***UPDATE***

As if I needed more ammunition, I found it thanks to Gateway Pundit and LGF.  A New York Times photographer joined with terrorists in Iraq attempting kill American soldiers on the ground.  God forgive me, but I hope the photographer dies in Iraq from an American bullet fired by a Marine E-3.  I also hope The New York Times building collapses during a board meeting.  From Bill Keller to the cleaning ladies, everyone associated with NYT is a traitor. May they die painful deaths and burn in hell.

Michelle Malkin weighs in, providing the name of the NYT photographer who put together a pictoral tribute to the terrorists killing Americans. I will try to identify Joao Silva’s home address.  I encourage anyone in the area to express his or her hatred toward the treasonous fuckwad.  (mini-update)  No luck on home address. the son of a bitch lives in South Africa. 

In it’s Sunday morning editorial, today, NYT goes straight after President Bush in the harshest pack of lying venom spewed at an American president since Richard Nixon.

It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.

In case you don’t read the conspiracy theory sites, the NYT is now in bed with George Norie and Art Bell. Do they mind? Of course not. NYT’s base is ignorant liberals–ignorant in their hardened shell of pseudo-sophistication that allows the NYT to go on to:

One result has been a frayed democratic fabric in a country founded on a constitutional system of checks and balances.

Frayed, indeed. Frayed by Democrat liars like Murtha who would rather see 100,000 dead Americans than one more Republican in the House of Representatives. Frayed by traitors like Bill Keller and amen corner of Paul Krugman and Frank Rich who tell us nobility lies in betraying one’s country but only when that country has elected and re-elected a president from the opposition party.

The editorial’s argument–that the president is more interested in expanding presidential power than in killing al Qaeda–proves so weak that the writer relied on long-ago dismissed lies.

The administration’s intent to use the war on terror to buttress presidential power was never clearer than in the case of its wiretapping program.

As a matter of fact, the telecommunication surveillance program never involved wiretapping. It involved using sophisticated software applying fuzzy logic to electronic scripts of overseas conversations in an attempt to discover patterns that would indicate whether one or more of the parties was a member of a terrorist organization or plotting to commit an act of terrorism against the United States. When a call included a suspicious pattern THEN the government sought a warrant to wiretap the suspected terrorist.

Facts in the hands of The New York Times, though, are like rosaries in hell, either desecrated or tossed aside. In its zeal to do in the president they hate, the NYT has willingly provided secrets to our nation’s enemy. Now it’s time to treat The New York Times the way Israel treats Hezbollah–bomb it out of existence.

***UPDATE***

Check out this moonbat.It calls itself a “moderate,” which normally means “too stupid to decide and too selfish to do the right thing.” If it’s a moderate, I’ve never met a liberal. Perhaps by “moderate” it means it beats its significant other with one hand tied behind its back. Anyway, its point is that when the NYT aids and abetts the enemy, the fault lies with Michelle Malkin. Go figure. When it soils its pants in a fit of excitement over seeing nude pictures of Howard Dean screaming like some WWE character, it blames George Bush.

Popularity: 1% [?]

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.