It's a more substantial piece than her previous one, but, as Ron says, her agenda is pretty clear. She's also factually incorrect on a few points, having now watched all three episodes myself there are things about the programme that annoyed me, and some overstatements, but the basic case as I understood it is very different from Phillips' reading of it. A few examples:

It did. And AFAICT most balanced and knowledgeable observers now believe this to be largely the case. One-nil to Curtis. Phillips feigning shock at the very suggestion doesn't answer the question.

They are indeed a tiny group. But their politics unquestionably dominate US foreign policy, to the extent that the war in Iraq was planned and executed entirely against the urging of many of Bush's senior non-neocon advisers, who had made it clear to him there was no proven link whatsoever between Saddam and al Qaeda. It was the neocons who wanted war at all costs, and they got what they wanted because they have Bush's ear. I don't think this is really debateable.

It wasn't a big deal in the way that Phillips wants it to be. Anybody who sees the cold war as anything other than a myth of good versus evil (which side being good and which evil is largely dependent on your politics, obviously) is guilty of astonishing naivety. The Soviet Union was a deeply unpleasant entity, but so were many of the regimes cynically supported by the US. "Neither Washington nor Moscow" is the only rational response to the cold war. (A similar attitude to the objectives of US foreign policy with regard to both Israel and the Palestinians would seem to be in order too. Washington is hardly on the side of the angels, after all.)

They are worse than Clinton. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I don't think he would have invaded Iraq post 9/11.

And I think he had a point.

-- Ian