Sorry, Washington -- you probably can't put Iraq back together again. Certainly, the kinetic effects of more bombing won't repair the damage done to the Iraqi nation since the US invaded in 2003.
I worry that the media and the public will focus on the wrong things and damage her electability. I worry that she will stumble late in the campaign. I worry that there is no Democratic back-up plan.
The Republicans' dramatic intra-party fighting over NSA domestic surveillance, which saw the likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain having to give way to the likes of young libertarian Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul and House Republicans, points up a brewing civil war on national security.
I'm not a big fan of libertarians or libertarian Republicans, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul deserves tremendous credit for his brinksmanship on the Patriot Act in forcing the U.S. Senate leadership to bend on the issue of the federal government's massive, once very secret, monitoring of our private communications.
While the twenty-something other candidates who make up the rest of the GOP field are all fighting over those who agree with neo-cons, Senator Paul figures he can nab the rest -- the growing number of GOP voters who reject neo-con ventures in the Middle East.
The 2016 GOP candidates are settled on their desire to send U.S. troops back to Iraq to fight ISIS. While Republicans suffer from short-term memory loss, there's no reason the rest of us should forget what actually happened in Iraq.
Nothing illustrates better the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican war hawks who call themselves presidential candidates than their attempts to whitewash the history of how this nation went to war in Iraq.
Republicans risk being caught in a trap of their own devising. The master narrative they're going with -- dishonesty -- is as dangerous for them as they want it to be for Hillary Clinton. They want the 2016 election to turn on the question "Can you trust her?" But Democrats can use jiu-jitsu and make the election turn on the question "Can you trust the people who duped you into Iraq?"
The U.S. has the most powerful military in the history of the world, but it should not be utilized as a political tool or for retribution. The government and its leaders must do their best to make the right decisions, to be truthful with the American people, and to provide all the necessary support needed to fulfill the military's mission. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case.
Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post this week is typical of commentators who blather about "free speech" when college students protest one commencement speaker or another every spring.
Bush recently stated that knowing what we know now, he still "would have invaded" Iraq. While the GOP presidential candidate blames "faulty intelligence" for the Iraq invasion, it's important to revisit the predictions of Dick Cheney shortly after America's Gulf War victory.
"The Iraq war error reminds us of the need for epistemological modesty," Brooks writes. That's bullshit, even if written in the lingua franca of the salons frequented by Brooks and other apologists for what Bush and Cheney visited on the people of Iraq.
This is Sy Hersh. He is irascible, iconoclastic, irrepressible, difficult, passionate -- and still angry about governmental lies. And he is usually right.
The truth is that, intriguing as Scotland always is, it was in Iraq -- and in the reaction to Iraq -- where Labour got off the winning course.
Judith Miller recently popped out of the Fox News bubble for a quick jaunt to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the home base for John Bolton, Max Boot, and other neo-con hawks, to give her forthcoming book a little free advertising. In the process she attempts to whitewash her role as an influential pro-war voice in the lead-up to the Iraq War.
Harry Reid's announcement that he will not stand for reelection to the Senate from Nevada in 2016 is a major loss for the climate movement -- and yet another signal that the U.S. Senate is being transformed by today's bifurcated, parliamentary politics into an institution almost unrecognizably different from its traditions.