Ace is on fire. I hate to quote him, since many read him anyway, but he really puts in words the way I feel on this issue, and have wanted to address.
The Democratic Party and the New York Times (and the whole of the MSM) have a vested political interest in American defeat. They want America to lose. If America loses, Bush loses. If America loses, the Republicans lose. If America loses, the media and the Democratic Party wins. The Democrats take Congress and perhaps the Presidency, the media regains (it thinks) its supposed old reputation as an objective truth teller and National Repository of Wisdom In All Matters.
It's quite true that Bush and the Republicans have a vested political interest in the outcome of this war, too. As has been said too many times to easily count, Bush's Presidency depends on victory. If he wins in Iraq, he will be a successful president; if he is defeated, he will be a debacle.
While there's a selfish interest there, it can't help be noticed that Bush's selfish interest happens to coincide with the national interest. Whereas the Democrats' selfish interest is directly contrary to it.
This ties into the poll numbers, since you and I both know the majority of the population doesn't read beyond the headlines and the sports page. The MSM hates Bush, and thus every day drones on and on about how miserable the entire situation is. Your average person has no idea that there are actually positive things occurring in Iraq (stories that never occur in the headlines, if they can be found in the paper at all.)
I get it that there is a blinding (and irrational) hatred of Bush out there. What I don't get, is that people can't see beyond that hatred to see that what Bush wants SHOULD be wanted be everyone. A stable, democratic Iraq. The end of tyrannies. And vanquishing of terrorists.
Because - does anyone honestly believe that this is about oil? And war profiting? Bill Clinton said this a few years ago and isn't he considered the greatest president ever?:
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
The difference was, Clinton didn't have the balls. Or, they were busy (at the time) doing something else.