Why, other than Kristolian, Friedmanic, and Slaughternly self-justification, would the "liberal" media consider John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" McCain "serious" about anything?

It seems as though an underhanded conspiracy is afoot in the media to continue to marginalize those who were right about the war, and parade before us those who are sooo wrong that they make the Serious Media look smart. Hence, McCain the Foreign Policy Expert.

Particularly galling is the comment that "if Hillary or Obama had said something like that..." What?! In the minds of these bloodthirsty cretins, no error in favor of violence can ever be wrong, and Obama, for instance, whose preferences regarding Iraq would have meant 4000 dead Americans would be alive today, must be extra careful not to make a boo-boo.

Truly, such demented, sociopathic thinking boggles the mind, and the fact that they proudly admit this on television show that the bubble they live in has become a bunker.

My favorite line from this confederacy of putzes is, "There are no good options now," to which any sentient being would have to reply, "Well, then, since you fully acknowledge that the policy you advocated is now an insoluble catstrophe, doesn't that make you want to perhaps admit your mistake?"

Of course, were such a question ever to be uttered in the M$M, the answer could never be heard admidst the flapping of pig's wings. It still is a bit surprising, though, and another pebble on the mountain of neocon BS, that such wankery can be repeated endlessly, repeated, verbatim, without ever eliciting such a sensible response.

Similarly, I've heard ad nauseum from chickenhawks that it was time to "grow up," and face the fact that this war was going to be much longer and harder than "we" thought, "we" meaning opponents like myself, not the sweets-and-flowers crowd, who sold us this load to begin with.

No wonder actual opponents must be excluded; the war supporters can stand the truth about as well as the Wicked Witch of the West can stand a bucket of water.

Although I'm still waiting to see if the gambit still works, what Brooks is doing here is yet another dog whistle version of the Glorious, Bloody Empire meme: a soft-sell version of White Man's Burden played out for the masses as a violent video game, in which "America" must constantly do battle with scary, interchangeable enemies. Or else.

Despite the rather thin repackaging, no neocon can ever completely abandon using fear of an absurdly exaggerated "Other" to sell policies so detrimental to our future and disastrously failing even now, because in the minds of the 30 percenters, as well as a disturbingly large number of otherwise mormal people, this works.

One common thread that links conservative propanganda, from right wing radio to Bill O'Reilly, is an appeal to the lowest instincts; racism, violence, and xenophobia. People who harbor such thoughts have been encouraged to glory in them, rather than be ashamed, and therefore feel empowered by politicians willing to carry forth their darkest fantasies.... which would be illegal, or at least subject to opprobrium, were they to act on them themselves. They get to be like the "warriors" of the AEI and Brookings, living out their dreams of omnipotence, risk-free.

The end of the Fairness Doctrine, and the subsequent orchestrated rise of a powerful, organized mouthpiece for Nixon's Southern Strategy, writ large, is often uncontrollable, as in the case of Bush's immigration plan, but it is absolutely necessary to any Republican appeal. That's why a "League of Democracies" is really just a slap at the UN, and no Middle East plan could ever involve actually listening to the "Bullshit."

Remember, the "Compassionate Conservative" claptrap almost didn't work. Don't expect them to try that again. "Kill 'Em All, and let God sort 'em out," has been much more successful, and will always be the subtext of anything Republicans say, regardless of whatever bland sugarcoating Brooks might give it for the delicate sensibilities of the NYT audience.