Hitch, the reason why Bush's "axis of evil" comment received what you called "sneers and jeers" wasn't because anyone thought that North Korea was a wonderful place. It was because the term "axis of evil", evoking the WW II axis allying Germany, Italy, and Japan, implies that three nations are acting with a common purpose.

It was ludicrous for Bush to suggest that two bitter rivals like Iran and Iraq suddenly became allies after 9/11. Indeed, when Iran experienced an earthquake, they accepted aid from the US, but refused any offers of help from Iraq. Indeed, prior to Bush's dopey comment, the political climate in Iran was such that they were actually open to a restoration of relations with the US. Had Bush employed some diplomacy (I know, that's like expecting a flounder to sprout wings), we could have been spared the idiocy of I'm-a-dinner-jacket.

Nor was there any history of any cooperation with North Korea and Iraq. Of course, now we know that it was Pakistan that helped NK in its nuclear weapons program. But, Pakistan is our "friend", so we can't expect Bush to name them in the Axis of Evil.

Bush's bungling of foerign policy has trashed our international standing and ruinned our credibility in the world. So, it hardly matters whether Bush ignores NK or not. We're stuck until we get some competent people back in power.

I think the idea of the "axis of evil" comment was to imply that "evil" (whatever that is), whether overtly co-operative or not, results in the spread of evil as if there was an actual alliance. I don't think the echoing of WWII was so much to imply that there was an active co-operation (though to some degree, I suppose, people could walk away with that impression), but to imply that there was a risk of contagion along the lines of a united will to take-over-the-world - mwah-ha-ha! And that the "free world" should oppose it much as they had in WWII. In the context of that slightly disturbing 2002 speech, Bush was clearly (or rather, no so clearly) stating that these countries amounted to an alliance in effect rather than an alliance in the conspiratorial sense.

I think this is why the "cheers and jeers" that tried to point out, as you have, that there wasn't and isn't a co-operative link between the so-called axis members often came off as irrelevant. Arguing against a alleged implication is one step away from arguing against a strawman.

Not that there aren't plenty of good arguments against the "axis of evil" garbage. This just wasn't one of them.

Greatbear452>>"Bush's bungling of foerign policy has trashed our international standing and ruinned our credibility in the world. So, it hardly matters whether Bush ignores NK or not. We're stuck until we get some competent people back in power."

The "bungling of foreign policy" began before Bush. Many of the same advisors that led the US into war and crafted clever--if dangerous--phrases like "Axis of Evil" were employed in the US Foreign Service, US Defense Department, or CIA--or their outsourced "institutions" and services--under the Clinton Administration. Warren Christopher's decision to step aside came amidst much evidence of a troubled trend, which was spearheaded by AIPAC funding.

Hillary Clinton NEEDS to be pressed on her knowledge of and roles in shaping policies relating to the Middle East, the Balkans, NATO and North Korea prior to her ascension to the US Senate. She was no White House wallflower on any development that risked the couple's political investment.

I'm not denying that mistakes were made prior to the Bush administration, but this collection of numbnuts has set new records for incompetence.

Greatbear452:

I'm not denying that mistakes were made prior to the Bush administration, but this collection of numbnuts has set new records for incompetence.

No suggestion of denial was intended; my point is to remind.

The Clinton machine seems quite adept at cleansing the past. The media's best artists are on their side.

I don't know that the Clinton machine has succeeded much in cleansing the past. Certainly, Fox "News" labors day and night to spin everything negative as the fault of the Clinton years, no matter how much times has passed.

It's just that ole' Bubba can't help but look better than the act that followed him, zippergate and all.

That said, however, I will not be supporting Hillary for two reasons: 1) We need a break from the past and no more political dynasties before Jenna or Chelsea gets the idea to run; 2) I don't trust her. Like Mitt Romney, she appears to take whatever position on the issues will get her the most votes.

Jams:

I think the idea of the "axis of evil" comment was to imply that "evil" (whatever that is), whether overtly co-operative or not, results in the spread of evil as if there was an actual alliance. I don't think the echoing of WWII was so much to imply that there was an active co-operation (though to some degree, I suppose, people could walk away with that impression),

I disagree. Bush coached all of his post-9/11 rhetoric in terms of his "you're either with us or with the terrorist" meme. It's ingrained in the neocon mindset that there are only two sides in the world: Us and Them. The whole "freedom fries" nonsense and pouring French wine down the drain was symptomatic of that mindset. France refused to back Bush's play in Iraq, so they immediately became part of "Them". In their simplistic view of the world, there is no middle ground, no neutrality. And that's why they are the most inept administration in the history of the US when it comes to foreign policy.

I don't think Hillary is any more calculating than any other politician. I think that she's much worse than most at hiding the calculations : )

in an odd sort of way, that is a virtue...

I won't be supporting Hillary because I think the US needs a president who will cede power to Congress. The current administration has wildly grown executive power and I think that trend needs to be stopped and reversed. I can't imagine Hillary doing that.

To be fair, every administration tries to grow executive power; the current one has just been more brazen and successful than most... maybe every candidate will be just as bad as Hillary Clinton would be... I'm not sure...

At some level, the Clintons are "decent" people. But just.

The Clintons are the amongst the first products of a post-WWII generation of professional media politicians. They were in college when the book "The Making of the President" was written. Citizen Kane and The Manchurian Candidate were childhood viewing. Yes. They were trained in Pax Americana and read Huxley and Orwell rather than comic books.

Today, we see this generation committing the most wanton violations of the principals well established in the past 200-250 years of liberal republics, federations and constitutional monarchies. They have succumbed to the-ends-justify-the-means modus operandi without blinking an eye. More disturbingly, they have shaped a new vision for and of leadership--not just in the US, but globally.

More questions need to be asked of just what role will Mr Clinton play in this new phase of this grand political partnership. More questions need to be asked about this couples closely held ambitions. Have they come to believe in some sort of charismatic magic eminating from them? They seem to have. Fewer questions need to be asked about their personal pasts; their story seems clear and few here, where marriage is seen firstly as partnership and secondly as a romantic tryst, would like to know more about their relationship. It may actually merit a book.

Does it merit the presidency of the US? Tell us more about the entrenched interest groups that support and will follow them back into the White House. Tell us more about ho their machine will work. Tell us more about the policies of the first eight years of the Clintons that did not work and why?

The race now looks like it will be Obama/Clinton v McCain/Giuliani. McCain is the only one who has staked out clear foreign policy objectives; they are rooted in a Vietnam-distorted past and alarm. Clinton and Giuliani will both employ most of the apparatchiks who have directed the past 16 years' failed policies. Obama's Iraq vote showed independence, but one can see little of it since, apart from stating the contrarians' well-played opinions. He has shown alarming naïveté.

One cannot say that George Bush has exploited the media as President to promote his personality. One is hard pressed to credit this as an attestation of his personal integrity. Nonetheless, one cannot see from here how your vast mediatised nation and electoral process can render a leader of vision, intelligence and courage. Bush played his campaigns quite coyly, and he delivered an agenda that seems developed lin-by-line amongst a closeted group of "elites" and special interests. Tough questions now will be helpful in ensuring the same does not happen again.

People need to keep in mind that Hillary is the candidate, not Bill and he shouldn't have any greater role in her campaign than any other political spouse. If this campaign is all about an end-run to make him the "co-president", then this definitely needs to be brought out into the open.

Now, if she gets elected (and I hope she doesn't) and wants to appoint him to an ambassadorship or a cabinet-level office, then he should go through the same confirmation process as any other appointee.

"...appoints him to an ambassadorship..."

Then why do they stand as a couple today? Perhaps at that age, wives do like to send us far away. I certainly have thought at this younger age such distance has its attractions.

France has just watched its new president campaign for two years as a part of a power couple. His wife could not offer more than a kiss on the cheek on his inauguration. Four months into the presidency, with reports that she lived elsewhere, the PR pro wife staged a dramatic, unscheduled run to the court on 22 October at the very same hour that her "husband" was receiving Ehoud Olmert on a State visit--with no media coverage invited/allowed apart from the Israeli Haaretz. In this meeting, Sarkozy broke EU policy on Israeli settlements and declare for the first time in public that he is a Jew and will be a fierce supporter of Israel. (His Jewish heritage (maternal) has been long known, but he had written a 2005 book about his love of the Catholic Church and proposes to restore the Church as a pillar of the French state.)

Today, as even every American knows, the French president has shunned all traditions of curtains over private lives and invited a celebrity into his bed. She is said to be a media industry hottie (professional girlfriend). It is unsettling for us to see a key European state enter into the US-style age of political media. These games appear to be used to dumb down the masses. We had revolutions on this issue before.

If US voters are so prepared to believe that Bill and Hillary are a professional partnership, then put an end to them posing as a traditional married couple. My issue would not be with their relationship, as it has it clearly is founded on mutual history and respect, if not conjugal love. Nonetheless, how they play it in the media, and how they plan to consult and work together during her presidency ARE relevant questions for the whole world to understand.

It seems naïve to believe that one would not elect a Team Clinton. Unquestionably, Bill is the more experienced intellect on foreign policy, defence and economic affairs (subjects where Hillary is reported to have meddled in, with some risks and a magazine reader's depth--e.g., recent comments misstating comments by an ageing Paul Samuelson). If Bill is not going to be sent to Dubai or Karachi or Pretoria, then one should be asking more probing questions than are heard on this side of the Pond today.

hommesuisse:

Then why do they stand as a couple today?

They shouldn't be. Hillary needs to establish herself as a candidate in her own right, not running as "Bill's wife". But as I said, I'm not supporting her candidacy in any event.

The problem is Bill is such a magnetic presense on the stump that he is beginning to overshadow her. I think that will eventually doom her candidacy. I just hope it happens before the primary season is over.

I agree.

Who is standing with her who offers sufficient depth in both the domestic and international mandates that await?

If I am not mistaken, Hillary and Bill have been close associates of Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated a few hours ago. The Pentagon and the European diplomatic community cautioned on Mme Rice's decision to endorse and push her return.

If Mrs Clinton spoke out on this matter, it would be good for people to put some tough questions before her, even if she is not responsible for the tragic events and unfolding fears of civil war in Pakistan.

Mme Rice is deemed today to have blood on her hands. US policy is directly responsible for this day. Do not believe the press statements that are now being released.

As for Mme Bhutto, whom I once met, it is my estimation that her ambitions were fueled by Washington and a false sense of entitlement. She was unquestionably a good person, but her intellectual depth did not merit either office or the role she was dispatched to perform by Mme Rice. She was the indulged daughter/wife of a corrupt dynasty. Sadly, her heart was in the right place; when she embraced sound reasoning it was compromised by a past much bigger than she could grasp. Some have said in recent weeks that they sensed in her a willingness to be a martyr. It does not take a psychoanalyst to sort out her tragic biography.

Apologies for the digression.

I will hope that some truth gets through your media machine as this story is told. It will be wrong to blame another troubled Muslim society. It is not so simple. The Bhutto dynasty was truly corrupt (as has been reported in the Financial Times). She paid the price of the sins of her father and for not having the wits to control those around her today who have continued to leverage value and abuse power in her family name.

It is also not wise to quickly dismiss rumours of CIA/Mossad/KGB or other covert activities. There are many in power who had reason to fear this lady returning to -- or perhaps even approaching -- power. The one who is not responsible is General Musharraf, on whom all the US-directed eyes will turn--except those of his friends in the Pentagon.

and if you dig a tad deeper you discover that they set out to make enemies on purpose so they could push the defense budget and steal mega-billions thereby. When GW does go to meet Jesus, all the facade of looking like he is praying for guidance will be stripped away and all that will be left is the cheap whore that he is. The Bush family is heavily vested in oil, pharmaceuticals (more oil) and defense contracting (more oil)... they want Iraq and Iran for the oil; and they are stuck in the blitzkrieg method of doing business. Look how they got the Medicaid bill passed in the Senate; they are cheap thugs; the mafia has more honor than this crew.

The problem is that Bhutto was the only practical alternative to Musharref. Yes, her previous administration was ousted by corruption, but she could have been used as a bridge to bring Pakistan back to democracy.

I think it's a little premature to start pointing fingers at anyone for her assassination. Hopefully, the truth will be eventually known, but for now, it's best not to rule anyone out or in.