<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[BALKING ON ZARQAWI]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>One of the <a href="http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001237.html">worst mistakes</a> the administration made was not killing Zarqawi when they had the chance. They had their reasons &#8211; they didn&#8217;t want to derail the diplomatic preparation for the war against Saddam by striking within Iraq before formal hostilities broke out. But they had a chance. And they must surely regret not taking it today. </p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">EMAIL OF THE DAY: </span>&#8220;I have recently added your blog to my daily reading and have noticed a disturbing trend. Everything &#8212; and now the missing tons of high explosive in Iraq &#8212; is George Bush&#8217;s personal fault because, as always, there aren&#8217;t enough troops there. As a bureaucrat I can assure you that bureaucrats screw up hourly. Does the President have to be on-site to ensure an explosives dump in protected, or is it safe to delegate these tasks to the 100,000+ soldiers that are there? It seems obvious that half a million troops couldn&#8217;t perform all the tasks that are required in a country that big, nor did Rumsfeld intend that the country should receive blanket security, presuming, of course, that it was possible given the manpower shortages we now know exist.<br />My point is, it takes a certain (yes, Liberal!) attitude to identify every burned-out lightbulb as a dire consequence of the President&#8217;s intellectual shortcomings. In their case, it&#8217;s because their lack of self-esteem makes them hate everyone (themselves in particular). But what excuses your lack of tolerance for Dubya?&#8221; Don&#8217;t forget the best <a href="letters.php?switch=1" target="_blank">Letters Page</a> on the web. </p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">AND LIFE AND DEATH GO ON: </span>A beautiful <a href="http://theanchoress.blogspot.com/2004/10/o-god-you-are-wayside-resting-place.html" target="_blank">journal entry</a> from one of my longtime readers and email interlocutors, who now has her own blog. It&#8217;s about getting through an election season while nursing your own brother to his early death from AIDS. It&#8217;s about life and the need for constant prayer. </p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">IN THE DETAILS: </span>The latest <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61985-2004Oct25.html" target="_blank">Washington Post poll</a> showing Kerry with a minuscule lead contains something more significant, I&#8217;d say. It&#8217;s the following: </p>
<blockquote><p>First-time voters also oppose reelection by 58 percent to 37 percent.</p></blockquote>
<p>Now remember how unprecedentedly copious the new registrations have been in so many states. I have to say that I&#8217;d be more surprised now by a Bush victory than a Kerry defeat. Of course, I can still be surprised.</p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">OLSON AGAINST BUSH: </span>Another former Bush supporter (and campaign adviser) <a href="http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001657.html" target="_blank">balks</a> this time around &#8211; on the estimable blog, Overlawyered.com. </p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">MORE LATER: </span>Apologies for light blogging. Been feeling under the weather here. And I&#8217;ve been working on an endorsement piece, to be posted later today. More later.</p>
]]></html></oembed>