Oh, God.  This is not good:

FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines in a fierce battle for this Sunni Muslim stronghold fired rockets that hit a mosque compound filled with worshippers Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. Shiite-inspired violence spread to nearly all of the country.

Things that won't help the cause in Iraq include: bombing mosques. 

These are very complicated issues, here, and to say that anything is black and white is just foolish.  That's a problem, because our President is absolutely incapable of seeing shades of gray.

6:53:12 PM    comment []

I read parts of--at least the main headlines, anyway--the Khaleej Times every day.  That's one of the local English-language papers in Dubai.  For the most part it's wire service stories, punctuated by terrible editorials.  But the locally written headlines tell the story, for the most part.  Huge headline today:

US TURNS IRAQ INTO A COUNTRY OF CHAOS BY TURNING THE INCIDENT OF KILLING OF FOUR US MEN INTO A REVENGE PLOT

A bit "wordy", some might say.  "Terribly written" would also apply.  It's typical headline writing, but that's not the real story.  The real story is the spin put on what's happening in Iraq by the Arab press.  It's highly interesting, and telling.

Only the biggest flag-waving blind men would say that the US didn't set itself up for some of the chaos in Iraq, and to be certain the response in Fallujah can be debated.  But a "revenge plot" is a bit much, don't you think?  And they do seem to be removing Al Sadr from any culpability, which is predictable.

3:57:09 PM    comment []

Sullivinanities

Andrew Sullivan--whom I link to on the left because I read him daily despite his general insanity--is such a clown.  He links to an article that he finds useful for "deconstructing some of the more hysterical liberal worries about president Bush's religion and its influence on our politics."

But about three posts before that, he's dressing down Ashcroft for going after porn consumers instead of terrorists.  And not a month ago, he was going justifiably bananas about Bush and the doomed-to-never-go-anywhere gay marriage amendment. 

I understand that truly whacko right-wingers are going to love Bush no matter what.  But how can crazy-but-intelligent moderates like Sullivan be in such denial--even in the face of their own evidence?  I understand that Sullivan feels like he was misled in 2000, but Bush's agenda is out there now, man.  Sullivan consistently discusses how he doesn't know whom to vote for--how can this be?  The president has endorsed a constitutional amendment to discriminate against him! 

Can someone explain how this is different than a black man in the deep South considering a vote for Strom Thurmond in 1948? 

10:03:19 AM    comment []

Damnation!  Even the reprehensible George Will is calling Bush out for not being forthcoming about Iraq!

9:21:16 AM    comment []

 This is excellent.  Kerry announced that he would have to scale back some of his policy proposals in order to conform to the size of the deficit.  This seems reasonable, of course. 

No--not reasonable.  Necessary.  Realistic.

The Bush campaign has this to say:

The Bush campaign said it was Mr. Kerry who was misleading voters. Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "Senator Kerry's promises don't add up, so he has to do a bait and switch and cut some of his programs. How much is he raising taxes and where is he cutting spending?"

Oh, you're killing me, Steve Schmidt.   "His promises don't add up!  But Bush promises do add up--up to the biggest deficit in history!"

We're clearly in Bizarro World when the President's campaign is attacking the challenger because he's willing to cut the deficit and they aren't.

9:18:10 AM    comment []

Handover in Iraq

Melissa and I were talking last night about the situation in Iraq--which has considerably worsened overnight--and wondering about the June 30 deadline.  The White House is insistent that the deadline remain firm, since we've made commitments, the Iraqis are expecting it, etc.

It seems to me that the only Iraqis that are really counting on us leaving June 30 are the Chalabis, but we'll leave that for now.

Why are we planning on leaving early?  And, perhaps most pertinently, what does the June 30 deadline mean?  We're sure as hell not going to be pulling troops out.  The Iraqis will have provisional control, but what if it turns into a civil war--something that only Dick Cheney and Richard Perle have to consider unlikely at this point.  Melissa pointed out that there are hundreds of non-military Americans there, Department of State folks working at the new embassy--don't we need to maintain provisional control for their safety? 

I can't deny that I'm relatively ignorant about the precise details of what it means to hand the reins over.  But I'd like to hear even one persuasive argument that it's not an attempt to turn Iraq from "our problem" into "their problem" before November 2.

9:01:47 AM    comment []