It's a matter of context.

Michelle Malkin reports on a NYT story about the utterly grim 2000 dead mark that the left is stuck on like static cling. The left's obsession with dead soldiers is bad enough, but it gets worse.

Here is a quote from the article in question:

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

Michelle received a letter from the marine's Uncle, in which he gave the complete quote:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Nice of the New York effing Times to COMPLETELY ALTER THE CONTEXT OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT! My God, I refuse to believe these people are so stupid that they didn't know they accidentally misquoted this letter.

It was a 4,625 word story. Think maybe they could have tacked on a few extra words to include the full quote? Or is the NY effing T have their head so far up their hiney they can't bring themselves to print anything that might remotely suggest someone on God's green Earth supports the war? Even if it means completely misrepresenting a marine's heartfelt letter (a marine who died serving his country).

Patterico's right: "To hell with them. Spread the word."

Found via Redstate.org and Patterico's Pontifications.