The NY Times (now): “Why didn’t we have racial profiling?”

Vinny at Insignificant Thoughts exposes the NY Times shifting definition of “good” and “bad” racial profiling. On a similar note, Jonah Goldberg excoriates the same editorial for its criticism that Bush didn’t do everything “conceivable” to stop 9/11:

The only thing that is inconceivable is that the New York Times would have condoned any of these measures [e.g. racial profiling of Arabs] or measures which fall far short of these. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the Times would have done anything but denounce the President as a would-be dictator. Indeed, it is difficult to find very many examples of things President Bush did after 9/11 to prevent terrorism that the New York Times did not sneer at in some way.

That alternate history by Gregg Easterbrook is looking more retro-prescient every day.