Few Americans see the extent of the crime that has been done in their name.

A relatively developed, relatively peaceful, functioning state has been smashed, it's society fragmented, millions of refugees created and approaching a million of it's citizens killed.

Does anyone doubt that had these actions been done by a Russian leader, or a Chinese leader, or even a French leader; that man and his cronies would be wanted for crimes against humanity???

The only sane response is to withdraw the troops and send those responsible for this crime to the International Court. It will act as a powerful deterrent for those who occupy the Oval office in future.

As for Iraq, I hope whomever eventually leads the country at least benefits from substantial US aid for decades to come. The argument that 'if we leave there will be a bloodbath' is always used to justify unpopular and disastrous interventions - such arguments helped prolong the Vietnam War.

While only the foolish are optimistic about Iraq, there are some historical examples of this 'post withdrawal bloodbath' theory that turned out to be much exaggerated. Lets withdraw now and hope for the best - the situation could hardly be worse than the last five years.

As someone involved in a humanitarian NGO, I'd just like to point out that the majority of work even in conflict zones is dull and repetitive and requires good organizational skills.

Most NGOs have a detailed and protracted screening process for potential volunteers.

Volunteers who wish to escape psychological problems at home and wish for more dangerous excitement in their lives are NOT accepted. Such people's symptoms almost always become worse in stressful surroundings, and in the worst case scenario they can be a danger both to themselves and others around them.

How can someone who is "nice" also have a "foul temper"?

In general terms nasty people have foul tempers; one of the distinguishing characteristics of nice people is they don't.

How can someone who is "nice" be so judgmental?

Nasty people are judgmental; one of the distinguishing characteristics of nice people is they don't judge.

Spitzer is not a nice man and was never nice. In his world "nice" is something you sell to the public.

Yes, the war crimes will gradually be revealed and documented in exquisite detail.

Meanwhile all but a tiny minority of Americans could care less since we are the good guys and the enemy is evil.

Gary wrote:

"Bush was not the real America"

On the contrary, there is no other functioning democracy where a man of such severe limitations could become national leader.

Furthermore, Bush was relected in 2004 (albeit by a very small majority).

Ultimately Americans have only themselves to blame.

If Women's Studies is no longer relevant or students don't wish to study it, then it should disappear.

And to my (doubtless predujudiced and masculine) mind, the very title "Women's Studies" seems to belong to the 1980s.

Thank you Glenn, well said.

But...

Progressives have only themselves to blame!

For at least a decade or so, there seems to have been a sort of unspoken agreement amongst all but the far-left to ignore or even accomodate these kind of attacks!

In particular people like John Kerry should have mercilessly tracked down and taken legal action for defamation against every single one of the "Swift Boaters." It should have been Kerry's declared mission in life to do this, even if in reality his lawyers were doing the work.

To his great credit, Micheal Moore seems the only progressive to have acurately anciptaed and planned for the right wing noise machine, and effectively cowed and silenced some of it.

But the failure by most progresssives to fight against the extreme right attack dogs has only empowered and encouraged them to become less civil and more outspoken to the point of fantasy.

Letters to papers need to be written, comments need to be posted on blogs, editors need to be e-mailed. The ONLY way to respond to this kind of attack is to challenge and counter attack.

The past 10 years of 'ignoring' and 'diminishing' and 'that question doesn't deserve an answer' tactics have failed miserably.

Counter attack is the only way.

What was achieved in the 1960s?

In no particular order:

Civil Rights in Southern States - a massive and irreversable step forward.

Sexual liberation - an end to stifling and often cruel conformism and social pressure. Before the 60s, it wasn't that uncommon for gays to kill themselves in despair.

The beginnings of femanism and equal rights for women.

The beginnings of the Libertarian movement (the 60s counterculture was NOT exclusively a phenomenon of the left).

The best popular music of any decade in human history.

An interest in mysticism and spirituality as a replacement for conventional religion.

A revolution in the style and realism of American and indeed world cinema.

While all this was going on, "square" America managed to put a man on the moon.

***

Without doubt, it is the most significant and interesting decade of the second half of the 20th century, and socially at least still remains significant.

One of the most miserable aspects of American life is the wretchedly few vacation days employers give their workers.

Tell a German or a French worker you get two or three weeks vacation a year and they will be shocked/feel sorry for you.

Freelancers can take as many days off as they wish - thrive on the way that you can take as many vacation days as you wish.

That's a freedom many of the super rich and super successful never get to enjoy.

This is a wonderful article!

I doubt anyone would agree with it 100% but it's a compelling mixture of recent (forgotten!) history and analysis.

Thank you Adrew O'Hehir