The Democrat looks like the one with the long-term imperial agenda.

To read the article, please click Kerry would keep US troops in Iraq far longer than Bush

Kerry is a politician who is trying to get elected. If he says the same thing as Bush then people will have to choose on other issues. If he says something different then people will blame him for it.

For example, if he said he would take the troops out on some particular timetable, for the next 5 months the american troops would be unclear what their mission was. And the people who like Bush would say he was endangering the troops. He would certainly be endangering their mission. If the various militias and insurgents etc thought he would win, they would have an incentive to build up their forces while they wait for the US army to leave. But every bit of fighting that did happen would blamed on him by his enemies. "The insurgents are attacking as hard as they can because they want Kerry to win!"

So Kerry does better by saying he'll do the same things Bush is doing but do them better. In five months the situation will have changed so much that he can do whatever he thinks best at that time. If it's all settled down and the elections work right, he can take the credit. If it's such a mess that his only choice is to pull out he can blame Bush. If it looks like more trouble but winnable, he can ask for foreign help and hang in until the help arrives, maybe even give up control and do it under a UN banner.

You can't tell about politicians from what they say before the election. Before the 2000 election Bush said he wasn't going to do nation-building.

In both cases , he is done bad to Arabs .. If he really mean it, then no better than Bush..If not then we got a liar ..
Here what I got from some fellow American Arab's email..

Ralph Nader
Independent Presidential Candidate

Reception and Fundraiser

July 31st , in Saratoga
(6:00 – 8:00 pm)


Two reasons, often overlooked in our community during elections, why we should lend our support to Nader:

1. Free publicity for our issues;
No one has ever been able to give Palestinian Rights as much visibility in the US as Ralph has. If we were going to buy the same amount of air time to advertise to millions of Americans the cause for peace in Israel / Palestine! - we would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. And even if we were willing to do that we cannot guarantee that the mainstream media would agree to our ads. On Iraq both Bush and Kerry are gun-ho for a continued occupation to be followed by a new "Pro-US dictatorship." We know that. But, does the average American know that? NO. Ralph is the only one who is making the Iraq war an issue in this campaign.

2. Real political leverage for our community;
The Democratic leadership is telling us it is nice that you support our "non-Bush" candidate but on your issues we offer an agenda that is the same and in the case of the Middle East it is even worse than the Bush agenda. In short their message to Arab and Muslim America is that we are irrelevant. We cannot provide them with more funds than the pro-Israel fundamentalists or the military industrial complex. And we are also not a threat to them so long as we keep saying "anyone but Bush." But, ! if we say we are with Nader / Camejo then we suddenly matter and they will try to woo us. Do not forget the Kerry "neo-cons" who would like to divide Iraq into three states and dramatically increase aid to Israel at the expense of aid to Arab countries. Kerry may suddenly change his tune. Even for those who believe that Kerry is slightly better than Bush the risk of going with Ralph is worth taking. Because "slightly" is just not good enough. If the Democrats can win with the agenda they now have - in the 2008 election they could be worse even than the Republicans. And we would be left with no party to stand for even a single one of our issues.

Yes, he is basicly a liar. He had some ideas about opposing the israelis until he found out what AIPAC would do to him, and then he tried to outBush Bush about that.

If you want short-term results, I'd say vote for Kerry. You know what you'll get with Bush. With Kerry there's a reasonable chance that he'll do something different.



That makes good sense. Nader likely won't get a lot of publicity but he'll get some. And he might help you more than you'll hurt him.



I doubt they will this year. But if the zionists all go for Bush, and give the strong impression they'll go Republican next time around too, then the Democrats will woo you next time. Showing that you'll only vote for them if they're good to you is worth something.



I think there's a reasonable chance that Kerry will try to do right. Give him an idea that might work and there's a reasonable chance he'll take it. This isn't his war yet, and if he can find a way to change things around he might change them. He can even admit that it's all wrong and needs to be changed -- after the election. Bush can't admit that ever.

So if you'd rather vote for a chance than no chance, and you are in a swing state, vote for Kerry. But if you'd rather have a chance the Democrats will woo you in 2008, vote for Nader.

Let me explain why we shouldn't..
As Arab or Muslim, we might have different views among us about most of issues but one main , the Israeli-Palestine one.. Both candidates are fighting to propose their best to satisfy the Zionist lobby with no regard to the Muslim /Arab community.. Both parties do that because they know the potential of this lobby in the election. There is no consideration for the Muslims because we didn't show them yet our potential .. If we go for this party or the other then we are not doing good for our main issue and on the other hand our potential wiln't l be shown because it will be impedded in the main stream..
In going for Nader, we are building our strength , as most votes for Nader will be considered as coming from Muslims and that would show, and for the first time in American history, how much we can count for.. Something that I am sure would make both parties consider seriously..

مقال كتبه احد الصحفيين لا ادري ما هو رد العراقيين ممن شاهدوا الفلم بنسخته الاصليه ومصداقيته مع ما قاله كاتب المقال . ارجو التعليق
بهلول
الديموقراطيون وكراهية العرب!


مأمون فندي

«أنا أكره العرب أكثر بكثير من الرئيس الحالي».. هذه هي رسالة جون كيري والحزب الديمقراطي المبطنة.
هكذا قال أمريكي أبيض كان جالساً معنا لمشاهدة الخطاب وتحليله، «هذا هو مؤتمر مايكل مور، في ما يخص كراهية العرب، التي كانت حاضرة في كلمة مرشح الرئاسة، وفي الاحتفاء بمايكل مور صاحب فيلم (فيهرنهايت 9/11)».
فرح العرب بالفيلم، لأنه ينتقد سياسات بوش، ولكن فات كثيرين منهم التركيز على العنصرية الصارخة في الفيلم، المتمثلة في رسم صورة للسعوديين تظهرهم أناساً مدعاة للتشكك، وأن التعامل معهم فيه شيء من الخيانة والدناءة معاً. وبالطبع، بالنسبة للمشاهد الأمريكي لا فرق بين سعودي أو جزائري أو يمني أو مصري، كلهم عرب في الصورة النمطية، وكلهم يلبسون «الزي العربي».
دعك عن مرور القرود في الفيلم، عندما تطرق فيلم مايكل مور إلى موضوع المغرب، فكانت تمر صور القرود والحديث عن المغرب، وكأنهما شيء واحد. ولم يكن مور عنصرياً ضد العرب فقط، لكن حديثه عن دول التحالف، مثل كوستاريكا وظهور صور الناس والدواب معاً، كل ذلك فيه احتقار وعنصرية شديدان. ورغم ان العنصرية هي كل متكامل، إلا ان ما يهمني هنا هو العنصرية ضد العرب، لأنني أكتب بالعربية، أما ما سطرته باللغة الإنجليزية فهو أشمل بكثير.
حضور مور في مؤتمر الديموقراطيين وتصويره للسعوديين بهذا المنظر المقزّز، على أنهم أناس غير أمناء، وأنهم مصدر شبهة، كان بمثابة المقدمة لحديث جون كيري غير المسؤول، عن الأسرة المالكة السعودية. حديث عن السعوديين في الفيلم عنصري ومفضوح، أدى إلى جملة كيري الخاصة في خطابه. والغريب أن كيري، في خطابه هذا، لم يذكر سوى دولتين اجنبيتين، هما العراق والسعودية. وبغض النظر عن المعركة السياسية حامية الوطيس، بين جورج بوش وجون كيري، إلا أنه كان من واجب الديموقراطيين، من العرب الأمريكان، الاحتجاج على وجود مور في المؤتمر. كذلك كان عليهم الاحتجاج على طريقة تعاطي كيري مع الشأن السعودي بهذا التخصيص، الذي لا يخلو من دعوة إلى زعزعة استقرار دولة حليفة. هذا شأن يحتاج إلى نقاش من أصحاب الشأن نفسه، لكن النقطة الأساسية هنا، هي أن ما قاله كيري، جاء في سياق مقبول، لأن الديموقراطيين احتفلوا بهذا الفيلم العنصري، لذلك لم تهتز لهم شعرة عندما أطلق كيري طلقته باتجاه السعودية شعباً وحكومة، وظني أن السعوديين قادرون على الدفاع عن أنفسهم، فلديهم من الكتّاب والمثقفين ما يكفي، وليس هذا دوري هنا، لكن ادخال مور في القصة بدا أكبر بكثير من الخصوصية السعودية. والأمر الآن يتعلق بطريقة الحديث عن العرب داخل الحزب الديموقراطي، طريقة عنصرية تتطلب اعتذاراً واضحاً لا تشوبه شائبة، ورفض أية محاولة للتملص من الاعتذار.
لكن يبقى حديثي الآن موجهاً إلى العرب، وهو حديث مرتبط بالسذاجة التي تلقى بها كثير من كتابنا ومحللينا هذا الفيلم العنصري، وصفقوا له، وكأنه عمل في صالح العرب وفي صالح قضيتهم. انني أدعو من كتبوا عن هذا الفيلم إلى مشاهدته مرة أخرى، في ضوء قراءة هذا المقال، لكي يروا ما رأيت. رأى كثير من العرب الفيلم في إطار الشعار المعروف «عدو عدوي.. صديقي»، بينما مور هو عدو للرئيس بوش، الذي يراه بعض كتّابنا رمزاً للشر. فمور، لا بد أن يكون بالضرورة، بطلاً حتى لو استخدم العرب كوقود في حملته ضد بوش. استخدم كراهيته للعرب وعنصريته تجاههم كأول أدلة الاتهام ضد بوش، الذي يضع يده في يد هؤلاء «الخونة الملوثين» من وجهة نظره.
طبعاً لا أتمنى أن نعيد عرض فيلم مور في دور السينما العربية ونزيد إيراداته، كل ما أوده هو أن يعيد النقاد الذين كتبوا بدافع الانتقام من جورج بوش، الكتابة بدافع فضح العنصرية ضد العرب في هذا الفيلم البغيض. بالطبع أنا لا أحاول التأثير في أن يتبنى كثير منا مواقفه السياسية المعادية أو المناصرة لسياسات بوش، كل ما احذر منه هو أن كراهية بعض العنصريين، هنا، للعرب، تتحول بقدرة قادر إلى شيء يصفق له الجمهور بمن فيه العرب أنفسهم.
تصفيق بعض الراديكاليين العرب لفيلم هو، في نهاية المطاف، يحض المواطن الأمريكي على كراهيتهم، هو شيء غير مفهوم بالنسبة لي، وأن الاضرار الناتجة عن هذه السذاجة كبيرة وكبيرة جداً.
فلو لم يجد المرشح الديمقراطي جون كيري قبولاً لمثل هذه الكراهية ضد العرب، وضد السعوديين تحديداً، في أروقة مؤتمر الحزب، لما تجرأ أن يكون بمثل هذه المباشرة في حديثه عن السعودية.
لم يكن هذا رأيي، لكن هذا كان محل اجماع عشرة من المثقفين والصحافيين الأمريكان، الذين اجتمعت معهم لمشاهدة حديث كيري، وكنت أنا وعربي آخر معهم، ولم نحاول أن نؤثر في رؤيتهم، فقط جلسنا واستمعنا وفوجئنا بما حدث.
ابتعد الحديث عن جون كيري، وتحول إلى جذور المشكلة المتمثلة في عنصرية فيلم مايكل مور ودوافعها، لكن يبقى المؤتمر أمراً مهماً، وما جاء فيه ايضا أهم. فالنقاط الأساسية في تعليقات الجالسين، انصبّت على أن حديث كيري لم يكن استراتيجياً، وخلا من عنصري الإلهام والوعد المتعارف عليهما في الخطب الأمريكية من هذا النوع، فلم يكن هناك إلهام ناتج عن شخصية كارزمية، ولم يكن هناك وعد بالجنة، أو بأشياء كبرى تطلق عنان الخيال لدى الناخبين.
اختصر الأمريكيون مؤتمر الديموقراطيين في كلمة زوجة كيري، تيرسا هاينز، التي بدأ الحديث عنها الآن، على أنها مصدر خطر على كيري، وليست مصدر قوة.. تيرسا هاينز، لم تكن هيلاري كلينتون، التي تعرف حدود التوقف عن الكلام. هاينز امرأة لا تعترف بالحدود، ويبدو أنها لا تدرك أنها ليست المرشحة للرئاسة.
كل من هاينز ومور، سيكونان أدوات تحطيم لكيري لا أدوات إنقاذ، هذا رأيي. أما ما هو أهم بالنسبة للعرب اليوم، فهو كشف عنصرية مور وفضحها، حتى لا يتجرأ آخرون على القيام بنفس العمل. عنصرية مور فاقت عنصرية هوليوود، كما انها أخطر منها، لأن عنصرية مور الآن، أصبحت وقوداً لحملات انتخابية، يبدو أن العرب سيكونون ضحيتها الأولى. فمطلوب الآن من المثقفين العرب، أن يقفوا بالمرصاد ضد حملة استخدامهم بشكل عنصري في الانتخابات الأمريكية.
على العرب أن يحاولوا قراءة ما بين السطور، ولا يفرحوا، لأن مور يكره بوش، أو أن كيري يكره بوش، لأن كراهية مور وكيري للعرب الآن، تبدو وكأنها أكبر بكثير من أي شيء رأيناه في إدارة بوش.

Translating Bahlol's:
Would some one who watched the movie "Fehrenhite 99" please comment on the following article..

Article By Maamoun Fendi.. "Mutergem, it is long article, but I will brief it"


The writer think that the movie is absolutely anti Arab and that is not his opinion only but also other American Journalists .. He thought that having the producer of the film in the democrat meeting last week was a shame to all those Arabs Democrates..

I'm afraid that makes perfect sense to me.

For myself, Bush is so bad that I would not want any chance that he'd win again. But you get more of a possibility that someone will pay attention to american-arab interests if you show you vote only for those who offer you something.

It is an uphill fight because the zionists in the USA are so well organised, and you directly oppose them. I think if it was me, I would look for some small issue that clearly does not hurt the zionists in any way. Perhaps medical care for syrian children, who are just starting to face sanctions. Present it to US politicians as a way to get arab-american votes. Watch them refuse because the zionists oppose it. And then keep fighting it and publicising it. Zionists opposing an obviously good issue could be news that makes them look bad, and the politicians going along with them makes the politicians look bad. They would of course say that any medical care for syrian children would get diverted to the military, and that any money sent to the syrians' own health care would get diverted to palestinian terrorists, and too many people would believe them. But maybe within 6 years you could get the obviously-good bill passed and american politicians would see that you were important, and everyone would see that the zionists don't win every single time.

That might be the case if

1- The Arab/Muslim community is already showing a strong united community..I mean not diversified among almost all issues.i.e. Iraq, policy toward terror, policy against Syria..etc..

2- If Kerry agenda on Iraq is better..For Most Iraqis, Bush is better than Kerry.. While both might agree on the necessity of Saddam removal and keeping the military help to Iraqis, Bush has his agenda full with commitments to Iraqi people freedom, while kerry's is going more into the colonial style of relation.On the other hand, some Arabs with anti Iraqi freedom operation feelings might look bad to both.

We need to choose an agenda that all Arabs are agreeing on , the only one in my opinion is the Palestine-Israeli balance treatment.. I am not asking the US politician to be anti Israel but to at least put some balance , there are a lot in America that are accepting this .

As for the uphill fight, I agree and that is exactly why I suggested this.. Arabs are only united on the big fights, there is no bigger than asking for fair balanced solution to the Palestinian issue..

تسال بهلول


التفاته ذكيه .. في الحقيقه انا لم اشاهد الفلم لانني ارفض مقولته الرئيسيه التي تريد ان تقول للمشاهد من ان ازاله صدام لم يكن ضروريا وفي الحقيقه ان ما جاء بالفلم ليس اكثر من ترديد لمقولات المعارضين لسياسه بوش والقائله بان بوش لايفهم طبيعه هذه المجتمعات العربيه المتخلفه حيث انها مجتمعات غيلر مؤهله لتقبل التطور الحضاري والديمقراطي ومن ان سيساه بوش ضد الارهاب غير جديه..

ولكني استفسرت من شخصين شاهدا الفلم .. الاول امريكي والثاني عربي ..
الامريكي اكد لي بخجل ما اشار له كاتب المقال من انه لاحظ هذا النفس العنصري ضد العرب واعطى مثلا بالظهور العلني للرجال "المعقلين" كاشاره الى العرب وكما جاء بمقال الكاتب

العربي نفى ذلك واعتبر الموضوع مخصوصا بالسعوديين "المعقلين" ..

اعتقد ان المفارقه التي يتكلم عنها الكاتب مفهومه من المثلين اعلاه.. في العالم العربي لايدرك العرب ان العقال في الغرب هو رمز للعربي بصوره عامه وليس رمزا لاسره حاكمه..

Translating above..


Bahlol,
Smart point.. I didn't watched the moview as I am not buying the main point by the producer that there was no value of moving Saddam, as part of accusation to Bush that he is not understanding the Arab culture of not being able to absorb the civilization and democracy,,
However, I asked two friends, one Arab and other American.
The American confirm the point that the article writer was refering to, as he refered to the Arab hat.
The Arab, strictly denied such link, as it was refring to Saudees and proved by the Arab HAt
Seems to me that Arab in Middel east don't relize that the symbol of hat is different on both sides.

I am an outsider and perhaps shouldn't be giving advice, but I want to.

If you are not unified you have a serious problem, and I do not see a solution. You must pick an issue you can agree on. But the zionists will oppose you and at first they will win. It takes a lot of effort and money, and you will have to make the effort and spend the money and lose. Say you campaign every 2 years, and it takes 12 years to have your first success. You will have five campaigns and ten years where you work very hard and get nothing. It will be hard to keep going.

It would be better if you could find some small issue that the zionists do not oppose. Then you could get an earlier success. But you would have to be unified enough to agree on the issue.

There are many americans who want a fair arrangement for palestine, but for most of them it is one issue among many. Zionists give a lot of money to the opponents of candidates who are least biased in their favor. It is dangerous to oppose them. For example, after the 1973 war Senator Fulbright of arkansas took a balanced stand. He faced a vote in 1974. Hardly any of his voters were jewish, but suddenly the arkansas governor was running against him and had a lot of money. The governor was popular, and there were national news programs that explained that Fulbright was old and tired, he was out of touch with his people, and he was going to lose. The national news explained that Fulbright would not get many of his usual votes, and so he was reaching out to the black community hoping to get black votes. In that time blacks and whites did not get along well in arkansas, and when the news announced that Fulbright was trying to get black votes that was enough to reduce his white votes a lot. Fulbright had been a senator for a long time and had been winning easily, but he lost that election, and probably most of the reason was the money and the TV news. Politicians believe that if they do something zionists don't like -- and all the other politicians aren't doing it at the same time -- then they will have a very hard time at their next election.

I guess you must work toward balance for israel/palestine, and try not to get discouraged. Maybe the zionists will make a horrible mistake that will give you a chance to win. It cannot happen unless you are ready, but it may still not happen. So look for things that seem like small victories. Look for things you can think of as progress. Hang in there and wait for your chance.

Poll Finds Kerry Assured Voters in Initial Debate

October 5, 2004
THE POLL
Poll Finds Kerry Assured Voters in Initial Debate
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and JANET ELDER

Senator John Kerry came out of the first presidential debate having reassured many Americans of his ability to handle an international crisis or a terrorist attack and with a generally more favorable image, but he failed to shake the perception that he panders to voters in search of support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll also found significant doubts about President Bush's policies toward Iraq, with a majority of the public saying that the United States invaded too soon and that the administration did a poor job thinking through the consequences of the war. But Mr. Bush maintained an advantage on personal characteristics like strong leadership and likability, as well as in the enthusiasm of his supporters.

Four weeks from Election Day, the presidential race is again a dead heat, with Mr. Bush having given up the gains he enjoyed for the last month after the Republican convention in New York, the poll found. In both a head-to-head matchup and a three-way race including Ralph Nader, the Republican and Democratic tickets each won the support of 47 percent of registered voters surveyed in the poll.

Last month, Mr. Bush led Mr. Kerry by 50-42 in a two-way race and 50-41 in a three-way race.

The results, which parallel those of several other national polls in the past few days, are likely to intensify interest in tonight's debate in Cleveland between the vice-presidential candidates, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as the two additional presidential debates, on Friday and Oct. 13.

Aides to both campaigns said yesterday that the running mates' debate, which begins at 9 p.m. Eastern time, was unlikely to have a major impact on the vote in November. That did not stop them, though, from trying once again to set high expectations for the other side, as each campaign pointed to the debating strengths of its opponents.

Some of the drop in Mr. Bush's numbers appeared to reflect the traditional cycle in which a candidate's standing surges after his nominating convention and then declines somewhat. Both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have said for months that they expect the race to be tight at the very end.

But Mr. Kerry also scored notable gains in several areas that could be vital in a campaign being largely fought over the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism.

Forty-one percent of registered voters said they had confidence in Mr. Kerry's ability to deal wisely with an international crisis, up from 32 percent before the debate. Thirty-nine percent said they had a lot of confidence that Mr. Kerry would make the right decisions when it came to protecting against a terrorist attack, up 13 percentage points.

On both scores, however, Mr. Kerry still trailed Mr. Bush. Fifty-one percent of voters said they had confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to deal with an international crisis, unchanged from before the debate, and 52 percent said they had a lot of confidence in his ability to protect against a terrorist attack, up slightly from 50 percent last month.

Mr. Bush's strategy of portraying Mr. Kerry as an unprincipled flip-flopper appears to have stuck in the national consciousness. Sixty percent of registered voters said Mr. Kerry told people what they wanted to hear rather than what he really believed, about the same level as throughout the spring and summer. The corresponding figure for Mr. Bush was 38 percent.

It is unclear whether the race for the White House has merely reverted to a steady state in which neither candidate can establish a clear lead, whether Mr. Bush can regain the advantage with a strong performance in the next debates or whether Thursday was a turning point at which Mr. Kerry seized the initiative.

There is also considerable uncertainty over whether national polling numbers reflect the state of play in the 18 or so swing states where the election will be decided and where the relative success of get-out-the-vote efforts by both sides could prove to be the difference. In recent weeks there has been a surge of new voter registrations in many states as the two campaigns and their allies seek to ensure that every possible supporter goes to the polls on Nov. 2.

The Kerry campaign said the poll showed that the race was moving in its direction. The nationwide telephone poll of 979 adults included 851 registered voters. The margin of sampling error for the entire sample, and for registered voters, is plus or minus three percentage points.

"The public took a measure of John Kerry standing next to the president, and came to the conclusion that he had the strength, judgment and experience to be the commander in chief," said Joe Lockhart, a senior strategist for Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Bush's team said he remained ahead in the ways that would count most on Election Day.

"We always said this race would be close," said Matthew Dowd, Mr. Bush's chief campaign strategist. "When style fades quickly, leadership and policies remain, and that is where the president has the advantage."

Over all, Mr. Kerry appears to have come off well in the debate, which respondents to the poll said, 60 percent to 23 percent, that he won.

The proportion of registered voters saying they viewed Mr. Kerry favorably jumped to its highest level, 40 percent, from 31 percent in mid-September, while the number of people who said they did not view him favorably, 41 percent, did not change appreciably.

The percentage of voters who said their opinion of Mr. Bush was favorable dipped slightly, to 44 percent from 47 percent last month, while the percentage of voters who said they did not view Mr. Bush favorably increased to 44 percent from 38 percent in that period.

Mr. Kerry, who sought to emphasize during the debate how aggressive he would be in hunting down terrorists and protecting the nation from attack, made some headway in winning back women who had been drifting toward Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry led Mr. Bush 48 percent to 46 percent among women; last month Mr. Bush led among women 48 percent to 43 percent.

The results show not only how closely divided the nation is, but also how clearly defined the differences are between the candidates, especially on foreign policy. Just under half of voters said both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry would bring the right balance to judgments about when to go to war. But 46 percent said Mr. Bush would not be careful enough and 31 percent said Mr. Kerry would be too careful.

The poll indicated that Americans continued to have doubts about both candidates. Mr. Bush's job approval rating, at 47 percent, was little changed from last month and close to what has traditionally been a danger zone for an incumbent seeking re-election. His approval ratings for his handling of foreign policy, Iraq and the economy were even lower, and a narrow majority of respondents, 51 percent, said the country was on the wrong track.

The poll suggested that the daily bloodshed in Iraq and Mr. Kerry's strategy of hammering away at Mr. Bush's handling of the war might be resonating among voters. Asked what kind of job Mr. Bush had done in anticipating what would happen in Iraq as a result of the war, 59 percent said he had done a poor job and 34 percent said a good job. A slight majority, 52 percent, said the United States had been too quick to go to war in Iraq, compared with 37 percent who said the timing was about right.

But Mr. Bush maintained his reputation as an effective leader in confronting terrorism, with 57 percent of respondents saying they approved of his handling of the issue and 37 percent disapproving. Asked whether they thought of Mr. Bush as someone they would like personally, even if they did not approve of his policies, 61 percent said yes, versus 48 percent for Mr. Kerry. Asked whether both candidates have strong qualities of leadership, 62 percent said yes for Mr. Bush and 56 percent said yes for Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry continued to generate increased levels of enthusiasm for his candidacy among those who said they supported him, with 48 percent saying they strongly favored him, up from 40 percent last month. But, in a race that could hinge on turnout, Mr. Bush maintained a strong advantage on that measure, with 70 percent of his backers saying they strongly favored him, up from 63 percent.

Fifty-five percent of voters said Mr. Bush had made clear what he wants to accomplish in the next four years, a five-point increase since last month, while 45 percent of voters said Mr. Kerry had a clear agenda, up seven points in the same period.

The poll found that 65 percent of voters did not think Mr. Bush had a clear plan for getting American troops out of Iraq, and that 59 percent of voters did not think Mr. Kerry had one. Half of voters said they thought Mr. Bush made the situation in Iraq sound better than it is, and 43 percent said Mr. Kerry made it sound worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/12/...lear/index.html


The question is how this would fit with the American's last report that there was no evidence that Saddam had any facilities to produce WMD's.. Would some one explan to me..?
One might say that these are sitesthat were under UN inspection.. The question then why they had kept it under Saddam control, at a time the report claimed that all those facilities were distroyed in the early 90's..
Is there any relation to the tones of equipments that the Americans moved from Iraq two months ag.. Just wondering! .

That is because President Bush does not want to leave Iraq until it is a healthy democracy. Senator Kerry's goal is to devise an exit strategy. Kerry's goal is to withdraw all US troops as soon as possible. Bush's goal is to establish a thriving democracy in the middle-east and hope that freedom and prosperity will spread. The "neo-con" mindset believes that a prosperous and free gulf will not create very many new terrorists and will ultimately lead to peace between an Israeli state and a Palestinian state.

Bush's view is naive; Afghanistan isn't Iraq

A REAL COALITION MEANS U.S. ISN'T SEEN AS AN OCCUPIER
By Daniel Sneider


The sight of millions of Afghans casting ballots for the first time in their history was heartening. After decades of civil war, foreign invasion and extremist rule, the prospect of a peaceful future for Afghanistan is a cause for hope.

President Bush eagerly seized on this as validation of his vision of implanting a model democracy in Iraq. That is not only wrong -- it is also dangerously naive.

It is wrong because Afghanistan departs from the script followed in Iraq on almost every key point.

And while the presidential vote was welcome, Afghan life is still dictated by powerful forces of ethnicity and tribal loyalty. To brush over that Afghan reality is dangerous. It encourages the United States and others to walk away prematurely from the difficult job of rebuilding that nation.

Afghanistan differs from Iraq in three key respects -- political legitimacy, the role of the United Nations, and international cooperation.

Unlike in Iraq, a sovereign Afghan government representing longstanding movements within the country formed almost immediately. The American and British air attacks on Afghanistan began in October 2001. The next month the forces of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance marched into Kabul and ousted the Taliban. In early December, representatives of the Afghan groups, including exiles, met in Bonn and reached a deal to form an interim government. It was sworn in by the end of the month.

The United Nations played a key role in overseeing the political process in Afghanistan, from hosting the Bonn meeting to organizing the elections that had just taken place. A recent poll by the Asia Foundation found that while the United States enjoys a favorable rating of 65 percent among Afghans, the United Nations rates even higher, at 84 percent.

Last, but not least, Afghanistan has been a true international effort. The number of countries contributing troops there is greater than in Iraq. A U.N.-authorized international security force was in place within a few months. At present, there are 9,000 peacekeepers in Afghanistan (about half the U.S. troop level), organized under the command of our NATO allies in Europe.

These elements -- legitimacy, a U.N. lead role and a true coalition -- mean that unlike in Iraq, the United States is not widely perceived as an occupier.

Even then, the road to democracy in Afghanistan is hardly smooth. The vote was postponed twice due to the lack of security, mainly caused by a revival of the Taliban. Parliamentary elections were put off until next March.

The presidential vote was somewhat marred by charges of fraud fed by the discovery that an indelible ink to mark those who had voted could be easily removed. And the poor security conditions meant that international monitors were small in number and not widely dispersed.

Traditional Afghan power structures -- village and tribal chiefs and religious leaders -- directed votes to the man of their choice. ``Any politician who wants you to believe that the Americans have brought Afghans the gift of democracy seriously underestimates the Afghan power of adaption,'' one Washington Post reporter wrote.

Choice seems to be largely dictated by ethnic loyalties. The leading presidential candidates were all clearly associated with their ethnic group.

``Afghanistan has never been a nation-state,'' Afghan human rights activist Habib Rahiab told me. ``Every person first considers themselves Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek and other ethnic groups. And then they consider themselves Afghans.''

President Hamid Karzai, the American-backed choice, moved openly in the last eight months to associate himself with fellow Pashtuns. The Tajiks, who formed the core of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, are increasingly restless.

Such tensions have led to civil war before, including after the ouster of the communists in the early 1990s. The fear of American military may keep things from going down that road. But the coming parliamentary vote is likely to reinforce ethnic alignments, while Karzai relies on an axis of warlords and fellow Pashtuns to rule.

This makes it imperative that the international community increase -- not draw down -- its commitment of peacekeepers and development aid to Afghanistan.

DANIEL SNEIDER is foreign affairs columnist for the Mercury News. His column appears on Sunday and Thursday. You can contact him at dsneider@mercurynews.com

Agree that Afghanistan is different, that is why Bush went differently.!!



Iraqi groups reached to agreement to form the interim government even before the invasion.


The irony is that in the Afghan case, UN has no any resolution that allow the invasion, while in the Iraqi case, there are so many that could allow invasion.

After the war, in the Iraqi case, the UN played a key role in formulating the IGC through it's representative De Melo. That is why he was killed by the anti Iraq freedom terrorists.



There are 40 countries participated in Iraq war.. If France, Germany and Russia couldn't join for some politically driven factors, that would not make the war non international. President "democratic" Clinton, invaded Yougoslavia with much less international support and for interests that are much less "American".


Polls in Iraq, published today, showed that about 80% of Iraqis are with the ellections, no much more than 75% participation in Afghan last ellections.. When it comes to people freedom.. They are no different..

Any one that explain to me how the American ellections is working? Do people ellect the president or they ellect a representative ?

Thank you

When we vote for president, we vote within our states. The candidate who wins the most votes in a state gets to pick the state's electors. The candidate chooses people who support him to be electors and they vote for the candidate who chose them(except for a couple of times). Those electors vote in a meeting called the electoral college where they cast their votes and chose the president(but the outcome has been determined by the citizens' vote). The number of electoral votes each state has is equal to the number of senators and representatives that state has. Each state gets two senators and 435 representatives are divided amongst the states in proportion to their population. Each state gives a representative an area of the state to represent. The people in that area elect that representative. The whole state elects it's two senators.

Hogan,
Thanks a lot. That is very informative..
Just to confirm my understanding..
The electrolls have no thing to do with congress.. right?

One more question, who appoint/ellect Senitors?

You are correct. The electors only job is to vote in the electoral college when selected. This will happen on December 13, after the general election. They meet in their State to cast their vote. Then there job is done. The media will anounce the presidential winner before that date because the electoral college is just a formality. Only a few times in our history has an elector not voted for the candidate who won his state and selected him, and it has never changed the outcome.

To answer your question: Every state gets two Senators. All the voters in each state elect their Senators. Senators serve for six years and then run for re-election if they want to continue to serve. Representatives have to run for re-election every two years. The congress is made up of two houses. The Senate with 100 Senators (50 States * 2) and The House of Representatives with 435 Representatives.

Hogan,
That is so sophesticated..
I wonder why our "great" media is not telling us about it.. There is a lot that we in Iraq, might learn from the American democratic institusions

http://www.sotaliraq.com/newiraq/article_2...10_20_0429.html

In Arabic .. Intersting article by Iraqi Dr. Aziz Alhaj.. talking about those Islamist and Arabs who are hopping the ellection of Kerry would make ZAmericans retreat from Iraq..
He thinks such thing would never happen and what had changed in Iraq will make it very difficult for any American president to return back to old days// There is one way for Iraq , is the way of democracy, the way that President G. W, Bush had implemented and have the honor of being the first American President that make it possible for a middel easterian country to emerge into real democracy..

http://www.elaph.com/Politics/2004/10/17892.htm

In Arabic.. Kerry refused to visit a mosque in Florida.. Congradulation to those "Islamic " groups who had said that they have promises from him.. If he ffraid even to visit your mosque ? you know the answer.. Very funny

http://www.radiosawa.com/article_view.aspx?id=396063

In Arabic.. A poll by someone called " Aldulaimee" showed that 22% of participants were for Kerry against 16% for Bush..
The Poll showed that more than 60% of Kurds and Shia " 80% of Iraqis" are for Bush. While most Sunni Arab are for Kerry.

Simple math: How is this to be consistant? Any explanation? Is this poll carried on in Fallouja?

Note: Aldulaime name is a known respected sunni family from Ramadi/Falouja.. Don't know if this guy belong to!

Well, who knows what Kerry would have done. He has spoken out of both sides of his mouth for 30 years.

And he is a dishonorable, disgusting man. He served in Vietnam for 4 months during that war, and came home early, while the rest of his crew stayed and fought. And then he testified in front of the nation that the troops were all criminals and had committed unspeakable acts, routinely and as a matter of policy. He said this without evidence, and he never proved what he said. When the troops came home, protestors spat on them.

There were some very bad things that happened, but the criminals who did them were caught and went to jail.

Yet all the soldiers were tarred with the same brush.

When John Kerry spoke at a convention of Vietnam Vets, many of them sat in silence with their arms crossed. Two men stood up with their backs to him for the whole time.