Greenwald appears to be in pain over the "liberal" or "far left" label that he has earned so well. He wants to shed his fringe and outsider status and embrace the center where there are no political labels. But, first he must agree

1. That conservatives are not congential idiots

2. That political views can be a reflection of deeply-held religious or spiritual views.

3. That Israel is the best hope for peace in the Middle East, not Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran

4. That suicide bombers are not freedom-fighters, they are killers

5. That Amanda Marcote is a religious bigot and that John Edwards is a moron for hiring her.

6. That Guantanamo was intially a brillant idea that has run its course and should be done away with.

7. That torture means different things to the Egyptian secret police, the Syrians and to the American military. Duh!

8. That al Qaeda is not a police problem

9. That some cultural values are inherently harmful and should be called what they are: evil

10. That if GWB sent 150,000 troops to Afghanistan and followed up on 9/11 promises, instead of launching the Iraq mess, he could well be up there with FDR or Churchill. (that's probably a stretch)

11. That GWB on his very worst day is much better than Hitler ever was on one of his very few best days.

12. That the next president will not be much different than GWB because this country has so few good options

13. That the 1% doctrine vis a vis al Qaeda has merit. Even John Edwards can't ignore its implications

14. Keeping your distance from Gary Kariya and Joe Conason. Joan Walsh is OK

Incompentancy destroyed the Bush presidency, not anything related to religion or religious values. Historians will conclude that GWB made poor strategic decisions on many levels and will probably be rated among the most ineffectual presidents along with Jimmy Carter, who by the way, was more of a religious freak than GWB ever was. Carter used to teach Sunday school while president. I don't hear any lefty types whining about that little snippet of history.

Once again, another useless article written by another useless Salon writer.

If you are a believer in the various theories surrounding so-called "small wars", you will quickly realize that for the US there is no positive endgame. The options facing the US are simply: sign up for endless war or accept defeat. For the bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan, the choice is also keep fighting or accept defeat. This is a classic war of attrition for which the little guy usually wins by default. The big guy can win as long as the little guy is denied access to outside resources and can get the job done quickly, usually in only 3-5 years. However, the little guy is thinking in terms of generations, or 20-25 years, if necessary. Also, the little guy is fighting for his very existence while the motivation for the big guys is usually some abstract concept, i.e. freedom or tyranny.

The sad part is that these theories have been around a long time but nobody thought they still applied to the mighty USA in 2003. Ask the French about Algeria. Ask the Russians about Afghanistan. Ask the Colombians and the Peruvians about endless "small-wars". Oddly, the US is the least capable of dealing with small wars because we specialize in conventional war not wars of insurgencies. Above all, ask the Israelis about the last 50 years. If the Israelis can't get it done why does the US think it can do the impossible.

There is NO inevitablility of war between the Bushies and Iran in the sense that Greenwood suggests. Bush knows that there is no political will to attack Iran unilaterally unless one of our Navy ships is sunk with the loss of hundreds of lives or something like that. There is HOWEVER a deepening sense that Israel and Iran will come to blows over nuclear weapons (SHORTLY). This is the MAIN EVENT, so to speak, but gets little reflection in the article. Instead, Greenwood proposes that the US take the military option completely "off the table" vis a vis Iran, which is music to the mullahs' ears. If that were to happen, Iran's day of reckoning with Israel would be one day closer. You see, Greenwood envisions a world in which good intentions count for something, but history is replete with examples of where good intentions were largely interpreted as signs of weakness. The US has a role to play in the Persian Gulf to keep Israel and Iran as far apart as possible. In order to do this there are military needs and there must be a willingness to use them.

I never thought I would utter these words but I guess (by default) I am now "for Hillary". My reasoning is simple: she is a hardened SOB who will not take any crap from anyone. What this country cannot afford in 2008 is four years of a Jimmy Carter milque-toast coming on the heels of 8 years of Bush incompetence. Hillary has the political instincts of Nixon, can be boring and dull at times, but I think she is more pragmatic and more capable than her competition.

Whichever candidate that comes across as the most competent will win in 2008. Ideology and who "hates Bush more" are distant seconds or thirds on the list. Just ask John Edwards.