The board gets off one howler after another such as in what follows:
Progress is being made. The violence in Iraq is nowhere near what it was, and the country has held multiple fair elections. Last week, the final group of troops left for Afghanistan to bring the surge to its peak.
Progress is being made? Where? In the inability to form a government at almost six months after the elections were held? In the inability to reach some form of national reconciliation? In the inability to provide basic services to the Iraqi people?
Where is the progress?
There is no progress.
In addition, violence has been on the rise in Iraq for over a year and the only way to deny that is to use the false benchmark of the civil war as the norm.
Which is what the editorial board does. So many lies, so many liars, so little journalism.
Irena L. Sargsyan (of Brookings) offers a little more reality at the Los Angeles Times:
While the U.S. must demonstrate its strong commitment in Iraq, it must also make clear that its involvement is not unconditional. In general, an external power's leverage decreases as its stake in another country's security and prosperity increases. The deeper the U.S. involvement in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, the less influence the United States had over the South Vietnamese government and its security forces. The reason is clear: South Vietnam recognized that because the U.S. had put so much on the line to thwart communist expansion, the Americans would not abandon the country despite its dysfunctions.
"TV: The Comedy Killers" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
As an alleged expert, Wilson was showing just how much ignorance can be packed into a four-and-half-minute segment via her exchange with Robert Siegel. For example, she began insisting that certain 'sitcoms' are "single-camera-filmic" and not like the "laugh track sitcom that we all grew up watching" -- which raises two questions. The first would be "filmic"? Well if you can't major the English language, create your own terms, we guess. Then there's that no laugh track, single-camera shows being nothing like what people grew up watching. Gomer Pyle? The Andy Griffith Show? The Courtship Of Eddie's Father? The Beverly Hillibies? Green Acres? Bewitched? My Three Sons?
We could go on and on. Those are single camera shows. Stacey's an uninformed, uneducated idiot. That was most obvious when she was trashing sitcoms and pimping 'sitcoms' like Glee. She believes, as do many others, that Glee will clean up at the Emmys tonight. That may very well be the case. It will not, however, make the show watchable. How little talent is on display was most obvious when the show decided to salute Madonna's songbook. Are her hits songs?
If they were, you wouldn't know it from the show. This supposedly artistic breakthrough did little but recreate Madonna's videos. And this from an allegedly 'artistic' cast that's allegedly skilled in song and dance? Glee's a commodity -- a popular one -- it's just nothing lasting. There will be no syndication life for Glee.
That is why, if you watched the Emmys, you saw Glee lose. (Jane Lynch is talented and Ava and C.I. have raved over her before. This isn't about her, this is about a really badly written TV show.) I do not usually watch the awards shows but we were tired and Mike put it on. I was too tired to move and he was tired to flip the remote. So we ended up watching and everyone C.I. had picked to win (in conversations) was the winner.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):