Nice summary of the debate, Mr. Shapiro. Hillary's line...

"I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda."

...makes it clear why the existing strategy doesn't work, although that's not her intention. Given that the attacks came while the US was "the sole superpower" -- vastly outspending everybody else in military matters -- it should be very clear just how much damage a small band of terrorists can do, and that all of our military spending isn't a defense against it. Terrorism is the comparatively poor opponents's tactic against a more powerful adversary.

In the cacophanous march to war, that lesson got willfully lost, if it was ever realized to begin with. In terms of payoff, the 9/11 hijackers got an incredible amount of bang for the buck in their attack -- the US has practically destroyed itself politically, and has engaged in a war of opportunity abroad that's become a quagmire. The success of the 9/11 attacks (and the continuation of our policies abroad, particularly in the Middle East) will ensure more, not less terrorism in our future. We could double our already staggering military spending and we would still be as at risk for terrorist attacks. There is no defense from terrorism -- Americans don't like to think about that; the cowboy's supposed to get to ride into the sunset and all, but that doesn't happen if you're up against guerillas/terrorists. No happy ending; no ending at all.

Anyway, it's distressing to see Clinton embracing Bush's folly, just trying to say she'd be smarter about it. We need a new direction, and a different approach.

They talk about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions. But the road to Iraq was paved with bad intentions, so where does that leave us? Screwed, that's what.

We're fighting the guys (the Sunni minority) we're really like to run Iraq; we're pretending to tolerate the guys (the Shiite majority) we'd really like to NOT run Iraq. The only guys who like us (the Kurds) are a minority who really want their own nation -- which we don't want, because doing so breaks up the demographic fiction that is present-day Iraq (and would piss off Turkey, who have their own Kurdish "problem"). So we'll probably piss them off, too, eventually.

It really feels like a textbook entry in the making, a case-study in what not to do; I can almost see the historians scratching their heads at early 21st century American foreign policy, wondering what in God's name the Bush League had in mind when they invaded Iraq.

And speaking of the Kurds (from today's AP)...

Kurdish rebels fired rockets and grenades at a Turkish military outpost Monday, killing seven soldiers in an attack that heightened tension at a time when Ankara has threatened military action against the rebels in northern Iraq.

We're chums with the Turkish police state, send them much aid; I can just imagine how Condi and company will deal with this, trying to placate the Kurds while trying to placate the Turks.

Can you imagine the mess if Turkey went after the Kurds in northern Iraq? And I'd love to see whose side we'll take -- for the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey to have their own state, Turkey would lose some territory, as would Iraq, which would be very bitterly received by the Turks, who already hate the Kurds with a fierce passion.

So, the neocon diplomatic route would appear to be to deprive the Kurds their nation, while also throwing money and weapons at them to keep them happy, or letting them deal in poppies or something like that, which would probably worsen the situation with Turkey. So we throw more money and weapons at Turkey, to placate them.

Money, drugs, and guns. A recipe for lasting peace.

This clip's a bit creepier, made my hands sweat and the hair stand up on my arms...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrQkuMNmaqk

It's probably just the body language, setting off some "wrongness" signals, since it's moving, but not quite right, kinda herky-jerky. I bet they'll be creepier the smoother they move.

Mr. Conason's review of the Clinton bios make me even less inclined to support her. Is she a candidate for the future, or the past? That's really the main point, isn't it?

All signs point to "no" in this. I once really liked Hillary Clinton, but her equivocating, her "moderation" (e.g. covert conservatism) and triangulating lost me; and her decisions on how she's run her campaign make me question her judgment. What's more, her votes have come back to haunt her, and I find her sense of entitlement to the presidency kinda icky -- reminds me of the Bush dynasty (Jeb's probably waiting for his turn at bat).

Are people so dazzled at the prospect of a woman president that they'll blindly support her in her bid, just because she's a smart, ambitious woman? So eager for a symbolic return of the Clinton Years that they'll back her?

I don't think her vision (whatever it actually is) is enough to take us to that "very different and better future" Mr. Conason invokes. Her campaign slogan should be "Hey, it's me." That would at least be honest.

I'm not going to fault her for being ambitious -- what presidential wannabe isn't ambitious; but I will fault her for being a not-very-interesting candidate who thinks that the hefty war chest she has, her adroit (and yet out-of-touch) handlers, her corporate connections can let her coast back into the White House. That sounds like American politics-as-usual, not something that will make for a better future.