Pres. Bush scored a biggie last night despite the critics noting he hadn't yet defined what "victory" meant. He'll conduct a press conference in an hour and ten minutes; perhaps he'll get to that question.

Some are questioning the State Department's ability to supervise Iraqi reconstruction, most of the experienced AID people having retired or been moved out years ago. Let's remember Condi's mentor is VP Cheney, now appearing in Iraq and Afghanistan. He'll probably have strong counsel to pass along.

(bullrohr@yahoo.com)

Scored a biggie? Are we on the same planet? The U.S. is losing ally after ally under Bush's presidency (it was Bolivia last night, following on the heels of South Korea, West Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, etc.) Public opinion in the U.S. is slowly catching up with public opinion the world over and realizing that this man is a bully, a liar and an incompetent. Even his own party is turning against him. And you're saying he "scored a biggie?"
Please!

What does "losing allies" mean? They don't takl to us? They recall ambassadors, cut off diplomatic relations? Or just that they disagree with our invasion of Iraq. Ask the German or South Korean governments if they still consider us "allies." Um, actually, his own party stands steadfastly behind the President. Speaking of which planet one might or might not be on.

Your final comment "if Iraqi democracy is growing, it is despite the U.S. presence and influence" is idiotic.

Before the removal of Saddam Hussein, any discussion of political pluralism, let alone democratic ideals, would have landed that person in prison or worse.

And under Hussein, there was plenty of "worse".

Re Bush's "candor": What a politican declares is worth nothing. Manipulative propaganda.
Let's see what happens in Iraq. Words about words is useless.

How dare anyone question the intent or divine authority of our dear leader! Bush's plan for Iraq was whispered in his ear by God himself during halftime at the Redskins-Cowboys game. Do you think God is wrong? Why do you hate America? You must be a part of the War on Christmas (TM)!

But for "reality" ... I'm sure that the entire Arab world is wrong, and Cheney and the Republicans are right - Iraq is not a quagmire descending into civil war, it's actually a blossoming capitalist/democratic utopia whose children will shop at Wal Mart and worship Jesus just as soon as we set them straight, right guys?

I just have one question - why are so many American soldiers coming home from Iraq and deciding to run for Congress as Democrats?

Seeing as this Republican war is being run according to God's own plan, I find that curious. Do the soldiers hate America, too?

Who is Laith Saud? He bills himself as an academic and an lecturer in the US, but googling on him only results in hits to Al Jazeera or sites that quote Al Jazeera.

No hits by newspapers, any academic sites (marked by a .edu suffix), no thinktaks, no announcements of lectures, etc.

If he's a lecturer, he's certainly not a well-known one. Where's he an academic at?

"The U.S. is losing ally after ally under Bush's presidency (it was Bolivia last night, following on the heels of South Korea, West Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, etc.)"

This is rich. "West Germany" -- honestly, what year are you people living in? I guess you missed it but GERMANY actually traded in their Chancellor for a pro-US version earlier this year. South Korea has troops in Iraq. Pro-US leaders have been re-elected in the past year and a half in Denmark, Japan and Australia.

Personally, I choose to evaluate our policies not based on how popular they are but whether they are right or wrong. But I'm funny like that.

In any case I'm glad that the Washington Post is back to gloom and doom by highlighting these two journalists. I also see they had a similarly downcast story the day before the Iraq election.

Goggling Laith Saud brought up a diversity of sites that publish his opinions and editorials when I googled him. There is a Laith Al-Saud who is a lecturer in Social Sciences at Harold Washington College. Don't know if it's the same person but seems likely since Laith Saud is a social sciences lecturer.

Edwin Silva: Scored a biggie?

Biggie = the installation of an extremist Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties to Iran.

What I'd like to know is where's the outrage?

In direct response to the horrific but unrelated attacks of 9/11, tens of thousands of people have been beheaded, burned, strung up and like butchered hogs, tortured, raped, sodomized, maimed, drowned, starved, and killed for an Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties to Iran?

Note to Colin; I'm glad for you that you choose to live in the same dream world as Mr. Bush, and don't see that your foreign policies in the Middle East being corrupt for so long is what caused 9/11.
The terrorists were not in Iraq before Mr. Bush illegally invaded Iraq. Your administration was dead wrong in all reason's to invade and the Global Community is aware of this. Your own people are losing their rights and liberties because of this wrong action committed by your arrogant, greedy, war mongering, judgemental government. If some people seem to think things are better in Iraq now than under Saddam, better talk to some of the women who have lost the gains they had before the invasion. Talk to the people cowering in their homes afraid to go anywhere dealing with unclean water, no power and destroyed infrastructure. Your President just lectures the World about human rights when he himself has broken every International Law involving human rights. Torture, lies, illegal invasions, illegal occupations, puppet governments, depleted uranium pollution, white phosphorus, sanctions, boycotting, corruption and pocket lining of American appointed representives in Iraq including Haliburton,not one apology for wiping out 30,000 civilians, is indeed not very popular with your once allies: but that's okay, because you think it's right so who cares what your allies think? How typical, and how hypocritical. Sometimes the doom and gloom you talk about in this column is simply the truth. When are the American people going to face the truth and get rid of this horrid bullying bunch of opportunists, and take their country back. You better hurry up though as they keep passing laws behind your back so maybe when you turn around, there will be no more elections, because Democracy just doesn't seem to work in America anymore.
God Bless all Americans and I hope for the good guys to come back and get our Big Beautiful neighbor back instead of this one you have now.

sherry: When are the American people going to face the truth and get rid of this horrid bullying bunch of opportunists, and take their country back.

Except for the above, I appreciate your message: You make it sound so easy.

The fact is that America has been invaded internally by some well-organized and extremely sick SOB-s who have been using 9/11 for a pretext for anything.

How else does one explain Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the Texas redistricting, the ousting of the Calif governor, and the voting irregularaties in Ohio, Florida, etc in 2004?

Plus, DC is rotten to the core.

Even Feinstein is feeding at the trough by way of her husband.

SOS!

Many are trying.

Hopefully you are too.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls....

I think maybe our Presidents defines victory as Iraq being annexed by Iran. The latest vote results are showing the Shiite religious parties winning big. Rumsfield has changed the rhetoric in calling the fight not to be with insurgents but, Enemieis of the legitimate Iraqi Government(ELIG). And the fight is the,global struggle against violent extremism," or GSAVE. Soon Iraq will take its place with other Muslim theocracies and ban woman from showing there faces and giving men the right to divorce by simply saying I divirce you three times. And and I can't forget today Bush is defending civil liberties by approving warrentless wiretaps. Such is George Bush's march of freedom in the world. I guess if we continue to let Karl Rove, Rumsfeld and Bush redefine Victory,freedom, and civil liberty we will all be safer and freer, at least according to their definition.

As for everything being better since the invasion and occupation, how does anyone explain the fact that Allawi, the former Prime Minister of Iraq says that human rights abuses are just the same if not worse than they were under Saddam?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/27/iraq.allawi/

Forgot about this statement:

"I just have one question - why are so many American soldiers coming home from Iraq and deciding to run for Congress as Democrats?"

Because those who believe in the Iraq intervention -- the majority of soldiers -- are staying in the military to complete the mission. Duh.

As for sherry, just remember this, if it were up the Canadians and other wimpering members of the international community Saddam would still be in power instead of on trial, his sons would be busy raping women and Iraqis would not be voting. You have absolutely ZERO moral standing to be talking down to us.

And Michelle -- you think maybe, just maybe, Allawi's comments were hyperbole from a politician campaigning for office?

THe only correct comment I've seen here is that "DC is rotten to the core." Well, yeah, what do you expect -- it's 90% Democrats in this town.

I have no idea what is in store for Iraq. I know many Sunni and Shia want a united Iraq, and it is my hope that they will come together to attain that goal. It will only happen if they respect their individual, private, and religious differences and work together as Iraqis.
One of the many lessons we can learn from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which has been going Off and on since 1948, is that the the cycle of killing and retaliation does not bring peace or even a long truce in conflicts.
Neither the Bush administation, al-Qaida, or any foreign group can bring peace or progress to Iraq. Only Iraqis can give these things to Iraq. I think Iraqis can do the job.

I came from Egypt pennilees 1n 1960. I studied with full Scholarships at 2 Ivy league colleges. What I liked the most about America was the Bill of Rights and the constitution. What I saw done by Presidents was unchecked power - Johnson -Gulph Of Tomkin; Nixon with Watergate Reagan with Iran Contra and Bush with Iraq. The problem is that we elect a Congress which rubber stamps Presidents requests, later on we find out thet the President lied. I remember that Wayne Morse was the lone voice oblecting to the resolution Tomkin Resolution,

We need Term limits for both Congress and maybe a change of our election financing laws.
But I feel that maybe it might me too little too late.

P. J. Casey: I have no idea what is in store for Iraq.

Well, there are paid professionals who have been documenting the rising influence of Iran in Iraq since the deposing of Saddadm Hussein.

Basically, Bush has removed all the obstacles for Iran's annexation of Iraq.

The two most powerful parties in Iraq (Al-dawa and the SCIRI) have been founded, led, and funded from Iran during the twenty years before the invasion.

Their leaders Abdel Aziz al-Hakim (SCIRI) and Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari (Dawa) were based in Iran during the twenty years before the invasion

They have been in charge for quite some time.

Here's a simple equation: 9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Extremist Islamic Theocracy

"Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern--and legislate--without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution--the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL)."

Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

A walk down memory lane:

How Iran Is Winning Iraq
By David Ignatius
Friday, December 17, 2004; Page A33

If you had asked an intelligence analyst two years ago to describe the worst possible political outcome following an American invasion of Iraq, he might well have answered that it would be a regime dominated by conservative Shiite Muslim clerics with links to neighboring Iran. But just such a regime now seems likely to emerge after Iraq's Jan. 30 elections.

Iran is about to hit the jackpot in Iraq, wagering the blood and treasure of the United States. Last week an alliance of Iraqi Shiite leaders announced that its list of candidates will be headed by Abdul Aziz Hakim, the clerical leader of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

[snip]

Iraq's Shiite majority deserves its day in the sun, after decades of oppression, and the January elections should endorse the reality of majority rule. But future historians will wonder how it happened that the United States came halfway around the world, suffered more than 1,200 dead and spent $200 billion to help install an Iraqi government whose key leaders were trained in Iran. Our Iraq policy may be full of good intentions, but in terms of strategy, it is a riderless horse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6395-2004Dec16.html

Colin -

Make stuff up much?

"Because those who believe in the Iraq intervention -- the majority of soldiers -- are staying in the military to complete the mission. Duh."

Um, "duh," the majority of soldiers are staying in Iraq because they've been "stop lossed," and last I checked there were 50,000 national guardsmen who never had any desire to be there in the first place.

Tell you what - prove that you're not just another yellow elephant, and go sign up for the cause you believe so greatly in, whatever it may be. The military has been missing its recruitment targets every quarter since the war began - why don't you and your GOP buddies go and help remedy that situation? And when you come home from Iraq and have recovered from your PTSD and shrapnel wounds and verious syndromes of exposure to DU rounds & etc., run for Congress and tell us how it really is.

But my bet is you're just another chickenhawk who gladly sends other people's children to a pointless war. Put up or shut up. Bawk-bawk-bawk-bawk-BRIGAWWK!

Chicken hawk. Yellow elephant. Republican.

Well, people (you, too, Edwin), you've gotta admit Bush biggied again today in his press conference. With regard to the definition of "victory" in Iraq, he affirmed, indeed, we're meeting our "objectives" there. I would imagine their definition will be forthcoming. Comments?

I've been reading and rereading the arguments presented above by the several internauts and have been struck particularly by the contrasting verities of Clay Bullrohr and Edwin Silva.

Most seem to be missing Mr. Bush's strong moves masked, perhaps, by the current furore over domestic communications monitoring. (Really, folks! Can you imagine this hasn't been going for some time, well before 9/11?)

Hyperbole aside, what's really significant is Mr. Cheney's possible permanent presence in the Middle East to monitor the newly friendly governments and ensure reconstruction is contracted properly.

Far too many haven't yet begun to give the President credit for his shrewd moves, including the Cheney relocation.

U. D. Sender

Shrewd moves?
It was "shrewd" to lead his nation to "pre-emptive" war on the basis of a lie and in violation of international law, promote torture and illegal abductions, whip up intense opposition toward and hatred of the U.S. around the world, and leave tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis dead and maimed -- all resulting in the creation of a fertile new recruitment zone for al-Qaeda and the strengthening of Iran's fundamentalist regime?
This is "shrewd"?
I have another word for it.

The Canadians Colin were trying to cut off all of Saddam's bank accounts and had a very good plan to strangle first the money, then the control that Saddam had over it's people. We did this with other nations, and it was a very good plan that has proven effective in the past. We asked the US to get onboard and work with us. We did this several times. Instead of working with us, your Rumsfeld was in Iraq doing business with Saddam. Business we refused to do. We asked the US to aid us in cutting off Iraq from the money that allowed Saddam control. We asked the US to stop doing business with Saddam. Both times the US refused continuing to feed this dictatorship with US dollars and giving validity to Saddam.
Canada and other wimpering members were sticking to our belief that Saddam was a danger to it's own people, we were working together. The US as usual only works by itself in it's dirty dealings with dictators. It did everything it could to make sure the plan was not successful, it refused to speak out against Saddam and continued to feed his evil little dictatorship with lots of cash.
If all you are going to read is government propaganda Colin, then of course everyone but the US is the enemy. Why is the US in Iraq now-for the oil stupid. Soldiers are only collatoral damage in the search for more money and power for the Bush family.
That is why Canada refused to get involved. When we spoke to the US time and time again about helping us rid Iraq of Saddam the US never showed any interest. They didn't care. As long as their coffers were being filled was all that mattered. How could they then convince us that they had the best interests of the Iraqi's at heart, when they had already shown us their true intention.

SpeakoutforDemocracy: Why is the US in Iraq now-for the oil stupid. Soldiers are only collatoral damage in the search for more money and power for the Bush family.

CORRECTION: Why is the US in Iraq now-for the oil, defense contracts, construction contracts, and Israel stupid. Soldiers are only collatoral damage in the search for more money and power for the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Lesar and Sharon families.

Andrew, that was an interesting post completely devoid of facts. Please cite one shred of evidence that the majority of troops in Iraq have been stop-lossed (commondreams.org doesn't count). Or, please show evidence that 50,000 national guard troops are there against their will. Note, that doesn't mean show that 50,000 are in Iraq, but rather than they had no clue they could wind up overseas. You, of course, can't which is why you resorted to the chickenhawk argument.

I thought we were debating whether the war was correct or not. Whether I join the military has absolutely no bearing on that. Let me ask you this: Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? If not, that places you WELL outside mainstream US opinion and exposes you for the wacko you are. If you did, why didn't you volunteer to join? Chickenhawk?

As for speakout, hey, sanctions, that sounds like a familiar idea. Oh wait, that's because we did have sanctions on Saddam under the UN for over a decade. While they didn't bring down Saddam they did make a lot of UN officials rich. I guess you could say that "As long as their coffers were being filled was all that mattered."

And I forgot to address whoever said that the US had been taken over by some cabal and that Bush didn't represent America. No, sorry, wrong. What the left here and the international community needs to realize is that the current administration does represent America. Wake up and smell the coffee -- no Democrat has ever received more than 50% of the popular vote for the presidency in my lifetime (unlike Bush). Republicans control the House. Republicans control the Senate. There are more GOP governors than Dem govs. In opinion polls there are consistently more self-identified conservatives than liberals.

You're the minority, we're the majority, deal with it.

Colin: You're the minority, we're the majority, deal with it.

Yeah right, after denying voters and defrauding elections.

People like you are responsible for the installing of an Iranian-style Islamic theocracy in Iraq as a direct response to the horrific 9/11 attacks.

Why don't you people grab your guns and bibles, go to TX, secede, and form your own country?

There you can wait for the 2nd coiming of JC in peace.

WARNING: People in the Blue States will no longer federally fund you though! You people will have to subscribe to the American way of life: Work hard, pay taxes, and grow.

Look at what you have done to the USA which the world use to love and respect.

Shame on you!

Well said, Colin. Matthew: Please step away from the keyboard and check yourself into the nearest psychiatric facility. I believe they can prescribe medication to prevent episodes of name-calling.

I think Colin is correct when he says Bush represents most of America. 70 % are as ignorant as he is. We're bullies, we're dumb as hell, we're gullible, and we're murderous.
I don't like the Colins of the world, but I think they have us out-numbered.

The truth Colin is the arrogance of America, you will not admit that any idea but Americas' works. Laugh it off, how ridiculous for anyone else's idea to work. The America's way or the highway thinking style has not got you anywhere but in everyone's bad books-nations and terrorist groups.
Sanctions and cutting off the cash at source are not the same thing.
The lack of respect for anyone elses input but the US, the anger because others didn't join your phony war, and the refusal to ever be part of a group of equals shows America as a bunch of bullies who replaced thinking with control addiction. Guess what, other nations have great ideas and it doesn't involve guns. It involves listening and working together.It involves respect for others and their input.
Who isn't tired of dummy America telling others what to do, after making greedy mistake after greedy mistake.

Watcha smokin' up there in the 51st state, SpeakOut?

SpeakoutforDemocracy: arrogance of America

HINT: America is a country filled with people from all sorts of backgrounds. Not all Americans are like Bush, i.e. Northeastern Blue Blooded, Andover and Ivy league educated, wanna be Texan. We do not all adopt fake accents and act like arsholes.

Ok?

Iraq's election result: a divided nation
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 21 December 2005

Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions.

Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq.

[snip]

The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq.

Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

[snip]

The election was portrayed by President George Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq but, in fact, means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country.

Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force.

Hey mystery shy or cowardly poster, when I speak of America not being a team player that always tells others what to do, you think I am smoking something? I must be nuts to think any voice but America's has relevance? Maybe you have a point.America is the narcissist who refuses to aid others on any terms but theirs. But there will be some humbleness in the future as your economy goes down the tubes and no one wants any part of your war mongering or control issues.They will watch your workers compete with China and making Chinese wages because you don't have the educational skills to compete in a intelligent economy.
In Canada I can smoke something if I choose. In America you are treated like infants by a government who runs by their own greedy personal agenda. Sorry too cowardly or shy to write your name, maybe I can send some puffs across the border and you can enjoy some nice second hand smoke.

SpeakoutforDemocracy: Sorry too cowardly or shy to write your name,

That is your name?

You must be smoking some good stuff and I resent that you would not pass it to me.

I agree with a lot of what you write.

I disagree how you do carelessly confuse America with the Bush admin.

America is going to be consumed by China.

Canada is an appetizer, perhaps a piece of dimsum for China.

Iran's victory revealed in Iraq election

FOR the Bush White House, the good news from Iraq just never stops. But the joy that President Bush has expressed over the country's latest election, though more restrained than his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, will similarly come back to haunt him.

Soon after Bush spoke of the Iraqi election as "a landmark day in the history of liberty," early returns representing 90 percent of the ballots cast in the Iraq election established that the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops.

The silver lining, of course, is that the election did see broad participation, if not particularly clean execution. And because all of the leading parties say they want the United States to leave on a clear and public time line, this should provide adequate cover for a staged but complete withdrawal from a sovereign country that we had no right to invade in the first place.

What we will leave behind, after hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lost lives, will be a long ways from the neoconservative fantasy of creating a compliant democracy in the heart of the Middle East. It is absurd for Bush to assert that the election "means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror," ignoring how he has "lost" Iraq to the influence and model of "Axis of Evil" Iran. Tehran's rogue regime, which has bedeviled every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter, now looms larger than ever over the region and most definitely over its oil. "Iran wins big in Iraq's election," reads an Asia Times headline, speaking a truth that American policy makers and much of the media is bent on ignoring: "The Shiite religious coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), not only held together, but also can be expected to dominate the new 275-member National Assembly for the next four years," the paper predicts based on the returns to date. "Former premier Ayad Allawi's prospects of leading the new government seem virtually nil. And Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Accord suffered a shattering defeat."

Allawi and Chalabi are the Iraqi exiles and U.S. intelligence "assets" who played such a huge role in getting the United States into this war. Chalabi, in particular, will go down in history as one of the great con artists of all time, managing to feed phony intelligence to the White House, the New York Times and countless other power players who found his lies convenient for one reason or another. Now, despite -- or, more likely, because of -- their long stints on the U.S. payroll, both of these wannabe George Washingtons have been overwhelmingly rejected by their countrymen. Chalabi, long the darling of the Pentagon, seems headed to obtaining less than 1 percent of the vote nationwide and will fail to win his own seat. Allawi's slate, favored more by the CIA, will end up in the low teens. As much as one should despise the role played by those two men in getting us into this mess, their abject failure is not a good thing for they carried the banner of a more modern and secular Iraq, which is essential to peace and human rights progress. But the Iraqi people will have to come to that truth on their own and not as a result of foreign intervention that only fuels the most irrational political and religious forces. Unfortunately, it is hardly an advertisement for our democratic way of life that the American people were so easily deceived as to the reasons for this war. Or that our president resists the condemnation of torture, renders captured prisoners to be interrogated in the savage prisons of Uzbekistan and Syria, and claims an unrestrained right to spy on U.S. citizens.

Nor does it help that this president is so publicly bent on intruding government-imposed religious values into American civil life, while urging secular tolerance upon the Islamic world. Or that he remains so blind to the reality of life in that world that he still does not grasp that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were on opposite sides of the enormous struggle over the primacy of religion in the Arab world. Iraq, for all of its massive deficiencies, was not a center of religious fanaticism before the U.S. invasion, and the Islamic fanatics that are the president's sworn enemy in the so-called "war on terror" did not have a foothold in the country. Now, primitive religious fundamentalism forms the dominant political culture in Iraq and the best outcome for U.S. policy is the hope that Shiite and Sunni fanatics can check each other long enough for the United States to beat a credible retreat and call it a victory, albeit a pyrrhic one.

No name I do agree I get frustrated when I blog with Americans and read such propaganda that some Americans actually believe. I do feel heartened to see some real thinking going on from some Americans here. I am the calmest person in my own life but it goes out the window as I read some postings that remind me there is a lot of ignorance out there. I question the level of education that is provided for Americans and wonder why so little is put into education that could help America through globalization.
At times I want to scream "wake up people don't you see your democracy is turning into fascism." So many people parrot the government propaganda line as if it is their own opinion.There are a lot of people who seem to be going through their life unconscious, whose self esteem is linked to the phony pr image of their nation that no one really believes.
In the evening I watch Canadian and British news, and big stories internationally, some of them American. Then I turn to US media and it scares the hell out of me. No mention of big stories, just fluff pieces.
Example-last week there was a big story about Aspartame, that the levels of tumour growth from ingesting it is so high that the British (and now European countries) are having emergency health meetings about banning it. The fact that Rumsfeld owns a big piece of Aspartame, and the British say that there were illegal events that happenned to get it licensed is interesting. A story all over Canadian, British, and European news but nary a mention in the US. Government suppression of the media.
Last big story about Tamiflu, that studies have shown that it does nothing to counteract Bird flu and they are finding high suicide rates in children. The effect in Vietnam proves Tamiflu does nothing at all and is completely useless. I turn to CNN to see Wolf Blitzer going on about the wonders of Tamiflu and showing two boards, one with lots of lights and one with a few. Apparently the one with lots of lights was Americans who were too stupid to take Tamiflu and had the bird flu because of their stupidity. No Science,no supporting info just a long informercial packaged as n ews supporting what...Rumsfelds company that produces Tamiflu surprise surprise.
Anyway this is the kind of stuff that scares me, the complete belief many Americans that their opinion is really their opinion and that they actually get news

SpeakoutforDemocracy,

Again, I agree with a lot of what you write.

But you are wrong to conflate America with Bush.

You would be right to conflate most Red States with Bush.

Believe me, I must be far more frustrated than you.

Those in the Red States are being used by a highly educated Hobbsian/Straussian cabal that rules DC.

Most have no idea Bush fathered an Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties to Iran as a direct response to the 9/11 attacks.

The reins of the US govt and media have been violently grasped.

Perhaps you are reading the wrong info.

http://www.rawstory.com/

http://thinkprogress.org/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

http://mediamatters.org/

http://www.democracynow.org/index.shtml

http://www.dailykos.com/

http://juancole.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

SpeakoutforDemocracy: Tamilflu

Notice the argumentation: There's a *potential* grave and looming threat. We must attack now before its too late.....

America has been hi-jacked: Help!

No name thanks for the links, they are very interesting. I can't really complain at how frustrated I feel, you live it every day. I can choose when and how I go on the internet, and Canada feels safe with lots of democratic action.For anyone with a conscience America must feel like some kind of frustrating hell.
I have to remember how powerful the anti war movement was during the Vietnam war, the demonstrations. There was a lot of admiration for the power of the people to change things around. The sixties was when Americans really spoke up and were heard around the world, I was a kid then but a regular news junkie at 6 so that time is seared in my memory. I can only hope that there will be a resurgence of that energy.
Canadians are very supportive of America, but not the present administration. We will always be neighbours but the idea of living next to a potentially and developing fascist government is chilling.
Americans who have moved to Canada are well liked generally and there is a lot of admiration for the straight talking shoot from the hip honesty coming from those not from the right wing.

SpeakOut:

For someone from such an intellectually and enlightened country, I do have to say that your grammar and writing style are exceedingly poor. Case in point, your use of run-on sentences and stream-of-consciousness posts.

Note: Also, allow me to play arm-chair psychiatrist for a moment...You also appear to have sonewhat of an inferiority complex (either for living in America's shadow, or what, I have no idea). I think this causes you to project your own frustrations on the largest target, in this case the U.S.

SpeakoutforDemocracy: you live it every day.

And will for decades.

Bush, as a cheerleader for the true neocons, has put the USA in a bad position.

He's defiled `Babylon' of all places.

Do you know that Iraqis STILL kavetch : ) about Ghenghis Khan conquering Babylon. That was over seven hundred years ago!! They sit, smoke, and drink tea cussing out that `bastard SOB'.

To them, Bush is worse.

He deserves their scorn and ridicule.

IRAQ: SHIITE COALITION EYES VICTORY

Baghdad, 22 Dec. (AKI) - A senior source from the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which heads the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance election list, says the coalition has won at least 115 seats in the new parliament, according to preliminary results from the country's independent electoral comission.

Rida Jawad Taqi, an official from SCIRI's political office, told Adnkronos International (AKI) that, based on the information available so far, the Supreme Council has secured "36 seats out of a total of 59 in the province of Baghdad, 9 out of 11 in the Babylon province and 5 out of 6 in the Kerbala province," while the United Iraqi Alliance has won "7 seats out of 8 in the provinces of al-Kut, al-Qadisiya and Najaf, all 5 seats in Samawa and all 7 of those in al-Imara, while at Dhi Qar they have won 11 out of 12."

Taqi went on to say that "in Basra, the biggest of the southern provinces, the coalition has won 13 seats out of 16, 4 out of 10 in Diyala, but in Mosul, Salah, ed-Din and Kirkuk, they only secured one seat." The SCIRI official then explained that others will be added to these seats "after the bonus seats are calculated, especially after the votes of Iraqis abroad are counted."

Some political blocks have expressed reservation about the work of the electoral commission, saying they have their doubts over the results announced so far and highlighting examples of election fraud and interference in the electoral process by neighbouring countries.

Other politicians have expressed shock at the electoral commission's announcement of several partial results, without looking into the hundreds of complaints that have been lodged with them first.

RS I agree that when I am running with thoughts the first thing that goes is punctuation. I hope you are not offended, because I know it is not what you say, but how it is written that is important.I promise I will try to keep my run-on sentences to a minimum, if you promised to drop that armchair psychiatry.
My inferiority complex, which you mentioned, is from years of living in a functioning democracy. It is too damn quiet up here; no name calling, demagogary, or bullet dodging. Everyone says please and thank you very much. Everyone is so damn nice. All that kitten saving, free speech, and love thy neighbour crap. My problem Mr. Armchair Psychiatrist is, where is the self righteousness that makes you Americans so strong and bold. Real Arnold Schwartzenager stuff.
I was raised to be polite to others opinions, that Canadians are not a group of individuals but a community. Can you believe that crap Mr. Armchair Psychiatrist. I am so insecure if I could scream I would but I don't want to jar the nice Canadians sitting next to me.
I want to be tough too, Mr. Armchair psychiatrist. I called an exorcist to remove the run on sentences but he was too nice, he said," Do not be ashamed my dear Canadian, what is of you is good, because you are good. I cannot remove that quirky characteristic because it is part of who you are." See what I mean about the niceness. I call it treacle terrorism, they are killing me with kindness.
What next Mr. Armchair psychiatrist? I know you have no insecurity but I am riddled with it. Please help me be tough like you, or pretty please as they say in Canada. I know how debillitating that niceness is, and that eventually it will eat at me like government rot must eat at you.

Mr. Armchair Psychiatrist I have changed my mind. I think I need an armchair psychiatrist because I feel better for talking to you.
I do no want the run on sentences to come between us. If you have any suggestions I am on the edge of my quiet little Canadian seat. My stream of consciousness thoughts I have been told, are a form of self expression by a self aware individual. Maybe there are other ways of self expression. Stream of unconciousness thinking like I see here, is that what you want for me. I can try as hard as I can to be self-unaware.

RS: For someone from such an intellectually and enlightened country, I do have to say that your grammar and writing style are exceedingly poor. Case in point, your use of run-on sentences and stream-of-consciousness posts.

"intellectually and enlightened country"

CORRECTION: intellectually enlightened country

RS: to say that your grammar and writing style are exceedingly poor.

CORRECTION: to write, convey, note that your grammar and your writing style are exceedingly poor.

RS: Case in point, your use of run-on sentences and stream-of-consciousness posts.

This is missing something.

I'll let you figure it out.

Spekulationen über US-Schlag gegen Iran

Planen die USA einen Raketenangriff auf Ziele in Iran? In Geheimgesprächen bereite Washington die Alliierten auf entsprechende Luftangriffe 2006 vor, verbreiten Agenturen heute. Vor allem im Nato-Land Türkei wird über einen Schlag gegen iranische Atomanlagen spekuliert.

Istanbul/Berlin - Die Nachricht platzte wie eine Bombe in die besinnliche Vorweihnachtsstimmung: Washington bereite engste Verbündete auf Luftangriffe gegen Iran vor. Das verbreitete heute der Deutsche Depeschendienst in einem Text des früheren "FAZ"-Redakteurs und Geheimdienstexperten Udo Ulfkotte - doch erhebliche Zweifel daran sind durchaus berechtigt.

Als Quelle gab der nicht unumstrittene Journalist Ulfkotte "westliche Sicherheitskreise" an, ohne jedoch spezifisch zu werden. Nach seinen Angaben soll CIA-Chef Porter Goss am Montag voriger Woche in der türkischen Hauptstadt Ankara Ministerpräsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan darum gebeten haben, die Luftangriffe auf iranische Nuklear- und Militäranlagen vor allem mit dem rückhaltlosen Austausch geheimdienstlicher Informationen zu unterstützen. Nach derzeitigem Stand seien die Angriffe für 2006 geplant.

In den vergangenen Wochen seien auch die Regierungen in Saudi-Arabien, Jordanien, Oman und Pakistan im Ansatz über die Militärpläne unterrichtet worden, so DDP weiter. Dabei seien die Luftangriffe als "mögliche Option" bezeichnet, ein konkreter Zeitpunkt jedoch nicht genannt worden.

CIA-Chef Goss soll türkischen Sicherheitsbehörden nun in Ankara auch drei Dossiers übergeben haben, von denen eines angeblich belege, dass Teheran mit der Terrororganisation al-Qaida kooperiere. Ein weiteres Dossier betreffe den Stand der iranischen Atom-Rüstung, hieß es. Nach Angaben aus deutschen Sicherheitskreisen hat Goss in Ankara zugesichert, die türkische Regierung wenige Stunden vor dem möglichen Luftangriff zu informieren und der Türkei schon jetzt "grünes Licht" dafür gegeben, an jenem Tag auch Lager der separatistischen PKK auf iranischem Gebiet anzugreifen - ein merkwürdiges "grünes Licht" allerdings, weil die PKK in Iran keine Militärbasen unterhält, sondern vor allem im Nordirak operiert.

Die mögliche Zuspitzung der Lage - so DDP weiter - hänge vor allem mit den jüngsten antisemitischen Ausfällen des iranischen Staatspräsidenten Mahmud Ahmadinedschad zusammen. Dessen scharfe Attacken auf Israel hätten die amerikanische Regierung in der Auffassung bestärkt, dass Teheran auch im Atom-Streit nicht einlenken werde und auf Zeit spiele. Die Nachrichtenagentur zitiert einen ranghohen deutschen Militär anonym mit den Worten: "Es würde mich sehr wundern, wenn die Amerikaner mittelfristig nicht die von Teheran gelieferte Vorlage nutzen würden. Die Amerikaner müssen Iran angreifen, bevor das Land Nuklearwaffen entwickelt hat. Danach wäre es zu spät."

Ob es US-Angriffspläne auf iranische Atomanlagen gibt, oder wie konkret sie sind, ist schwer einzuschätzen. Zuletzt hatte der amerikanische Enthüllungsjournalist Seymour M. Hersh im Januar 2005 im "New Yorker" darüber berichtet, dass in Iran geheime US-Kommandogruppen unterwegs seien, um militärische Ziele zu markieren.

Die Regierung Bush dementierte Hershs Bericht damals nicht. Sie spielte ihn nur herunter: Der Artikel wimmle "von falschen Aussagen", hieß es in Washington. Dass der Kern der Reportage falsch sei, wurde nicht dementiert. Bush selbst schob sogar explizit nach, er wolle "die Option Krieg" nicht ausschließen.

Luftschlag nach Neujahr?

Steht ein Militärschlag, möglicherweise sogar ein Krieg in der Region nun kurz bevor? In Berlin wird das Thema abmoderiert. Beim Antrittsbesuch des Verteidigungsministers Franz Josef Jung diese Woche bei Donald Rumsfeld in Washington sei ein möglicher US-Luftangriff auf Iran "kein Thema" gewesen, sagte ein Sprecher SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Doch die Spekulation über US-Schläge gegen Iran nimmt vor allem Bezug auf Ereignisse in der Türkei. Tatsächlich hat es in der vergangenen Woche einen mächtigen Auftrieb hochrangiger Sicherheitsleute aus den USA und von der Nato in Ankara gegeben. Im Abstand weniger Tage war erst der FBI-Chef, dann der CIA - Chef und zuletzt Nato Generalsekretär Scheffer in der Türkei. Nach ihrem Deutschlandbesuch reiste auch Condoleezza Rize in die Türkei.

Tatsächlich haben auch türkische Zeitungen im Zusammenhang mit diesen Besuchen spekuliert, dass ein Angriff auf Iran vorbereitet würde. Doch die Spekulationen in der Türkei basierten nicht auf harten Fakten. Im Anschluss an das Treffen von Porter Goss mit Tayyip Erdogan titelte die linksnationale Cumhuriyet: "Jetzt ist Iran dran". Belege: Keine.

Die Zeitung merkte aber an, dass das Treffen zwischen dem CIA-Chef und Erdogan ungewöhnlicherweise über eine Stunde gedauert habe, obwohl sich Goss vorher mit dem türkischen MIT-Chef (türkischer Geheimdienst) getroffen habe. Daraus wurde in der türkischen Öffentlichkeit geschlossen, dass es um etwas sehr Wichtiges gegangen sein müsse - genaue Angaben: Fehlanzeige. Fast alle Medien spekulierten aber vor allem darüber, dass Erdogan und Goss über eine gemeinsame Initiative gegen die PKK im Nordirak gesprochen haben könnten. Möglich, dass Goss als Gegenleistung türkische Geheimdienstinfos über Iran gefordert hat. Ein möglicher Luftangriff auf Iran würde sicher nicht vom türkischen Stützpunkt Incirlik ausgehen, es ist aber natürlich denkbar, dass die USA die Türkei vorab informiert haben, um deren Reaktionen zu testen.

Ankara ist skeptisch

Bisher stand die Regierung in Ankara militärischen Aktionen der USA in der Region skeptisch bis offen ablehnend gegenüber. Eine Offensive von US-Bodentruppen im Nordirak gegen das Saddam-Regime wurde im Frühjahr 2003 sogar von Ankara verhindert - das Fehlen dieser zweiten Front machte Donald Rumsfeld immer wieder für militärische Probleme im Irak verantwortlich.

Nun hielt sich der türkische Heereschef und voraussichtlich zukünftige Generalstabschef Yasar Büyükanit ebenfalls vor zwei Wochen in Washington auf. Danach erklärte er, die Beziehungen zwischen der türkischen Armee und der US-Armee seien wieder ausgezeichnet. Das ist deshalb bemerkenswert, weil Büyükanit zu den Scharfmachern im Kampf gegen die PKK gehört und in der Vergangenheit auch schon davon gesprochen hatte, selbst in den Nordirak einzumarschieren - falls die USA und die nordirakischen Kurden die PKK nicht daran hindern würden, vom Irak aus Anschläge in der Türkei zu verüben.

Die türkisch-iranischen Beziehungen sind seit langem unterkühlt. Teheran kritisiert seit Jahren, dass die Türkei gute Beziehungen zu Israel hat und sogar mit dem israelischen Militär kooperiert. Über die antiisraelischen Ausfälle von Ahmadinedschad ist in der Türkei dennoch nicht so intensiv berichtet worden wie in Deutschland - man hat eher den Kopf geschüttelt.

Ministerpräsident Erdogan hat allerdings erst jüngst seinen israelischen Kollegen Ariel Scharon angerufen und ihm zu seiner Genesung gratuliert - der lange eher verhaltene Kontakt Erdogans zu Scharon ist in letzter Zeit enger geworden. Scharon hatte vor kurzem erklärt, im Zweifel auch allein gegen die nuklearverliebten Mullahs losschlagen zu wollen.

Trotzdem hat sich die türkische Regierung wiederholt gegen militärische Aktionen gegen Iran und auch gegen Syrien ausgesprochen. Denn zu mindestens in der Kurdenfrage sind sich die Türkei, Syrien und Iran einig, dass es kein unabhängiges Kurdistan im Nordirak geben darf. Eine Interessenallianz in dieser Frage scheint es zwischen Washington und Ankara also nicht zu geben. Dennoch: Wenn die USA einen Raketenschlag gegen Iran planen, muss die Türkei mit ins Boot - aktiv oder passiv.

Doch Erdogan und seine Militärs hegen die schlimmsten Befürchtungen für die ganze Region, falls die USA wirklich gegen Iran vorgehen sollten. Auch westliche Experten halten den Erfolg einer Militäraktion gegen nukleare Anlagen in Iran für keineswegs garantiert. Im Gegenteil: Ein Angriff werde vermutlich sein Ziel, das Atomprogramm zu stoppen, vermutlich verfehlen - und Ahmadinedschad in Iran noch mehr Anhänger zutreiben.

Jürgen Gottschlich