clearly a member in good standing of the chattering overclass, lazy, arrogant and dripping condescension from every fingernail. No wonder she feels comfortable putting the lives of ordinary, brave decent non-arrogant, non-condescending people in danger by repeating nonsensical allegations about the CIA.

Posted by max at January 18, 2005 4:25 PM

I found this article from boxer to be the stupidest thing someone could write. This article was picked up by the BBC and lord knows who else. The bbc that is read by many Arabs etc in the middle east.

This chic does not know what she just did. Even though the speculation was in the internet, it was refuted and refuted, but it probably wasn't reaching even the number of people that it would reach in the NYT or BBC.

In short, she did a "hit piece" and she didn't even understand what sort of "hit" she was perpetrating.

Posted by kat-missouri at January 18, 2005 6:20 PM

As soon as I read Jeff's first post I knew you would perform delicate verbal surgery on this immature bitch. Good job.

I just wish Ali had enough sense not to talk to her. . . .

Posted by Yehudit at January 18, 2005 6:21 PM

I'm not sure if this is the same Sarah Boxer, but apparently her contribution is a cartoon, so could be.

Posted by Jim Treacher at January 18, 2005 6:46 PM

Not just in oppostion - they're on the other side.

Posted by P.A. Breault at January 18, 2005 10:36 PM

Knowing the situation in Iraq at this time, this is one of the most frightening things I've read. The author either knew what she was doing (frightening and unscrupulous), or didn't know what she was doing (even more frightening).

Posted by drmom at January 18, 2005 10:36 PM

Mrph. I don't think she's actually trying to get them killed. (This would require more awareness than I think she has.)

I *do* think there's a move to delegitimate the elections, however. First there was "there'll never be elections", then there was "the elections will have to be postponed. They'll just *have* to!", and now that it seems shall we say unlikely, the next fallback is "the elections weren't legitimate!" The accusation that three of the candidates are actually CIA agents, or Americans, or whatever, is to be a small brick in that edifice.

("What? You mean planting this suspicion in the minds of Americans might endanger the lives of Iraqis? But of what importance is that?" Which actually makes sense in its own demented terms; the very enterprise demonstrates that these people don't give a damn about Iraqis in the first place. Pro-American Iraqis are even less worthy.)

Posted by jaed at January 19, 2005 2:14 AM

Bunnyman? Is she lifting some of Matt Goening's earlier work? Now, that's derivative and unimaginative.

Posted by SGA at January 19, 2005 4:50 AM

what i don't understand is why you would choose to ruin what was a serious op-piece of journalism with needless neo-con (and unnecessarily personal) vitriol. it's no wonder the rest of the world looks on disbelieving while you guys (on both sides of the divide) sling juvenilia and rotten oreos at each other. what a waste of sharp minds that could actually be doing something useful.

Posted by Mr Jarndyce at January 19, 2005 6:15 AM

Mr Jarndyce,
"serious op-piece of journalism"??????
Have you been following along?
Have you ever been to ghandi's blog?
So, are you saying the NYT SERIOUSLY gets into outrageous conspiracy theories for serious op-pieces, or are you saying they are seriously biased? OR BOTH? Because those were the only serious parts that weren't dangerous.

Posted by jedati at January 19, 2005 8:43 AM

This piece was junk. Regardless of the content it was an example of very poor work processes on the part of the author.

I wont get all worked up about the content. She may have made up the whole thing. This is the NY Times after all.

Posted by terrible at January 19, 2005 4:22 PM

Ali says at Free Iraqi (

"I won't make the mistake of talking to anyone from the NY times again. It's important to note though that my feelings of respect, gratitude and love for the American people have never and will never change."

He also has some choice words for Juan Cole, but who doesn't?

Posted by Glen Wishard at January 19, 2005 5:12 PM