Unless there is a remarkable intervention from somewhere, by the end of October, with two months yet to go till year's end, 2007 will become the worst year for U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq since the war and occupation began 55 months ago. Obviously, as has been the case since the beginning, Iraqis fare much worse, as noted in this excerpt from an editorial in Friday's Los Angeles Times:
Insane on asylum The administration can't or won't admit most Iraqi refugees. Is it incompetence or indifference? Plenty of pious statements have been made over the last year -- many of them by senior Bush administration officials -- about how the United States has a moral obligation to help the more than 2 million refugees who have fled Iraq, most particularly those who have become targets because they worked for the Americans. Credibility with the Iraqi population, in the broader Middle East and around the world will be gauged by whether the U.S. keeps its promises. Now we may judge the administration's performance by the benchmarks it set for itself. The Bush administration promised to grant refuge to 7,000 Iraqis during this fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30; just 1,608 were admitted. It plans to take in 12,000 in fiscal 2008. (Sweden, which opposed the Iraq war, has already admitted more and plans to resettle 20,000 Iraqis this year alone.) ... The White House may hope that the troop "surge" will succeed in quelling violence to the point where the refugees will go home. Or perhaps it fears that images of airlifts would send the message that the U.S. is "losing" Iraq, or trigger a stampede among the vital Iraqi workers the U.S. still desperately needs. With the historic example of the Palestinians before his eyes, Bush must realize that embittered Iraqi refugees stranded all over the Muslim world would likely feel betrayed by the United States -- and the strain on their host nations could begin a new cycle of misery in the Mideast. If Bush won't end this cynical, heartless and self-defeating U.S. policy of delay, Congress should.
Indifference? Incompetence? The Times editors left out an option: Intentional. Paul Krugman plants another big wet one on the GOP:
Conservatives Are Such Jokers On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded S-chip, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance to an estimated 3.8 million children who would otherwise lack coverage. In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Heh-heh-heh. Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don’t think it’s a problem. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said Mr. Bush in July. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”... So once again, if you’re poor or you’re sick or you don’t have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.
Take the poll.