See here.

Be prepared to read for awhile.

If you’re hot to find someone do porpose useful ideas, why not kvetch to the Times whose article is pretty sparse on the details of winning.

I’m pointing out, as I think I made clear, that the same defeatist language the Times and other media outlets used for years about iraq is now migrating to Afghanistan.

The focues of this article is clearly NOT about the strategy in Iraq. It's an article about how the conflict has grown deadlier for our soldiers, and the heartache that their families have endured watching their sons and daughters fight in a largely ignored conflict…largely ignored by people on the right, most especially.

It does not follow from pointing out that a lot of soldiers are getting killed in a conflict that's getting deadlier, that we should withdraw. The editors of the NY Times have repeatedly called for more focus on Afghanistan, as you would know if you did more than read what somebody else says they say.

Well?

What it always suggests, which happens to coincide with its only purpose in existing – elect more democrats.

If you're hot to find someone do porpose useful ideas, why not kvetch to the Times whose article is pretty sparse on the details of winning.

I'm pointing out, as I think I made clear, that the same defeatist language the Times and other media outlets used for years about iraq is now migrating to Afghanistan. I'd be willing to bet you money that should Barack Obama become President, hundreds of reporters aroudn the nation will suddenly forget the words "grim milestone" even existed.