It’s funny, but the entire copy desk is either liberal or neutral. Conservatives get promoted, and the copy desk does most of the job of the conservatives who get promoted. Promotion is based on ideology not competence.

I would love to work for a liberal (or merely rational and/or honest) organization. BUT, despite what political geniuses like Rush Limbaugh say, the vast majority of newspapers are conservative. They hire a lot of liberals, that’s true, but they need somebody competent to do the work.

And these liberals have no clout in what goes in the paper. You copy edit Jonah Goldberg and Thomas Sowell and YOU LIKE IT!

MCH: Good list. I’d add “rape rooms;” and of course now it’s, “things’ll be worse if we leave.”

Whatever. Clowns.

mikey

I try to keep a sense of detatchment, but sometimes you must go beyond that.

Wish we could get some kind of real drive for Impeachment going.

Look, nobody lied.

They’re all just delusional puppets who blindly follow an opportunistic ideology that has less interest in consistency than in the timely provision of the most easily digestible red meat for their gullible followers.

So they’re not liars. The worst you can say about them: delusional, opportunistic, incompetent, ignorant, indecent and uncaring.

That makes me feel so much better about Republican leadership.

Why are liberals so uncivil that they have to shout “liar” just because someone says something that is easily shown to be untrue?

Liberals. Hmf.

Fixed

That’s awesome.

In a kind of malicious chemistry experiment, hostile powers are adding accelerants to Iraq’s frothing chaos. Iran smuggles in the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers. Syria allows the transit of suicide bombers who kill Iraqis at markets and mosques, feeding sectarian rage.

Wait, wait, wait just one minute -wasn’t there a report that just came out that said over half the foriegn fighters in Iraq (other than us, of course) are Saudis?
Why yes, there is!

So we’ll let you kill our soldiers and not even mention it so you can maintain domestic tranqulity if you are our “friend”?

And have we all seen this–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAH3AeFy0SY

1. WMD
2. Saddam/9-11
3. Major front against terror
4. Stopping the violence
5. Can’t declare defeat
6. Countering Iran
7. Freeing Iraqis/peace/democracy
8. Saving women from Sharia/stopping Islamic fundamentalism

Those are the broad-based themes I can come up with off the top of my head. There must be more. And each has near-endless permutations too numerous to elucidate.

Syria allows the transit of suicide bombers who kill Iraqis at markets and mosques, feeding sectarian rage.

Cast your mind back ten years. At that time, would that have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with us? Now it’s the raison du jour for war in Iraq. How the hell did this become worth expenditure of U.S. lives?

Is anyone keeping score at home? How many reasons have we had for war in Iraq now?

!!!

Now he works for Fred Hiatt’s Lie Factory.

Translation: We’ve fucked up the country so bad that Iran and Syria can’t even make a dent. Go us.

America does not merely have challenges in the Middle East; we have enemies who contribute to the deaths of our troops.

Translation: why won’t those damn furr’ners let us do what we want with our Middle East?

Yet Americans have shown little outrage, and the military reaction has been muted.

We haven’t been allowed to use the big nukes. Darn.

Iran, the main strategic threat, has two conflicting tendencies: It doesn’t want long-term chaos in neighboring Iraq, but it wants America to fail decisively there.

Because, y’know, if things were the other way about, if, say, China invaded Canada, we’d definitely want China to win, and we’d be quite happy with long-term chaos there. Serves them bloody well right for having universal health care, the bastards.

The second tendency is currently ascendant because the Iranians are hopeful that America is on the verge of a humiliating collapse of will — for them an irresistible source of immediate pleasure.

The fact that a humiliating loss might mean a smaller chance that we’d invade Iran has nothing to do with it.

Engagement and deft diplomacy are not likely to change the Iranian interest in American defeat.

So it’s lucky that we’re incapable of trying that.

Iran would require an unacceptable inducement to bail out American interests in Iraq: permission to proceed with its nuclear program. America would purchase tactical advantages in Iraq at a tremendous price — a strategic nightmare in the entire Middle East.

Because we won’t let anyone else play with nukes. They’re ours, and if someone else wants them we’ll bomb the bejeezus out of them in self-defense.

The Defense Department fears what is called “escalation dominance” — meaning that in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs.

Escalation dominance == humiliating and obvious defeat.

Increasing pressure of all types on Syria would demonstrate that being part of an anti-American alliance with Iran brings unpleasant consequences.

Because Iran is like the fat rich kid who won’t give us his toys: if he won’t play with us, we’ll scare off anyone who might be his friend.

These are realistic responses to the serious provocations of Iran and Syria: ramping up economic pressure on both regimes; intensifying operations within Iraq against foreign influence; and taking limited but forceful action against Syria’s Ho Chi Minh Trail of terrorists.

So we won’t buy Iranian, uh, oil, we’ll kill any foreigners we find in Iraq (besides ourselves, because of course Murkins ain’t furr’ners), and we’ll start bombing Syria.

In combination with the strategy of commander David Petraeus, these measures hold out the promise of something unthinkable a few months ago: America, once again, on the strategic offensive.

And with a bit of luck we might just stop losing.

“Once we bomb Iran and Syria, things will be just fine in Iraq!”