( OT ) Back by unpopular demand
 

Back by unpopular demand

President Bush has gone from first to worst in the polls, although the
press has ignored the tumble. Blame it on the less than stellar election
results in Iraq, as well as what looks to be a losing argument in the
Social Security "crisis" debate.

According to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted from Feb.
7-10, Bush's approval rating stands at 49 percent, which is dismal for a
just-reelected president. By comparison, during the first February of
their second term, the most recently re-elected presidents all boasted
approval ratings in the 60s'; Richard Nixon (67), Ronald Reagan (60),
and Bill Clinton (60).

What's even more shocking is that just days earlier, riding the crest of
supposedly good news surrounding the election in Iraq, Bush -- as
measured by the very same CNN/USA Today/Gallup polling unit -- posted
his best approval ratings in 13 months. For the survey conducted Feb.
4-6, his approval rating shot up to 57 percent; heights Bush hadn't
reached since January 2004, and hadn't consistently hit,
month-after-month, since the spring of 2003.

Yet the most recent results show Bush's approval ratings cratering eight
points to 49 percent and his disapproval ratings spiking 8 points to 48
percent. That's a 16-point swing in less than one week. What happened?
It's possible the realization about the vote in Iraq began to set in
among voters who grasped that with the overwhelming Shiite coalition
victory there's now a distinct possibility of an Iran-friendly Islamic
state being established in Baghdad. Hardly the reason why U.S. troops
were deployed. Domestically, the hot issue behind Bush's decline was
likely Social Security reform, which the president sold hard during his
Feb. 2 State of the Union address. Despite that primetime push, and a
subsequent White House road show designed to build support, a plurality
of Americans, by a margin of 48 to 42 percent, still disapprove of
Bush's handling on the issue. That, according to CNN/USA Today/Gallup.

Perhaps a better explanation is that the poll last week that showed Bush
earning a 57 percent approval rating -- the poll that generated all
sorts of glowing press for the White House -- was a fluke. No other
polling outfit that regularly checks the public's pulse on the White
House detected that sort of post-inauguration jump for Bush. For
instance, according to Newsweek, Bush's approval rating in late December
was 49 and in early February was 50. Fox News uncovered the same apathy
towards Bush; in early January 52 percent of Americans approved, while
today the number has edged down to 51 percent.

Bottom line: Three months after earning his self-proclaimed Election Day
mandate, Bush remains an historically unpopular two term president.

Eric Boehlert Salon

Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.

JimH wrote:
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.

What does that have to do with the above article, other than what YOU
posted to me about taking the bait? ZING goes the drag, eh?

"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned with
Iran.

"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.

Yep....the media didn't like the previous polls, so the change the make up
of the pool to change the numbers......big surprise there. NOT

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.

Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned with
Iran.

While I'm ambivalent on the war (or war it'self for that matter, but
that's a whole different subject) I thought the Iraqi election went
much better than I thought it would. There appears to be some sort of
balance in the governing legislature and the discussions between the
Kurds, Sunni and Shiite plus the 40 some political parties is bringing
some positive results.

I don't think we can necessarily call it a categorical failure - to
soon for that.

As to the winner's being aligned with Iran - that is not absolutely
true. From a theological standpoint, the Shiite component certainly
is, but they have to contend with a equally potent secular body in the
Kurds and Sunni communities plus the Shiite isn't a monoblock - there
are parties within that block that are secular and have seats in the
Legislature which would indicate that the influence of Iran may be
severely overstated.

It all has to play out before we can reach any conclusions.

Later,

Tom

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

A cut and paste was snipped. Just for Jim, some good news:

*******************************************
Recruitment drive for Iraqi Army draws thousands

By U.S. Army Sgt. Lorie Jewell, Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq
Public Affairs

SOUTHERN IRAQ – An estimated 8,000 to 10,000 men arrived by foot, bus, and other
vehicles by sun up Feb. 14, at an airfield outside an Iraqi Army base in an
effort to join Iraq’s army, officials said.

Of that, approximately 5,000 made it through a screening process that led them
onto the base, which is home to several thousand Iraqi Soldiers and a contingent
of U.S. service members, officials said. Most will be transferred to other bases
in Iraq to supplement existing units.

The process was a result of the largest recruitment effort for the Iraqi Army to
date, said U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Anthony Woodley of the Multi-National Security
Transition Command-Iraq.

During the screening process, potential recruits were given a literacy test,
physical condition check and questioned about prior military service. Once
inside the base, they went through a medical screening and received uniforms,
boots and other military-related clothing.

Of those who were turned back, or did not make it through the screening, leaders
told them to return for another recruitment drive.

Many recruits showed up with proof that they were serving when Saddam Hussein’s
regime fell and they were subsequently released from duty. Former Iraqi Army
Maj. Hussien Ali Kadhun, 48, traveled about an hour and a half by bus to rejoin.

“I want to serve my country and fight the terrorists,” he said through a
translator.

Ali Kadhun said he graduated from a military college in 1979 with a bachelor’s
degree in military science. He returned to school to study law shortly after his
release from the army in 2003.

Another former Soldier, Hakeem Shaial Hassan, 27, worked as a farmer after his
first stint in the Army. It took him nearly four hours to get to the airfield
with a group of friends, looking for a job to provide him and his family with a
better income. New recruits earn 420,380 dinars a month, or the equivalent about
$212 in U.S. dollars, officials said.

“I am proud that I made it,” Shaial Hassan said through an interpreter. “But I
am sad that my friends did not. They will have to go back home and tell their
families they did not make it.”

U.S. Army officials were expecting a little more than 6,000 potential recruits.
U.S. military members from the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy were
joined by several civilian security personnel and a few hundred Iraqi Soldiers
stationed at the base. Several dozen Iraqi Soldiers arrived at the base the day
before and went right to work early the next morning, said U.S. Army Lt. Col.
Mark Harvey, base commander.
*************************************************

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On 16 Feb 2005 07:10:55 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


JimH wrote:
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.

What does that have to do with the above article, other than what YOU
posted to me about taking the bait? ZING goes the drag, eh?

I suppose you're correct. Jim, posts are nothing more than bait.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned with
Iran.


John Kerry and I are both Roman Catholics. Does that mean we agree on
everything?

What rash assumptions you make, just to be seeking something negative to say.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned
with
Iran.


John Kerry and I are both Roman Catholics. Does that mean we agree on
everything?

What rash assumptions you make, just to be seeking something negative to
say.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Kanter is in my bozo bin. His reply to my post proves he belongs there.

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in
Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically
aligned with
Iran.


John Kerry and I are both Roman Catholics. Does that mean we agree on
everything?

What rash assumptions you make, just to be seeking something negative
to say.

John H

Nope, certainly not, because the similarities between you and Kerry end
at your religion. For instance, Kerry is intelligent....

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.

Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned
with
Iran.

While I'm ambivalent on the war (or war it'self for that matter, but
that's a whole different subject) I thought the Iraqi election went
much better than I thought it would. There appears to be some sort of
balance in the governing legislature and the discussions between the
Kurds, Sunni and Shiite plus the 40 some political parties is bringing
some positive results.

I don't think we can necessarily call it a categorical failure - to
soon for that.

As to the winner's being aligned with Iran - that is not absolutely
true. From a theological standpoint, the Shiite component certainly
is, but they have to contend with a equally potent secular body in the
Kurds and Sunni communities plus the Shiite isn't a monoblock - there
are parties within that block that are secular and have seats in the
Legislature which would indicate that the influence of Iran may be
severely overstated.

It all has to play out before we can reach any conclusions.

Later,

Tom

I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this: I would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down the road,
if after another couple of elections, the country ends up being another
Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a mind in order to
speak one's mind.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned
with
Iran.


John Kerry and I are both Roman Catholics. Does that mean we agree on
everything?

What rash assumptions you make, just to be seeking something negative to
say.

Which assumptions? Have you read much about the people who won in the Iraqi
election?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:08:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned
with
Iran.


John Kerry and I are both Roman Catholics. Does that mean we agree on
everything?

What rash assumptions you make, just to be seeking something negative to
say.

Which assumptions? Have you read much about the people who won in the Iraqi
election?


John Kerry and I are ideologically aligned with respect to our religion of
choice. Does that mean we agree on everything.

You are assuming that any ideological alignment (if it even exists) is
detrimental to the interests of the United States.

If the sharing of a religion meant a total ideological alignment, Harry Reid,
John Kerry and myself, all Christians, would be in agreement about everything.

Not.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On 16 Feb 2005 09:18:54 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in
Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically
aligned with
Iran.


John Kerry and I are both Roman Catholics. Does that mean we agree on
everything?

What rash assumptions you make, just to be seeking something negative
to say.

John H

Nope, certainly not, because the similarities between you and Kerry end
at your religion. For instance, Kerry is intelligent....

BTW, you forgot to answer the question:

It seems as though you have a very hard time stating what you believe.

Could you show me where I said I worshipped anything?

When you say, "It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing!" Do you
really mean, "It's the narrow minded mentality of *some of* the God fearing"?
Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow
mindedness' purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans?

And this one:

Let's see. Are you saying you are not responsible for your posts? Who is? No
one? If no one is responsible for his posts, than anyone should be able to say
whatever they wish without any accountability. True? If no accountability is to
exist, then why do you continuously ask for proof?

If you find these too difficult to answer, I will understand your just leaving
them unanswered. Or, you could just call some names...

And here I complimented you on your writing abilities!


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:08:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.


Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq,
but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned
with
Iran.


John Kerry and I are both Roman Catholics. Does that mean we agree on
everything?

What rash assumptions you make, just to be seeking something negative to
say.

Which assumptions? Have you read much about the people who won in the
Iraqi
election?


John Kerry and I are ideologically aligned with respect to our religion of
choice. Does that mean we agree on everything.

You are assuming that any ideological alignment (if it even exists) is
detrimental to the interests of the United States.

If the sharing of a religion meant a total ideological alignment, Harry
Reid,
John Kerry and myself, all Christians, would be in agreement about
everything.

Not.


I very much doubt that GW wants a true democracy in Iraq anyway, I bet it
will end up some form of a constitutional republic with constitutionally
guaranteed rigthts to the minority groups.


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:27:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
Get over it Jim....Bush won...your guy lost.

Hey knucklehead...your president got the democracy he wanted in Iraq, but
not the election results. Get it? The winners are ideologically aligned
with
Iran.

While I'm ambivalent on the war (or war it'self for that matter, but
that's a whole different subject) I thought the Iraqi election went
much better than I thought it would. There appears to be some sort of
balance in the governing legislature and the discussions between the
Kurds, Sunni and Shiite plus the 40 some political parties is bringing
some positive results.

I don't think we can necessarily call it a categorical failure - to
soon for that.

As to the winner's being aligned with Iran - that is not absolutely
true. From a theological standpoint, the Shiite component certainly
is, but they have to contend with a equally potent secular body in the
Kurds and Sunni communities plus the Shiite isn't a monoblock - there
are parties within that block that are secular and have seats in the
Legislature which would indicate that the influence of Iran may be
severely overstated.

It all has to play out before we can reach any conclusions.

I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this: I would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down the road,
if after another couple of elections, the country ends up being another
Iran.

It's all supposition at this point.

10 years down the road, it will be a different President and a
different set of problems.

As Warner Wolf is fond of saying: "The Future is Now".

Later,

Tom

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this: I would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down the
road, if after another couple of elections, the country ends up being
another Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a mind in
order to speak one's mind.

Don't sell democracy short in Iran. While the old guard still maintains
the power, there is a strong pro-democracy undercurrent pushing for
modernization of the political process. I'm also hopeful for Iraq. If
Sistani can engage the Sunnis in the political process, it is possible the
country might stabilize. Then again, it is just as possible for a civil
war to breakout involving the entire region.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this: I
would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down the
road, if after another couple of elections, the country ends up being
another Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a mind
in
order to speak one's mind.

Don't sell democracy short in Iran. While the old guard still maintains
the power, there is a strong pro-democracy undercurrent pushing for
modernization of the political process. I'm also hopeful for Iraq. If
Sistani can engage the Sunnis in the political process, it is possible the
country might stabilize. Then again, it is just as possible for a civil
war to breakout involving the entire region.

I agree. I'm just pointing to Iran as a symbol of evil for Bush, and for the
sewage who hasn't read what you've mentioned above.

"John H" wrote in message
...


Which assumptions? Have you read much about the people who won in the
Iraqi
election?


John Kerry and I are ideologically aligned with respect to our religion of
choice. Does that mean we agree on everything.

You are assuming that any ideological alignment (if it even exists) is
detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Actually, I don't think it's detrimental, but you can bet your home, car and
all your money on the fact that your president sees any alignment as evil.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:16:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


Which assumptions? Have you read much about the people who won in the
Iraqi
election?


John Kerry and I are ideologically aligned with respect to our religion of
choice. Does that mean we agree on everything.

You are assuming that any ideological alignment (if it even exists) is
detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Actually, I don't think it's detrimental, but you can bet your home, car and
all your money on the fact that your president sees any alignment as evil.


Yeah, he *is* kind of a paranoid little guy!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Doug Kanter wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went
fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this:
I
would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down
the
road, if after another couple of elections, the country ends up
being
another Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a
mind
in
order to speak one's mind.

Don't sell democracy short in Iran. While the old guard still
maintains
the power, there is a strong pro-democracy undercurrent pushing for
modernization of the political process. I'm also hopeful for Iraq.
If
Sistani can engage the Sunnis in the political process, it is
possible the
country might stabilize. Then again, it is just as possible for a
civil
war to breakout involving the entire region.

I agree. I'm just pointing to Iran as a symbol of evil for Bush, and
for the
sewage who hasn't read what you've mentioned above.

Doug, every country that isn't Christian, white, and doesn't goose step
to BushCo, is, in their eyes, evil.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went
fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this:
I
would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down
the
road, if after another couple of elections, the country ends up
being
another Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a
mind
in
order to speak one's mind.

Don't sell democracy short in Iran. While the old guard still
maintains
the power, there is a strong pro-democracy undercurrent pushing for
modernization of the political process. I'm also hopeful for Iraq.
If
Sistani can engage the Sunnis in the political process, it is
possible the
country might stabilize. Then again, it is just as possible for a
civil
war to breakout involving the entire region.

I agree. I'm just pointing to Iran as a symbol of evil for Bush, and
for the
sewage who hasn't read what you've mentioned above.

Doug, every country that isn't Christian, white, and doesn't goose step
to BushCo, is, in their eyes, evil.


Of, of little usefulness, like countries in Africa we've pretty much ignored
when they've been raped by "brutal dictators".

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:31:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
roups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went
fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this:
I
would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down
the
road, if after another couple of elections, the country ends up
being
another Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a
mind
in
order to speak one's mind.

Don't sell democracy short in Iran. While the old guard still
maintains
the power, there is a strong pro-democracy undercurrent pushing for
modernization of the political process. I'm also hopeful for Iraq.
If
Sistani can engage the Sunnis in the political process, it is
possible the
country might stabilize. Then again, it is just as possible for a
civil
war to breakout involving the entire region.

I agree. I'm just pointing to Iran as a symbol of evil for Bush, and
for the
sewage who hasn't read what you've mentioned above.

Doug, every country that isn't Christian, white, and doesn't goose step
to BushCo, is, in their eyes, evil.


Of, of little usefulness, like countries in Africa we've pretty much ignored
when they've been raped by "brutal dictators".


All this started *after* Clinton?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:31:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
groups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went
fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this:
I
would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down
the
road, if after another couple of elections, the country ends up
being
another Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a
mind
in
order to speak one's mind.

Don't sell democracy short in Iran. While the old guard still
maintains
the power, there is a strong pro-democracy undercurrent pushing for
modernization of the political process. I'm also hopeful for Iraq.
If
Sistani can engage the Sunnis in the political process, it is
possible the
country might stabilize. Then again, it is just as possible for a
civil
war to breakout involving the entire region.

I agree. I'm just pointing to Iran as a symbol of evil for Bush, and
for the
sewage who hasn't read what you've mentioned above.

Doug, every country that isn't Christian, white, and doesn't goose step
to BushCo, is, in their eyes, evil.


Of, of little usefulness, like countries in Africa we've pretty much
ignored
when they've been raped by "brutal dictators".


All this started *after* Clinton?

John H

No, perfesser. Thimk more harder.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:07:57 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


I don't think it's a failure, Tom. As you said, the election went fairly
well, and by that, I mean the mechanics of it. My concern is this: I
would
like to know what's on the president's mind perhaps 10 years down the
road, if after another couple of elections, the country ends up being
another Iran. Why does that concern me? One must be the owner of a mind
in
order to speak one's mind.

Don't sell democracy short in Iran. While the old guard still maintains
the power, there is a strong pro-democracy undercurrent pushing for
modernization of the political process. I'm also hopeful for Iraq. If
Sistani can engage the Sunnis in the political process, it is possible the
country might stabilize. Then again, it is just as possible for a civil
war to breakout involving the entire region.

On the heals of an assassination no doubt. Sistani is a stabilizing force
right now. If the terrorists got to him, all hell would break loose.