Six degrees of "ruthless"

Is it just me or has The New Republic lost it? Check out these excerpts from TNR's last two editorials:

Issue 7/31/06: The various Islamist movements pose various threats; but here is Islamism incarnated in a large and ambitious state. For this reason, U.S. policy toward Iran must consist of more than an attempt to frustrate its nuclear designs. If we do not isolate Iran regionally and globally, if we do not do everything we can to support the democratizing forces in Iran, and of course if we do not move ruthlessly to prevent Iran from acquiring the deadliest arsenal of all, then we will have presided over the creation of a nightmare worse than the nightmare of Saddam Hussein. [emphasis added]

Issue 8/7/06: Soon, the diplomats will bring an end to the hostilities. What remains to be seen is whether they can also end the conditions that created the hostilities. Will Hezbollah be disarmed? Will Syria be persuaded to desist from its regional intrigue? Will the West finally get ruthlessly serious about Iran? (No, bombing is not the only instrument of policy we have.) [emphasis added]

Since Matt beat me to this I'll give him the last word. Besides, he puts it far better than I ever could have anyway:

In all ruthless seriousness, what does this mean? That bombing would be insufficiently ruthless and we should mount a full-scale invasion? That we should engage in ruthless measures short of military action? Which measures? Ask the Europeans nicely to impose sanctions? How ruthless is that? What's the difference between getting ruthlessly serious about something and getting seriously ruthless about it? How serious is it to play footsie with the idea of starting a war and then totally fail to say what you're talking about?