Rall for Prez?

As today's editiorial in the Arab News rightly points out, it is a little premature to rejoice at the Bush administration's decision to go back to the UN for help in Iraq: "What is important is not America’s dignity but Iraq’s future... the diplomatic dance will not last long unless Bush is prepared to genuinely climb down."

The big question is not just what will happen now, but what SHOULD happen now? Should the UN demand full control of operations in Iraq, or should they accept a UN command? If the UN will not get involved, should the US double their troop strength in an attempt to guarantee Iraqis' security, or should they look for an exit strategy?

In an effort to keep pace with front-runner Howard Dean, other democratic presidential nominees have begun taking urgent stances on these issues. Just listen to this bit of blustering from Richard Gephardt:

"This president is a miserable failure. I some days just can't believe — it's incomprehensible to me — it's incomprehensible that we would wind up in this situation without a plan and without international cooperation to get this done."

As the NY Times points out, however, Gephardt is a former minority leader who helped Mr. Bush negotiate the resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq in the first place.

But even Dean is not yet prepared to publicly call for an immediate withdrawal of US troops. Leave that to Ted Rall:

"More money, more men, more international involvement--those were good ideas back in March. Now it's too late to avoid the ostracizing of the United States or the Afghanistanization of Iraq. For God's sake, cut our losses--and Iraq's--and bring our troops home."