Vodka shortage

'could spark riots'

Ananova

Riots are feared in Russia after a new law forced vodka distilleries to halt production.
Analysts predict trouble as shops begin to run out of the national tipple.
The new law, endorsed by President Putin on January 1, stipulates that every distillery must have computerised equipment for measuring alcohol levels.
The move caught the big distilleries by surprise and brought nationwide production to a standstill.
After two weeks of no vodka, even respected newspapers such as the economic journal Vedomosti have started to print panicky front-page headlines, such as 'The vodka is running out!'
Some commentators fear a revolution as more and more Russians turn to violence on discovering empty supermarket shelves.
The state is also suffering huge losses as it usually collects over £3.4 billion pounds in liquor taxes per annum, which works out at about £95m per day.

See ya!!!

By Simon Freeman and Russell Jenkins
Times Online

A drunken passenger who abused cabin crew on a flight to Tenerife spent 36 hours castaway after the airline abandoned him on a tiny island in the Atlantic, 300 miles from his destination.
Monarch Airlines said that the man became rude and aggressive towards staff shortly after flight ZB558 took off from Manchester on Tuesday evening.
When he refused to calm down, the pilot took the decision to divert the plane and make an unscheduled stop-off at an airstrip on the tiny Portuguese island of Porto Santo.
The passenger was frogmarched out - and his luggage removed from the hold - before the Airbus A321 carrying 200 other passengers took off again, leaving him behind.
Porto Santo, described as an unspoilt island paradise with a population of fewer than 5,000, is a two-hour ferry ride away from the nearest major airport on Madeira.
An officer at the airport's police station told Times Online that the man had remained on the island until this morning, when he managed to book a seat on a German charter flight to the Canary Islands.
A spokesman for Monarch, the Italian-owned operation based in Manchester, explained that the man had put the safety of other passengers in danger.
"Despite repeated attempts by Monarch staff to calm the individual, the passenger’s behaviour did not improve and the decision was taken to divert to Porto Santo at 1955 where the passenger was removed," he said.
"The action was taken in the interests of all the passengers. That sort of behaviour is not acceptable. He was the given the chance to calm down and he declined it. He was given a form, a caution for his behaviour, and he refused to sign it."
A spokeswoman for British Airways said that the airline operated a "yellow card" policy under which disruptive passengers were issued with a written warning and then arrested an the destination airport if they continued to misbehave.
She said that only in the most extreme cases - and only once before on record - would a plane be diverted and the passenger removed.
Keith Bill, of British Airline Pilots’ Association, said that the captain of any aircraft has wide-ranging powers to deal with troublemakers who threaten the safety of other passengers.
He said: "There's no doubt that the captain was acting within his rights to take this action. Pilots feel very strongly that anyone who puts the lives of the crew or passengers at risk ought also to be punished by the courts."
Porto Santo, formerly under Portuguese control, earned its reputation as the desert island of legend because of its almost complete absence of vegetation. It is a two-hour ferry trip from Madeira.
But its inhabitants have enjoyed a new-found wealth in recent years as the place where Madeirians like to go to get away from the tourists.
It was discovered by the Portuguese adventurer Joao Goncalves Zarco, a protege of Prince Henry the Navigator, in 1418 and was once the home of Christopher Columbus who married the governor’s daughter before heading off to discover the New World.

I think this should be the new policy on how to treat these types. LMAO!!! -Roms

Scientists 'crack' secret of Mona Lisa's smile

CO: Ananova

Scientists say they have finally cracked a 500-year-old mystery - the secret of the Mona Lisa's smile.
The enigmatic expression on Leonardo da Vinci's most famous work was analysed by computer software, reports the New Scientist.
And the conclusion was that it conveyed 83% happiness, 9% disgust, 6% fear and 2% anger.
The conclusion was made after the painting, on view in The Louvre in Paris, was analysed at the University of Amsterdam.
The programme, co-developed with experts at the University of Illinois, drew on a database of young female faces to derive an average 'neutral' expression.
It then analysed features like the curvature of the lips and crinkles around the eyes to form conclusions about emotions.
But art expert Michael Daley argued: "The point of this work is that it's a riddle - and the inaccessibility of the emotions on her face is why people are so fascinated by it.

"The idea that a computer can come up with four emotions to explain it is just ridiculous. Perhaps it's possible with photos - but it is impossible with something created by the human hand."

Battles rage in U.S. over celebrating holidays

Mon Dec 19,11:45 AM ET 2005 Reuters Limited.

Ebenezer Scrooge would enjoy Christmas in America this year.
Drowning out the sounds of sleigh bells ringing and children singing are the sounds of arguing. At issue is how to greet people, how to decorate main street and how to sell gifts -- all without offending someone.

Religious conservatives are threatening lawsuits and boycotts to insist that store clerks and advertisements say "Merry Christmas." Countering are those who argue they are being inclusive and inoffensive with the secular "Happy Holidays."
In the middle seem to be most Americans, who not only aren't offended but find the whole spat rather ridiculous.

"You'd think there might be some Christmas spirit around Christmas time around the issue of Christmas," said Paul Cantor, a popular culture expert and professor at the University of Virginia. "It's one time you really wish people really could live and let live."
Alas, that's not what this Christmas is all about.

Sparks flew when U.S. President George W. Bush sent out cards referring to the "holiday season," a leading Republican declared the decorated tree on the Capitol lawn a "Christmas Tree" and not a "Holiday Tree" and the logger who cut down the tree for the Boston Common was so upset when officials called it a "Holiday Tree" that he said he'd rather see it fed into a wood chipper.

"HANGING OF THE GREENS"

Conservative groups have marshaled the forces of lawyers volunteering to help anyone fighting for Christmas displays and launched boycotts of retailers whose advertisements fail to say "Merry Christmas."

A school system in Texas found itself in court after teachers asked children to bring white -- rather than red and green -- napkins to a party, while Annapolis, Maryland raised hackles by calling its evergreen boughs and ribbons on public buildings the "Hanging of the Greens" rather than "Christmas decorations."

Fanning the flames are conservative talk show personalities bemoaning the secularization of Christmas. Fox News anchor John Gibson chimed in with a book "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse than You Thought."
"'Happy Holidays' and 'Season's Greetings' are not a substitute for 'Merry Christmas,"' said Manuel Zamorano, head of the Sacramento, California-based Committee to Save Merry Christmas, which organizes store boycotts over holiday advertising.
"Christmas is the holiday and 'Merry Christmas' is what we want to hear," he said. "It's political correctness gone amok."

BLAME POLITICS

Bah humbug, said radio talk show host Bill Press, author of "How the Republicans Stole Christmas."
"People have been saying 'Happy Holidays' for a hundred years at least," he said. "This is nothing new. It just celebrates the diversity of America."

He blames politics.

"It is all by design," he said. "The more people are talking about who's saying 'Happy Holidays' and who's saying 'Merry Christmas,' the less people are talking about Karl Rove, torture, Tom DeLay, the war in Iraq and other hot issues.
"And the more they stir up their evangelical Christian base over this issue, the more likely they are to get out and vote Republican in 2006," he said.
The debate has become comic grist.

"Every time you say 'Happy Holidays,' an angel gets AIDS," warned television comedian Jon Stewart.

The satirical newspaper The Onion wrote a spoof about a judge who declared Christmas unconstitutional, with a photograph purporting to be workers dismantling the famed tree at Rockefeller Center to comply with the judge's ruling.

Making the rounds on the Internet is a series of mock memos from a fake company inviting employees to a Christmas Party, complete with open bar, gift exchange and tree lighting.
By the last of the memos, the increasingly beleaguered company is forced to apologize to its Jewish employees, the office alcoholics, Muslims, dieters, pregnant women, gays and lesbians, union members, management, cross-dressers, diabetics and vegetarians. In the end, the party is canceled.

RETAILERS IN THE MIDDLE

Stuck in the middle of the debate are retailers, whose seasonal selling campaigns seem to raise particular wrath.

"When someone says 'Happy Holidays,' they're saying something very nice to you. There's no ill intent behind any of this," said Dan Butler of the National Retail Federation. "When you're dealing with the public you'll get positive comments and negative comments about everything in the world."

Perhaps, added Peter Steinfels of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University, there isn't a war on Christmas after all but a more sensitive religious right. Conservatives are using the super-fast Internet and e-mail to publicize what they see as extreme examples of "super politically correct conduct," he said. "It gives the impression that there's a great deal of political correctness ... when in fact it may not really be so different from the way it's always been."


People need to start facing the fact that not everyone in America is Christian anymore! This is not the Crusades and you can't force Religion and Christianity at people. -Roms

President Bush, Iraq speech

Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders — a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted ... a new government formed ... and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote — 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world — means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
All who had a part in this achievement — Iraqis, Americans, and Coalition partners — can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.
From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our Coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council Resolutions ... violated a cease-fire agreement ... sponsored terrorism ... and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator ... we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction ... but we did not find those weapons.
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum — and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant — only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.
Since the removal of Saddam, this war — like other wars in our history — has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols — fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists — has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation — and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims — a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals — to de-moralize free nations ... to drive us out of the Middle East ... to spread an empire of fear across that region ... and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield — and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaida to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere — they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq ... in Afghanistan ... in Southeast Asia ... and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens — they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq ... we were not in Afghanistan ... but the terrorists attacked us anyway — and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad ... removing their safe havens ... and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.
This work has been especially difficult in Iraq — more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal — unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.
Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose — and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.
The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult — it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.
America, our Coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal — a democratic Iraq that can defend itself ... that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists ... and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.
We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal — a strategy I have been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements.
First, our Coalition will remain on the offense — finding and clearing out the enemy ... transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units ... and building up the Iraqi Security Forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy ... more than 50 are taking the lead ... and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.
Second, we are helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's peoples are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls — including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love — and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" He responded, "I am Iraqi."
Third, after a number of setbacks, our Coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure — and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well — and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic — and that optimism is justified.
In all three aspects of our strategy — security, democracy, and reconstruction — we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq — we are winning the war in Iraq.
It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends — and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops — by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us — and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor ... and I will not allow it.
We are approaching a New Year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice — from our military ... their families ... and the Iraqi people. We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward. As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders — not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory — and that is the road that will take them home.
In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war. Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work. And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war ... to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing ... and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause.
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country — victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.
Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much — but tell me he loved being a soldier ... he believed in his mission ... and Mr. President, finish the job.
I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss — and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial — yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.
Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home — in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other dangerous places. Our Nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men."

Thank you, and good night.

This HIV email issue

My view on this HIV Email notification issue.

Too little, too late, by far.

The foundation purpose of any society is to provide safety and protection to its members. From the beginning of this HIV issue, there have been those squalling morons that have worked to turn this into a life style issue. It is not, was not, never will be. It is a safety issue.
The mindless rant-o-chanters, dumbass snot gobblers and other forms of libernazi idiocracy have forced us all to have to consider what should be a life affirming act as a possibly life ending action.

Any person contracting HIV by what ever means that believes their right to assuage their gonads supercedes other peoples right to live is devoid of even the most basic concepts of right and wrong and is a life threatening danger to others. Such persons should be treated as the dangers that they are.

The only time that would be modified is in situations of marrage..but only and unless the spouse was notified by their infected partner. The spouse should have the option of remaining true to the marrage, come what may. Otherswise, having sex while infected with HIV is, for all intents and purposes, at the very least, reckless indangerment, even if the non married partner knows about infection. If HIV is transmitted, then it's murder.

- Grimmy

Anonymous E-Mail Tells Partners Of Your STD

Rather than an e-mail virus warning, a new program offers e-mails warning of viruses -- and other types of sexually transmitted diseases.
After a successful effort in San Francisco, health officials in Los Angeles launched inSpotLA.org to give people a way to anonymously tell partners they may have been exposed to sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, chlamydia or HIV.
People diagnosed with such diseases can go to the Web site, fill out a warning card and send it off to their sexual partners anonymously. If the sender chooses, he or she can also sign the e-mail.
"By giving people an easy way to notify their sex partners, (the Web site) will enable more people to get tested and treated early for HIV and other STDs, preventing complications and helping stop the chain of infection," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, director of public health and health officer of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.
The sites are set up so anyone in the country can use them.
San Francisco launched inSPOT.org in October 2004. Since then, an average of 750 people visit the Bay Area site every day with 500 e-cards sent per month. More than half of those people receiving cards click through for more information about testing and treatment.
Los Angeles' program is the first to add HIV to the menu of STDs on an e-card partner notification system.

What is the world coming to?? -Roms

Bush and Churchill Midwar Comparison

Rick Richman has an excellent piece at "Jewish Current Issues:"
----
George W. Bush’s extraordinary “Strategy for Victory” speech yesterday was a direct response to the crisis of confidence created from a combination of adverse developments in the war, incessant political attacks from Democrats, and the nonstop criticism of a hostile mainstream media.

Bush told the country that “In the years ahead . . . . [t]his war [on terror] is going to take many turns.” He acknowledged that the training of Iraqi security forces “is an enormous task, and it always hasn't gone smoothly.” He admitted Iraqi civil defense forces initially “did not have sufficient firepower or training.” He noted that “[o]ver the past two and a half years, we've faced some setbacks” with them.

But he also recounted the many positive developments, including the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, the holding of free elections, the adoption of a democratic constitution, and a pending new election all within that same period, and he defended the war with these words:

If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

The Churchillian echoes are obvious. But there is another, lesser known Churchillian analogy that is worth remembering, recounted by Churchill on pages 53-64 in Volume IV (“The Hinge of Fate”) of his History of the Second World War.

In January 1942, after two-and-a-half years of fighting, there were politicians in the Conservative, Labor and Liberal parties all clamoring that Churchill had mismanaged the war. There was no end in sight, and there had been many avoidable losses: battles had “turned out differently from what was foreseen.”

Churchill also faced a hostile press, with every critic “free to point out the many errors which had been made” and newspapers offering “well-informed and airily detached criticism” -- all of which had created an “unhappy, baffled public opinion.”

Faced with mounting opposition, Churchill called for a three-day debate in the House of Commons -- which was “in a querulous temper” -- to be followed by a vote of confidence, knowing the debate would be one in which “the Government would no doubt be lustily belabored by some of those who have lighter burdens to carry.”

During the debate, Churchill addressed the House for two hours, saying that:

“We have had a great deal of bad news lately . . . and I think we shall have a great deal more. Wrapped up in all this bad news will be many tales of blunders and shortcomings, both in foresight and action. No one will pretend for a moment that disasters like these occur without there having been faults and shortcomings. I see all this rolling towards us like waves in a storm, and that is another reason why I require a formal, solemn Vote of Confidence . . .

“We are beginning to see our way through. It looks as if we were in for a very bad time; but provided we all stand together, and provided we throw in the last spasm of our strength, it also looks more than it ever did before as if we were going to win. . . .”

“I have never ventured to predict the future. I stand by my original programme, “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” which is all I have ever offered, to which I added, five months later, “many shortcomings, mistakes, and disappointments.” But it is because I see the light gleaming behind the clouds and broadening on our path that I make so bold now as to demand a declaration of confidence from the House of Commons as an additional weapon in [our] armoury . . .”

The speech turned the tide, and after three days, Churchill won the vote 484-1. He noted dryly in his book that “[t]he naggers in the Press . . . spun around with the alacrity of squirrels. How unnecessary it had been to ask for a Vote of Confidence? Who had ever dreamed of challenging the National Government?”

Unknown to everyone in that debate, there were still more than three years to go in the war, with many more horrendous losses before victory.

Churchill is remembered in the popular imagination as someone who rallied a nation, vowed never to give up, and took his country to victory. Few remember that Churchill faced a crisis of confidence two-and-a-half years into the war, exploited by those “with lesser burdens to carry.”

And fewer still remember the names of the politicians and media critics who created a crisis of confidence in the midst of a war.

Troop pullout ‘victory for terrorists’

DICK CHENEY, the US Vice-President, responded to growing congressional calls for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by saying the move would hand victory to Islamic terrorists.

“A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the security of the US,” Mr Cheney said after a week in which the Republican-controlled Senate demanded an exit strategy and President Bush was accused of manipulating prewar intelligence.
NI_MPU('middle');
Mr Cheney used a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, to defend the war and warn America against retreat. Mr Cheney spoke amid clear signs that opposition to the war in Congress, and in the US at large, is accelerating. In the past fortnight the issue has eclipsed all other subjects and has begun to take a significant toll on Mr Bush’s presidency.
Two thirds of Americans believe that the war was a mistake, and less than half trust Mr Bush.

Right or wrong, we started the war in Iraq and by damned we need to finish it! Lest you forget Post war Germany had the same issues: bombing, attacks, terrorists, mobs.... It didn't get better overnight.. Everyone is quick to offer up advice when things aren't going peachy!!