http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=7152

The day of blood and elections has passed, and the blaring trumpets of corporate media hailing it as a successful show of "democracy" have subsided to a dull roar.


After a day which left 50 people dead in Iraq, both civilians and soldiers, the death toll was hailed as a figure that was "lower than expected." Thus?acceptable, by Bush Administration/corporate media standards. After all, only of them was an American, the rest were Iraqis civilians and British soldiers.


The gamble of using the polling day in Iraq to justify the ongoing failed occupation of Iraq has apparently paid off, if you watch only mainstream media.


"Higher than expected turnout," US mainstream television media blared, some citing a figure of 72%, others 60%.


What they didn't tell you was that this figure was provided by Farid Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) before the polls had even closed.

What they also didn't tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country.


In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation.


And they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their country to come sooner rather than later.


This causes one to view the footage of cheering, jubilant Iraqis in a different light now, doesn't it?

Now the question remains, what happens when the National Assembly is formed and over 100,000 US soldiers remain on the ground in Iraq with the Bush Administration continuing in its refusal to provide a timetable for their removal?