Froomkin: Bush's Approach to Lebanon Crisis Makes Him Callous and Delusional?

[Ed. note: Update: Henry Kissinger, my former neighbor and current war criminal, also has an oped piece in the Post, "Next Steps with Iran".]

The more I read Dan Froomkin, the more I generally respect his work (certainly compared to most of the Washington Post these days, Walter Pincus and Robin Wright and E.J. Dionne excluded, that is. From his blog today (please, read its entirety because there is much sage info there on the proxy war and how we're losing it badly):

President Bush's "moment of opportunity" in the Middle East is increasingly looking like an opportunity for disaster.

Bush's official position is that some blood-spilling in the Middle East is worth it in pursuit of the region's positive transformation.

Even in the wake of an Israeli airstrike Sunday that killed 57 civilians in the Southern Lebanese town of Qana, every terse presidential acknowledgment of the human toll is accompanied by soaring rhetoric about freedom and democracy and lasting stability.

In the best of circumstances, Bush would be running the risk of being considered callous. But in the current circumstances, he runs the risk of being considered both callous and delusional.

By almost no stretch of the imagination is the current conflict strengthening Bush's hand or advancing democracy. Rather, it appears to be emboldening Bush's enemies.

It's increasingly accepted wisdom in Washington that what's going on in the Middle East right now is a "proxy war" between the U.S. and Iran. But even through that lens, the U.S. appears to be losing.