What Side is the New York Times On?

[ErnBatavia]

[antaresequity]

The point is that the Times, and many other media in the mainstream, are spending time wallowing in each individual death in this war, as never done in any prior war prior. Why?

Because the Times [editors and staff] feel they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the average American.

The Times wants to disuade at every chance the notion of individual freedom and self responsibility.

The Times supports an agenda of government socialism.

They are just simply pissed off their message 'isn't getting out'.

They abuse daily their responsibility to the truth in pursuit of their own agenda.

[Freedom_Fighter_2001]

The Viking Kitties must have stopped off for a little refreshment.

[Darksheare]

"He couldn't move a pea shooter without us knowing it."

Really?
Then tell me how Saddam had his SAM batteries fire missiles at our aircraft during the 8 years of Clinton?
Remember the times Clinton had some planes fly and drop some bombs?

"We reap what we sow."

Oh, so you believe that the U.S> deserved /11?
Iraq had contact with Al-Qeada, and that HAS been proven, repeatedly.

[groanup]

Saddam was looking for a way out and we turned a deaf ear to him.

The poor dear!! Maybe we should grant him US citizenship, put him on welfare, give him a housing project to live in and everybody buy him an IPod for Christmas.

Listen little chickie. You are too lazy, stupid and prosperous to understand the way the world works. Imagine being put in a wood shredder feet first. Just imagine. You apologize for a man who would do that to a fellow human being.

[MikefromOhio]

you have smoked yourself retarded...

[thoughtomator]

Have you met my new kitty?

[chgomac]

It hasn't been discussed enough. The NYT is not on our side in the war. They delight in stories like Abu Garaib. They love a month when our military recruitment goals aren't met. They are so slanted with criticism about any shortages of supplies or mistakes, they make me sick.

I wonder where the MSM were in the 1990s? From 1997-2001 I know personally that troops were continually deployed (mine went seven times in four years) to Saudi & Turkey to fly into harms way protecting the no-fly zone. Oh, and those WMDs.....why did our troops have to have anthrax vaccines before deploying.....if Saddam didn't have them, then what was the point?

So keep blasting them John.....maybe someday they will decide to support our side in this war.

[Freedom_Fighter_2001]

Very exy!

[Darksheare]

"Saddam was looking for a way out and we turned a deaf ear to him."

Awww, poor Saddam, all lost and alonely and in need of a hug, right?
He was merely tossing people into industrial shredders because he was crying out for help, is that it?
How old are you?

[Milhous]

The only logical answer is that the Times is on the other side in this war. Its publisher, editors, reporters want the United States to be defeated now.

Amen! Allow me to reiterate the stakes in this War on Terror.

VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A VITAL U.S. INTEREST

• The war on terrorism is the defining challenge of our generation, just as the struggle against communism and fascism were challenges of the generations before. As with those earlier struggles, the United States is fully committed to meeting this challenge. We will do everything it takes to win.
• Prevailing in Iraq will help us win the war on terror.
  • The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.
    • Osama Bin Laden has declared that the "third world war...is raging" in Iraq, and it will end there, in "either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."
    • Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri has declared Iraq to be "the place for the greatest battle," where he hopes to "expel the Americans" and then spread "the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."
    • Al Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has openly declared that "we fight today in Iraq, and tomorrow in the Land of the Two Holy Places, and after there the west."
      • As the terrorists themselves recognize, the outcome in Iraq -- success or failure -- is critical to the outcome in the broader war on terrorism.
• What happens in Iraq will influence the fate of the Middle East for generations to come, with a profound impact on our own national security.
  • Ceding ground to terrorists in one of the world's most strategic regions will threaten the world's economy and America's security, growth, and prosperity, for decades to come.
  • An emerging democracy in Iraq will change the regional status quo that for decades has bred alienation and spawned the transnational terrorism that targets us today.
  • The terrorists' perverse ideology is countered by the advance of freedom and the recognition that all people have the right to live under democracy and the rule of law, free from oppression and fear, with hope and optimism for the future.

[visualops]

I am sure that at a PERSONAL level they would not wish for those things

I have to disagree. There are unfortunately alot of people out there who have no real regard for their fellow man. They are selfish and shallow. I saw a comedian the other night, probably 30-something. After a bit of funny stuff, the routine took the inevitable anti-Bush turn. He ended basically declaring that all the old mean war-mongering conservatives should die, and throw in old hippies for good measure (he thought their antiwar protests ineffective). He wasn't joking, it was a rant.

[visualops]

BTTT

[etradervic]

[Darksheare]

"We could have won what we sought, now we could lose the entire Middle East."

How so?
In what fantasy world do you live?
How could we 'lose the whole MidEast' by liberating people in Iraq?

Oh yeah, you think Saddam was merely crying out for help with his tirades of tossing people into industrial shredders, having people murdered for merely the suspicion of dissent, and having tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush..

[rlmorel]

I apologize for being unclear. I probably should have said:

"...I am sure that at a PERSONAL level not all of them would not wish for those things..."

I am on the same page as you, I think. I just don't think that EVERY liberal feels that way, though you are right on, many do.

[rlmorel]

"We had Saddam in a vise with our military controlling the skies over Iraq, and as many weapon inspectors in his country as we wanted. "

You do know that in 1998 Saddam declared the era of arms inspections over and kicked them all out of the country, right? And that Clinton wasted a bunch of cruise missiles as retaliation?

You also know that Saddam Hussien never complied with any of the UN Resolutions, right? That he obstructed and obfuscated at every turn?

I just wanted to remind you if you either forgot or didn't realize it.

[Rembrandt]

I think there are a few reasons why the Slimes is virulently against this war.

This is the first war (Iraq 1 + Iraq 2) since "Lincoln's war" that was not initiated by the Democrats, hence it cannot be owned by the Dims.

The heir of the former Editor is now the boss and he cut his teeth during the VN conflict and the takedown of Nixon as the Dims flexed their girly muscles.

Conservative TV and radio are now a reality and the Slimes has gone to the polar opposite expecting that it will have gazillions of loyal followers; unfortunately, its followers are proving to be fickle and lack staying power in the midst of the Slimes continued dredging of garbage. Their continued losses in readers and subscribers only serve to make them angrier and more determined to place blame on the eeee-vil Republicans.

[hellinahandcart]

No, we only have one working computer at home and have to take turns.

sauropod didn't bother to log in under his own screen name last night, and just wanted to ping himself to this article.

(It was a similar incident, a few years back, that tipped off certain alert freepers that "hey, those two must be an item". ;D)

[GregoryFul]

Toleration of different points of view is one thing. Allowing blatant lies to go unchecked, blatant lies that encourage the enemy, and put our soldiers, and our policies in harms way, is quite another.

It seems that our government will not deliver the appropriate sanctions against internal traitors that it once would. Hence the NYT does it, because it can. Yes, they will suffer the consequences from patriots, I will never trust, purchase, or otherwise conduct business with the NYT, or many other lying MSM organ, but these domestic enemies should be indited by the government as traitors.