[rlmorel]

It is clear.

In my opinion...

The New York Times has the same agenda as the Terrorists in Iraq.

They want things to go badly. We all know what that means. Dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

They would never admit as much, and I am sure that at a PERSONAL level they would not wish for those things. The problem is, at an ideological level, they long for those things.

With Liberals, ANY illusory, utopian end justifies the means, no matter what evil or bloody means that entails. They all view those "means" as the "price that must be paid" as a rationalization.

As in: "It is terrible that those men were killed, but...they shouldn't be there anyway, and maybe if more of them get killed the President will remove the troops or resign..."

[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.