With close to 90% of the votes tallied in Iraq's parliamentary elections, the coalition headed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has taken a slim lead over the bloc led by his main challenger, Iyad Allawi. A day ago, it was the latter.

Since March 7, Iraqis have been glued to their television screens looking for clues for the direction their seven-year-war ravaged country might be heading in the next few years. Similarly, residents in neighboring countries have been closely monitoring the Iraqi elections through the many satellite television networks operating in the region. After all, elections are not a daily happening in the Arab world, and a number of those countries, such as Jordan and Syria, permitted Iraqi refugees to cast votes in their territories.

Meanwhile, one does not have to spend a lot of time watching Iran's Arabic-speaking Al Alam TV or the Saudi-financed Al Arabia TV in order to figure out who are the regional stake holders in the Iraqi elections. At times the Iraqi elections seem to take the shape of a battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as both countries have been overtly and covertly supporting the two heavyweight contenders. Iran supports Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, while Saudi Arabia has been rooting for former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Both al-Maliki and Allawi are Shiites, so why does Saudi Arabia want Allawi to win?

Al-Maliki's "cozying up" to Iran has been alarming many Arab countries. The Iraqi Prime Minister, whose Dawa Party is backed by Iran, has been flashing the sectarian card during his election campaign. With more than 500 candidates accused of links with the Ba'ath Party banned from running in the March elections, Al-Maliki's government has been accused of using the hated former regime to intimidate Sunnis in particular and opposition in general.

Iyad Allawi, although a Shiite, leads the al-Iraqiyya list, which proposes a secular agenda for the country. Many of its leading members are Sunnis or Arab nationalists who share the goal of bringing Iraq back to its Arab roots. Allawi's campaign ads have been airing on several Arab television stations, some say courtesy of Saudi Arabia.

But does this really matter to the average Iraqi citizen?

Not according to Kazem al-Dari, an Iraqi social scientist.

"What we need is stability," he says. "We've had elections before, we've tried Allawi before and now al-Maliki. Neither one brought stability and security to Iraq."

Today marks the seventh anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. In 2003, the architects of the war envisioned that the toppling of Saddam Hussein would lead to the birth of a democratic Iraq. They told us that elections in Iraq would help spread democracy and liberalism across the Middle East, but this could not have been further from the truth.

The Middle East is more chaotic than ever, and the vast majority of its citizens are leaning politically towards Islamic theocracy and not liberal democracy. Iraqis are still searching for stability.

Article first published on the Huffington Post

Watch MIR Videos

During this month, where women are often celebrated in the U.S., we are talking about violence against women, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Recently, we were inspired by a heart-wrenchingly honest opinion piece written by Nick Kristof in the New York Times that shed some much-needed light on the vicious injustices taking place against the women of the Congo, which Kristof says is on par with (or even exceeds) the devastation that hit Haiti last month --only not as sudden.  5.4 million people, mainly women and children, have been tortured, raped, and killed as a result of the conflict that began in the DRC over a decade ago.

Join us in spreading the word about this important and under-reported issue in the Congo – where violence against women has become an act of war.  Please visit our page linktv.org/womenincongo to learn more, and then tell your friends about it.  Through the rest of February, for every 10 new Facebook fans Link TV will donate $5 (up to $500) to Women for Women International's Run for Congo Women campaign. With your help, Link TV continues to disseminate the untold stories of the world.

Howard Zinn died of a heart attack today in Santa Monica, California, marking the end of an extraordinary life that championed civil rights and the antiwar movement. Dr. Zinn made frequent appearances on Link TV, whether through interviews on Democracy Now! or in documentaries such as Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train or The Corporation.  With the publication of his best-selling book A People's History of the United States and in his years of teaching political science at Boston University, Dr. Zinn inspired a new generation of activists, all eager to learn about our world's unheard voices and untold stories.

We at Link TV salute you, Dr. Zinn. May you rest in peace.

We leave you with this video from our friends at Democracy Now! of one of Dr. Zinn's recent public appearances, where the prominent historian speaks on the topic of America's "Holy Wars" with his characteristic energy, wry humor and incisive commentary. With the attitude that no history is sacrosanct, and no fact must go unquestioned, Dr. Zinn urges us to "reexamine the idea that there is any such thing as a good war." Fitting words by which to remember this legend.

"The buck stops with me," declared President Obama on Thursday as he spoke about the results of an internal investigation into the failed Christmas Day airline bombing attempt. The president avoided blaming any particular agency or official for the security failures that allowed Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board an American airliner heading from Amsterdam to Detroit wearing explosives in his underpants.

Now, after the fact, this incident has sparked a renewed interest in Yemen, a country I warned about as a "powder keg" back in August, and a slew of new security measures at airports to make our travel experience more miserable than it currently is. Travelers will soon get used to going through full-body scanners, like they have gotten used to taking off their shoes at security checkpoints at airports, ever since Richard Reid, aka the shoe-bomber, tried unsuccessfully to take down another airliner in late 2001. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda and other groups will try to find other methods to bypass the new security measures until they succeed.

Last summer, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security, by borrowing a trick from the Columbian cartel. Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum. His target was Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of Saudi Arabia's counter terrorism operations. The bomb was remotely detonated via a cellular phone call, but the Prince miraculously was left lightly wounded. The assassination attempt failed, but al-Qaeda managed to defeat security.

The US security failure is not at airports, but rather with overseas intelligence agencies. The President did not name the agency, but I will: the CIA, which has done a shoddy job of gathering information in Arab and Muslim countries and has relied heavily on information provided by security agencies of corrupt and despotic regimes.

What Americans should be worried about is not the few failed attempts by the likes of Reid or Abdulmutallab, but rather by what happened recently with the suicide bomber, Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a medical doctor who had been recruited by Jordanian intelligence and then agreed to work for the CIA. He was assigned a Jordanian handler who had a close working relationship with the CIA and was subsequently sent to Afghanistan to help locate top al-Qaeda leaders. In reality, he was also a jihadist sent to infiltrate US intelligence: a "triple agent!"

The reason this succeeded is due to the fact that Afghanistan is an intelligence nightmare, and the CIA does not have enough Arabic or Pashto speakers on the ground. This is also the case in Yemen, Somalia, and Northern Africa, a fact that was confirmed to me by a former CIA employee. Many of he CIA's so-called Middle East specialists lack the language skills needed to analyze the material provided to them and rely on translations, which, as part of my experience producing a news show from the Middle East, I have discovered can be misleading and inaccurate. Many CIA agents are no different than those so-called experts on al-Qaeda that one sees on CNN or FOX news.

This latest infiltration of the CIA is worse than a thousand Abdulmutallabs, and will certainly cause a setback to the agency for years to come, something that the President did not talk about.

Article first published on the Huffington Post

Watch the Video

Forget about oil, occupation, terrorism or even Al Qaeda. The real hazard for Iraqis these days is cancer. Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment.

Here are a few examples. In Falluja, which was heavily bombarded by the US in 2004, as many as 25% of newborn infants have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumors, and neural tube defects in the spinal cord.

The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad, has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009, according to Al Jazeera English.

In Basra there were 1885 diagnosed cases of cancer in 2005. According to Dr. Jawad al Ali, director of the Oncology Center, the number increased to 2,302 in 2006 and 3,071 in 2007. Dr. Ali told Al Jazeera English that about 1,250-1,500 patients visit the Oncology Center every month now.

Not everyone is ready to draw a direct correlation between allied bombing of these areas and tumors, and the Pentagon has been skeptical of any attempts to link the two. But Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs and the sharp increase in cancer rates are not unconnected.

Dr Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, says that there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects. He told Al Jazeera English, "Children with congenital anomalies are subjected to karyotyping and chromosomal studies with complete genetic back-grounding and clinical assessment. Family and obstetrical histories are taken too. These international studies have produced ample evidence to show that depleted uranium has disastrous consequences."

Iraqi doctors say cancer cases increased after both the 1991 war and the 2003 invasion. Abdulhaq Al-Ani, author of “Uranium in Iraq," told Al Jazeera English that the incubation period for depleted uranium is five to six years, which is consistent with the spike in cancer rates in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009. There are also similar patterns of birth defects among Iraqi and Afghan infants who were also born in areas that were subjected to depleted uranium bombardment.

Dr. Daud Miraki, director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, told Al Jazeera English he found evidence of the effect of depleted uranium in infants in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan. “Many children are born with no eyes, no limbs, or tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes,” said Dr. Miraki.

It’s not just Iraqis and Afghans. Babies born to American soldiers deployed in Iraq during the 1991 war are also showing similar defects. In 2000, Iraqi biologist Huda saleh Mahadi pointed out that the hands of deformed American infants were directly linked to their shoulders, a deformity seen in Iraqi infants.

Many US soldiers are now referring to Gulf War Syndrome #2 and alleging they have developed cancer because of exposure to depleted uranium in Iraq. But soldiers can end their exposure to depleted uranium when their service in Iraq ends. Iraqi civilians have nowhere else to go. The water, soil and air in large areas of Iraq, including Baghdad, are contaminated with depleted uranium that has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years.

Dr. Doug Rokke, former director of the U.S. Army’s Depleted Uranium Project during the first Gulf War, was in charge of a project of decontaminating American tanks. He told Al Jazeera English that “it took the U.S. Department of Defense, in a multi-million dollar facility with trained physicists and engineers, three years to decontaminate the 24 tanks that I sent back to the U.S.” And he added, “What can the average Iraqi do with thousands and thousands of trash and destroyed vehicles spread across the desert and other areas?”

According to Al Jazeera, the Pentagon used more than 300 tons of depleted uranium in 1991. In 2003, the United States used more than 1,000 tons.

This article is also available on NewAmericanMedia.org

With all the reports, controversy, and rumors that have been swirling over the past two weeks, it's been a challenge keeping up with and making sense of what really went down in Copenhagen. Various parties involved hold very contrasting views over how negotiations turned out. China, UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon and even the vulnerable country of Bangladesh took a positive outlook, while Sweden, Bolivia, Brazil and others felt the resolution was unacceptable and demanded much stronger regulations and emissions cuts than what the U.S.-brokered "Copenhagen Accord", reached Saturday, calls for. Nonetheless, here is an attempt to break down the accord, in terms of both potential pros and cons:

PROS: During negotiations major countries, including China, the U.S., India and Europe, agreed that the risks of climate change could not be left unchecked. Included in the final Copenhagen Accord was a goal to restrict global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. Another section of the accord covers the commitment to support climate change adaptation projects in developing countries through a collective international fund of $100 billion per year until 2020.

CONS: The non-legally binding Copenhagen Accord, however, was not adopted by the UN -- only "taken note of" -- and it was not supported by all countries represented at negotiations. The accord was labeled by the Sudanese Chairman of the G77, the largest developing country bloc represented at the COP15, as comparable to a "suicide pact" -- which he would not be entering into. Also, the accord's emissions targets do not fall in line with what science says is necessary to actually meet the goal of keeping global temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius.

While this may be oversimplifying things, all in all it seems that though hopes for a global treaty were high prior to last week's summit (a potential climax of decades of debate), realistic expectations were probably quite a bit lower. Perhaps a more realistic goal for the close of Copenhagen was the laying of groundwork necessary to continue talks of a binding treaty into 2010. This goal may indeed have been realized, as historically speaking no preceding summit has reached such a consensus on the urgency of climate change. As stated by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, "We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action.” Only time will tell.

For more on the summit outcome via a first-hand account from the Mother Nature Network's blogger Karl Burkart, click here.

With the scheduled close of the Copenhagen summit today, world leaders have begun to depart from the now notorious Denmark capital. However, results of the two-week long negotiations are still unknown, with a final agreement -- political, binding, or otherwise -- yet to be released. The UN has asked parties to stay on overnight in a last-ditch effort to reach a deal, an effort some say is a lost cause.

According to the UNFCCC, the latest draft text to be leaked, which latest rumors say may be signed by remaining parties, includes grossly inadequate emissions reductions that would still result in a devastating global temperature rise of over 3 degrees, and an atmospheric CO2 level of 550 parts per million -- at best.

And, while the U.S. has pledged to work towards the goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 for adaptation in vulnerable communities, the actual dollar amount the U.S. is pledging to contribute to this goal was left unmentioned. This pledge was also made under the condition that it would be part of a broader accord.

While the outcome of Copenhagen hangs in the balance, Link TV will continue to bring you LIVE coverage of events, and unique content about climate change. Check out the results of last week's News Hunt from our partners at News Trust, which looked at a wide range of topics that helped put the Copenhagen conference in context.

As the final days of the climate talks in Copenhagen tick by, heads of state begin to arrive at the summit, and the energy in and around the Bella Center has reached an all-time high. Inside the Center, NGOs and possibly some delegates have walked out of talks. Outside, thousands of protestors marching for climate justice for developing countries are attempting to turn negotiations into a "people's assembly", chanting "Reclaim Power" --a term coined by the leaders of Climate Justice Action, a coalition of global climate justice groups. Police have arrested hundreds more today, and have even resorted to physical force, using batons and pepper spray to hold back crowds. Watch a full report on the protest scene from Democracy Now!

Accedited activists and NGOs, including Avaaz, Tck Tck Tck, and Friends of the Earth, have now been denied access to the conference center without stated cause, further inflaming protestors in the area, and resulting in a sit-in in the center lobby.

In other news, Conference of the Parties (COP 15) President Connie Hedegaard has resigned her position, to be replaced by Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, reportedly because of the unprecedented number of heads of state and government who have begun to arrive at the conference.

Stay tuned for more updates from Copenhagen, and in the meantime, check out this Earth Focus interview with Oxfam's Gawain Kripke who has a firm grasp on the effects of climate change on developing countries, particularly as it pertains to food security:

The weekend was anything but quiet around Copenhagen's Bella Center and in the world at large, with protestors and activists taking to the streets from Sydney to San Francisco demanding a real deal on climate change. The mass action, which prompted hundreds of arrests, included marches, vigils and church bell ringing by groups like Oxfam and 350.org.

At the negotiations, aggressive action took place as well. Tuvalu's negotiator reached out in an emotional plea to the UN, the U.S. Senate and President Obama, asserting that the survival of his country and other small island nations depends on decisions made this week. Meanwhile, Bolivia's UN Ambassador issued a bold response to the U.S. refusal to pay any "climate debt" by saying, "We are not assigning guilt, merely responsibility. As they say in the U.S., if you break it, you buy it."  And today, African countries of the G77 have walked out of negotiations, temporarily suspending talks, in a move to protect gains made through the Kyoto Protocol.

All of this and more, as always, is continuously covered on our LIVE page, Copenhagen 24/7, so stay tuned for more up-to-the-minute news straight from the source. I'll leave you with our latest spot from Link TV's Climate Change Hits Home series, which discusses the impending impacts of a warming world on recreation in the U.S. Some of America's favorite (and most prosperous!) pastimes are in danger of disappearing:

With the close of week one of climate negotiations in Copenhagen, parties are beginning to come forth with proposals of what their countries are prepared to do...or not do, depending on who you ask. Japan's targets, for example, while ambitious, come with conditions. The Japanese Prime Minster has declared he would not sign an agreement extending the Kyoto Protocol that did not hold big emitters like the U.S. and China accountable. The EU, on the other hand, made what some call a bold leadership move by pledging 7.2 billion euros over the next three years in international adaptation funding. Developing countries, however, claim it's simply not enough.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, which was partly awarded to him based on his work on climate change. In his acceptance speech, Obama identified climate change as an international security issue due to the threats of forced migration and further instability within already volatile areas that face diminishing natural resources, famine, and disease.

To wrap up the week, a "draft final text" was released, raising questions about nuclear power funding, global temperature targets, and plans for long term adaptation support. This was followed by yet another draft which appeared as a rebuttal to the controversial Danish Text leaked earlier in the week. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out next week!

In the meantime, keep following LIVE coverage of the events on Copenhagen 24/7 and check out this video on the effects of climate change on "Dead Zones" in American waterways. These are very real places!