I think I have a little bit of a crush on the New York Times guest columnist this month

Does anyone else wish the New York Times would just say no to the 10^th-grade-snark of Maureen Dowd and hire Robert Wright full time? She isn’t a political analyst; she’s a god-damned gossip columnist. Take her of the editorial page, at least. Jesus Christ! That’s where Frank Rich, Nick Kristoff and Paul Krugman commit serious acts of journalism! And MoDo…gossips. Cut the malignant narcissist out of the body editorial. Move her to the Style section at the very least.

In her stead, Robert Wright would be a worthy addition to the body of journalists that makes up the stable of Times columnists. Hell even David Brooks isn’t wrong 100% of the time. Dowd on the other hand never really takes any stand to be right about. She just pedantically picks at minutiae. Such a charming trait……

Someone should tell the editorial board that the year is 2007, and we are big girls now. We aren’t going to get in a snit if you fire the token female. She isn’t up to the job, and gender has nothing to do with it. She just sucks. She has long-since passed her sell-by date, the snark grew tiresome long, long ago, and bitchiness only passes for clever for so long.

Robert Wright is a hell of a lot smarter, a hell of a lot more savvy about what is going on in the real world, and a damn fine wordsmith.

But don’t take my word for it…Read a bit for yourself

Neoconservatives have been airing an explanation for the failure of the Iraq war that’s so obvious you’ll wonder why you didn’t think of it yourself: the war wasn’t neoconservative enough.

Last week Richard Perle, on “The Charlie Rose Show,” echoed what his fellow neocon John Bolton told the BBC last month: We should have turned Iraq over to the Iraqis much sooner. Then, presumably, the power of democracy to blossom pronto in even nutrient-depleted soil — the neocon élan vital — would have kicked in.

Nice try, but they’re just digging themselves in deeper. They’re highlighting a paradox within the neocon game plan that would have doomed this war even if it had been run competently (enough troops, a dollop of postwar planning, etc.).

On the one hand, we were going to bring democracy to Iraq. On the other hand, we were going to use Iraq as a platform for exercising military power. (Days after Baghdad fell, the neocon Weekly Standard festively titled an article “There’s No Place Like Iraq ... for U.S. Military Bases.”)

But wait. What if the Iraqi people, once empowered by democracy, decided they didn’t want their country to be a U.S. aircraft carrier? And isn’t that pretty likely? After all, America is bound to use bases on behalf of itself and key allies, and one key ally is Israel. What were the chances this would sit well with an Arab Muslim nation — not with the small ruling class of an authoritarian state like Saudi Arabia (our previous aircraft carrier) but with a whole electorate? (Keep Reading)

Give me the clear-eyed analysis of Robert Wright over the sophistry of a shrew any day.