Dear Kay,

You are right to mull it over. There are big issues to be addressed, from celebrity to Afghanistan not to speak of the recession. But not immediately. I had a shock about 36 hours afterwards. I'd known - I'd put it as strongly as that - since January that Barack Obama could win and that in his case his race would not prevent this. I suppose I must have been too confident that he would. It was only afterwards that I suddenly saw how close it was. Obama needed Lehman Brothers to turn all the "palling around with terrorists" junk into froth.

One American in three did not vote at all! Most Americans did not vote for Obama. He got 66 million to McCain's 58 million votes. Nearly a quarter of the US's 300 million plus population are under 18, still leaving over 230 million of which less than 130 million voted. Obama got the actual votes of barely more than one in four American adults. He and his supporters must do something about the extent of what remains, in effect, a form of disenfanchisement in the USA.

read more

There was an assumption running throughout most of the discussion that Barack Obama will win, however Moazzam Begg (ex-Guantanamo detainee) said, "surely, whether it's Obama or McCain, things can only get better".

Despite flashes of high praise for Barack Obama ("Let's recognise that Obama will be far and away the most intelligent President in thirty, maybe forty, years") there was an air of scepticism, both generally ("I don't think problems are solved by leaders no matter how good they are") and specifically - regarding his foreign policy.

Jonathan Steele summed it up, saying, "Barack Obama made a principled objection to the war - it's true that he has made concessions on that stance since becoming a candidate but I think that he does want to get out of Iraq with some kind of dignity." He then went on to criticise Obama's pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq within sixteen months of attaining office as only referring to combat troops. A large number of troops would remain to train Iraqi troops (Steele points out that UK forces are doing this already, and that it doesn't have to be undertaken within the country) and defend the embassy (one of the largest in the world). There is also the problem that all of the troops taken out of Iraq would be sent to Afghanistan, and that Obama could send some into Pakistan. There was further criticism that "he still seems to be talking about a military solution not a political one."

The general consensus was unremarkable in concluding that an Obama victory would be the best thing for Iran, herald some change in Iraq, while raising major concerns about the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

read more

Al-Masri was Al Qaeda’s chief of propaganda. He was born in Egypt but worked for the terrorist organization in Iran, until the moved to Pakistan’s tribal area in 2005 or 2006.

He was killed yesterday when he was on the move with two fellow Al Qaeda members. A U.S. drone fired missiles at the truck the three men were traveling in, all were killed.

The US State Department’s Rewards for Justice website explained that al-Masri “is in charge of Al-Qaeda media and propaganda. He may also be the chief of external operations for Al-Qaeda.”

The U.S. considered al-Masri a prime target, putting a $1 million bounty on his head.

“The strike was aimed at a vehicle carrying Abu Jihad and two others. The target was successfully hit and all three people were killed,” a senior Pakistani security official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

It is the umptiest time in only a few weeks time that the U.S. has acted against terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Syria in recent weeks. One gets the distinct impression that the U.S. is stepping up its attacks against Al Qaeda, so shortly before the elections and before a new president takes office.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Current's Collective Journalism came up with The View from Over There, in which Americans travelled around the world asking people about America's standing in the world:

The team travelled to 14 countries, where they listened to people who shared their views on what they think of America. According to Current:

Has America's image been tarnished by the last eight years? Democrats seem to think so, and increasingly so do some Republicans. Collective Journalism contributors around the world work to gauge America's image abroad, as US policymakers struggle to maintain positive feeling in spite of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In response to this post, Amber-Doll2011 writes:

Luckily they aren't the one's voting for our President. Anyhow, you notice that most middle-eastern people would vote for Obama, or the one's who haven't done much research want him. But anyway, America is the one who'll vote, and we'll just see how our reputation will look after either one of them take office. I'm sure we'll hate the President then too because we care too much about what others think. We just need to get over ourselves. Haha.

Steev disagrees, saying:

Maybe everyone in the world should get to vote for the U.S. president. Since the U.S. pretty much runs the world, perhaps they should all get a say. Otherwise it's really an empire, not a democracy, no?

For more reactions, click here.

PBS‘ Frontline World is also carrying an election special entitled: The World in Watching.

This article, for instance, sheds light on how Mexicans view the election:

Mexicans are watching the U.S. presidential race, with polls showing a split along socio-economic lines that mirrors that of Mexican society itself. But the vast majority of Mexicans surveyed recently say they support the Democratic Party, with many saying initially preferred Hillary Clinton as the nominee. But the same polls say Barack Obama now enjoys tremendous support in Mexico.

More coverage can be found here.

From Kazakhstan, Zhuldyz Jumadilova wants Americans to think more about international issues, like the war on Iraq and the war on terror. She explains:

I think American people are concentrating on their local problems, local issues, and sometimes maybe they don't think more about international problems. I think if the American people think about international problems in the elections of 2004, George W Bush would not be (in that) presidential election.

From Italy, this man shares similar sentiments. He says:

One thing I'd like you to think about while casting your vote is to bear in mind that the person you're going to vote for is going to represent the most power country all over the world. He is going to decide on very important issues on the international policies. Your last administration, in my point of view, was quite unfortunate from the point of view of international relations since they managed to create a real mess in the Middle East.

For more of his views, check out the video:

This young woman, from Mumbai, India, urges American votes to elect someone who is not into “interfering in other countries business.” Here's what she says:

Dr Abdulla Abdulla, from Afghanistan, says the US needs to take a democratic approach towards dealing with global issues, rather than being a lone wolf on the world scene.

And finally, Seung-Min Lee, from South Korea, hopes the US “will be able to help North Korea come out to the world.”

He also says:

I have been paying attention to the US election in the media because any change in the US affects Korean society, directly or indirectly.

Here's his video message:

The girl comes from a poor, single-parent home in Afghanistan, and was adopted by another family that forced her to marry at the age of 13.

Mohammad Atahee, her husband, is a 37-year old lawyer. The U.S. government does not, and rightfully so, recognize the marriage.

‘Atahee and three of the family’s members were already living in the south Seattle suburbs when the girl’s adoptive mother, Nasima Yousuf, 70, brought her from Afghanistan in 2006, as part of what prosecutors say was a plot to enslave her. Yousuf’s husband, Mohammad, 84, had filed an immigration petition to bring the girl to the U.S., claiming his wife was her biological mother,’ CNN explained on Saturday.

One hopes that U.S. prosecutors will do everything in their power to punish those involved as harshly as possible. The behavior is, of course, utterly unacceptable. The only way for Western countries to prevent other immigrants from following the same course is by showing that such behavior will not be tolerated; accept American laws or be prepared to serve decades in jail.

Europe made the mistake to deal with these issues as ‘cultural differences,’ of no to little consequence. They are not; they are major cultural differences, moral differences and, more importantly, the law is the law. People may live differently in other parts of the world but when they come to the West, they should change. And rapidly so. If they do not, punish them more severely than they ever expected.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Jude Kenan was arrested in the Charsadda district of the Mohmand Agency in North Waziristan, said Pakistan Police Station House Officer Qayum Khan.

Kenan was arrested when he tried to leave the tribal area.

Authorities said Kenan had a camera, laptop and dagger with him when he was arrested. When asked about his purpose in the tribal region, Kenan said he was there to meet one “Habibullah.”

Habibullah was the name of an Afghan militant who died in U.S. custody in 2002. The name also has a religious meaning: it means “God’s beloved” or “God’s favorite” in Arabic, giving one the impression that Kenan may very well be a convert to Islam, who traveled the tribal region to join forces with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Pakistani authorities refuse to give details about the interrogations, however, meaning one should be cautious and not jump to conclusions. He could also be a student with an exaggerated taste for adventure, or a wannabe journalist.

©2008 PoliGazette . All Rights Reserved.

In a motion made to U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade earlier this month, the Bush administration asked that Mazon be denied the right to argue the most fundamental issues driving alleged corruption in the handling of war-related contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mazon is a victim of the corruption and Halliburton’s drive for greed. But Halliburton is attached at the hip to President Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, the architect of the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is the former CEO of Halliburton.

But many believe that once out of office in January, Cheney will return to head the company which is currently based in Houston but is moving its corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates, which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

It is ironic that Cheney’s company is willing to move to Dubai in the UAE, but Bush and Cheney were unwilling to allow Dubai to handle the security of American ports. It’s a great example of the hypocrisy that embraces the Bush administration’s misguided war and confirms suspicions the administration’s foreign policy are based mainly on greed.

And that’s why Mazon’s trial is so important.

The Bush administration has asked in a “Motion in Limine” made Sept. 2, 2008, that Mazon be denied the right to argue the following in this second trial:

- the defendant is being made a scapegoat by KBR, his former employer, and Halliburton Co., KBR’s former parent company, in connection with the charges against him;

- Halliburton, KBR and its executives and managers have framed the defendant or otherwise caused the government to improperly charge him;

- the government has acted in concert with Halliburton and KBR in order to improperly charge Mazon; and d) improper conduct by Halliburton and KBR in their handling of government contracts should exculpate the defendant.

The Bush administration filed this motion because Mazon sought to subpoena Halliburton’s CEO David Lesar. This motion is normally used to prohibit the submission of evidence that might hurt the defense, not the prosecution.

The government argued the issues would “confuse” the jury. But the truth is, the jury was confused by the charge. Mazon’s attorneys argued successfully that the alleged inflation of the contract Mazon controlled was in fact a simple miscalculation involving the conversion of U.S. Dollars into Kuwait Dinars.

This conversion problem has plagued many of the war related contracts. There are about 3.3 Kuwait Dinars for every dollar. When converted, the $1.6 million contract was about 5.5 Kuwait Dinars, except it was listed as $5.5 million “U.S. Dollars.”

Mazon beat the first attempt to convict him when a majority of jurors rejected the government’s argument in a trial that took place in April of this year. The jury was deadlocked.

The Bush administration will try a second time, moving the trial from Rock Island to Peoria. Apparently, the government believed Mazon’s foreign heritage – he is Ecuadorian – and his association with Arab contractors in the Middle East, would make him unsympathetic to the region’s Bible-belt constituency jury pool.

Trying Mazon in Rock Island was also an apparent attempt to take the case out of the scrutiny of the national media. It could have been tried in Washington D.C. insuring high profile media coverage.

But high profile media coverage would have refocused the issues from the weak case against Mazon to the bigger issues of Cheney, the culture of corruption that plagues Halliburton and the corruption that is the foundation of the Iraq War itself.

The Peoria trial, which begins this week, places the trial on a higher public plain. But the government had no choice after losing the first trial. The federal judge in the case, U.S. Justice Joe Billy McDade, is from Peoria and had to drive to and from Rock Island during the first trial. This second trial is convenient to McDade.

The Bush administration knows that if the second trial becomes a referendum on their failed policies in Iraq, the next jury might not deadlock. They might vote to acquit Mazon. A fair jury can conclude Mazon is being persecuted, not prosecuted, to protect Halliburton and Cheney.

Since the charges were first filed against Mazon five years ago, public attitudes about the failed war in Iraq have changed dramatically from blind support to open challenge. The public knows that Bush and Cheney, Halliburton’s former CEO, lied and misled Americans into supporting the Iraq invasion.

Why wouldn’t they also lie to protect Halliburton?

How are they protecting Halliburton? Well, if any other corporation with no national political clout had a similar track record of corruption and mismanagement and suspicions of price gouging, their contract would have been revoked within the first few convictions.

Despite 36 war related corruption convictions, Halliburton continues to enjoy a near exclusive headlock on hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.

(Ray Hanania is a Chicago-based columnist and radio talk show host. He can be reached at rayhanania@comcast.net.)

According to the U.S. military, Pakistani soldiers opened fire at two U.S. helicopters that crossed the border in order to strike against the Taliban and Al Qaeda hiding in Pakistan’s tribal region.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

By various estimates, there are about 1.5 million to 2 million American Muslim voters, including several hundred thousand Pakistanis, in the United States. There is a significant concentration of Muslim vote in Florida and Michigan. If, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, Obama gets the lion's share of the Muslim American vote, then he could win the presidency by a thin margin of Muslim votes.

Is an Obama win good for Muslim-Americans or Pakistani-Americans? To answer this question, let's look at the first debate between McCain and Obama. Pakistan and Afghanistan figured prominently in the US presidential debate 2008 between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. Here's the relevant transcript on the subject:

LEHRER: Afghanistan, lead — a new — a new lead question. Now, having resolved Iraq, we'll move to Afghanistan.

And it goes to you, Senator Obama, and it's a — it picks up on a point that's already been made. Do you think more troops — more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place — al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front — that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.

We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.

No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history.

Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.

I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

We've got to get the support of the people of — of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.

Now, the new president of Pakistan, Zardari, has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.

I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes.

And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.

And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.

And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.

So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops — and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.

So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.

And, John, I — you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, “Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator.”

And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

MCCAIN: I — I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.

From this debate transcript and prior statements, it is clear that Sen McCain is far more knowledgeable about Pakistan than Senator Obama. Mr. McCain has also repeatedly stressed diplomacy and close working relationship with Pakistan and demonstrated his commitment by his actions such as several visits and phone conversations with Pakistani leadership recently and in the past. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has made aggressive statements about Pakistan without making serious effort to understand the issues faced by Pakistanis in FATA.

Beyond the debate specific to Pakistan policy, the most oft-repeated phrase by Senator McCain was “I don’t think Sen Obama understands”, while Obama repeated “I agree with John” more often than any other phrase. Just these two phrases capture the essence of the tone of the debate on foreign policy.