The New York Times Owns The Boston Globe....

And this is where the NYT tries out its most leftist, bush bashing, military hating and isolationist political ideas. If you may recall a few years ago, they reprinted some pictures from a pornographic website that shows military men raping Muslim looking woman. They ended up appologizing for the stupid mistake that anyone with half of a brain would have been able to spot immediately. Some wild-ass leftist radicals, being the useful idiots for hate filled Islamists got the useful idiots at the Boston Globe to promote their acid flashback drivel. I think that what they wanted to do was to spew some malignant garbage at the US military, as a politcal bash piece but did not expect [or forget] that bloggers would have fact checked them.

More recently, the unbalanced there had this to say about the recent actions in Lebanon...

But when UN General Secretary Kofi Annan told the Security Council Thursday that we need an immediate cease-fire and expanded multilateral peacekeeping, America's UN ambassador, John Bolton, rejected the idea. Bolton and the other radicals in the administration want Israel to keep pummeling Lebanon a while longer. The Bush policy has produced a codependency of the most extreme elements on all sides -- the party of mutual Armageddon. This is the war party of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Israeli right, the Iranian ultras, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Right-wing strategists like William Kristol, who often reflect the thinking of Cheney, are now openly calling for war with Iran.

Iran is the source of those Hezbollah missiles, the spawning ground of Islamist militancy, the greatest threat to Israel. So let's just have it out. Not a ground war or an Iraq-style regime change -- we blew that option-- but a war on the cheap, of missile strikes (with a risk of mass civilian casualties). That would sure make Iran think twice about supporting Hezbollah, promote democracy, and respect America.

I am not too sure what alternatives they have in mind, but I do not see much chance, as Bolton explained [find the text of the comments since it is an interesting argument] recently in a text, that negotiating with terrorists will solve anything, since they can unilaterally break any settlement when it suits their purposes, without consequence. Particularly, the press never holds these terrorists to task.

I seem to remember that the cold war took more than 40 years to conclude and this fight with Islamic terror seems similar in scope. So I suppose that the Boston Globe and the likes of the New York Times would just prefer that we surrender to Hezbollah. That will show them! And then what? Then they will take that opportunity to prepare to kill more of us.