Ed Siegel reflects on the empty spectacle that was this week's Petraeus/Crocker hearings, and notes on the side that if the logic behind the Sons of Iraq gambit were applied to its fullest extent, we could hypothetically pay every Iraqi $500 per month not to shoot at American soldiers. Or we could just get those soldiers the hell out of Iraq.

Amid the growing clamor of economic jeremiads, Robert Feinman asks (and attempts to answer) a fundamental question, namely, what is wealth and where has it gone?

More after the jump. . .

You may well have already seen it, but I'll link to Billy Glad's Hillary is My Revolution post, because I think it's an interesting and, I take it, sincere expression of the reasoning behind his support for the senator. On the other hand, I think his statement, that "the Clintons were a continuation of the revolution that had begun in the Thirties and had been beaten back by Reagan/Bush," is not an especially accurate evaluation of the Clinton years. My opinion of the Clinton years is closer to that of reader Jason Everett Miller.

On a related note, reader NG makes the case for Sen. Clinton's green bona fides, while billysumday makes a very different and more provocative but, in my opinion, genuinely interesting argument about what's behind (in some cases) Clinton's appeal.

Finally, Magister looks at a possible withdrawal from Iraq in the context of the "Vietnam Syndrome," which, despite the elder Bush's proclamation, is far from having been kicked.