It's not that Glenn Reynolds wants America to win the war on terror. It's that he wants Bush to win.

(for another update, please see new post above)

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Putz on 5/24:

I'm starting to think that they [lefty bloggers] don't follow the news all that closely. It's true -- as Michael Yon noted in an earlier email -- that Anbar isn't perfectly peaceful. But it's also true that it's changed quite drastically since it was being written off last year. That's news -- if you care about reality, rather than just rooting for America Bush to lose.

Putz today:

I don't think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly -- they just want Bush to lose the war on terror.

Hey, Mother Jones -- for your next issue, why don't you ask Putz about how much you love seeing American soldiers die just so Bush looks bad?

UPDATE

Drum notes,

You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East. Anyone will do, as long as it's not them.

Pretty much.

UPDATE 2

Yglesias:

Glenn Reynolds once again busts out the passive voice stab-in-the-back. Note also the hilarious idea that something might happen "if things go badly in Iraq" as if at the moment everything's going swimmingly.