I actually (unusually) agree with Mr. Hitchens on this post. I find Senator Clinton's description of the events as dismaying and calculating as he does, despite the fact that I generally support her. It's a cheap shot and a lie, and she's been caught red-handed. Maybe not the worst sin committed by any politician, but it certainly shows she's no saint who's "above it all" or who is a "different kind of politician." So, yeah, I agree.

That said, PLEASE, Mr. Hitchens, stop with the word games and conflations that have created the mess we face in Iraq. The Serbs and Milosvic (sp?) were not "state sponsored terrorists" by any definition of that term but the stupidest. And by that, I mean the recent willingness by those who supported the mess in Iraq to tar any hateful act by nasty actors of any stripe as "terrorism." State sponsored genocide? Yes. Religiously and ethnically motivated militias and army groups? Absolutely? Terrorists? Hell no. Yes, they caused terror, but theirs was the organized apparatus of a state and an army, not the guerilla tactic of hidden groups seeking to spread fear and influence policy through seemingly random violence. (I'll be the first to admit that this is not necessarily the best definition of terrorism, but you get my drift).

Words mean things, and Mr. Hitchens, who is, regardless of what you might think of his political leanings, a fine writer should and does know this. Slipping in little conflations like this is dishonest or sloppy. Either one puts his credibility in question. Say what you mean and let your arguments stand for themsleves. Stop trying to use sleight-of-hand to excuse your support for a misguided war in the Middle East by trying to tar all bad actors with the "terrorist" brush.