It has been pointed out on virtually all talk shows and news programs (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) that the NY Times has indeed been presenting an anti-Bush anti-war campaign from the beginning of the war and are continuing to do so. They get a lot of laughs out of the daily retractions the NY Times has to make...


>"After the three-week military campaign that dispatched the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration may be tempted to unleash American forces against the next fire-snorting dragon down the line, whether in Syria, Iran or North Korea. While President Bush has every right to be pleased by the victory in Iraq, he should not confuse the military achievement for a validation of his doctrine of pre-emptive strikes."
>
>"The yearning to right wrongs has a noble tradition in American foreign policy, and few could oppose those portions of the Bush doctrine that would extend the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to the far corners of the globe. Unfortunately, these goals were overshadowed by an arrogant, go-it-alone stance and an aggressive claim to the right to use pre-emptive action against threatening states."
>
>"For many people and nations, the way the Bush administration went after Saddam Hussein confirmed fears raised by the doctrine. That is one reason why the move to war drew so much opposition around the world, and why this page urged the administration to pursue its goals in Iraq within an international framework. A doctrine that purports to spread happiness, but ends up spreading resentment, is not working, no matter how many statues come tumbling down. That is why it is especially important now to show that the United States also has the confidence and wisdom to sheath its sword until it is really needed."
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/opinion/13SUN1.html?ex=1051404296&ei=1&en=463fc9cbfd84b90a
>
>Completelly agreed! Yet don't think The New York Times is doing an anti-american campain, as many fellows here in UT think I'm doing.
>
>Fernando