Kerry refuses to list the leaders who have talked to him about winning.

[dude1394]

Since Kerry won't list them I thought I would help him out. I think only Qaddafi is questionable, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jacques Chirac (France)
Gerhard Schroeder (Germany)
Kim Jong Il (North Korea)
Mohammad Khatami (Iran)
Muammar al-Qaddafi (Libya)
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
Hugo Chavez (Venezuela)
Fidel Castro (Cuba)
Yoweri Museveni (Uganda)
Ali Abdullah Saleh (Yeman)
Abdiqasim Salad Hassan (Somalia)
Idriss Déby (Chad)
Hu Jintao (People's Republic of China)
Tran Duc Luong - Vietnam

[FishForLunch]

We know how America behaved when struck by the madmen of Islam, now we are seeing an European countries will behave when struck by the same terror , they will tuck tail and run for cover. I guess Spain will ask for UN's help. Now that the socialists are in power I predit they will abandon Iraq by June this year

Was "Zapatero" one of the world leaders Kerry was talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anger Over Attack Puts Spain's Socialists in Power


Mar 14, 9:21 PM (ET)

By Adrian Croft

MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's opposition Socialists have swept to power in a sensational election upset sparked by popular anger over the government's handling of a suspected al Qaeda attack on commuter trains that killed 200 people.

Voters ousted the center-right Popular Party (PP), which until Thursday's coordinated attacks had looked certain to win a third consecutive term in power in Sunday's poll.

Spain's next prime minister will be 43-year-old Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who has criticized outgoing premier Jose Maria Aznar for his unswerving support for the United States and has threatened to pull out 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq.

With almost all votes counted, the Socialists had won 42.6 percent of the vote to the PP's 37.6 percent as voters turned out in large numbers to reaffirm their faith in democracy amid the upheaval over the bombings which also injured 1,500 people.

Hours before polling began on Sunday, the government revealed it had a videotape, purportedly from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, saying it carried out the coordinated attacks in retaliation for Spain's support for the United States.

Protesters shouted "Liar" and "Get our troops out of Iraq" at PP prime ministerial candidate Mariano Rajoy when he voted.

Zapatero's first thought after winning was to remember those killed in Thursday's attack and to pledge his immediate priority would be "fighting terrorism."

"Right now, I am thinking about all the lives broken by terror on Thursday," he said, asking a crowd of excited supporters to respect a minute's silence.

Zapatero said his "government of change" would be marked by dialogue and transparency. He is expected to be a much more conciliatory politician than the hard-line Aznar.

The Socialists' surprise win sparked wild rejoicing among their supporters after eight years out of power.

"It's like a dream...Now things are going to change, and change for the better in every sense," said Carlos del Puerto, a 24-year-old mechanic.

The Socialists looked set to win 164 seats in the lower house of parliament, 12 short of those needed for an absolute majority, meaning they will have to negotiate alliances with smaller regional parties in order to govern.

The Socialists gained 39 seats compared with the last election while the PP saw its seats drop to 148 from 183.

The PP will remain by far the largest single party in the upper house or Senate, potentially making it difficult for a Socialist government to pass legislation.

CONTROVERSY AFTER ATTACKS

Controversy over the government's handling of the bombing of four commuter trains three days before the election clearly helped swing the election Zapatero's way.

"The government has paid the price for its involvement in the war in Iraq, for Aznar's relationship with (U.S. President George) W. Bush and (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair. The vote has been a reaction to this," said Carlos Berzosa, rector of Madrid's Complutense University.

"The result wasn't due to the economy, or to the government's management in general...it was just due to the attack," Antonio Tena, a 26-year-old civil engineer, said on Sunday evening, lamenting the PP's loss.

Many Spaniards suspected that the government was not being open about the investigation of the attacks while initially directing blame toward the armed Basque separatist group ETA, which denied involvement.

Analysts had warned that the PP could be hit if voters believed al Qaeda had mounted its first attack in Europe in reprisal for Spain's support for the Iraq war.

Three Moroccans and two Indians were arrested in connection with the attack on Saturday.

Thousands took to the streets on Saturday night, surrounding PP headquarters in several cities and demanding to be "told the truth" about the bombings.

Voters, many wearing the black ribbon symbols of national grief since Thursday's attack, turned out in large numbers on Sunday. Turnout soared to 77.2 percent from 68.7 at the last general election in 2000.

Some Spaniards were vitriolic in accusing Aznar of "manipulating" public opinion over the bombings.

Aznar, retiring as prime minister and hailing a solid economy and greater clout for a country restored to the international mainstream three decades after Franco's dictatorship ended, had taken a tough line against ETA.

Germany called on Sunday for an urgent meeting of European Union security chiefs as possible al Qaeda involvement in the Madrid bombings triggered alarm bells across the world.

From Paris to Warsaw, governments across Europe tightened security at borders, railways and airports. (Additional reporting by Madrid bureau, Gilles Trequesser in Rabat and Peter Graff in London)

[dude1394]

Some speculation that since the islamofascists have discovered that they can effect elections be prepared for many more of these. .

[Fidel]

Now that the socialists are in power I predit they will abandon Iraq by June this year

Has allready been anounced by Zapatero.

[Mavdog]

The Socialists have stated the Spanish troops will be returned home UNLESS a UN committment is made or there be an international effort undertaken, ie no troops will be in Iraq if it is US run.

Not very surprising, this was a major platform item in the election. Perhaps this will push the Bush Admin to get that UN endorsement, obviously that would be positive.

[FishForLunch]

Even some Iraqi's are doubting UN involvement in Iraq, I guess they now have their doubts after the Oil for Food Scandal the UN was involved in.

Kerry thinks passing the buck to the UN will solve all his political problems, it wont.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Iraqi Leaders Now Balk at Giving U.N. a Big Role
By DEXTER FILKINS

AGHDAD, Iraq, March 14 — In a surprising turnabout, several Iraqi leaders are balking at allowing the United Nations to return to the country to help it prepare for the return of sovereignty on June 30.

Several members of the Iraqi Governing Council, which clamored for United Nations help on elections weeks ago, now say they are reluctant to give the organization a big role either in helping to prepare the Iraqi government to stand on its own or in readying the country for nationwide elections — to take place as early as December.

Those council members, whose skepticism about the United Nations dates from the time of Saddam Hussein, said they had been disappointed by the failure of a team of United Nations experts who visited the country recently to help schedule early elections.

"We have had bad experiences with the U.N. in the past," said Yonadam Kanna, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. "There is a difference of opinion on what their role should be here."

The about-face by these council members has prompted concern among American officials here and in Washington, who are eager to enlist the help of the United Nations in preparing the Iraqi government to accept sovereignty by June 30. The worry is that without United Nations' help, the Iraqi government might lack legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis.

At the same time, American officials feel strongly that United Nations' help is crucial in enabling the Iraqis to hold elections by the end of the year or by early January 2005, as called for in the country's interim constitution.

A senior American official, Robert Blackwill, met with council members over the weekend in an effort to overcome their reluctance about the United Nations role. Whether Mr. Blackwill had succeeded was unclear, though at least one member of the Iraqi Governing Council, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, emerged from a meeting with Mr. Blackwill and indicated he approved of accepting the help of the United Nations.

"We need to get the United Nations involved in the political discussion in Iraq," Mr. Rubaie said, adding, "We need them to have a role here. We need them immediately."

But some Iraqi leaders continued to express deep skepticism about whether the United Nations should be allowed to return to take a role in Iraq. Intifad Qanbar, a spokesman for Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the council, said that while the United Nations might have a role in the country, it ought to be strictly limited.

"There is a track record that shows the U.N. is not efficient in these things," Mr. Qanbar said. "We cannot have anyone overseeing or managing this Iraqi process from outside Iraq."

The hostility expressed by some Iraqi leaders comes at a delicate time, as the Americans are preparing, in little more than three months, to turn over sovereignty to an Iraqi government that was not elected by the Iraqis. The current Iraqi council, made up of 25 men and women, was appointed by the Americans.

Iraqi and American officials have discussed ways of making the Iraqi government more representative in time for the June 30 hand-over. Among the possibilities is expanding the current council, although there has been wide disagreement over how its new members might be selected. Some Iraqi leaders say they would like United Nations' help in figuring out a way, short of elections, of making a revamped Governing Council more representative.

United Nations assistance is also thought to be crucial in laying the groundwork for nationwide elections either late this year or early next year. Earlier this year, a United Nations team led by Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian diplomat, concluded that while it was impossible to hold credible elections before June 30, it might be possible by the end of the year. That, the United Nations team said, depended on Iraqi leaders' taking a number of steps, like setting up an electoral commission and writing laws governing future elections.

So far, the Iraqi Governing Council has not taken those steps.

United Nations officials, including Secretary General Kofi Annan, have said that they will return to Iraq only if they are invited to do so. So far, no such invitation has been extended. Iraqi leaders say the Governing Council drafted a letter to the United Nations last week in which the council pointedly failed to ask it to return. That letter, for reasons that are unclear, has not been sent, the Iraqis said.

The suspicion with which the United Nations is regarded by many Iraqis dates from the time of Mr. Hussein, when the organization enforced the global economic sanctions on the government and presided over such unpopular programs as inspections for unconventional weapons.

Some Iraqi leaders said that antipathy toward the United Nations was reinforced when the team of experts, led by Mr. Brahimi, concluded that elections were not possible before June 30, and that Shiite leaders directed some rancor at Mr. Brahimi personally.

[dude1394]

The iraqi's are proving of stronger mettle than the dimocrats or the euros.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: dude1394
The iraqi's are proving of stronger mettle than the dimocrats or the euros.

That's just sad isn't it?

[dude1394]

Sad but when you have to defend yourself instead of having someone else do it, it sort of happens that way.

[Mavdog]

It seems that the Iraqia DO want the UN to help with elections after all.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have agreed to invite the United Nations (news - web sites) back to Baghdad to advise the country on its transition to self-rule, Iraqi officials said on Wednesday.

A U.N. electoral team, led by Lakhdar Brahimi, a senior official, went to Iraq (news - web sites) last month to study the feasibility of holding elections and to discuss proposals for an interim government when the U.S.-led occupation ends on June 30.


But in the last few days some Shi'ites in the Iraqi Governing Council, especially former exile leader Ahmed Chalabi, voiced opposition to a U.N. return.


Chalabi, a senior member of the Governing Council who has close ties to the Pentagon (news - web sites), told a news conference the 25-member body was sending a letter that would envisage "an important role for the United Nations in Iraq."


He then told Reuters the "role of the U.N. is to provide counseling assistance in the run-up to the transfer of power, and technical assistance in the elections."


Elections are not expected to be held until late this year, at the earliest after an interim government takes power on June 30. Iraqi Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani had demanded immediate elections.


But Brahimi told a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York on Tuesday that Iraqi leaders had agreed during his visit to the country in early February that this would not be feasible before June 30.


Brahimi said Sistani told U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) in a written message several days ago that there was no basis for news reports saying the ayatollah opposed a continuing role for the United Nations.


"He wants the U.N. to play a role, to continue to play a role in Iraq," Brahimi said.


Sistani has appeared to distance himself from some Shi'ites in the Governing Council, such as Chalabi, who objected to any U.N. oversight. Chalabi's aides have criticized Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, as a secular Sunni Muslim.


But on Wednesday, Sistani's son, Mohammed Riza, an adviser to his father, issued a statement insisting the ayatollah had not written to Annan and Sistani would not meet Brahimi again if he returned to Iraq.


However, senior U.N. officials disputed this, saying that such a note had been sent to Annan on Sistani's behalf by someone close to the ayatollah.


Annan and Brahimi last month issued a report saying that proper elections, as Shi'ites wanted, needed some eight months of preparation after a legal framework was set up for the vote.


The report also gave several alternatives for an interim government and said the United Nations would offer further advice if asked.


Chalabi's opposition to a U.N. role was of concern to the United States. U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington have asked the United Nations to help give legitimacy to an interim Iraqi government that is to take power by June 30.

[dude1394]

Although I don't agree with the iraqi's on this. What point are you trying to make? Bush has been trying to get them to come in and do this for a year. Just as long as they have no power becuase they are corrupt.

[Mavdog]

Although I don't agree with the iraqi's on this. What point are you trying to make?

The article posted above said the opposite of what is said in this article. Not really making any point...

Bush has been trying to get them to come in and do this for a year. Just as long as they have no power becuase they are corrupt

LMAO! Bush didn't want elections until a year from now! The UN was brought in to mediate the impasse between Sistani and the US, Sistani wants elections as soon as possible, Bush doesn't and wanted appointed Legislators and an election in a year. Talk about trying to spin......

[dude1394]

Get real. Sistani wants elections RIGHT NOW because he knows that he will be able to walk over the other tribes. Right Sistani wanted some sort of face-saving mechanism so they brought in the UN and wonder of wonders, they agreed with bush.

Bush wants some sort of election that will at least have some credibility and represent all of the tribes. Not be dominated by sistani.

What nefarious plans do you honestly think bush is up to here?

[Mavdog]

SO Bush did not want the UN's help "a year ago" like you stated? Glad you see that you agree you were incorrect.

Sistani "wanted some sort of face saving mechanism"? Then why is it the US asked for the UN to come and determine if elections could be held, not Sistani. The shoes on the other foot here dude, the US needed to save face and keep Sistani as a semi-ally.

Bush is attempting to appear to support democracy but isn't ready to allow the Iraqis to elect their leaders. So in reality he isn't supportive of democracy unless he can control the representitives the electorate selects. Not truly a democracy then is it?

The real reason Bush is pushing for the creation of an Iraqi legislature is the election. He is willing to jetison true democratic elections so that he can say that progress is being made in Iraq. But that progress in the Iraqi transition to democracy will truly be a sham if there are no democratic elections, all for the soundbites for his re-election campaign.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
SO Bush did not want the UN's help "a year ago" like you stated? Glad you see that you agree you were incorrect.

Non sequitor. and silly.

Sistani "wanted some sort of face saving mechanism"? Then why is it the US asked for the UN to come and determine if elections could be held, not Sistani. The shoes on the other foot here dude, the US needed to save face and keep Sistani as a semi-ally.

Yes I think it was sistani. There was no way that bush was going to go the route of other votes, one-vote, one-time. Sistani could have raised caine but again it would have just brought probably a civil war more than anything.

[quote]

Bush is attempting to appear to support democracy but isn't ready to allow the Iraqis to elect their leaders. So in reality he isn't supportive of democracy unless he can control the representitives the electorate selects. Not truly a democracy then is it?
[q/]
So who votes? Who is a citizen? Who is a registered voter? Where are the polling booths? What are they even voting on anyway. Man you are dense. Even the un said they couldn't hold elections yet.

The real reason Bush is pushing for the creation of an Iraqi legislature is the election. He is willing to jetison true democratic elections so that he can say that progress is being made in Iraq. But that progress in the Iraqi transition to democracy will truly be a sham if there are no democratic elections, all for the soundbites for his re-election campaign.

That is a crock and just not true. Did you not just read their proposed constituion? It's probably one of the most progressive documents ever written by an arab country.

Bush is taking a huge gamble here. Until Sept 11 he was more than happy dealing with domestic policy, but unlike clintoon he didn't want to just kick the can down the street for someone else to deal with it. He could have bought a lot more votes with that 87 billion than giving it to the iraqis. You can disagree that bringing democracy to the middle east is the right way to fight terrorism but saying that bush is only doing this for politics is inane.

But I forget, that's about all the dims and liberals have isn't it. Bush is a moron, reagan was a moron. Carter/Clintoon were REALLY effective saints. Stupid, just stupid.

[Mavdog]

Yes I think it was sistani. There was no way that bush was going to go the route of other votes, one-vote, one-time

uh, so Bush is against democratic ("one vote, one time") elections?

So who votes? Who is a citizen? Who is a registered voter? Where are the polling booths? What are they even voting on anyway. Man you are dense. Even the un said they couldn't hold elections yet

So why appoint a legislature so soon, rather than wait until there can be voter registration et al. Could it be November elections? uh huh.

Bush is not willing to give the Iraqis a democratic legislature, he wants to have a selected (not Elected) legislature seated by the end of July. Can anyone come up with a good reason why there should be an appointed legislature rather than an elected one? I can't, and neither has the Bush administration. Wouldn't it be best for the fledgling root of democratic values to take hold if the Iraqis themselves elected their government? Yes, it would.
what's the rush? answer: November presidential elections. If you don't see this you really are blind to reality.

I don't believe that Bush is a moron. Never even suggested such.

Misguided and foolish yes, moronic no.

[dude1394]

Yes mavdog, there have been many one-vote, one time elections and they have very seldom is ever worked. So yes bush (and the UN I might add) are against one-vote one-time "democratic" elections.

You are just being pednatic. What bush wanted was local caucuses choosing leaders, much like we did in the early days of our republic. You know, there wasn't popular elections for quite a while. There is nothing nefarious about it. But at least it would have allowed representation by the kurdish and sunni's to have representation.

So what is your proposal? How long should it take then 2-3-4 years? Sure there are political ramifications. But number one is if the iraqi's are running the country then they can deal with internal problems and not have gi's out there doing it. Then the iraqi's can be responsible for their own security with US backing. That means the terrorists will have to blend into the very countryside that they are attacking, very difficult. And best of all it gets our guys out of the firing line.