You Can't Have It Both Ways, Hillary. Well, Maybe You Can.

It's called playing the game, people. Those of you who feel that your politicians in the hunt for the White House should traffic in nothing other than truth, justice and the American way are high on something. Not life, as that would mean being plugged into reality rather than the hyperreality offered by the mainstream media or the chameleons they cover. But you're high on something.

Case in point: Hillary Clinton. Now stumping across the country as the antiwar candidate, Clinton has done more than all of her Democratic challengers for the White House to usher in our current militarism. She authorized a resolution that was rightly seen by anyone with a brain and a secure sense of history as a pretext for invading and occupying Iraq, a cash grab for the Bush administration that so far has cost around a trillion dollars and millions of lives -- all of them innocent.

All of them? Yeah, all of them. This was a war of choice, a chimera to make us all feel better about the fact that Bush couldn't capture Osama bin Laden (probably because his family did so much biz with the renegade Saudi's family). In other words, it was an unnecessary distraction, but a political opportunity. Clinton didn't want to look weak surrounded by a bunch of male pretenders swinging their dicks, so she voted for it. And she refused to call it a mistake.

And now she's done the same with Iran, even though it's years later and she's nothing left to prove on the dick count. She's practically an incumbent, even though she's never been president, and Obama and all the rest are sniffing her fumes as she blows past them. But nevertheless, political opportunity comes first, and so does the ghostly spectre of terrorism, which she must maintain at all costs if she's going to appeal to the rednecks who just want to kill someone to make themselves feel better and the soccer moms who think Muqtada al-Sadr is going to come to Wisteria Lane and blow them to pieces while they're watching Weeds and trying to look cool. And yeah, al-Sadr is in Iraq, but that's just nitpicking: Clinton's vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group isn't concerned with such intricacies.

Who is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, you ask? Who fucking cares? Do you live in Iran? Are they breaking down your doors? Are they blowing Americans and Iraqis to pieces on the streets of Baghdad with improvised IEDs? Are you high?

That Clinton found the time to give Bush yet another pretext for military violence, this time against the Iranian people, shows that she's still not sure if she has a dick growing in her pants. Someone needs to slap her and remind her that she doesn't need one, that is was dicks who first got us into this mess in the first place. And then to compound the hypocrisy of that inane vote by asserting in a recent debate that she's open to unconditional diplomacy with Iran is the height of lunacy. After all, she smacked Obama down for asserting the same thing a mere three months ago, and just voted to label its army terrorists.

She's got less beef with Blackwater, and they've killed way more people. For us.

So yeah, lesson learned. Politics is a game of power and lies, and you say and do what you need to say and do to win it. What you say and do may make zero sense, and might even contradict each other, but then again this isn't reality. It's game theory, a chessboard run by ideologues and demagogues, empowered by money and favors. It's a hyperreality, existing outside of the parameters of sense and sensibility. And all that matters is not who dies or who pays, but who wins.

Because, the thinking goes, winning the White House means never having to say your sorry. Because you're not.