Belfast discount hotel

Byline: Howard Kurtz

Is the Iraqi resistance toast, or is this thing going to keep dragging on?

Here are the top 10 ways you know the war is winding down:

10. Allied soldiers taking baths in Saddam's glittering presidential palace.9. Iraqi information minister finds work as cloning spokesman for the Raelians.8. Geraldo Rivera leaves Kuwait and resumes daytime talk show.7. Baghdad road signs point travelers to Bush International Airport.6. Peter Arnett says maybe the U.S. effort wasn't a failure after all.5. Republican Guard members start lining up at unemployment office.4. Reporters abandon Iraq to cover anti-American activity in Paris.3. Saddam's agent contacts book publishers about memoirs.2. Cable blows off Rumsfeld press conference for J.Lo sighting.1. Retired generals go back to living room armchairs to bark at TV sets.

Another bad sign for Iraq that perhaps should have made the list is reflected in this online update from the New York Times :

"Residents swarmed out onto the streets today, suddenly sensing that the regime of Saddam Hussein was crumbling, and celebrating the arrival of United States forces.

"Throngs of men milled about, looting, blaring horns, dancing and tearing up pictures of Saddam Hussein. Baath party offices were trashed."

Looks like it's five-finger discount time.

"Occasional sniper fire continued, but Iraqi resistance largely faded away. The American military hesitated to say the war was over, warning instead that more fighting could break out, both inside and outside Baghdad."

After Round 2 of we-got-Saddam-in-the-bunker-sources say, London's Guardian throws cold water on the claim:

"Saddam Hussein survived an attack on a building in Baghdad in which he was reported to have been meeting his sons Uday and Qusay on Monday afternoon, British intelligence sources said last night.

"'He was probably not in the building when it was bombed,' a well-placed source said. The source added it was believed that President Saddam had been in the building earlier."

The Washington Times has a very different take:

"Multiple U.S. intelligence sources saw Saddam Hussein enter a building in Baghdad on Monday and not emerge before four 1-ton Air Force bombs destroyed it, government officials said yesterday.

"One official said some analysts believe the multiple eyewitness accounts suggest the Iraqi dictator is dead. . . . The official described the CIA yesterday as being 'in a state of euphoria.'

"'They say there is no doubt he is dead,' said a U.S. military official on the condition of anonymity."

Deja vu all over again.

A bloody day for journalists, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"Three journalists were killed and at least half a dozen wounded by American forces in Baghdad in three separate incidents yesterday, prompting questions as to whether at least one of the attacks was deliberate.

"The victims included a reporter for the Arab television channel Al-Jazeera, who was killed by U.S. fire as he was preparing a live broadcast from the network's office. Two cameramen later died in the Palestine Hotel, the principal headquarters for foreign journalists here, when an American tank fired a round into the building.

"The casualties occurred in locations that were well-known to the Pentagon, and a prominent U.S. media watchdog group asked whether -- in at least the case involving the Al-Jazeera reporter, Tariq Ayoub -- the American military might be deliberately targeting journalists.

"The assertion was denied by U.S. Central Command, but Nabil Khoury, an Arabic-speaking State Department official who arrived in the region this week to make the U.S. case for the war to Arab audiences, admitted that Ayoub's death would make his job harder."

There's an understatement for you.

These mounting casualties are starting to affect coverage decisions, as we report in The Washington Post .

And there is real anger in the journalistic community, says the New York Post :

"News organizations demanded answers from the United States yesterday after U.S. fire killed three journalists in Baghdad. . . .

"'It's hard to believe this was just a mistake. We want proof this was not a deliberate attack on journalists,' said Severine Cazes, head of the Middle East desk at Reporters Without Borders."

'While U.S. officials have expressed regret for the loss of life in these attacks and stated that they do not target journalists, they have left the impression that they bear no responsibility for protecting journalists operating independently in Iraq,' the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

The U.N. question remains unresolved, the Boston Globe reports from Belfast:

"Emerging from hours of closed-door meetings yesterday, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain called on the United Nations to play a 'vital role' in providing humanitarian aid to a postwar Iraq.

"But the two leaders of the coalition against Saddam Hussein purposely sidestepped the controversial question of who would administer the new government in Iraq, setting the stage for a new round of UN negotiations.

"'I hear a lot of talk about how we're going to impose this leader or that leader. Forget it,' Bush said, insisting that the country will ultimately be run by the Iraqis themselves. He did not mention that Pentagon officials are sending emissaries to the country this week to begin laying the groundwork for the interim government."

Oh right -- that.

Ron Brownstein says in the Los Angeles Times that it could soon be the economy again, stupid:

"Over the last week, it's been difficult to say which has been more dramatic: the gains of the American military in Iraq or the losses in the job market at home.

"For now, the drive into Baghdad has overshadowed the signs of continuing trouble in the economy, highlighted by last week's report that employers shed an additional 108,000 net jobs in March. But both of these dynamics are likely to shape President Bush's hopes of a second term.

"Indeed, the key to the 2004 election may be whether voters put more weight on Bush's performance in protecting the country against foreign threats or his record on managing the domestic economy, many analysts believe. . . .

"For Bush, the gulf in public perceptions about his performance carries ominous echoes of the mixed public verdict that led to the defeat of his father after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The younger Bush may be in a stronger position than his father to benefit politically from military success.

"Most experts in both parties agree that the current war in Iraq may carry more lasting relevance for voters than the Gulf War did, because the new conflict is linked to an ongoing concern about terrorism. . . . Yet the economy always casts a large shadow on presidential elections."

The airline industry, meanwhile, is hurting, which is causing division in Washington:

"Defying the White House, 67 Republicans joined Democrats backing a House resolution calling for Congress to extend aid for jobless airline workers as part a $3 billion-plus industry-relief package expected to go to President Bush this week," says the Wall Street Journal.

"The 265-150 vote adds pressure on Republican leaders to make room for a $225 million Senate-passed provision providing extra unemployment benefits for as many as 200,000 workers hurt by the industry's downturn. Working into Tuesday night, House-Senate negotiators hoped to reach agreement soon on airline aid. But as the price tag has risen, so have tensions between Mr. Bush's advisers and lawmakers from his party, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn)."

Andrew Sullivan does his victory dance:

"Three weeks. Under 100 American casualties, half of which came from accidents. No use of tactical WMD. Extraordinarily targeted bombing; exceptionally light force; oil wells intact; Israel secure; Turks kept at bay.

"War is terrible, of course. It may flare up again for a while. There's still a chance of last-minute atrocities. And every civilian casualty is a tragedy. But it's beginning to look as if this was an amazing military campaign, something of which the American and British people -- and their governments -- can be deeply, deeply proud."

Slate 's Virginia Heffernan is fed up with the cable coverage:

"Would that we could find out what [the mystery chemicals discovered in Iraq] are from the national science mastermind, but Chemical Ali is dead. Instead, Judy Woodruff on CNN turned to Amy Smithson, a chemical weapons expert, who explained that the new stash (found in muddy drums near Karbala) led her to speak out because it seems like 'the real deal' -- blistering, paralyzing toxins. Why else would this stuff be buried in bunkers? But we'll have to wait until the tests come back.