It has come to this: President Obama may not, in fact, support the troops.

First up, an excerpt from ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook post in response to Obama's address to Congress Wednesday on healthcare reform:

Second up is Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who I believe is only half-joking when he says Palin comes from "the University of Real America":

Two of my favorite bloggers -- Jim Ceaser of the University of Virginia, and Sarah Palin of the University of Real America -- were particuarly [sic] struck by one line in President Obama’s speech last night. As was I.

This is it: "Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars....”

What’s the implication? Apparently, that we shouldn’t have spent so much on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough, perhaps, with respect to the war in Iraq, which Obama opposed. On the other hand, Obama has supported the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, he’s criticized the Bush administration for under-resourcing that effort. ...

For the president, in a formal address to Congress, to suggest even in passing that these struggles are merely distasteful burdens rather than worthwhile missions, is appalling. Sarah Palin is right: Obama’s “offhand applause line” was an insult to those who have fought and sacrificed, and to those who are now fighting and sacrificing, on our behalf.

The Plum Line's Greg Sargent has already discussed the tackiness of Palin using 9/11 to launch a political attack on Obama (much of her post, by the way, pushed her renewed death-panel argument, which Times editorial writer Jon Healey neatly debunked). Also note that Palin offers her interpretation of what Obama meant without bothering to quote him. By that same token, Kristol all but brands our president unpatriotic using a conveniently truncated Obama's remark as evidence. If editorializing were only so simple.

Here's what Obama said, complete sentence and all:

Here's my reading, and it doesn't involve a troop-hating president who has not "internalized the fact that he is now commander-in-chief," as Kristol says: The president was calling out as hypocrites Republicans who voted for President Bush's expensive tax cuts and supported two expensive (and off-budget) wars, but who now use deficits and excessive government spending to argue against healthcare reform.

Obama could have further argued that extending healthcare coverage to all Americans is a more worthwhile endeavor than dispatching hundreds of thousands of American troops to another hemisphere to fight two wars. But Obama didn't say that, and he certainly didn't go far enough for Kristol and Palin to accuse a sitting American president of disrespecting the memory of those who died fighting wars on our behalf. 

A disclaimer: I haven't made up my mind on Obama's proposed healthcare reform plan, especially in light of Medicare's impending insolvency and Washington's overall crushing debt burden. Infusing the debate with mindless death-panel claims and accusations that the president has a hard time supporting our troops only pushes me (and, I suppose, other fence-sitters) to the pro-reform camp, if only to see the likes of Kristol and Palin saunter home in defeat.

-- Paul Thornton

Top photo: AP Photo / Al Grillo; bottom photo: Alicia Wagner / Los Angeles Times

Iran's show trial last weekend of at least 100 reformist politicians, journalists and foot soldiers is part of an ugly trend that will not only weaken the position of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it could derail talks with the United States concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions, according to today's lead editorial.

The Times also weighs in on a proposal for the city of Los Angeles to approve a $30-million loan to renovate the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood so it can accommodate performances by acrobatic troupe Cirque du Soleil. The city's projections that a 10-year run of the popular attraction would generate 858 jobs seems more based on federal loan requirements than reality; the city should reject the loan.

And Times editorial writer Karin Klein relates her own experience with the "cash for clunkers" law, which has stirred up a feeding frenzy at local car dealerships: "At Hyundai, we watched a family leap into an Accent for a test drive after two other cars were snatched out from under them. We never did find a salesman."

Speaking of which, columnist Jonah Goldberg thinks the whole federal car-buying subsidy program is a clunker. Washington's notion that paying people who already own working cars so that they can buy new ones and junk the old is reminiscent of French economist Frederic Bastiat's "broken windows" fallacy, Goldberg says: Though it might benefit bankers and car makers, it doesn't take into account the economic stimulus that would have resulted if the car buyers had instead spent their money on more useful things.

And just when you thought it was safe to get out of Iraq, political science professor Barbara F. Walter asserts that it isn't. History shows that countries that have fought civil wars are likely to do it again, and that countries that end their civil wars with compromise settlements often return to fighting unless there is a third party present to enforce the peace. Most experts believe the U.S. would have to remain in Iraq for five to 10 years past the current 2011 withdrawal deadline to avert another outbreak of hostilities among Iraq's competing factions.

Finally, constitutional law professor Ryan Coonerty thinks the problem with California's government isn't an excess of democracy, but too little. Coonerty favors doubling the size of the Legislature, which could be accomplished without excessive spending by cutting lawmakers' current salaries ($116,000 a year) in half. Smaller districts would allow the people to hold their representatives more accountable, he argues.

Illustration credit: Paul Tong / TMS

Even before giving his phenomenal speech in Cairo, Egypt, President Barack Obama was already popular in the Arab world’s most populous country. In less than six months in office, Obama was able to overcome eight years of profound distrust and frustration during the Bush administration and dramatically boost America's image in Egypt.

For most Egyptians, Obama -- unlike his predecessor -- is sincere and even-handed, with the potential to bring peace to the region. Most important, Obama is viewed as someone able to make a distinction between Islam and terrorism, which for the majority of Muslims is a huge leap forward.

It is not surprising, then,  that a survey released this month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that positive public attitudes toward the United States have surged in U.S.-allied Egypt and Jordan since Obama took office.

More and more Egyptians view Obama as a “star.” Young Egyptians often comment on his attractive looks, physical fitness and charisma. Elder Egyptians cite specific policies such as Obama's pledge to close the U.S.-run detention facility for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the U.S. timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. In total, the Pew study shows confidence that Obama will "do the right thing in world affairs" is  quadruple that for Bush in Egypt and Jordan.

However, not surprisingly, the study finds attitudes toward the United States continued to be dismal in many other predominantly Muslim countries. Only 14% of those surveyed in Turkey, 15% in Palestinian Territories and 16% in Pakistan had a favorable view of America.

Undoubtedly, the main reason for this in the Middle East, at least, is that people want to see real progress made in resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. For eight years, they saw negotiations and heard an American President promising to leave a legacy of peace in the region. But no solutions were delivered. It is only natural that people in the region are skeptical.

What is important for both Middle Easterners and Americans to realize is Obama cannot wave a magic wand and quickly deliver results or instantly fix his country’s image in eyes of the Mideast. It is wrong to assume Obama can simply turn on peace like a light bulb or improve America’s image in the region overnight. Nevertheless, the poll has some good news and the Pew’s findings should sit well with the White House.

Photo: President Barack Obama tours the Sphinx and pyramids outside Cairo, Thursday, June 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Is the Mexican army the solution to battling the violent drug cartels, or part of the problem? The Times editorial board considers the question in light of allegations of rape and other abuses leveled against troops deployed by Mexican President Felipe Calderon in the front lines of the drug war:

Calderon was taking a gamble when he sent combat forces to fight the drug war, which involves police and intelligence work among civilians -- a role the Mexican military isn't fully trained to play. Now, U.S. and Mexican human rights activists say they have documented the murder, rape and torture by soldiers of scores of Mexicans believed to be innocent civilians, and the country's National Human Rights Commission received 559 complaints against members of the army in the first six months of this year. Although Mexican law calls for the military to prosecute its own criminal abuses, advocacy groups note that there has not been a successful military prosecution of a human rights case in the last decade.

The board also notes that U.S. government actions on behalf of religions might be constitutionally banned if performed in this country, but might be a necessary part of foreign relations in nations with state religion--such as repairing mosques damaged in the Iraq War. Still, the board cautions, the government must not see this as an excuse to fund missionary work or in other ways promote religion abroad.

On the other side of the fold, two trade specialists chide resident President Obama for what they call his "de facto protectionism." And the author of a newly published biography of baseball legend Leroy "Satchel" Paige remembers back to when the Negro League player finally won recognition from the Hall of Fame -- and how racism in baseball did not completely die on that day.:

Six months after they announced his election to the Hall of Fame, Paige was in Cooperstown for the induction. The public had weighed in with outrage at the spectacle of a segregated museum, forcing baseball's rulers to agree to hang his plaque alongside the rest. He quieted his competing instincts by siding, as he always had, with moderation over militancy. "Thank you, commissioner, and my fans and baseball players from all around as far as Honolulu, Mexico, and I don't know where the rest of 'em come from. I know they're my friends, I know that," Paige said as he looked out at the mostly white audience.

His remarks were touching and funny. He talked about barnstorming across the country in cars so tightly packed that his knees were "sticking up in front of me. For five years, I didn't know where I was going. I couldn't see."

Photo of Leroy "Satchel" Paige from MLB Photos via Getty Images.

A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of residents in seven Muslim countries found a surprising degree of public sentiment in favor of the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudanese President Ahmad al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity for his actions in Darfur.

While the African Union, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference rejected the indictment and refused to arrest the president if he ever visited one of their countries (part of the condition of the indictment was that Bashir be arrested if he left Sudan), the leaders of such organizations may not reflect the view at the grass roots, said Stephen Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org:

In the countries where a plurality of those surveyed approved of the indictment, the support wasn't necessarily overwhelming. Only in Kenya and Nigeria was the approval rate more than 70 percent. In Turkey the result was 51 percent in favor and 22 percent against, and in Pakistan it was 39 percent to 32 percent. Meanwhile, respondents in Egypt and Iraq disapproved by a narrow margin. Only in the Palestinian Territories did respondents overwhelmingly oppose the ICC's action

After the ICC announced the indictment of Bashir in March 2009, the African Union opened fire against the court, saying that it seeks punishment only against the African continent. African leaders also asked why their countries were so often in the ICC's cross-hairs. Bashir argued that the indictment was purely political, and pushed out foreign aid groups after the March announcement. In fact, at this month's African Union summit, the leaders again rejected ICC's call for Bashir's arrest and Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi said the ICC represented "new world terrorism."

Such harsh reaction makes this poll's results all the more surprising, as residents of the African nations were found to be the ones most in favor of the indictment. Surveys like this make me doubt the representativeness and multilateral nature of such organizations as the African Union and the Arab League, whose purpose is to accurately represent the needs and sentiments of their people.

Read the poll here.

--Catherine Lyons

Photo: Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir arrives at an African Union summit in Sirte, Libya on July 2. Credit: AP Photo / Abdel Magid al Fergany.

Today's memorial service for Michael Jackson at the privately owned Staples Center reminds The Times editorial board of a sad fact of life in Los Angeles: It's a city without a public square. Though the backers of LA Live once promised that the downtown entertainment mall would become L.A.'s version of Times Square, the fact remains that it's a private space whose owners can bar the public anytime they choose.

We also weigh in on President Obama's trip to Russia, which isn't expected to accomplish much -- but even a small thaw in relations between the two countries, and the modest improvement represented by the nuclear weapons pact concluded Monday, is better than the chilly status quo.

And we ponder the lessons to be learned from the example of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died Monday at 93. Though many see parallels between the mistakes made in Iraq and the mistakes made by McNamara in Vietnam, we think the larger lesson is that using yesterday's solutions to today's problems is often the pathway to failure.

Over on the opposite page, columnist Jonah Goldberg thinks all the sturm und drang over the canceled "salons" by the Washington Post, in which lobbyists were invited to pay heavily to attend get-togethers with the newspaper's journalists and top politicians, amounts to little more than posing. After all, many publications offer similar meet-and-greet opportunities, Goldberg says.

The hand-wringing over genetically modified foods, meanwhile, reminds author Tom Standage of another food-related hysteria from a few centuries ago -- over the potato. When the tubers were first discovered in the New World, Europeans feared they were a dangerous, unholy poison. They got over it, just as they'll probably eventually get over their irrational fears about improved crops.

And psychiatry professor Sander L. Gilman cautions against jumping to conclusions about Michael Jackson's cosmetic surgery. True, the King of Pop clearly was fond of surgical reshaping, but that doesn't necessarily indicate self-loathing.

* Illustration by Bob Daly / For the Times

On the Op-Ed page today, Paul VanDevelder, author of "Savages and Scoundrels: The Untold Story of America's Road to Empire Through Indian Territory," discusses an impending ruling by U.S. District Judge James Redden in Oregon that may determine the fate of salmon in the Columbia and Snake rivers. VanDevelder argues that dam removal is the best option for the salmon's survival, but it's also the most politically turbulent:

The Columbia-Snake corridor is the salmon's only option for survival, and Redden is probably their last hope. He is the one person in this entire drama who is legally obligated to use science and the law to protect the fish from extinction and from the whims of politicians. If the law and science are unable to trump politics to save this fishery -- a fishery that was the most productive in the world just two generations ago -- how will we ever meet the towering challenges posed by global climate change?

Amnesty International, a London-based human rights group, released a report today accusing Israel of "wanton destruction" and the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas of "war crimes," each committed during the 22 violent days last December in the Gaza Strip.

But both Israel and Hamas deny the claims and are shouting, yet again, about why the other side didn't receive more of a rebuke for the atrocities committed.

Said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, "Things presented as facts are untrue and have no connection to reality." He was most likely referring to the high death toll the report cited and the judgment that Israel's attacks could not "be justified on grounds of military necessity."

On the other side, Hamas rejected the report because it did not chastise the Israeli military enough for the actions it committed against Palestine.

The report, as with the United Nations' inquiry that is currently gathering evidence on the conflict, sought to dispel the myths and rumors that have added to already high tensions in the region, particularly the assertion that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields (a claim the report said had no basis in fact). Instead, the report said Israeli soldiers effectively turned Palestinians into human shields by forcing them to stay in the homes that soldiers used as makeshift military bases.

As with any dispute between Palestinians and Israelis, there was no admission of shared fault, no statement that "we both committed war crimes, killed civilians and launched rockets across borders." That seems hard to contest, yet each side tried its best to do so -- as it always does. A microcosm of the larger conflict, the reactions to the report show why no progress is being made, and why this event will leave a scar on the relationship for years to come.

--Catherine Lyons

Photo: Palestinian children play in front of their ruined houses, hit during Israel's 22-day offensive over Gaza, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip today. Credit: Said Khatib / AFP / Getty Images

In the Waziristan province of Pakistan, a stronghold of the militant Taliban group, a U.S. drone killed more than 40 people and wounded dozens of others attending a funeral for a Pakistani who was killed earlier that day -- by a drone. 

Though there are conflicting reports over whether these casualties were civilians or Taliban militant fighters mourning the death of their comrade-in-arms, the fact remains that such an attack on a funeral will have a backlash, no matter who was hit.

The drone, according to Reuters, was gunning for Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Taliban movement and the alleged plotter behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Of course, he escaped unharmed -- a familiar tag line in these tales.

Though the drones -- pilotless, missile-packing aircraft that patrol Pakistan's treacherous terrain -- are amazingly capable of spotting and hitting their targets, doing so at a funeral is only fanning the flames. Funerals are no less important a ceremony to Muslims and Pakistanis as they are to Americans. Is desecrating such an important cultural occasion -- Taliban or not -- a smart thing for the United States to do? 

While the drone's sortie Tuesday could be seen as making a dent in the Taliban militia, perhaps even more dangerous than the militia itself is the passionately angry sentiments that may come from such an attack -- and the retaliation that anger provokes.

--Catherine Lyons

Photo: Supporters of Islamic political party Jamat-e-Islami shout slogans in Peshawar Pakistan on April 24 during a protest against US drones attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas near the Afghan border. Credit: Arshad Arbab / EPA

Monday's Los Angeles Times Opinion pages feature Palestinian parliament member Mustafa Bargouthi, who calls on President Obama to be firm in his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Don't be like Clinton, Bargouthi writes, and don't be like Bush:

I am increasingly convinced that if Obama fails to speak out now, it will doom the two-state solution forever. Further fiddling in Washington -- after eight years of it -- will consign Jerusalem, the West Bank and the two-state solution to an Israeli expansionism that will overwhelm the ability of cartographers to concoct a viable Palestinian state.

Bargouthi was runner-up to Mahmoud Abbas for president of the Palestinian Authority in 2005 voting. He has written for the Times opinion pages before, here and here.

A quite different view is offered by Netanyahu's former ambassador to the United Nations, Dore Gold, who argues that -- two-state solution aside -- the U.S. and Israel are on the same page. Dore says the Israeli prime minister wants something, if not statehood, for Palestine:

The reality is that although Netanyahu has not embraced this formula, he has stated that Israel does not want to rule over the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He has added that he wants the Palestinians to have all the power necessary to rule themselves, but none of the power to undermine the security of Israel. What that means is that if a Palestinian state were to arise, it would have to be demilitarized and could not sign defense pacts with, say, Iran, allowing it to receive a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards (as Lebanon did in 1982).

Dore Gold, who heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was in the Los Angeles Times opinion pages in 1998.

More Obama: The editorial page applauds the U.S. reversing a Bush policy and joining the United Nations Human Rights Council. Now, how about setting a human rights agenda, and following it at home?

Obama administration decisions last week to withhold photographs of detainees being abused and to continue Bush-era military commissions for prosecuting terrorism suspects cast doubt on the president's commitment to cleaning house. So too does a threat to halt intelligence-sharing with Britain if a British court makes public details of interrogation techniques used against a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner.

More torture: What did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?

And, oh yeah, elections. Again. Gregory Rodriguez checks out tomorrow's election day and says enough is enough. And it's true, enough is enough, but that doesn't stop us from telling you how we think you should vote.

Photo: AP Photo / Amar Awad / pool