ASSAD'S WAR CRIMES—SHELLING OF CIVILIANS IN SYRIA

I realize that the government of Russia does not want to see another Libya ending in Syria.  The capture, torture and killing of Col. Gaddafi was disgusting and barbarous.  However, Bashar al Assad's shelling of Syrian cities and towns is also revolting.


In his quest to hang on to power, Assad shows himself to be the Butcher of Damascus.  Shelling and bombing of civilian homes and dwellings—certainly these things constitute disgusting war crimes.

BASHAR AL ASSAD NOW PLEADS FOR KOFI ANNAN'S PEACE PLAN

Bashar al Assad now calls the UN general, Robert Mood, pleading for a ceasefire, this according to a report in today's The Guardian on line, written by Ian Black and Luke Harding.

Report Harding and Black:

"Diplomats revealed that Assad had phoned the head of the UN monitoring mission, General Robert Mood, pledging to implement Kofi Annan's peace plan shortly after Wednesday's devastating bomb attack in Damascus, which killed four senior members of his military-security command. The UN says Assad and the rebels have failed to observe a ceasefire."

By the way, yesterday, one of Iran's ministers complained that the United States has a double standard, complaining about some assassinations and not others. (Sorry, no cite for this.)  Why, for example, had the U.S. not condemned the bombing assassination of the four senior members of the Syrian government's defense department?

This criticism seems misplaced and totally not germane.  The men who were killed in Syrian Defense headquarters were the very ones responsible for ordering and putting into effect the shelling of civilian populations in Homs and Idlip and many other cities where there have been anti-government demonstrations.  They approved bombing civilian homes and killing civilians indiscriminately.  These were war crimes.  The fact that they were the targets of a bombing planted by the insurgents prompts musings that they themselves received justified punishment for their egregious war crimes.

As to the progress of the insurgents in fighting the Syrian government, Harding and Black write:

"The capture of Syria's borders by the opposition was an important moment, analysts said, and showed Syria's 16-month conflict was now a fast-moving guerilla war. Fawwaz Traboulsi, a Beirut-based historian and columnist, said the tactics and strategy of the Free Syrian Army had improved, in contrast to the early days of the uprising.

"It's conducting a war that is very close to a guerrilla war. The FSA can move very easily. It can withdraw. It is taking whole regions and holding them," he said."

OBAMA CRITICIZES IRAN FOR AIDING SYRIAN REPRESSSION, BUT NOT SAUDI ARABIA FOR BEATING MEDICAL DOCTORS IN BAHRAIN

Obama criticizes Iran for aiding the Syrian government in its bloody crackdown on protesters even though there is no evidence of Iranian involvement. Yet Obama remains silent when Saudi Arabia sends troops to Bahrain to kill and imprison protesters. Why? Answer: the U.S. Navy maintains its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, not in Syria. Shame on Obama.

STOP U.S. ATTACKS ON SYRIA AND PAKISTAN

Stop American raids into Syria and Pakistan. They do much more harm than any benefit of catching some mid-level Al Qaeda sympathizer. They kill innocent women, children and villagers. The arouse intense anti-American sentiment that will last for decades. They spur bystanders to join the insurgency with the goal of killing American soldiers and officials.

BUSH TRIES "OCTOBER SURPRISE" WITH ILLEGAL SYRIAN RAID

Dan Froomkin has a good run-down in today's The Washington Post website of newspaper reaction to the illegal Bush raid of a Syrian village. The result of the incursion was the death of eight people, including one woman and four juveniles.

A survivor on BBC World News last night said that the soldiers ransacked the tents that people were living in, and when they finished and were about to depart, they opened fire without provocation.

Froomkin writes that Bush with this illegal raid is trying to craft another October surprise:

"By approving a U.S. military raid across the Iraqi border into Syria, Bush has changed the rules once again. On Sunday about two dozen special forces soldiers entered the country by helicopter and killed a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader, without the permission or cooperation of the Syrian government. Call it an October surprise -- if not, at least so far, the October surprise."

WHY DID U.S. SOLDIERS KILL EIGHT CIVILIANS IN SYRIAN ATTACK?

I caught a fragment of BBC Radio's interview of Richard Perle, notorious supporter of Bush's unwarranted invasion of Iraq, justifying the illegal U.S. incursion into Syria which left at least eight people dead, including one woman and four children.

Perle said it was "hot pursuit." Now "hot pursuit" is the legal doctrine that allows the police to follow someone into his home or onto his property after the police saw the person committing a crime. There is no need to first obtain a warrant.

How Perle thinks it is "hot pursuit" is beyond comprehension. Whomever the U.S. was looking for, that person was not running away. So some other justification for what appears an illegal violation of the U.N. charter and international law needs to be created.

Tell me, what is the difference between some jihadist exploding a bomb in a crowded Baghdad market and U.S. special forces entering tents in this Syrian town and shooting all the inhabitants? Are they not both terroristic acts?

The Syrians claim that the U.S. engaged in murder of unarmed civilians. A surviving Syrian young woman claims that the special forces opened fire on civilians in the tents before departing in their choppers. If the lady's account is true, then the United States engages in terrorism just as much as the crazed bomber in the market.

U.S. VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ATTACK AGAINST SYRIAN FARMING VILLAGE

The U.S. has finally admitted that it carried out an attack against a Syrian village some eight kilometers into Syrian territory. For the past 24 hours Washington issued no confirmation of the incursion.

This is clearly reminiscent of Colombian president Uribe's attack against FARC insurgents in Ecuador. It has no basis in international law and is a sure fire way to start another war, if not regional, even world-wide.

Katherine Zoepf reports in today's The New York Times web site:

"Syria’s state-run media also intensified its criticism of the United States on Monday, with the government newspaper Tishrin accusing American forces of committing “a war crime,” Agence France-Presse said."

I condemn the Bush gang for approving this attack which is a clear violation of Syrian territoriality. If the U.S. had any gripes about this poor Syrian farming village, it could have pursued a diplomatic course by talking to the Syrian government. It could have done so if it chose, but instead, Bush/Cheney resorted to military force.

The result is eight people dead, including one woman and four children. Not only is this a serious breach of respect for another country's sovereignty but above all it is a violation of the eight human beings who were gunned down by American special forces.

U.S. MILITARY VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW BY CROSSING INTO SYRIA FOR MILITARY RAID

The BBC reports that U.S. airborne troops and four U.S. helicopters attacked a town eight kilometers within Syria this afternoon, near the Syria-Iraq border.

Reports the BBC:

"US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.

"The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria.

"It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night."

Once again, there are reports of civilian deaths, including children. The BBC reports:

"The dead include a man, his four children and a married couple, the Syrian report said, without giving details of the children's ages.

"The village was named as Sukkiraya, 8km (5 miles) from the Iraqi border."

Second, why is the U.S. taking this action now, just 10 days before the presidential election?

And why must the U.S. violate international law by crossing the border into Syria and conducting a military raid? This is against the provisions of the U.N. Charter and international law. It is a clear violation to do this.

Here we see signs of Bush/Cheney machiavellian interference in the coming election. Do anything, even start another war, if it would help Republicans win the election. This is my suspicion until the facts prove otherwise.

RICE VISITS LIBYA, U.S. HAS "NO PERMANENT ENEMIES"

The BBC reports today that Condoleeza Rice is visiting Libya, the first American high official to do so in some 50 years.

Rice makes the inane comment that "America has no permanent enemies." But America should not have any "enemies." Then the U.S. need not worry whether they are permanent or only temporary. Americans should not view Iran as an "enemy." Iran has done nothing to the U.S. in terms of dropping bombs or killing Americans. The same for North Korea, Syria or a fortiori Venezuela. True Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has called George W. Bush "Satan" and similar names. But U.S. foreign policy should not characterize Venezuela as the "enemy" because Chavez insulted our great leader.

BBC Radio also reported that Gazprom, the Russian gas behemoth, had recently tried to enter into an exclusive agreement with Libya and Qaddafi to develop Libyan oil and gas fields.

The desire to keep open channels to Libyan oil might explain why Condoleeza Rice is so anxious to visit Libya and offer tokens of friendship.

ISRAEL'S PEACE TALKS WITH SYRIA - A RUSE FOR ATTACKING IRAN?

Why is Israel holding negotiations with Syria about a possible peace agreement and return of the Golan Heights now?

This is a legitimate question to ask. It was only a few months ago that Israel sent its war planes into Syria to bomb and destroy what Israel and its neo-con friends in the U.S. government termed an inchoate nuclear bomb processing site. Yet less than a year later, Israel is conducting peace talks.

I suspect that Israel is doing this to neutralize an ally and friend of Iran in the event that Israel sends its bombers against Teheran. The whole world knows that Barack Obama is likely to be the next U.S. president in months, and Obama has stated publicly that he believes in a foreign policy that would eschew tanks and missiles in favor of negotiation and diplomacy. Israel knows that George Bush's term has only six or seven months to go. And it is clear that Bush would support Israel in its militaristic aggression against Iran. In other words, it is now or never in mounting an attack against Iran and in destroying Iran's nuclear power capabilities. So engage Syria in phony peace talks, neutralize the Syrians, and then attack Iran.

This must not be allowed to happen. If Israel attacks Iran, there will be turmoil and war in the Middle East for the next 500 years, maybe longer. The U.S. will be seen for what it is, an enabler of the Olmert regime in attacking another Islamic nation without cause. The whole world order will be roiled and in a frenzy.

OBAMA WINS NOMINATION, PANDERS TO AIPAC ON ISRAEL

So my choice, Barack Obama, won the Democratic nomination. However . . .

I read in The Washington Post where Obama fell over himself to show that he was a true friend of Israel. Obama spoke at the AIPAC convention, the largest and most powerful Israeli-American lobby in the nation.

Reports Dana Milbank:

"A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.

"He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has "rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." He used terms such as "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt" while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

"Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.""

Is this the same Obama that garnered my support because of his willingness to adopt a saner U.S. foreign policy than what we have had over these past eight years? Someone who would be willing to sit down and use negotiation and diplomacy to talk with Ahmadinejad of Iran or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? A president who believes that dropping bombs and shooting missiles is unjustified and yes, immoral?

How could my guy Obama say that he would isolate Hamas when even today Isabel Kirschner reports for The New York Times that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas says that he wants to negotiate with Hamas? If Abbas wants to open talks with Hamas, why would Obama say that he would never do so? Obama's statement is disapppointing, rash, politically deceptive and unwise.

And as to Syria, Milbank reports on Obama's statements:

"Israel's military action last year "was entirely justified," Obama said, to knock out Syria's "weapons of mass destruction" program. "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he added."

So Obama is saying that one country, Israel, is justified sending war planes across territorial boundaries of another country, Syria, and bombing a building it suspects is housing a nuclear reactor? Where is this found in the principles of international law? This is Bush's preemption carried through to its logical conclusion. And Obama is adopting this military aggression as own?

Milbank writes:

"The Superman music soon returned, and the man with the Star of David on his lapel left the dais in a shower of hugs and kisses from the AIPAC officers."

BUSH IN ISRAEL SAYS EPIC BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL - WHO IS GOOD AND WHO IS EVIL?

George Bush said it again, he believes the forces of good are in an epic battle with the forces of evil in the Middle East. In his view, Israel and the United States represent the forces of light, but Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran (not to mention Hugo Chavez) act as the forces of darkness.

In this Manichean scheme, Bush's foreign policy centers on killing the (Islamic ?) evil-doers and praising virtuous Americans and Israelis.

Suppose you were a Palestinian 10-year old in Gaza. How would you like to be called an evil-doer and a force for darkness? Or have your mother and father so characterized?

The Israeli-Palestinian situation cannot be so easily resolved into good versus evil. Some Palestinians shoot missiles into Israel which kill innocent Israeli civilians. But some Israelis support the Israel Defense Forces which shoot missiles into homes in Gaza or fire tank shells that explode with steel darts that kill innocent Palestinians.

To build American foreign policy on such black/white thinking between good and evil in the way that George Bush has is to risk having a simplistic U.S. foreign policy that alienates people of good will all over the world and makes them enemies of Americans.

JIMMY CARTER IN MIDDLE EAST, WILL MEET HAMAS OFFICIAL IN SYRIA

Jimmy Carter is in Israel but Israeli officials seem to be snubbing him because of his forthcoming meeting with a Hamas official in Syria.

Adam Entous writes for Reuters:

"Israeli leaders shunned former U.S. President Jimmy Carter during a visit because of his plans to meet Hamas and Israel's secret service declined to assist U.S. agents guarding him, U.S. sources said on Monday."

Carter knows an important principle in establishing peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians is to show respect to both sides, and that includes Hamas. If Israel refuses to talk with Hamas leaders, we will have another hundred years of missiles raining down on Israeli towns and Israeli Defense Forces storming little Gazan villages and killing civilians as well as militant Palestinians.

Israel of course claims Hamas is a "terrorist" organization, but the Palestinians say the same thing about the Israeli government. Whether a group is "terrorist" seems to depend on who does the judging. Many observers say Bush is the greatest "terrorist" when he orders the U.S. Navy to shell small Somali villages because he wants to kill Qaeda "members."

After his 2006 book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Israeli officials and many American Jews accused Jimmy Carter of being an anti-Semite. However, Carter has in no sense done or said anything that is anti-Semitic. But he does believe, contrary to George Bush's retarded policy of shooting-first-and-talking-later diplomacy, in talking and negotiating with both sides.

Reports Entous:

"Carter visited the Israeli border town of Sderot on Monday and said he was "distressed" by cross-border rockets fired by militants in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. "I think it's a despicable crime for any deliberate effort to be made to kill innocent civilians," Carter said, adding that he hoped a ceasefire would be reached soon.

"Hamas leaders have offered a long-term truce with Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but the group's 1988 founding charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

"Israel said it rejected Carter's request to meet jailed Palestinian uprising leader Marwan Barghouthi, who is seen as a possible successor to Abbas."

WHERE EVER THERE IS CONFLICT IN WORLD, BUSH & CHENEY ARE INVOLVED

The Arab Summit scheduled to begin in Damascus faces the possibility that it will be deemed ineffective because the heads of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not be attending. Apparently there is a disagreement among Arab leaders on Syria's role in Lebanon and its politics.

But permeating the whole disagreement is the suspicion that the United States and George Bush have been doing everything possible to sabotage the meeting. For one thing, Bush hates Syria and its leader. Secondly, Bush thinks Syria is in league with Iran, a country and people he hates even more. There is no end in imagining what Bush would do to create the impression that the Arab Summit is a failure.

These suspicions, I am sure, are rampant in the Arab world. After all, the trouble we see now in the world is due to Bush, Cheney and Rice and their machinations and interferences. Consider the carnage in Mogadishu where Bush sent in the Ethiopians to defeat the Islamic Courts in Somalia. Consider the fighting now raging in Basra where Bush goaded Al Maliki to send in the Iraqi troops to eliminate the Sadr forces Bush claims are allied with Teheran. Consider the cooling off of relations between North and South Korea where the U.S. forces of darkness surely have spurred the new South Korean conservative regime into taking a hard line on North Korea's policies. And don't forget about Colombia where Uribe's recent illegal raid into Ecuador to kill FARC members shows U.S. influence and support of Bush and Cheney.

Where ever there is fighting and conflict in the world, Bush surely has his fingerprints.

CHENEY BLAMES HAMAS, SYRIA AND IRAN FOR NO PROGRESS ON PEACE; FORGETS TO BLAME ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS

Dick Cheney on his last day in the Middle East claims that the obstruction to a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians is Hamas. Furthermore, Cheney claims Iran and Syria are supporting Hamas because they don't want to see peace in the region. This sounds like a lot of bull, of the same type as the assertion that there was proof that Saddam Hussein was forging an alliance with Al Qaeda, used by Bush and Cheney as a prelude to the invasion of Iraq.

The BBC reports:

"US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said Palestinian militant group Hamas, along with Iran and Syria, is trying to torpedo the Middle East peace process."

Recall that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians in January 2007. Yet Bush and Cheney term it a "terrorist organization" because Israel considers it that. As a result, both the U.S. and Israel refuse to deal withHamas in any prospective agreement. No wonder that Hamas is not in sync with Abu Mazen in making a deal with Israel and its surrogate, the United States.

The real block to a peace accord is Israel which continues to allow settlements in the occupied territories. More and more land belonging to Palestinians is illegally usurped by Israeli settlers at the point of a gun. Jimmy Carter talked about "apartheid" in his book on the Israeli-Palestinian discord. How about "ethnic cleansing"? Building Israeli settlements on land seized from the Palestinians during the 1967 War smacks of ethnic cleansing and is illegal and unjustified.

Cheney tries to further demonize Iran and Syria in the conflict. He claims these two countries back the "terrorists." How about all the other Islamic countries in the Middle East? Is there any country that does not back Hamas? Is there any country in that region that supports Israel? If Cheney wants to condemn supporters of Hamas, he should apportion a lot of it to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, erstwhile allies of the U.S.

RUMSFELD IMPLIES U.S. SHOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST HUGO CHAVEZ

And I thought we heard the last from Donald Rumsfeld. But here he is, opining in The Washington Post today on Hugo Chavez. The headline of Rumsfeld's op-ed refers to Chavez as a tyrant. And Rumsfeld writes how sorry he is to see America stand by and do nothing as Venezuelan democracy is sliced and diced by Chavez.

How about Donald Rumsfeld minding his own business as to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela? If the Venezuelan people want Chavez to be able to be president an unlimited number of terms, why should Rumsfeld and the other anti-Chavez gringo neo-cons object?

I personally hope the No vote wins. Chavez has done a lot of good for the poor and disfranchised in Venezuela, but I do not support amending the constitution to allow him to run for president more than what the present constitution allows. However, I am not a citizen of Venezula, so I am not entitled to vote. Let the people of Venezuela decide.

Rumsfeld's op-ed seems to imply that the United States should be doing something to prevent the people from giving Chavez this power. What should the U.S. be doing, Mr. Rumsfeld? Bomb and attack and occupy Venezuela? Treat Venezuelans as the "enemy" because Hugo Chavez said that Bush was Satan incarnate?

Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush and Bolton et al. think the only way to solve international questions and/or disputes is through the use of American guns and war planes. This is why the U.S. invaded Iraq, why some Republicans and neo-cons are currently threatening Syria, North Korea and, above all, Iran. It would be one easy baby step to include Venezuela. Rumsfeld will show those brown-skinned non-English speaking foreigners that it is a fatal mistake to say that Bush is the devil.

DAVID SANGER AND ISRAELI AIR RAID AGAINST SYRIAN PLANT

We have just returned from hearing David Sanger of The New York Times give a lunch-hour talk at Salt Lake Community College.

I specifically asked Sanger if he were satisfied with his sources for his story in the NY Times on October 13, 2007, about the Israeli air raid on what some people say was a Syrian nascent nuclear weapons plant. Steve Clemons in his The Washington Note expressed some doubt on whether the "nuclear" development plant was more accurately a plant to weaponize Syria's missiles with non-nuclear warheads. Sanger did not quite answer directly yes or no to my question on his sources. He pointed to photos in today's NY Times of the supposed nuclear plant. I personally found the photos not convincing and not corroborating.

REAL PURPOSE OF SANCTIONS AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY GUARD IS TO PREPARE U.S. FOR ATTACK AGAINST IRAN

The real purpose of George Bush and Dick Cheney in designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as "a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" is to demonize the Iranian military in preparation for an attack against Iran and the Iranian people.

Here we see the Bush/Cheney doctrine for what it is - a ruthless desire to eliminate, literally, any country that fails to go along with the hegemonistic policy of the Bush government by attacking it with bombs and missiles.

The same threat is implicit in the Bush/Cheney policy towards Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. Do what we say or else. Don't call George Bush "the devil." Either you with us or against us. And if you are against us, we'll kill you with our tanks and bunker-busting bombs.

NY TIMES REPORTS ISRAEL ATTACKED SYRIA LAST WEEK

It appears that Israel sent airplanes to attack Syria last week. Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper write in today's The New York Times that officials in Washington said that Israel most likely was going after weapons caches, perhaps including nuclear weapons obtained from North Korea, located in northeastern Syria.

Write Mazzetti and Cooper:

"Officials in Washington said that the most likely targets of the raid were weapons caches that Israel’s government believes Iran has been sending the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah through Syria. Iran and Syria are Hezbollah’s primary benefactors, and American intelligence officials say a steady flow of munitions from Iran runs through Syria and into Lebanon."

"One Bush administration official said Israel had recently carried out reconnaissance flights over Syria, taking pictures of possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North Korea. The administration official said Israeli officials believed that North Korea might be unloading some of its nuclear material on Syria.

"“The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” the official said. He said it was unclear whether the Israeli strike had produced any evidence that might validate that belief."

Wait. Israel has no legal right to do this under international law. A country cannot just send its war planes to bomb another country's installations even if there were nuclear weapons located there. This matter should have been brought to the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations. Taking military action on its own, Israel threatens to start a region-wide and maybe even a world-wide war, possibly involving nuclear weapons. This is like Bush and the neo-cons in the U.S. starting a war against Iraq. Both Israel and the U.S. are wrong to think that bombs and tanks can solve their perceived international problems, or that shooting missiles will make their countries any more safe or immune from the world's odium.

Note that Israel has offered no verifiable proof or evidence that Syria has a cache of nuclear weapons, or that Iran has been sending weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. Also note this statement in the NY Times story:

"“The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” the official said. He said it was unclear whether the Israeli strike had produced any evidence that might validate that belief."

So just because Israel "thinks" North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria, that is justification for an Israeli raid? This is obviously ludicrous. Attacking another sovereign nation because you "think" or suspect something is going on involving nuclear arms sales is not legal justification. Again the correct procedure would have been to bring this to the attention of the U.N. Another method would have been via diplomacy and negotiation including serious talks between the governments of Israel and Syria.

This unilateral action of Israel is most dangerous and reckless. I cannot but suspect that Bush and Cheney are behind this Israel attack of Syria, and that it is a harbinger of an air attack by the United States against Iran.

IRAQI REFUGEES GIVE LIE TO BUSH'S SPIN ON "PROGRESS"

Apparently Bush is satisfied with "progress" being made in Iraq after meeting with Petraeus and Al Maliki on a highly fortified air base in Anbar Province.

If things are so rosy, and if there has been so much discernible progress, how come Syria just announces that it will demand Iraqis have or obtain visas before being allowed to cross into Syria? About 50,000 Iraqis leave Iraq monthly, looking to escape the all-encompassing violence and shootings.

Reports the BBC:

"Syria will require visas from Iraqis wishing to enter the country for trade, economic or educational purposes from September, Iraqi officials have said . . ."

"The UN refugee agency says 1.4 million Iraqi refugees are living in Syria. With the number increasing by an estimated 30,000 every month, Syria's health and education systems are struggling to cope."

You would think that "progress" would be apparent to these refugees before they flee Iraq, and give them some hope about staying put in their own country. But no, the exodus continues, thus giving the lie to Bush's transparent spin. And who would know better about "progress" that the Iraqis who come to the decision that it is not safe living and staying in Iraq.

If Bush thinks there has been progress, then let him stay in Iraq for more than a few hours. Oh, and tell him he can't stay within the confines of the Green Zone or on some highly fortified air force base.