Archive: Michael Munk's National Messages:

16 House members back Kucinich's debate on Obama's AfPak war by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 7, 2010

Note: 3 Republicans on the list Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed, March 6, 2010 http://www.truthout.org/kucinich-forces-congress-debate-afghanistan57433 On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced H. Com Res. 248, a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected early next week. Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan); Ron Paul (R-Texas); José Serrano (D-New York); Bob Filner (D-California); Lynn Woolsey (D-California); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Barbara Lee (D-California); Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts); Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona); Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin); Timothy Johnson (R-Illinois); Yvette Clarke (D-New York); Eric Massa (D-New York), Alan Grayson (D-Florida) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants Congress to fork over $33 billion more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy. Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American soldiers and Afghan civilians once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion was hanging fire. So it's a great thing that Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more Members of Congress would be urged by their constituents to support Kucinich's resolution. That would be a signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment. Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the United States government plays Russian roulette with the lives of American soldiers and Afghan civilians. The British government has more urgency than the US government about ending the war - and is more supportive than the US of a political solution to end the conflict - because in Britain there is greater public outcry. If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the US, we could be more like Britain, and get our government on board the train to a political solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely. The first step towards bringing our troops home is for members of Congress to hear from their constituents. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama to cave on Iraq withdrawal? by Michael Munk Sat, Mar 6, 2010

Why not? He's "caved" on everything else: health care, GITMO, torture photos, "state secrets," Honduras, illegal Israeli settlements and now civilian trials? (But Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/ insists he'll draw down to 50,000 occupation troops by August) He writes: It seems to me extremely unlikely that the post-election scene will be so violent or unstable as to call for a revision of the current timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, to which President Obama has committed the US government. Iraq has actually seen much worse violence in recent months than anything it has experienced in the run-up to this election, though it is true that civilian casualties spiked in February. Iraqi authorities have repeatedly said proudly that the Iraqi military and other security forces are capable of keeping basic peace now, and they are in charge of security for the voting stations this time, not the US military. I do not believe the Iraqi parliament that is about to be elected will put up with any foot-dragging on troop withdrawals by the US, and I think the US military officers who speak of slowing down the withdrawal are doing so to discourage radical guerrillas from making trouble during the elections (warning them that attacks will backfire by making it harder to get rid of the Americans. Obama to Cave on Iraq Withdrawal? Pressure from the 'longer warriors': By Tom Hayden / The Rag Blog / March 3, 2010 http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/tom-hayden-obama-to-cave-on-iraq.html Was it too good to be true? In February at Camp Lejeune, our new President Barack Obama surprised all observers by pledging to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2012, in accord with a pact secretly negotiated at the end of the Bush era. Previously, Obama was promising to withdraw all combat troops, leaving a "residual force" dominating Iraq for years. Obama has restated his commitment to the full withdrawal on several occasions. But heavy pressure is building to make the president drop his commitment. The most ominous sign of the gathering campaign to make Obama cave in came in a February 24 op-ed piece in the New York Times by Thomas Ricks, the pre-eminent mainstream historian of the war. Given the political gridlock and growing turbulence in Iraq, Ricks says that breaking his campaign promise is the "best course" for Obama to pursue. Ricks says "it would be best to let [read: pressure] Iraqi leaders to make the first public move to re-open the status of forces agreement" under which U.S. combat troops will soon be departing. "As a longtime critic of the American invasion of Iraq, I am not happy about advocating a continued military presence there," Ricks writes. Perhaps he is forgetting his 2009 book celebrating Gen. David Petraeus, The Gamble, in which Ricks predicted that Obama would have to break his vow to remove all combat troops to avoid "abandoning Iraq." Or his prediction in the same book that the U.S. is only "halfway through" the Iraq War. Ricks' epilogue was titled "The Long War," making him one of the earliest warrior-journalists to embrace the notion of a 50-80 year war projected by top counterinsurgency advisers to Petraeus and the Pentagon. Everyone including Ricks agrees that the American public is completely soured on the Iraq War. Just this week a federal agency noted that the $53 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction, the largest aid effort since the Marshall Plan, has been squandered. [NYT, Feb. 22, 2010] That doesn't phase our ideological fanatics who believe in permanent war until all their ideological fanatics are dead. No matter that both Iraq and Afghanistan are trillion-dollar wars and, according to the latest federal budget analysis, there is "virtually no room for domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors." The neo-conservative stealth strategy of destroying government programs by "strangling the baby in the bathtub" (the phrase of Grover Norquist) is working. The reason U.S. military combat may continue in Iraq is that the Pentagon has not won the war. On the one hand, the U.S. has installed a brutal authoritarian Shiite-dominated coalition in power in Baghdad, one closely aligned with the Pentagon's strategic enemies in Iran. That's not a victory. That same Shiite coalition has used its power to purge the minority Sunni candidates from running in the elections scheduled for next month. Gen. Ray Odierno recently stated the obvious, that the key Iraqi politicians purging the Sunni candidates "clearly are influenced by Iran." [NYT, Feb. 17, 2010] Not surprisingly, the top Iraqi blocking Sunni participation, according to Gen. Odiorno, is the same Ahmed Chalabi who conspired with the neocons to pass along false information leading to the 2003 invasion. These events may drive the Sunni community to revive its insurgency, which was contained by U.S. funding of the "Awakening" movement and promises of protection. The return of insurgency would mean civil war. The alternative may be more likely, a demand from the Sunnis that their former enemies, the Americans, stay in Iraq to protect them from the Shiites. This scenario would be in accord with the doctrine advocated by Petraeus advisor Stephen Biddle [see Foreign Affairs, March-April 2006]. Divide and conquer may succeed. What are the chances Obama will keep to his commitment? At this point, the most likely withdrawal we can expect from the President is not from Iraq but from his previous commitment. How can he politically succeed in withdrawing against warnings from all sides that chaos and bloodshed will be the result? The Long War advocates have him where they want him. The peace movement may protest, and public opinion may be unenthusiastic, but cannot be counted on to stop this Long War plan for Iraq if Obama caves. Last month there were only five American deaths in Iraq; for 2009, the count was 149 [compared to 822 in 2006]. If renewed American intervention cannot be stopped, neither can a reckoning down the road, however. The cost of occupation is more than a fiscal one. A permanent American occupation of Iraq will be like a giant breeder reactor generating deadly and unpredictable opposition from Iraqi nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism for years to come. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's final debacle: Clinton urges recognition of miliary coup by Michael Munk Thu, Mar 4, 2010

Remember: Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis led the lobbying in Washingtion for the oligrach junta that kidnapped an elected Honduran president. --------------------- Clinton: US to restore aid to Honduras, urges recognition of new government MATTHEW LEE AP News, March 4, 2010 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/03/clinton_urges_recognition_of_honduras_government.php?ref=fpa U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration will restore aid to Honduras that was suspended after a coup last year. Clinton is urging Latin America to recognize the new Honduran government. Speaking Thursday in Costa Rica, Clinton said the post-coup government, which took office in January, was democratically elected. And she said it was taking steps to reconcile the population split by last June's coup, as called for by international mediation. Clinton said it was time for countries in the region to respond and allow Honduras back into the Organization of American States. Clinton also said she had notified Congress that U.S. aid to Honduras would be restored. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Brazil rejects Clinton's pressure on Iran by Michael Munk Wed, Mar 3, 2010

Clinton fails to win over Brazil on Iran By Raymond Colitt and Andrew Quinn Reuters, March 3, 2010 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/03/clinton_fails_to_win_over_brazil_on_iran.php?ref=fpa BRASILIA (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to win Brazil's support on Wednesday for more sanctions against Iran and said Tehran would not talk seriously about its nuclear program until the United Nations took new action. Even before he met with Clinton, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said "it is not wise to push Iran into a corner. It is wise to establish negotiations." Clinton's visit to Brasilia came as U.S. diplomats seek to persuade key U.N. Security Council members that the time has come for action on Iran, which has defied U.N. demands that it stop enriching uranium. "I think it's only after we pass sanctions in the Security Council that Iran will negotiate in good faith," Clinton said. "That is my belief, that is our administration's belief: that once the international community speaks in unison around a resolution then the Iranians will come and begin to negotiate." Clinton said the United States believed sanctions are "the best way to avoid conflict and arms races that could disrupt stability and the peace and the oil markets of the world." While most attention is focused on Russia and China, which hold veto power over any U.N. resolution, Washington had hoped to win over key non-permanent Security Council members such as Brazil and Turkey to present a united front on the Iran nuclear stand-off. Lula, who has upset Washington by pursuing close ties with Tehran, has repeatedly voiced caution over the drive by the United States, Britain, France and Germany for new sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, which they fear is a cover for making atomic weapons. Tehran has denied the accusation, and says its program is purely for peaceful purposes. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim repeated that Brazil felt there was room for two or three months more negotiation with Iran. "We still have some possibility of coming to an agreement ... but that may require a lot of flexibility on both sides," Amorim said at a news conference with Clinton in Brasilia. "We will not simply bow down to the evolving consensus if we do not agree." Clinton, who is on a tour of Latin America, expressed disappointment with Brazil's position, and said talks had proved fruitless with Iran. "The door is open for negotiation, we never slammed it shut. but we don't see anybody even in the far off distance walking toward it," Clinton said. She urged countries to be cautious about Iran's assurances that it had only peaceful intentions. "We have seen an Iran that runs to Brazil, an Iran that runs to Turkey and an Iran that runs to China, telling people different things to different people to avoid international sanctions," she said. The United States and European Union on Wednesday kept up the hot rhetoric, accusing Iran of breaking nuclear transparency rules by escalating uranium enrichment without U.N. surveillance and saying its "provocative" behavior invited tougher sanctions. They spoke at a tense meeting in Vienna of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. A diplomat inside the closed-door meeting said China's ambassador reiterated that Beijing still believed the time was not right for sanctions against its major trade partner, further complicating the western-led push for quick moves to sanctions. Lula told reporters that while Brazil supported more negotiation with Iran it would "not support any move by Iran to go beyond the peaceful use of nuclear energy." He added that he planned to have a "frank discussion" on the subject with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he visits Tehran in May. Diplomats told Reuters this week that the western powers had already prepared a draft proposal for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran for defying U.N. demands that it stop enriching uranium. If the four Western powers win the support of Russia and China, negotiations on the first new U.N. sanctions resolution in two years could begin immediately. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Reich: Why the Dem base lack enthusiasm by Michael Munk Tue, Mar 2, 2010

True, that, except that Reich minmizes the impact of Obama's bad decisions on the Dems base. The Enthusiasm Gap 28 February 2010 by: Robert Reich | RobertReich.org http://www.truthout.org/the-enthusiasm-gap57281 I had dinner the other night with a Democratic pollster who told me Dems are heading toward next fall's mid-term elections with a serious enthusiasm gap: The Republican base is fired up. The Dem base is packing up. The Dem base is lethargic because congressional Democrats continue to compromise on everything the Dem base cares about. For a year now it's been nothing but compromises, watered-down ideas, weakened provisions, wider loopholes, softened regulations. Health care went from what the Dem base wanted - single payer - to a public option, to no public option, to a bunch of ideas that the President tried to explain last week, and it now hangs by a string as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid try to round up conservative Dems and a 51-vote reconciliation package in the Senate. The jobs bill went from what the base wanted - a second stimulus - to $165 billion of extended unemployment benefits and aid to states and locales, then to $15 billion of tax breaks for businesses that make new hires. Financial regulation went from tough new capital requirements, sharp constraints on derivate trading, a consumer protection agency, and a resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act - all popular with the Dem base - to some limits on derivatives and a consumer-protection agency inside the Treasury Department and a rearrangement of oversight boxes, and it's now looking like even less. The environment went from the base's desire for a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade carbon auction then to a cap-and-trade with all sorts of exemptions and offsets for the biggest polluters, and now Senate Dems are talking about trying to do it industry-by-industry. These waffles and wiggle rooms have drained the Democratic base of all passion. "Why should I care?" are words I hear over and over again from stalwart Democrats who worked their hearts out in the last election. The Republican base, meanwhile, is on a rampage. It's more and more energized by its mad-as-hell populists. Tea partiers, libertarians, Birchers, birthers, and Dick Armey astro-turfers are channeling the economic anxieties of millions of Americans against "big government." Technically, the Dems have the majority in Congress and could still make major reforms. But conservative, "blue-dog" Dems won't go along. They say the public has grown wary of government. But they must know the public hasn't grown even more wary of big business and Wall Street, on which effective government is the only constraint. Anyone with an ounce of sanity understands government is the only effective countervailing force against the forces that got us into this mess: Against Goldman Sachs and the rest of the big banks that plunged the economy into crisis, got our bailout money, and are now back at their old games, dispensing huge bonuses to themselves. Against WellPoint and the rest of the giant health insurers who are at this moment robbing us of the care we need by raising their rates by double digits. Against giant corporations that are showing big profits by continuing to lay off millions of Americans and cutting the wages of millions of more, by shifting jobs abroad and substituting software. Against big oil and big utilities that are raising prices and rates, and continue to ravage the atmosphere. If there was ever a time to connect the dots and make the case for government as the singular means of protecting the public from these forces it is now. Yet the White House and the congressional Dem's ongoing refusal to blame big business and Wall Street has created the biggest irony in modern political history. A growing portion of the public, fed by the right, blames our problems on "big government." Much of the reason for the Democrats' astonishing reluctance to place blame where it belongs rests with big business's and Wall Street's generous flows of campaign donations to Dems, coupled with their implicit promise of high-paying jobs once Democratic officials retire from government. This is the rot at the center of the system. And unless or until it's remedied, it will be difficult for the President to achieve any "change you can believe in." To his credit, Obama himself has not scaled back his health-care ambitions all that much, and he appears, intermittently, to want to push conservative blue-dog Dems to join him on a bigger jobs bill, tougher financial reform, and a more effective approach to global warming. (His overtures to Republicans seem ever more transparently designed to give blue-dog Dems cover to vote with him.) But our President is not comfortable wielding blame. He will not give the public the larger narrative of private-sector greed, its nefarious effect on the American public at this dangerous juncture, and the private sector's corruption of the democratic process. He has so far eschewed any major plan to get corporate and Wall Street money out of politics. He can be indignant- as when he lashed out at the "fat cats" on Wall Street - but his indignance is fleeting, and it is no match for the faux indignance of the right that blames government for all that ails us. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

German parliament expells (temporarily) 76 elected leftists by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 1, 2010

Note: The Greens abtained on sending more troops to the Afghan war. German Left Party Protests Afghan War, Expelled from Parliament http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0227/1224265276499.html VIA mdriscollrj@charter.net GERMANY’S LEFT Party was expelled from the Bundestag yesterday after its members held up signs bearing the names of Afghan civilians killed in a German-ordered airstrike last September. The protest came in the middle of a parliamentary debate on extending Germany’s nine-year military mission to Afghanistan by a further year. Some 429 MPs voted for and 111 against the new mandate – 16 fewer votes in favour than last time – allowing troop numbers to be increased by 850 to 5,350. The opposition Green Party abstained and, after being re-admitted, the Left Party MPs contributed to the 111 votes against the mandate. “This was no routine vote, we reject the war in Afghanistan,” said Gesine Lötzsch, the Left Party’s designate co-leader, after MPs held up about 70 signs with names of victims. One read: “Ali Mohammad, farmer, 35 years old, nine children. “This was a dignified way of remembering individual people with names and biographies who have died, deaths that have brought calamity on their families.” The expulsion of the entire 76-member Left parliamentary party, a first for the Bundestag, underlined the controversy that still surrounds Germany’s first post-war military deployment outside Europe. The revised mandate will increase from five to 1,400 the number of Germans training Afghan soldiers. Underlying public scepticism towards the mission has hardened into deeper cynicism since September’s bombing of two petrol tankers near Kunduz that killed about 140 people, including dozens of civilians. Full details are still scarce, with a parliamentary inquiry into the incident meeting often in closed-door session. Some 69 per cent of Germans want soldiers to pull out, according to a December poll for ARD public television, up 12 per cent in three months. Green Party MP Hans-Christian Ströbele, a veteran of Germany’s pacifist scene, said that, after the bombing, yesterday’s parliamentary expulsion sent “completely the wrong signal to Afghanistan”. Bundestag president Norbert Lammert defended his actions, pointing out that protests in the chamber breach parliamentary guidelines. Parliamentary expulsions are a rare but not unheard of phenomenon in German politics. In 1949 then Social Democrat (SPD) leader Kurt Schumacher became the first person to be thrown out for calling Konrad Adenauer the “Allied Chancellor”. The most celebrated expulsion came in 1984 during a row between the then Bundestag president and Green Party MP Joschka Fischer. “With permission, Mr President, you’re an asshole,” said Mr Fischer, who was then expelled for two days. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Who are the torture docs in CIA's Office of Medical Services? by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 1, 2010

Op-Ed Doctors Without Morals By LEONARD S. RUBENSTEIN and STEPHEN N. XENAKIS New Yoerk Times: March 1, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01xenakis.html?ref=opinion AFTER five years of investigation, the Justice Department has released its findings regarding the government lawyers who authorized waterboarding and other forms of torture during the interrogation of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. The report's conclusion, that the lawyers exercised poor judgment but were not guilty of professional misconduct, is questionable at best. Still, the review reflects a commitment to a transparent investigation of professional behavior. In contrast, the government doctors and psychologists who participated in and authorized the torture of detainees have escaped discipline, accountability or even internal investigation. It is hardly news that medical staff at the C.I.A. and the Pentagon played a critical role in developing and carrying out torture procedures. Psychologists and at least one doctor designed or recommended coercive interrogation methods including sleep deprivation, stress positions, isolation and waterboarding. The military's Behavioral Science Consultation Teams evaluated detainees, consulted their medical records to ascertain vulnerabilities and advised interrogators when to push harder for intelligence information. Psychologists designed a program for new arrivals at Guantánamo that kept them in isolation to "enhance and exploit" their "disorientation and disorganization." Medical officials monitored interrogations and ordered medical interventions so they could continue even when the detainee was in obvious distress. In one case, an interrogation log obtained by Time magazine shows, a medical corpsman ordered intravenous fluids to be administered to a dehydrated detainee even as loud music was played to deprive him of sleep. When the C.I.A.'s inspector general challenged these "enhanced interrogation" methods, the agency's Office of Medical Services was brought in to determine, in consultation with the Justice Department, whether the techniques inflicted severe mental pain or suffering, the legal definition of torture. Once again, doctors played a critical role, providing professional opinions that no severe pain or suffering was being inflicted. According to Justice Department memos released last year, the medical service opined that sleep deprivation up to 180 hours didn't qualify as torture. It determined that confinement in a dark, small space for 18 hours a day was acceptable. It said detainees could be exposed to cold air or hosed down with cold water for up to two-thirds of the time it takes for hypothermia to set in. And it advised that placing a detainee in handcuffs attached by a chain to a ceiling, then forcing him to stand with his feet shackled to a bolt in the floor, "does not result in significant pain for the subject." The service did allow that waterboarding could be dangerous, and that the experience of feeling unable to breathe is extremely frightening. But it noted that the C.I.A. had limited its use to 12 applications over two sessions within 24 hours, and to five days in any 30-day period. As a result, the lawyers noted the office's "professional judgment that the use of the waterboard on a healthy individual subject to these limitations would be 'medically acceptable.'" The medical basis for these opinions was nonexistent. The Office of Medical Services cited no studies of individuals who had been subjected to these techniques. Its sources included a wilderness medical manual, the National Institute of Mental Health Web site and guidelines from the World Health Organization. The only medical source cited by the service was a book by Dr. James Horne, a sleep expert at Loughborough University in Britain; when Dr. Horne learned that his book had been used as a reference, he said the C.I.A. had distorted his findings and misrepresented his research, and that its conclusions on sleep deprivation were nonsense. Dr. Horne had used healthy volunteers who were subject to no other stresses and could withdraw at any time, while C.I.A. and Pentagon interrogators used a broad array of stresses in combination on the detainees. Sleep deprivation, he said, mixed with pain-inducing positioning, intimidation and a host of other stresses, would probably exhaust the body's defense mechanisms, cause physical collapse and worsen existing illness. And that doesn't begin to acknowledge the dire psychological consequences. The shabbiness of the medical judgments, though, pales in comparison to the ethical breaches by the doctors and psychologists involved. Health professionals have a responsibility extending well beyond nonparticipation in torture; the historic maxim is, after all, "First do no harm." These health professionals did the polar opposite. Nevertheless, no agency - not the Pentagon, the C.I.A., state licensing boards or professional medical societies - has initiated any action to investigate, much less discipline, these individuals. They have ignored the gross and appalling violations by medical personnel. This is an unconscionable disservice to the thousands of ethical doctors and psychologists in the country's service. It is not too late to begin investigations. They should start now. ----------------------- Leonard S. Rubenstein is a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Stephen N. Xenakis is a psychiatrist and a retired Army brigadier general. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Who is the UK's notorious Master of the Rolls? by Michael Munk Sun, Feb 28, 2010

The Brits Labor government is furious at the decision by three senior judges for ordering that the description of tortures suffered by a British subject in US custody be made public. It is especially upset with public remarks by one them-- Lord Neuberger, "Master of the Rolls." See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/26/binyam-mohamed-torture-ruling-government for the story. But if you're wondering what "The Master of the Rolls" is, read on and especially check out his Court Dress. At http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about_judiciary/roles_types_jurisdiction/judicial_profiles/heads_of_division/master_rolls.htm, it says: The Master of the Rolls is one of the Heads of Division. He or she is also the leading judge dealing with the civil work of the Court of Appeal, presiding over the most difficult and sensitive cases. The Master of the Rolls also officially authorises solicitors to practice. As a Head of Division and Member of the Privy Council, the Master of the Rolls is given the prefix 'Right Honourable'. The Master of the Rolls was originally responsible for the safe-keeping of charters, patents and records of important court judgments written on parchment rolls. He still has responsibility for documents of national importance, being Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records and Chairman of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. The Master of the Rolls is, by virtue of his office, a judge of the Court of Appeal and acts as the president of its Civil Division - which he also organises. He is responsible for the deployment and organisation of the work of the judges of the division as well as presiding in one of its courts. He normally sits with two Lords Justices of Appeal and there is occasionally a third member such as a retired Lord Justice. The most complex cases traditionally come before the Master of the Rolls. The Master of the Rolls is regarded as second in judicial importance to the Lord Chief Justice. He is consulted on matters such as the civil justice system and rights of audience. He also deals with professional rules and regulations dealing with solicitors and appeals against rulings of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal. Appointment The Master of the Rolls is appointed by The Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advised by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with senior members of the judiciary. Heads of Division are generally appointed from amongst the Lords Justices. Court Dress The Master of the Rolls wears a court coat and waistcoat or a sleeved waistcoat, with skirt or trousers and bands, a black silk gown and a short wig. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

At Vancouver: Single payer 3, for-profit health insurance 2 by Michael Munk Sun, Feb 28, 2010

visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Learn radical politics, media and organizing skills by Michael Munk Sun, Feb 28, 2010

Coverage of prisoner deaths: Cuba and GITMO by Michael Munk Sat, Feb 27, 2010

NYTimes: Repoters are citizens by Michael Munk Sat, Feb 27, 2010

Did Yoo erase his criminal emails? by Michael Munk Fri, Feb 26, 2010

TPMMuckraker Former DOJ-ers Doubtful On Missing Yoo Emails Story Zachary Roth | February 26, 2010 http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/former_doj-ers_doubtful_on_missing_yoo_emails_stor.php?ref=fpblg : An internal Justice Department report on the Torture Memos noted that investigators were told that key emails from John Yoo had been deleted and could not be retrieved. But several former DOJ staffers expressed intense skepticism that the emails could in fact have been rendered unrecoverable -- at least without a deliberate effort to destroy them. "It's hard for me to believe that those emails weren't kept -- unless somebody didn't want them kept," one career Justice Department lawyer, who left in 2005, told TPMmuckraker. Another former DOJ lawyer echoed that notion: "When I heard the emails were not recoverable from Yoo, I was surprised," he said. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility wrote in a report, released last week: "We were told that most of Yoo's records had been deleted and were not recoverable," and said that their probe was "hampered" by not having access to the emails. That has sparked calls from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the National Archives, the New York Times, and CREW for an investigation into the missing emails. Anne Weismann, a top Justice Department lawyer during the Clinton administration who now is with CREW, told TPMmuckraker that the emails of Janet Reno were printed out every week when she was Attorney General, in order to ensure that they were preserved. "There was no question that people understood," the need to preserve emails, said Weismann, who worked specifically, in part, on statutes governing federal and presidential records, and who last year led a largely successful legal effort by CREW to have email records from the Bush White House retrieved, after they were said to have been deleted. The need for lawyers in Yoo's department -- who were effectively interpreting the law on behalf of the US government -- to preserve emails would have been particularly clear, said the former DOJ-er. "When you're at the Office of Legal Counsel, and you're working with the White House, given previous areas of sensitivity, I would have thought there would have been a particular sensitivity toward keeping good records," he said. "It's incomprehensible that [Yoo] could have concluded it didn't need preserving," said Weismann, referring to his correspondence on the subject of the Torture Memos. OPR has not said how hard it pushed for Yoo's emails. If the emails were genuinely unrecoverable, the Justice Department would likely face questions about its record-keeping systems, since federal law requires that such records be maintained. Jeanette Plante, the director of the department's record keeping office, declined to comment to TPMmuckraker, referring us to the public affairs office, which has not responded to our inquiries on the subject. There would also be questions about the lengths to which the department, or members of its staff, went to render the emails unrecoverable -- since it's almost certain that simply deleting them from Yoo's inbox would not do so. None of the former DOJ-ers who spoke to TPMmuckraker said they would have known how to delete emails permanently. Asked by TPMmuckraker what Yoo knew about the deletions, his lawyer, Miguel Estrada, said via email: "No reason why [Yoo] would know about whether they are missing or why, since he was long gone (by several years) when OPR investigated the matter. So there is no statement he can make about it." A department official told Congress this morning that he would look into the department's technical and record keeping processes, and the question of whether the emails are recoverable, and report back visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Yoo's torture memo assistant exposed by Michael Munk Mon, Feb 22, 2010

NYT publishes oped by a monster by Michael Munk Mon, Feb 22, 2010

Iraq WMDs all over again in Iran by Michael Munk Sun, Feb 21, 2010

Emanuel intimidates beltway reporters by Michael Munk Sat, Feb 20, 2010

Ignoring Harper's scoop in Gitmo another NTY scandal by Michael Munk Fri, Feb 19, 2010

Court backs Obama stonewall of GITMO murders by Michael Munk Thu, Feb 18, 2010

Obama caves to Hillary on Iran by Michael Munk Wed, Feb 17, 2010

Correction: China dumped those US bonds now! by Michael Munk Wed, Feb 17, 2010

China dumps US bonds by Michael Munk Wed, Feb 17, 2010

Obama orders call for regime change in Iran by Michael Munk Tue, Feb 16, 2010

NYT bias on demos by Michael Munk Tue, Feb 16, 2010

Obama deplores Brits publish torture docs by Michael Munk Sun, Feb 14, 2010

Law profs ask court to sanction Yoo by Michael Munk Fri, Feb 12, 2010

Was the Oregon prof's suspension another provocation? by Michael Munk Sun, Feb 7, 2010

Oregon prof who charged student was FBI spy suspended by Michael Munk Wed, Feb 3, 2010

Portland State University (OR) Daily Vanguard Feb 3, 2010 Professor banned from teaching following verbal confrontation PSU econ professor accused student of trying to incite violence and of = spying By Virginia Vickery and Theodora Karatzas Vanguard staff =20 Photo courtesy of PSU John Hall =20 Zachary Bucharest Adam Wickham/Portland State Vanguard A tenured Portland State economics professor is currently suspended from = teaching after he publicly accused a student during a class lecture of = being an FBI informant and of trying to sell guns to students. Professor John Hall, during his 2 p.m. "Economics 445/545: Comparative = Economic Systems" class on Jan. 14th, verbally harangued student Zachary = Bucharest for nearly half an hour, according to students in the class. Hall, who has taught at PSU for 24 years, began the class with a lecture = relevant to the course material but about halfway through the two-hour = long class, he began to describe his experiences with law enforcement in = places including Eastern Europe, according to a student who wished to = remain anonymous. Hall claimed to have been surveilled at times throughout his life and = then told the class that an FBI informant and agent provocateur was in = their midst. Hall said this person served as a sniper in the Israeli = army and called him a killer with access to a personal arsenal. He then pointed at Bucharest and identified him as the informant in = question, according to the unnamed student. Bucharest, a student at PSU since the fall of 2006 and the current chief = of staff for ASPSU, sat silently throughout the ordeal, according to = students in the class.=20 Hall accused Bucharest of trying to organize students to participate in = violent acts against the university, according to the unnamed student.=20 Hall also said he believed that Bucharest is at times armed while on = campus. He then put a letter on the document projector that he wrote to = the FBI's Portland Field Office. In the letter, Hall claims to know = Bucharest's identity as an agent. He then handed Bucharest a copy of the = letter and told him to give it to his superiors. After a time of silence, Bucharest got up and said that some of Hall's = claims about his military background were true, but that other claims = the professor made were not. Bucharest left the classroom after being = told by Hall to leave and not to come back to PSU, according to = students. In an e-mail to students in the class on Jan. 17, economics department = chair Randall A. Bluffstone said that he was aware of Thursday's = incident. "I would especially like to assure you that this incident is being taken = seriously and that the appropriate university administrators are fully = involved," he said. On Tuesday, Jan. 19-the next day the class was scheduled to = meet-Bluffstone, Mary Beth Collins, director of Student Health and = Counseling, and Carol Mack, vice provost for Academic Administration and = Planning, met with the class. Hall was not present. According to students in the class, many asked administrators why Hall = was not there and what the administration would do to keep students = safe. They were told that if they feel unsafe, they should contact the = Campus Public Safety Office. Students were encouraged by Bluffstone during the class and later via = e-mail to meet with himself, Mack or Dr. Marvin Kaiser, Dean of the = College Of Liberal Arts and Sciences, for private 30-minute meetings to = discuss the incident. Bluffstone reportedly said that the FBI informed the university that = Bucharest does not work for them. A formal complaint has been filed against Hall since the incident, = according to PSU Communications Director Scott Gallagher. "Hall has been relieved of teaching duties but he has not been = suspended," Gallagher said.=20 EC 445/545 is now taught by Dr. Charles Grant, according to Bluffstone = in an e-mail to students on Jan. 25. "There are no sanctions out on [Hall] as of yet because the situation is = under investigation," Gallagher said. =20 Hall is still classified as a paid employee while the incident is under = investigation, though he is not allowed on campus. He is still working = on university-related projects, said Phil Lesch, executive director of = PSU's chapter of American Association of University Professors.=20 According to Hall, he has been verbally banned from campus. Lesch said it's not uncommon for someone to be barred from coming to = campus during an investigation so that the outcome is not influenced by = the person's presence. "He had his reasons for doing what he did and I can't speculate or put = words in his mouth," said Lesch, who identified himself as Hall's union = spokesperson. "The investigation will determine if he acted = appropriately." Students were told that they could drop EC 445/545 for a full-tuition = refund or register for another class without penalty. According to = students still enrolled in the class, only a handful of the nearly 40 = original students remain. No determination has been made whether or not Hall will be back to teach = in the spring, Lesch said. "Based upon my students' reports, I cannot help but to think that the = process currently is being shaped in order to end my tenure at PSU," = said Hall in a statement delivered to the Vanguard by Allison Faris, a = student enrolled in one of Hall's classed. "I decided to take a stand. I observed the situation becoming extremely = dangerous, not only for me but for about eight of my very finest = students," Hall said in the statement. "I felt that what I had to do = should not have been my responsibility." Faris said Hall is one of the best professors she has had in her five = years at PSU and that "any allegations [against Hall] of instability are = absolutely ludicrous." "I understand the students' privacy is to be respected, as defined by = the codes governing PSU," Hall said in the statement. "I felt the level = of danger had grown to such an acute level that I felt it fully in order = to engage in an 'emergency exemption' of student privacy." The unnamed student said Hall was just trying to protect his students. "Zaki seemed normal," said Brett Condron, EC 445/545 student. He = believed Bucharest posed no threat. Bucharest made a statement made through his attorney, Elden Rosenthal. "I have never been affiliated with the FBI in any way, and I have never = been an informant," the statement reads. "I have never in any way done = anything to incite violence at PSU. I have admired Professor Hall since = I first took a class from him, and cannot imagine what I did or said to = cause him to treat me the way he did. I truly hope that the university = will take steps to clear my name, and I also hope that something like = this will never again happen to a PSU student."=20

Why does US defend countries whose people don't want us to? by Michael Munk Tue, Feb 2, 2010

Who was executed in Iran? by Michael Munk Tue, Feb 2, 2010

The US media keeps referring to the two executed Iranians as merely = among the many "street protesters" against the national elections. But = they are described in Iran as members of "Tondar" which, according to = its website=20 http://aryamehr11.blogspot.com/2007/02/anjomane-padeshahi-iran-kobande-to= ndar.html wants to restore the despised Shah's family dictatorship, thrown out by = a popular revolt many years ago. =20 For the establishment of a Democratic, Secular, and Nationalistic = government in Iran to replace the illegal, terrorist, inhumane, = anti-Iranian, occupational, Islamic Republic.=20 =20 =20 =20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Howard Zinn on Marxism by Michael Munk Sun, Jan 31, 2010

Was Zinn a radical? by Michael Munk Sat, Jan 30, 2010

Scandal: Obama's DOJ clears Yoo, ByBee by Michael Munk Sat, Jan 30, 2010

Justice Department Clears Torture Memo Authors John Yoo, Jay Bybee of Misconduct Jan 29, 2010 by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report http://www.truthout.org/obamas-doj-clears-torture-memo-authors-john-yoo-jay-bybee-professional-misconduct56531 A long-awaited Department of Justice watchdog report that probed whether John Yoo and his former boss Jay Bybee violated professional standards when they provided the Bush White House with legal advice on torture has cleared both men of misconduct, according to Newsweek, citing unnamed sources who have seen the document. An earlier version of the report was prepared by H, Marshall Jarrett, head of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and completed in December 2008. It concluded that Yoo, a Berkeley law professor, and Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge on the 9th Circuit, violated professional standards when they drafted an August 2002 legal opinion that authorized CIA officers to use brutal methods when interrogating suspected terrorist detainees and recommeded a referral to their state bar associations for further review, which could have resulted in their law licenses being revoked. But as I reported last April, Obama's Justice Department appointees began to water down those previous conclusions in early 2009 after OPR received responses on the report's conclusions from Yoo and Bybee, who both worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC): Legal sources familiar with the internal debate about the draft report say OPR is in the process of "watering"- down the criticism of legal opinions by [OLC] lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee in 2002 and 2003 and by [OLC acting head Steven Bradbury], who in 2005 reinstated some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions after they had been withdrawn by Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith when he headed the OLC in 2003 and 2004. Shortly after taking charge of the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder assigned Mary Patrice Brown, a veteran DC prosecutor and the new head of OPR, the task of reviewing the final report. Brown spent months scrutinizing the lengthy document and made revisions. Her conclusions were then sent to senior prosecutor at the DOJ for a final review. The person tasked with reviewing the final version is David Margolis, the 34-year career prosecutor at the DOJ. It was Margolis who softened OPR's earlier finding of professional misconduct and instead determined that Yoo and Bybee "showed poor judgment" when they drafted an August 1, 2002 legal opinion authorizing the CIA to employ methods such as waterboarding against detainees during interrogations, according to Newsweek. That means neither Yoo nor Bybee will be referred to state bar associations where they could have faced disciplinary action since poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct, according to OPR's post-investigation procedures. For Bybee, such a referral could have also led to an impeachment inquiry before Congress. It's unknown why Margolis downgraded the report's initial findings. Newsweek reported that he did so without any input from Holder. Yoo and Bybee, however, are still under scrutiny. Legal advocacy groups have filed complaints against them, and others who worked on the Bush administration's so-called "enhanced interrogation" program, with state bar associations in hopes that their law licenses will be revoked. When the report is released and if its conclusions match Newsweek's story, particularly the key finding that Yoo and Bybee did not violate professional standards and won't face disciplinary action, the Obama administration will face a swift backlash from those who say the president and his appointees have gone above and beyond to cover-up war crimes committed by the Bush administration. Newsweek noted that the OPR report is "sharply critical" of the "legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding" and other methods of torture CIA interrogators used against detainees after 9/11, a critical conclusion that raises questions about the Obama Justice Department's reasons for not holding Yoo and Bybee accountable. Moreover, the report, which is still under a declassification review "will provide many new details about how waterboarding was adopted and the role that top White House officials played in the process, say two sources who have read the report but asked for anonymity to describe a sensitive document," Newsweek reported. Two of the most controversial sections of the 2002 memo-including one contending that the president, as commander in chief, can override a federal law banning torture-were not in the original draft of the memo, say the sources. But when Michael Chertoff, then-chief of Justice's criminal division, refused the CIA's request for a blanket pledge not to prosecute its officers for torture, Yoo met at the White House with David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief counsel, and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. After that, Yoo inserted a section about the commander in chief's wartime powers and another saying that agency officers accused of torturing Qaeda suspects could claim they were acting in "self-defense" to prevent future terror attacks, the sources say. Both legal claims have long since been rejected by Justice officials as overly broad and unsupported by legal precedent. The OPR probe was launched in mid-2004 after a meeting in which Jack Goldsmith, then head of the OLC, got into a tense debate with White House lawyers, including Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel David Addington. That back-and-forth over the OLC's judgments regarding President Bush's powers rest at the heart of the Bush administration's defense of its "enhanced interrogation" techniques that have been widely denounced as torture, such as waterboarding which subjects a person to the panicked gag reflex of drowning and which was used on at least three "high-value" detainees. Bush officials insist that they were acting under the guidance of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises Presidents on the scope of their constitutional powers. For the OPR report to conclude that Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury violated their professional duties as lawyers and, in effect, gave Bush pre-cooked legal opinions to do what he already wanted to do would have shattered that line of defense. Goldsmith ended up withdrawing some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions because he felt they were "legally flawed" and "sloppily written." He resigned shortly thereafter and was subsequently replaced on an acting basis by Bradbury, who restored some of the controversial Yoo-Bybee opinions in May 2005, again granting George W. Bush broad powers to inflict painful interrogations on detainees. Bradbury was also a subject of OPR's probe. As Truthout reported last week, an original draft of the report determined that professional misconduct was warranted because Yoo, when writing the August 2002 torture memo, failed to cite the key precedent relating to a president's war powers, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 Supreme Court case that addressed President Harry Truman's order to seize steel mills that had been shut down in a labor dispute during the Korean War, according to DOJ officials who were knowledgeable about the contents of the draft version. Truman said the strike threatened national defense and thus justified his actions under his Article II powers in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court overturned Truman's order, saying, "the President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Since Congress hadn't delegated such authority to Truman, the Supreme Court ruled that Truman's actions were unconstitutional, with an influential concurring opinion written by Justice Robert Jackson. Yoo's memoranda concluded that the laws governing torture violated President Bush's commander-in-chief powers under the Constitution because it prevented him "from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States." Yoo's lengthy response to the OPR expanded upon a defense he first cited in his 2006 book, "War by Other Means," in explaining why he didn't cite Youngstown. Yoo wrote: "we didn't cite [Justice Robert] Jackson's individual views in Youngstown because earlier OLC opinions, reaching across several administrations, had concluded that it had no application to the president's conduct of foreign affairs and national security. "Youngstown reached the outcome it did because the Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the President, the exclusive power to make law concerning labor disputes. It does not address the scope of Commander-in-Chief power involving military strategy or intelligence tactics in war ... "Far from inventing some novel interpretation of the Constitution, [Office of Legal Counsel] was really doing little more than following in the footsteps of the Clinton Justice Department and all prior Justice Departments." It now appears that Yoo made a convincing argument to OPR in defending his reasons for not citing the landmark ruling and that likely impacted Margolis's decision to water down earlier conclusions that found Yoo and Bybee in violation of professional standards. A July 10, 2009, report by the inspectors general of the CIA, National Security Agency, DOJ and Defense Department into the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which were based on legal opinions written by Yoo, previously took Yoo to task for failing to cite Youngstown. Yoo "omitted any discussion of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a leading case on the distribution of government powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches," the report said. "Justice [Robert] Jackson's analysis of President Truman's Article II Commander-in-Chief authority during wartime in the Youngstown case was an important factor in OLC's subsequent reevaluation of Yoo's opinions," the report said. Additionally, the early draft of the OPR report also concluded, legal sources said, that Yoo misinterpreted an obscure 2000 health benefits statute and wrongly applied it to August 2002 and March 2003 interrogation opinions he wrote, according to the DOJ officials. Again, expanding upon a defense that first appeared in his book, Yoo placed some of the responsibility on Congress for forcing him to rely upon the statute to narrow the definition of torture in a way that permitted techniques such as waterboarding. In passing an anti-torture law, Congress only prohibited "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," Yoo wrote. "The ban on torture does not prohibit any pain or suffering whether physical or mental, only severe acts. Congress did not define severe ... OLC interpreted 'severe' as a level of pain 'equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions. "OLC's first 2002 definition did not make up this definition out of thin air. It applied a standard technique used to interpret ambiguous phrases in law. When Congress does not define its terms, courts commonly look in the United States Code for the use of similar language. The only other place where similar words appear is in a law defining health benefits for emergency medical conditions, which are defined as severe symptoms, including 'severe pain' where an individual's health is placed 'in serious jeopardy,' 'serious impairment to bodily functions,' or 'serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.'" In his book, The Terror Presidency, Goldsmith wrote that "the health benefits statute's use of 'severe pain' had no relationship whatsoever to the torture statute. And even if it did, the health benefit statute did not define 'severe pain.' Rather it used the term 'severe pain' as a sign of an emergency medical condition that, if not treated, might cause organ failure and the like.... OLC's clumsily definitional arbitrage didn't seem even in the ballpark." Last March, the Justice Department revealed that the OPR report underwent revisions after the initial draft was rejected by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, both of who insisted that Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury be given an opportunity to respond to its conclusions. "Attorney General Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Filip and OLC provided comments [after the first draft was completed in December], and OPR revised the draft report to the extent it deemed appropriate based on those comments," said acting Assistant Attorney General Faith Burton in a March 25, 2009 letter to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Burton also said at the time that the final OPR would likely undergo more revisions based on responses from the former OLC lawyers. Several months later, Durbin and Whitehouse received a letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich who disclosed the post investigation process. Several months later, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to the senators and noted that if the appeals filed by Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury resulted in a rejection of OPR's findings by the "career official" reviewing the document then no such referral would occur. "Department policy usually requires referral of OPR's misconduct findings to the subject's state bar disciplinary authority, but if the appeal resulted in a rejection of OPR's misconduct findings, then no referral was made," said Weich's May 4, 2009 letter to Durbin and Whitehouse. "This process afforded former employees roughly the same opportunity to contest OPR's findings that current employees were afforded through the disciplinary process." Weich's letter to Durbin and Whitehouse was sent in response to queries by the senators last March about revelations that Bradbury oversaw OLC's review of the report in late 2008, despite the fact that he was a subject of OPR's investigation and was also acting head of OLC at the time. Three months before Bush exited the White House, Bradbury, in a "memorandum for the files," renounced several legal opinions drafted by Yoo and Bybee. Bradbury attempted to justify or forgive Yoo's controversial opinion by explaining that it was "the product of an extraordinary period in the history of the Nation: the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11." Bradbury wrote another memo five days before Bush left office last January, in which he once again repudiated Yoo's legal opinions. It would appear that this memo was in response to the OPR report. Bradbury said in the Jan. 15 memo that the flawed theories by Yoo in no way should be interpreted to mean that Justice Department lawyers did not "satisfy" professional standards. Rather, Bradbury wrote, "In the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policy makers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were imminent, strived to employ all lawful means to protect the Nation." Durbin and Whitehouse said they believed Bradbury's "memorandum for the files" made it a "conflict-of-interest" for him to participate in the formal review process. But Weich said, "Because Mr. Bradbury's participation in that process was transparent, OPR advised that it can evaluate the OLC response with the knowledge of Mr. Bradbury's participation just as it would evaluate a response from anyone whose actions were within the scope of OPR's investigation. "Therefore, OPR does not believe that Mr. Bradbury's participation in the OLC response was improper," Weich said Weich added that the initial draft of the report was also shared with the CIA for a "classification review," and the agency, having reviewed the findings, "requested an opportunity to provide substantive comment on the report." Durbin and Whitehouse, in a statement last May, said they "will be interested in the scope of the 'substantive comment' the CIA is providing, and the reasons why an outside agency would have such comment on an internal disciplinary matter." As Truthout previously reported, Holder testified before Congress last year that the OPR report was expected be released by the end of November. In interviews over the past month, two senior aides to Democratic lawmakers claimed the report was being held up in lieu of the passage of a health care bill. But Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokeswoman, disputed the allegations. "That is absolutely untrue," Schmaler said. "One thing has nothing to do with another." Schmaler said the review "process is ongoing and we hope to have [the report] complete and released soon." Two DOJ officials familiar with details of the report said a delay in releasing it in the time frame Holder had promised was due, in part, to the fact that Margolis was hospitalized in December for pneumonia. In his testimony last November, Holder said the report had not been released sooner due to "the amount of time we gave to the lawyers who represented the people who are the subject of the report an opportunity to respond. And then [OPR] had to react to those responses." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Zinn on Obama: his final words by Michael Munk Fri, Jan 29, 2010

Obama escalates China bashing by Michael Munk Fri, Jan 29, 2010

Obama endorses illegal Honduran inaguration by Michael Munk Thu, Jan 28, 2010

Since almost all of Latin America considers the military gorilla coup that ousted elected president Zeleya illegal, only two heads of state--Panama's Ricardo Martinelli and Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic(who was there to escort Zeleya out of Honduras after his term officially ended)--showed up for the ceremony. But in a disgraceful endorsement of the coup, Obama and Hillary Clinton sent Clintonite Arturo Valenzuela, the assistant U.S. secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs to be present as their representative. Valenzuela told the press: "We're please to see that the new president of Honduras is taking the country in the right direction.". Honduran Coup d'Etat a "Win" for the US? by: Tom Loudon, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis January 28, 2010 http://www.truthout.org/honduran-coup-detat-a-win-us56471 ) Today, Pepe Lobo will be inaugurated as the new president of Honduras in what many consider to be an institutionalization of the coup d'état, which took place seven months ago. Lobo comes to the presidency as a result of a highly disputed election process carried out by the coup regime. The elections, which have been widely condemned as illegitimate, were boycotted by a large percentage of the Honduran population. US Undersecretary Thomas Shannon, in a maneuver that totally subverted an extended negotiation process, announced that the US would recognize the election, even if there was not a return to constitutional order. The US celebrates today's inauguration as the "way forward" for Honduras and has aggressively pressured other Latin American countries to recognize Lobo's government. While the United States is eager to normalize the situation and to get on with business as usual, the June 28 coup d'état has yielded unexpected consequences for Washington, both inside and outside of Honduras. Unforeseen by the coup plotters and the United States, the military takeover of Honduras unleashed a broad based, sustained resistance movement inside the country. A spirit long dormant in Honduras was awakened, transforming the country into a hub of political activity previously unimaginable. The resistance movement has brought together people from many sectors of Honduran society, including large numbers of disaffected Liberal Party members. The unifying theme is that they no longer accept the status quo for their country. Events of the last seven months have accelerated and deepened a process demanding deep structural change. Organizations such as "Los Necios," a small, left-wing organization of students and young people struggled to maintain a membership of around 100. In these few months, their membership has swelled to over 1,000. Currently, 57 local expressions of the national resistance organization operate in cities and towns around Honduras. Confounding the coup leader's strategy, the movement is gaining strength despite brutal repression, state terror and the attempt to institutionalize the coup via elections. The resistance movement held large protest marches Wednesday and is working to implement a four-year plan for movement building in preparation for the next national elections. In Latin America, the coup in Honduras is widely understood to be a test case for US policy toward Latin America. By attacking the weakest and most vulnerable of the ALBA countries, the US hoped to strike a blow to this alternative economic block, which the US counts as enemy. However, in the wake of the coup, the US found itself in a historically unprecedented position at the OAS. Viewed by Latin American governments from both the right and the left as a potential direct threat to each of them, the OAS took a unanimous position denouncing the coup and ejecting Honduras from the OAS. The US was forced to accept this decision. Most countries in Latin America continue to refuse to recognize the results of the coup regime-sponsored "elections" on November 29, despite heavy pressure and arm twisting on the part of the Unites States to do so. Disappointment stemming from the contradiction between statements of a recently inaugurated President Obama to Latin American heads of state at the Summit of the Americas in April of 2009, and a virtually unchanged US policy has been articulated by leaders throughout Latin America. Three recent "moments" have contributed to a rapid readjustment of expectations. First was the coup in Honduras and refusal of the US to take proactive policy measures against it. Second was the announcement of seven new US military bases in Colombia. And the third was Secretary of State Clinton's declaration that Latin America countries should "think twice about flirting with Iran." The willingness of Latin American countries to challenge US positions indicates a slowly changing balance of power in the hemisphere. Soon after Arturo Valenzuela was confirmed as assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, he paid a visit to the Mercosur countries. Far from the diplomatic protocol to which the US is accustomed, in Brazil and Argentina, the first two countries which he visited, Mr. Valenzuela was not received by the president or the foreign minister in either country. In a press statement near the time of Valenzuela's visit, Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim criticized the US for being "extremely tolerant" of the coup and the de facto regime. What seems most clear is that the US State Department remains mired in an outdated cold war mentality, failing to recognize and adapt to the profound and complex changes that have occurred in Latin America during the last decade. Unfortunately, there seems to be few signs that this will change anytime soon. Today's inauguration in Honduras is happening in a context in which the old ghosts from the worst decades of US policy toward Latin America have been conjured in an attempt to silence opposition. The sharp escalation of human rights violations and use of state terror in an attempt to destroy the resistance movement have now entered a phase which human rights defenders describe as "silent, selective and systematic." Death squads and paramilitaries relentlessly pursue those resisting the coup. Many have been executed, and others have fled in order to save their lives. The repression continues in the context of a people who are empowered, determined and who are not afraid. The resistance movement has declared that it will not recognize Porfirio Lobo as president, but rather consider him to be the continuation of the dictatorship imposed though the June 28 military coup. Their nonviolent struggle for deep structural change via a constituent assembly will continue. What has happened in Honduras serves as a marker for change in Latin America. It signals that attempts by the United States to rule the hemisphere through coercion and force will be met with new and unexpected challenges and forms of resistance. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

54 members of Congress ask Obama to help Gaza by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 26, 2010

This letter was iniated by Reps Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn) and endorsed by J Street and Americans for Peace Now Jan 26, 2010 President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Obama, Thank you for your ongoing work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for your commitment of $300 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip. We write to you with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza. The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas' coup, and particularly following Operation Cast Lead. We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks. We recognize that the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups. This concern must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Truly, fulfilling the needs of civilians in Israel and Gaza are mutually reinforcing goals. The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts. The current blockade has severely impeded the ability of aid agencies to do their work to relieve suffering, and we ask that you advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas: * Movement of people, especially students, the ill, aid workers, journalists, and those with family concerns, into and out of Gaza; * Access to clean water, including water infrastructure materials, * Access to plentiful and varied food and agricultural materials; * Access to medicine and health care products and suppliers; * Access to sanitation supplies, including sanitation infrastructure materials; * Access to construction materials for repairs and rebuilding; * Access to fuel; * Access to spare parts; * Prompt passage into and out of Gaza for commercial and agricultural goods; and * Publication and review of the list of items prohibited to the people of Gaza. Winter is arriving and the needs of the people grow ever more pressing. For example, the ban on building materials is preventing the reconstruction of thousands of innocent families' damaged homes. There is also a concern that unrepaired sewage treatment plants will overflow and damage surrounding property and water resources. Despite ad hoc easing of the blockade, there has been no significant improvement in the quantity and scope of goods allowed into Gaza. Both the number of trucks entering Gaza per month and the number of days the crossings have been open have declined since March. This crisis has devastated livelihoods, entrenched a poverty rate of over 70%, increased dependence on erratic international aid, allowed the deterioration of public infrastructure, and led to the marked decline of the accessibility of essential services. The humanitarian and political consequences of a continued near-blockade would be disastrous. Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza's civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas. Under current conditions, our aid remains little more than an unrealized pledge. Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions. Your Administration's overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region. The people of Gaza, along with all the peoples of the region, must see that the United States is dedicated to addressing the legitimate security needs of the State of Israel and to ensuring that the legitimate needs of the Palestinian population are met. Sincerely, Members of Congress Arizona Raul Grijalva California Lois Capps Sam Farr Bob Filner Barbara Lee Loretta Sanchez Pete Stark Michael Honda Lynn Woolsey Jackie Speier Diane Watson George Miller Connecticut Jim Himes Indiana Andre Carson Iowa Bruce Braley Kentucky John Yarmuth Maryland Elijah Cummings Donna Edwards Massachusetts Michael Capuano William Delahunt Jim McGovern John Tierney John Olver Stephen Lynch Michigan John Conyers John Dingell Carolyn Kilpatrick Minnesota Keith Ellison Betty McCollum James Oberstar New Jersey Donald Payne Rush Holt Bill Pascrell New York Yvette Clarke Maurice Hinchey Paul Tonko Eric Massa North Carolina David Price Ohio Mary Jo Kilroy Marcy Kaptur Oregon Earl Blumenauer Peter DeFazio Pennsylvania Chaka Fattah Joe Sestak Vermont Peter Welch Virginia Jim Moran Washington Jim McDermott Adam Smith Jay Inslee Brian Baird West Virginia Nick Rahall Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin Gwen Moore Virginia Glenn Nye visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How much blood for....? by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 26, 2010

Obama lawyers discuss death squad hit by Michael Munk Mon, Jan 25, 2010

U.S. Mulls Legality of Killing American al Qaeda "Turncoat" Opportunities to "Take Out" Radical Cleric Anwar Awlaki In Yemen "May Have Been Missed" By MATTHEW COLE, RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS ABC News Jan. 25, 2010 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-awlaki-us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830 VIA http://www.legitgov.org White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials. Women may be connected to al Qaeda and may have Western passports.One of the people briefed said opportunities to "take out" Awlaki "may have been missed" because of the legal questions surrounding a lethal attack which would specifically target an American citizen. A spokesperson said the White House declined to comment. While Awlaki has not been charged with any crimes under U.S. law, intelligence officials say recent intelligence reports and electronic intercepts show he played an important role in recruiting the accused "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Awlaki also carried on extensive e-mail communication with the accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, prior to the attack that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian. According to the people who were briefed on the issue, American officials fear the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance from the White House for a targeted strike against Awlaki. An American citizen with suspected al Qaeda ties was killed in Nov. 2002 in Yemen in a CIA predator strike that was aimed at non-American leaders of al Qaeda. The death of the American citizen, Ahmed Hijazi of Lackawanna, NY, was justified as "collateral damage" at the time because he "was just in the wrong place at the wrong time," said a former U.S. official familiar with the case. In the case of Awlaki, born in New Mexico and a college student in Colorado and California, a strike aimed to kill him would stretch current Presidential authority given to the CIA and the Pentagon to pursue terrorists anywhere in the world. Awlaki's father told reporters in Yemen last week that his son had gone into hiding in the mountains of Yemen and was being protected by al Qaeda, even though, the father claimed, his son was not part of al Qaeda. He told reporters he was pleading with the United States, "Please don't kill my son." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

World Social Forum hits capitalism by Michael Munk Mon, Jan 25, 2010

Leftists slam capitalism at Social Forum in Brazil http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_bi_ge/lt_brazil_social_forum AP - People gather to march during the World Social Forum in Porto = Alegre, Brazil on Monday.=20 By ALAN CLENDENNING, Associated Press Writer Alan Clendenning Jan 25, = 2010 PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - Thousands of leftists massed Monday to kick off = five days of railing against unfettered capitalism at the World Social = Forum, a gathering that protests the bankers and other leaders who = attend the World Economic Forum at a Swiss ski resort. Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, = a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 = marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting = socialist slogans. They assailed corporate greed as the main reason the = world plunged into an economic slump. Organizers hope to attract as many as 15,000 people to the 10th annual = version of the event in this city near southern Brazil's border with = Uruguay. Participants said the forum is especially important this year now that = governments from the United States to Europe are moving to play bigger = roles in managing the global economy. In contrast, the World Economic Forum that starts Wednesday in Davos is = expected to see fewer leaders than in years past, and U.S. President = Barack Obama's plan to clamp down on the size and activity of banks is = sure to be on the minds of many of the rich and powerful heading to = Switzerland. "They have driven the capitalist system into chaos," said Sergio = Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt = emblazoned with the words "Bourgeoisie Stinks!" "We're letting them know = we can create a world free of exploitation that will help the poor." Lingering fallout from the financial crisis is proof that the world = economy must be retooled to benefit people, not big companies, said = Francisco Whitaker, a Roman Catholic activist and co-founder of the = World Social Forum who was exiled from Brazil during its 1964-1985 = dictatorship. He said that last year's Davos conference was similar to a "wake" and = that the lackluster turnout expected this year "gives the impression = that capitalism is on the downfall and hitting its limits." Leftists are increasingly energized by the prospect of persuading = governments to tackle corporate excess and spread more wealth to the = needy, he said. "We're in the midst of true enthusiasm," Whitaker said. "We may not = change the world completely and all at once, but the change now can come = from the bottom and spread. It's surging and getting toward a critical = mass." The World Social Forum serves as a platform for leftists to exchange = ideas, though no proposals are formed following days of debate. Instead, = participants are expected to take strategies back to their home = countries and push for change locally. While the economic crisis provided a perfect platform for advancing = leftist movements, many failed to grasp the opportunity when the slump = was at its worst, said Nandita Shah, co-director of India's Akshara = Centre, which supports women's rights. "I think there's a crisis in the left and in our voice," she said. "I = hope these five days will bring us out of this visionless tunnel." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Media ignore socialist aid to haiti by Michael Munk Sun, Jan 24, 2010

WaPo, NYT ignore GITMO expose by Michael Munk Sat, Jan 23, 2010

How China dealt with its earthquake by Michael Munk Fri, Jan 22, 2010

.Haiti and China: A Tale of Two Earthquakes By AUSTIN RAMZY / BEIJING TIME, Jan 21, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100121/wl_time/08599195464400 Looking for parallels to Haiti's catastrophe, many point to China. In May 2008, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck the southwestern province of Sichuan, pancaking schoolhouses, buildings and homes and killing at least 68,000 people. But the ferocity of the tremor and a huge death toll may be the only parallels between the two quake-stricken nations. I went back to Sichuan six months after the catastrophe and was amazed at the speed of physical and economic recovery. In Dujiangyan, the largest city in the quake zone, the rubble and the tent cities had disappeared. The jumble of debris was replaced by piles of new bricks, lumber and other construction materials. There was a building boom across the region, and dozens of temporary villages were erected to house the five million people rendered homeless by the quake. The prefab housing was made out of blue aluminum siding lined with styrofoam insulation. They had cement floors and were arranged in neat rows in flat spots at the bases of the mountains. Conditions weren't luxurious, but the camps were clean and the housing dry and fairly warm. (See history's top 10 deadliest earthquakes.) I found no evidence of homelessness, though there were reports of people in the mountains who refused to spend their rebuilding funds and chose to remain in tents. "When you compare this to the tsunami and other major disasters, it's rare to see something so efficient take place. It was well-organized and well-planned. All the international people that came in spoke very highly of this," says Ramsey Rayyis, regional representative for the American Red Cross in China. China has several advantages over Haiti when it comes to reconstruction. While China's disaster affected millions, the destruction was concentrated in rural areas and smaller towns, not a dense city. The mountainous parts of Sichuan and surrounding provinces hit by the 2008 quake are poor, they are not destitute; and they all had a basic standard of food and water supplies, access to medicine and health care, transportation and communications infrastructure. When much of that was wiped out by the quake, China's central government responded quickly, sending tens of thousands of soldiers and paramilitary troops to the region. They freed trapped survivors, delivered food and water, rebuilt roads and ensured stability. I witnessed no incidents of looting or other lawlessness when I was there in the days immediately following the quake. While there were safety concerns due to landslides and aftershocks, there was no danger of violence. "You do have a strong central government, a government that's able to support the people, and I think that makes a difference," says Rayyis. "Whereas in a place like Haiti, that's going to be a struggle. You're going to need a lot more external intervention." (See pictures of Sichuan six months after the quake.) With such speedy reconstruction, there are obviously questions about the quality of building. At the same time, there has been an intense focus on controlling graft. Despite allegations that corruption led to the construction of shoddy schools in the first place, China hasn't punished anyone for any wrongdoing that occurred before the earthquake. Grieving parents who protested over the deaths of their children in collapsed schools were silenced through payments and threats of punishment if they continued their agitation. Officials have declared that the extent of the destruction was due to the intensity of the temblor, not substandard buildings. But the government has taken a hard line on misuse of rebuilding funds, and a handful of people have been punished. While the size of rebuilding efforts means that there will inevitably be some graft, the extent of official and unofficial scrutiny means it is one of the riskier places in China to skim funds. In 2008 the government said it would spend $176 billion on reconstruction by 2011. (The total recovery cost is estimated at $250 billion). As of last June it had already spent more than $50 billion. Some of the expenses have been shouldered by other part of China. Twenty provinces have set aside 1% of fiscal revenues for two years to help rebuild Sichuan. That's another advantage that China has over Haiti. As a large nation with a rapidly growing economy, it can divert money from more prosperous areas to aid one devastated region. Likewise, the economy of the quake zone has done well. Much of the region was agricultural, and farmers were able to get back to work fairly soon after the disaster. The massive rebuilding effort also provided direct investment and job opportunities. Several of the dislocated people I met in the temporary camps had family members working on reconstruction. Overall the quake region produced less than 1% of China's GDP, so it did little to slow the national growth engine. A chief concern was that rebuilding would contribute to inflation. That was largely forgotten over the past year visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

A million stayed home in MA by Michael Munk Wed, Jan 20, 2010

Almost a million MA voters who came out in November '08 stayed home this time, ignoring the frantic efforts of Obama, the Kennedys et al to persuade them that electing Coakley was so important. Then consider why that argument was unconvincing--despite claims that the pathetic 46% of eligible voters (53% of registered) was a "historic" turnout Other than briefly being the topic of panicky gassbag commentary in the media, what actual political difference would a Coakley election have made? She would probably have looked to Kerry for advice and rubber stamped Obama's war budgets, foreign occupations, for-profit insurance health "reform" and protection for war criminals (see http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368 for the latest scandal). Maybe those million voters had voted for change, were disappointed in the outcome and didn't want any part in perpetuating it. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Helen Thomas: Can the economy afford peace? by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 19, 2010

Obama: $33 B more for AfPak war, only $1.3 B for education by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 19, 2010

Obama to seek $1.35 billion more for education (AP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_schools AP - President Barack Obama will ask Congress for $1.35 billion in his 2011 budget proposal to extend an education grant program for states, although the Education Department remains months away from announcing its first round of awards, senior administration officials said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

France accuses US of occupying Haiti by Michael Munk Mon, Jan 18, 2010

Budget hawks? Congress spent $1 trillion for wars by Michael Munk Sun, Jan 17, 2010

US-deposed President would return to Haiti by Michael Munk Sat, Jan 16, 2010

May Day 2004: Bush sent US troops to kidnapp the (twice) elected president. Aristide accused the US of the coup d'etat Aristide wants to return Al-Jazeera, Jan 15, 2010 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/01/201011513247850356.html Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the former Haitian president ousted in a rebellion five years ago, has said he wants to return to his quake-devastated country and is prepared to leave immediately. In a rare public appearance on Friday, Aristide told reporters at a hotel next to South Africa's Johannesburg airport that he and his family are ready to return to Haiti to help the victims. He said he believed his supporters would help him secure a plane to fly him to Haiti with medical supplies and other emergency equipment. "As far as we are concerned, we are ready to leave today, tomorrow, at any time to join the people of Haiti, share in their suffering, help rebuild the country, moving from misery to poverty with dignity," Aristide said. The former president spoke in a hotel meeting room reserved by the South African foreign affairs ministry. Hugely popular Aristide became popular in his homeland as a priest in the Haitian slum of La Saline. He was first elected president in 1990 but was ousted in a military coup the following year. US troops sent by then US Pesident Bill Clinton, currently a United Nations special envoy to Haiti, restored Aristide to power in 1994. After stepping down, Aristide was re-elected in 2000 but was ousted again in the bloody 2004 rebellion. However, during riots in Haiti in 2008 over soaring food prices, there was a popular call by Haitians for Aristide's return - showing that he remains hugely popular. If Aristide does return, political instability in an impoverished nation struggling to dig itself out from the massive 7.0-magnitude earthquake could result. Aristide has previously hinted at returning, saying he merely wants to be a teacher. But his enduring popularity and ability to galvanize Haitians would likely propel him into the political spotlight. "We feel deeply and profoundly that we should be there, in Haiti, with them, trying our best to prevent death," Aristide told reporters. Academic life Saul Kgomotso Molobi, a South African foreign affairs ministry official who accompanied Aristide to the briefing, said South Africa knows of no plans for Aristide to return to Haiti. Molobi said he could not answer questions about what arrangement would have to be made. Aristide and his wife live with their two daughters in a government villa in Pretoria, South Africa's capital, just north of Johannesburg. The couple has embraced an academic life, with Aristide writing on the linguistics of Zulu and Haitian Creole, as well as on the theology of love. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

War Dems challenged in Ill, PA and CA primaries by Michael Munk Thu, Jan 14, 2010

What the spilled blood buys in Iraq by Michael Munk Thu, Jan 14, 2010

U.S. Companies Join Race on Iraqi Oil Bonanza By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS New York Times: January 14, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/middleeast/14rebuild.html?hp BAGHDAD - A wave of American companies have been arriving in Iraq in recent months to pursue what is expected to be a multibillion-dollar bonanza of projects to revive the country's stagnant petroleum industry, as Iraq seeks to establish itself as a rival to Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer. Since the 2003 American-led invasion, nearly all of the biggest reconstruction projects in Iraq have been controlled by the United States. But many rebuilding contracts are expected to be awarded as soon as this month for drilling hundreds of new wells, repairing thousands of miles of pipeline and building several giant floating oil terminals in the Persian Gulf, and possibly a new port. The contracts will be administered either directly by the Iraqi government or as part of Baghdad's oversight of international oil companies that have signed agreements during the past few months to develop the country's most promising oil fields. There are misgivings, however, about Iraq's ability to adequately monitor contracts that could total $10 billion over the next five years. The concerns have been heightened by the prominent role expected to be played by American companies that have been criticized in the past by United States government auditors and inspectors for overcharging by hundreds of millions of dollars, performing shoddy work and failing to finish hundreds of crucial projects while under contract in Iraq. Among the companies that have started sending workers and equipment to the country or have plans to are Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger, all Houston-based oil-services companies, and several construction and engineering giants, including KBR, Bechtel, Parsons, Fluor and Foster Wheeler. Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, as well as Bechtel and Parsons, have been singled out for criticism by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction for their previous work in Iraq. The new contracts will put the companies into direct contact with an Iraqi government that has frequently acknowledged its own challenges in dealing with corruption and cronyism, and that has a lack of experienced managers, adequate enforcement and efficient auditing systems. The companies deny intentional wrongdoing in their dealings in Iraq and say that their experience there and in other oil-producing countries in Central Asia gives them an advantage. "KBR has historic experience on previous oil and gas production projects ranging from Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan," Heather Browne, KBR's director of corporate communications, wrote in an e-mail response to questions. "Our pursuit of additional contracts in the region is based on this experience in addition to KBR's work on Project RIO (Restore Iraq Oil)." During a conference call with industry analysts in October, David J. Lesar, Halliburton's chief executive, said that he had visited Iraq and that the company was already doing a limited amount of work on oil wells there. "I think you see everybody trying to establish a base there, and we're no exception," Mr. Lesar said. "Clearly, a great future there and one we will participate in - in a big way." But others questioned the Iraqi government's capacity to police the companies. "These are for-profit concerns and they are trying to make as much money as they can," said Pratap Chatterjee, former executive director of an anticorruption group, CorpWatch, and author of a recent book about Halliburton. "What the Iraq government needs is a good system of transparency and accountability, and for someone who knows what they're doing to oversee the work. Otherwise, they are going to be taken for a ride." During the past several months, Iraq has signed 10 production contracts with international oil companies as it tries to increase its oil output from a relatively static 2.4 million barrels a day to as much as 12 million barrels a day within six years. Officials said they hoped to drill at least 430 oil wells during the next two years. The planned work will require new pipelines, including as many as three undersea lines, floating terminals, water treatment facilities, pump stations, oil storage tanks, power plants and possibly a new Persian Gulf port that might be needed to handle the increased oil exports. There will also be a need for new housing, roads and schools, and workers will need to remove unexploded ordnance from oil fields and shipping lanes, transport massive oil rigs and use extraordinary amounts of concrete and steel to reinforce the wells. While American oil companies have enjoyed only modest success in winning oil development deals in Iraq, the numerous contracts signed in recent months have created an enormous backlog of work that leaves Baghdad with limited alternatives to Halliburton and the other American companies that dominate the oil industry services sector. "Iraq has little choice," said Joost R. Hiltermann, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa with the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit organization that aims to prevent deadly conflicts. "It is desperate to increase its revenues, almost all of which derive from the sale of oil. But the government has little capacity to monitor the many companies that will be involved in rehabilitating its ailing oil industry, or indeed its own operations. This is a recipe for massive corruption, but for Iraqi policy makers the cost will be worth it, given the expected massive returns." Government officials maintain, however, that Iraq's system of checks and balances will help it avoid the mistakes made by the United States. "There are procedures where if a company breaches a contract or makes errors, they will be blacklisted from working in Iraq," said Dr. Sabah A. Shibeeb al-Saidi, chief of the Ministry of Oil's legal and commercial department in the petroleum contracts and licensing directorate. "But if they are not blacklisted we will deal with them. We expect oil services companies to do many things in Iraq." Neither Halliburton nor KBR is on the Iraqi government blacklist, and Mr. Saidi and other senior Iraqi government officials interviewed said they had never heard of either those companies or of other American ones that have become household names in the United States because of their work in Iraq. Halliburton's former subsidiary, KBR, which was once run by former Vice President Dick Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $24 billion since the start of the war, giving it vast responsibility for reinvigorating Iraq's oil sector. Among many other criticisms of the company's performance in Iraq, Pentagon auditors found that KBR had overcharged the government by more than $200 million. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama wants $33 B more for AfPak war by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 12, 2010

Where are those budget hawks? Obama wants $33B more for war By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers Jan 12, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_war_funding WASHINGTON - The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned. The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015. The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013. The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year. The request for that additional funding will be sent to Congress at the same time as the record spending request for next year, making war funding an especially difficult pill for some of Obama's Democratic allies. Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public. U.S. officials outlined the coming requests on condition of anonymity because the budget request will not be sent to Congress until later this month. Obama's request for more war spending is likely to receive support on Capitol Hill, where Republicans will join moderate Democrats to pass the bill. But the budget debate is also likely to expose a widening rift between Obama's administration - it sees more troops and money as necessary to winning the war - and Democratic leaders, who have watched public opinion turn against the military campaign. "The president's going to have to make his case," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters last month at her year-end briefing. The 2010 budget contains about $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That figure would rise to $159 billion next year under the proposals prepared for Congress. The Pentagon projects that war funding would drop sharply in 2012, to $50 billion, and remain there through 2015. That is a calculation that the United States will save money from the withdrawal of forces in Iraq, as well as a prediction that the Afghanistan war will begin to wind down in the middle of 2011. Obama has promised that U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, but his defense advisers have set no time limit for the war. The Pentagon projects that overall defense spending would be $616 billion in 2012; $632 billion in 2013; $648 billion in 2014; and $666 billion in 2015. Congress sets little store by such predictions, which typically have fallen short of actual requests and spending. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to testify to Congress about the budget and the policy review in February. The four-year policy statement is a more important statement of administration goals. For the current wars, the policy statement focuses on efforts to refocus money and talent on beefing up special operations forces, countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threats and on cyber security and warfare. For example, the Pentagon would like to expand special operations forces' aviation by expanding the gunship fleet from 25 to 33. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

What thecatatonic media ignored at Obama's intelligence rollout by Michael Munk Sat, Jan 9, 2010

Answering Helen Thomas on Why They Want to Harm Us by: Ray McGovern, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed This piece is too long to post. For the rest of it go to http://www.truthout.org/1091012McGovern Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an airliner on Christmas Day. After Obama briefly addressed L'Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote "must do better" on the report cards of the national security schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break through the vapid remarks about channeling "intelligence streams," fixing "no-fly" lists, deploying "behavior detection officers," and buying more body-imaging scanners. Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public. She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did. Thomas: "Why do they want to do us harm? And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why." Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death." Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?" Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way." Thomas: "Why?" Brennan: "I think this is a - long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland." Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the boilerplate about how evil al Qaeda continues to pervert a religion and entice and exploit impressionable young men. There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. Obama's Non-Answer I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President limited himself to a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This is what he said before he walked away from the podium: "It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations . to do their bidding. . And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death . while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. . That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists." But why it is so hard for Muslims to "get" that message? Why can't they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to "justice and progress"? Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need to do is "communicate clearly to Muslims" that it is al Qaeda, not the U.S. and its allies, that brings "misery and death"? Does any informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 million from their homes? How is that for "misery and death"? Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American population than with the Muslim world. But why isn't there a frank discussion by America's leaders and media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of motive? visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How to prevent attacks--II by Michael Munk Fri, Jan 8, 2010

Iran bans western foundations by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 5, 2010

Iran has declared that it is illegal for its citizens to cooperate, sign contracts with or receive materials from about 60 US and European insitutions and foundations on a list published by its Intelligence Ministry. They include The Soros Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the United States' National Defense University in the US and the East European Democratic Centre (Poland) and Wilton Park(UK). We know that several of these, financed by taxpayers and private fortunes,actively support political opponents of governments the US regards as unfriendly. Curious what, if anything, they have been doing in Iran. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iran bans western foundations by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 5, 2010

Iran has declared that it is illegal for its citizens to cooperate, sign contracts with or receive materials from about 60 US and European insitutions and foundations on a list published by its Intelligence Ministry. They include The Soros Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the United States' National Defense University in the US and the East European Democratic Centre (Poland) and Wilton Park(UK). We know that several of these, financed by taxpayers and private fortunes,actively support political opponents of governments the US regards as unfriendly. Curious what, if anything, they have been doing in Iran. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How to reduce attacks on the homeland by Michael Munk Tue, Jan 5, 2010

The political/media complex has framed the Detroit incident as a intelligence failure that requires bureacratic and technological fixes. While it's surely true that the $75 billion we waste on pathetically ineffective "intelligence" (mainly fancy technology and big salaries for Langley desk riders and NSA technocrats), no one cares why the "heimat" is attacked in the first place. Almost every attack is attempted as retaliation for US foreign policy. 9/11 and earlier attacks on New York were declared by their perps to be "punishment" for US support for Israeli supression of Palestinians. Later attacks were retaliation or resistence to the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Detroit bomber is said to have been trying to avenge US cruise missile attacks on Yemen. I predict that if Obama would stop implementing neocon foreign adventures through military occupations, subsidies to Israel and CIA death squads, its victims would soon experience reduced motiovation to retaliate and would receive little support from the people they claim to be retaliating the name of. There would still remain a small group of genuine nutcakes, but they could be controlled by their own people and the improved human intelligence generated from them. 9/11 and Christmas 2009: Two Examples of a Failure of Intelligence by: Melvin A. Goodman, t r u t h o u t | Report January 4, 2010 http://www.truthout.org/104094 One week after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the press corps, "This isn't Pearl Harbor." No, it was worse. In 1941, the United States didn't have a director of central intelligence, 14 intelligence agencies and an overall intelligence budget of more than $50 billion to provide early warning of enemy attack. One day after a Nigerian man nearly blew an airliner out of the sky, Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that the system had worked. No, the system was dysfunctional. In 2009, we had two additional intelligence agencies, a czar for national intelligence and an intelligence budget of more than $75 billion. In all three cases, there was sufficient intelligence available to prevent the attacks. In all three cases, however, our intelligence efforts were unimaginative, divided and diffuse. A blizzard of warnings went unheeded in all three cases. The United States had broken the Japanese military code, which provided many warnings of a decision to attack the United States. In the case of 9/11, the Central Intelligence Agency received warnings from foreign liaison intelligence services, including the French, German, Israeli and Russian services. The German intelligence service warned both the CIA and Mossad, the Israeli service, in the summer of 2001 that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack US targets. The Israelis issued their own warnings to the FBI and the CIA in August 2001 that al-Qaeda was planning to attack US targets. The State Department and the CIA even possessed information that al-Qaeda had decided on targeting American Airlines and United Airlines, prompting some Foreign Service officers to change travel plans. As early as August 2009, the CIA and the National Security Agency had sensitive information on a person of interest dubbed the "Nigerian," who was suspected of meeting with terrorist elements in Yemen. The mainstream media are treating Yemen as a new concern, but Yemen has been a problem for terrorism for the past ten years. Adm. Tony Zinni had been warned in 2000 not to refuel ships off the Yemeni coast, but chose to ignore these warnings. The USS Cole was attacked in October 2000. A prominent Nigerian banker and former senior government official, well known to the international community, relayed suspicions about his son to the US Embassy and the CIA station in Lagos, but there was no effort to approach Yemeni officials to gather information on the banker's son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The son was a poster child for the "no fly" list, buying his ticket with cash, checking no luggage, lying to British authorities about his student visa and spending several months in Yemen. The British denied Abdulmutallab reentry, but the US State Department didn't even bother to check whether he had an entry visa for the United States. In fact, he had a multiple entry visa and, since all intelligence and law enforcement agencies have access to State's consular database listing visa holders, this fact was available throughout the community. It's one thing to worry about due process in dealing with a US citizen; it makes no sense to wait for additional derogatory information in the case of a foreigner who has traveled to Yemen and whose father has provided a warning about his son's extremism. The simple fact is that the intelligence community is not a "community"; it does not share intelligence effectively and it fails to make corporate decisions. The NSA had transcripts of al-Qaeda phone conversations in 2001 and sensitive intercepts on the "Nigerian" in 2009 that it didn't share with the CIA, the FBI or the National Security Council. The FBI accumulated intelligence on al-Qaeda that it hoped to use in a criminal case against Osama bin Laden; therefore, most of this intelligence never left the compartmented areas of FBI headquarters. The CIA withheld information on two 9/11 terrorists, presumably because it hoped to recruit these suspects as sources. We were led to believe the intelligence situation had improved in the wake of 9/11, but in view of the traditional cultural and professional jealousies of the military and civilian intelligence agencies, we have no evidence of significant change. Various departments and agencies have their own watch lists for limiting travel of terrorist suspects, but apply their own parochial concerns to operational activities and often ignore the intelligence products of rival agencies. The master list at the National Counter Terrorist Center is too large and unwieldy (more than 550,000 names) to be useful, and the State Department computer network lacks an automatic feedback loop that would link a suspect to a US visa. The Department of Homeland Security never should have been created and should have been abolished in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (remember "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie"). If we must have such a superfluous organization, then it should possess a centralized depository of terrorist suspects containing all relevant information. The analytical capabilities of the CIA, the FBI and the DHS have not been enhanced by the creation of the intelligence czar. Moreover, it is revealing that President Barack Obama made his decision last month to increase troops in Afghanistan without requesting a National Intelligence Estimate from the so-called intelligence community. Perhaps, he understands that there are too many instances where assumptions drive facts in the intelligence process. Former members of the 9/11 Commission are claiming that their recommendations have not been fully implemented, but it was the 9/11 Commission that helped to create the crazy-quilt intelligence organization that we now have, with too many working parts and a cumbersome bureaucracy. The Commission is responsible for the creation of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), a sclerotic and bloated bureaucracy that has done little to improve strategic intelligence, and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is at the center of the Nigerian intelligence failure. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 demonstrated DHS is dysfunctional; the Nigerian failure teaches us that the DNI and the NCTC need reform. The 9/11 Commission's creation of an intelligence czar has ensured that diversity and competition in collection and analysis of intelligence will be given short shrift. Truth is elusive within the intelligence process, and there is rarely a single answer to a controversial question or problem. The best intelligence analysis often comes from contrarian thinkers, but the militarized intelligence process rewards consensus and not competition. In the one area where we need centralization, watch lists for terrorist suspects, we have a redundancy of collections. Homeland Security keeps one list for border crossings; the State Department has a list for visas; the Transportation Security Administration has a no-fly list and a selectee list with 4,000 and 14,000 listings, respectively; and the National Counter Terrorism Center has an unwieldy database of 550,000 names. The criteria for each list differ, and it takes an interagency group to determine whether to place an individual on a specific list. There is at least one thing we have to be thankful for. In view of the failed efforts of Robert Reid in 2001 and Abdulmutallab, we can be thankful al-Qaeda still has not perfected an effective detonator. We should also applaud the post-9/11 reforms that limited the amounts of liquid that can be taken on commercial aircraft. The United States may not be so lucky the next time around, so President Obama must take a hard look at his entire national security team, particularly CIA Director Leon Panetta, DNI Dennis Blair, and NSC Deputy Director John Brennan, to make sure they are taking the necessary actions to reform the process. The failure points seem obvious, with bad decisions being made at a relatively low level in the process. The president has not demonstrated an interest in reforming the intelligence community, however, despite his campaign rhetoric. Ironically, the president has left the CIA without its most effective component for investigating failure because he hasn't named a statutory inspector general for the CIA to replace John Helgerson, who announced his retirement ten months ago. Helgerson was responsible for the most authoritative investigation of the 9/11 failure, which the Bush administration and the CIA managed to cover up. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

DAI subversive contractor in AfPak, Cuba, Venezula by Michael Munk Fri, Jan 1, 2010

Study says US Afghan occupation different from Russia's by Michael Munk Fri, Jan 1, 2010

The NYTimes got hold of a draft military historuy of The US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan The story's at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=afghan%20military%20history&st=cse An interesting part of the study argues that the US, unlike the Soviet Union and other invaders, is not an "occupier": Military planners were concerned about Afghanistan's long history of resisting foreign invaders and wanted to avoid the appearance of being occupiers. But the historians argue that this concern was based partly on an "incomplete" understanding of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan/ The draft study explains why they think that: It disagrees with the" the belief that a large "footprint" of Western forces inside Afghanistan would alienate the population and lead to disaffection and violence. Senior US political and Inilitary officials came to this view partly through an understanding of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan that was at best incomplete. This interpretation of that decade-long conflict explained the Soviet failure as stemming from the deployment of large mechanized forinations that appeared and acted as an anny of occupa- tion. The presence of this large alien force, so the interpretation suggested, bred the insurgency that ultimately forced the Soviets to leave in disgrace a decade after they arrived. Often overlooked in this version of the Soviet-Afghan War was the ways in which the Soviet military used its power in Afghanistan. Early in the conflict, for example~ the Soviet Air Force directly attacked civilian populations to deny insurgents safe havens. Large-scale casual- ties and refugee populations resulted, generating a high level of support for the Mujahideen. Moreover, when the Soviet Union sent its military forces across the Afghan border in 1979 to support the Afghan Communist government, Afghanistan was already in the midst of a civil war. Thus, much of the resistance the Soviets encountered was not generated by the size of their footprint, but that they had intervened in support of one side in the preexisting conflict. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's dirty war exposed by Michael Munk Fri, Jan 1, 2010

Afghans burn Obama in effigy by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 30, 2009

=20 =20 (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul) =20 Dec 30, 2009 = http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-President-Barack-Obama/photo//091230/481= /11782de2b6dd4cfb9c656fa22d67ead2//s:/ap/20091230/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanis= tan =20 People chant anti-American slogans and burn an effigy of U.S. President = Barack Obama in Jalalabad, south Afghanistan Wednesday., during a = protest against the recent killings of 10 civilians allegedly by the = coalition forces in Kunar province, eight of them boys aged between 12 = and 14. A NATO official said initial reports from troops involved in the = fighting on Sunday indicated that the victims were insurgents. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Death to Obama: Afghans protest children's deaths by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 30, 2009

Afghans burn Obama effigy over civilian deaths By Samoon Miakhail (Agence France-Presse) Dec. 30, 2009 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hieVzBP8C6Tv6Yn-ozkipSLmvA_Qhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hieVzBP8C6Tv6Yn-ozkipSLmvA_Q JALALABAD, Afghanistan - Protesters took to the streets in Afghanistan on Wednesday, burning an effigy of the US president and shouting "death to Obama" to slam civilian deaths during Western military operations. Hundreds of university students blocked main roads in Jalalabad, capital of eastern Nangahar province, to protest the alleged deaths of 10 civilians, mostly school children, in a Western military operation on Saturday. "The government must prevent such unilateral operations otherwise we will take guns instead of pens and fight against them (foreign forces)," students from the University of Nangahar's education faculty said in a statement. Marching through the main street of Jalalabad, the students chanted "death to Obama" and "death to foreign forces", witnesses said. The protesters torched a US flag and an effigy of US President Barack Obama in a public square in central Jalalabad, before dispersing. "Our demonstration is against those foreigners who have come to our country," Safiullah Aminzai, a student organiser, told AFP. "They have not brought democracy to Afghanistan but they are killing our religious scholars and children," he added. Civilian deaths in the eight-year war to eradicate a Taliban-led insurgency are a sensitive issue for the Afghan public, and fan tensions between President Hamid Karzai and the 113,000 foreign troops supporting his government. A similar protest was planned in Kabul against the "killing of civilians, especially the recent killing of students in Kunar by foreign forces," said organisers from the youth wing of Jamiat Eslah, or the Afghan Society for Social Reform and Development. "The demonstration is to show our hatred, anger and sorrow about the current situation," said Sayed Khalid Rashid. "Our main request is that the American and NATO forces must leave the country and Afghan people must have political autonomy," he said, adding that he expected hundreds of people to turn out for the march through western Kabul. Karzai "strongly condemned" the Kunar deaths, which have not been confirmed by either NATO or the US military, and ordered an immediate investigation. "Initial reports indicate that in a series of operations by international forces in Kunar province... 10 civilians, eight of them school students, have been killed," his office said. The operations in Kunar, which borders Pakistan, are being led by US Special Forces, a senior Western military official told AFP on condition of anonymity. "They have been killing a lot of Taliban and capturing a lot of Taliban," the official said. The operations were conducted independently of the more than 110,000 NATO and coalition forces fighting to eradicate the Taliban, he said. NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), asked to comment on reports of the Kunar deaths, said it had no activities in the region at the time. US Special Forces operate separately from ISAF. The head of the investigation team dispatched by Karzai to Kunar, Asadullah Wafa, said he met officials and residents of Narang district, south of the provincial capital of Asad Abad, but had no further details. The United Nations released figures this week showing that civilian deaths rose 10.8 percent in the first 10 months of 2009 to 2,038, up from 1,838 for the same period of 2008. The UN calculations show the vast majority, or 1,404 civilians, were killed by insurgents fighting to overthrow Karzai's government and eject Western troops. But extremists rarely claim responsibility for attacks that kill large numbers of civilians, instead blaming foreign forces in an increasingly effective propaganda campaign. The Taliban rely increasingly on homemade bombs, which exact a horrific toll on civilians and military alike, with foreign troop deaths at a record 508 this year. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iran nuke document' another forgery? by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 29, 2009

Reply to Rothstein: Yip Harburg's politics by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 26, 2009

NYT oped demands Obama start a 3rd war by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 24, 2009

For the Christmas Eve oped in question: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html RE: "There's Only One Way to Stop Iran" (Oped, Dec 24) In what other civilized nation would its leading newspaper give respectability to a demand it go to war against a member nation of the UN which does not threaten it? Alan Kuperman's tortured reading of Iran's behavior regarding its nuclear program is based on the same kind of evidence produced to justify our aggression against Iraq. Just as Iran is probably insisting today, Iraq turned out to be telling the truth when it declared it had no WMDs. If President Obama is foolish enough to act on Kuperman's warmongering, the consequences will be even worse. Michael Munk

Feingold alone is opposing war spending by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 19, 2009

34 votes against the war budget (395 warmongers) by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 18, 2009

12 join Kucinich's effort to end AfPak war by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 18, 2009

West on Obama: Is he the firecist critic? by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 18, 2009

From an interview with West on publicaztion of his new book. Read the full text at http://www.alternet.org/rights/144569/always_controversial_cornel_west_disses_obama,_survives_cancer_and_almost_spent_his_life_in_prison/?page=entire I draw a radical distinction between the symbolic and the substantial. As a critical supporter of Barack Obama, engaged in over 50 events for him from Iowa to Ohio, I knew that at a symbolic level something could happen that was unprecedented. And it did happen. At that symbolic level, I can understand the tears, I can understand the jubilation, I can understand the euphoria. But I always knew there was a sense in which he, now heading the American empire, was tied to the shadow government, tied to CIA, FBI, tied to the establishment waiting to embrace him. It was clear when he chose his economic team, when he chose his foreign policy team, he was choosing, of course, the recycled neo-liberals and recycled neo-Clintonites that substantially you're going to end up with these technocratic policies that consider poor people and working people as afterthoughts. Beginning with bankers, beginning with elites. Symbolically, black man breaks through makes you want to break dance. So, yes, we have to be able to relate to both of these. So I resonate with your dear fiancee, because the hopes that were generated and the call for change, and then we end up with this recycled neo-liberalism. There's no fundamental change at all. That's very real, but I think we do have to understand we had to bring the age of Reagan to a close. We had to bring the era of conservatism to a close. And then you try to unleash new possibilities. Of course, the question now is, how do we keep our fellow citizens awakened so it goes beyond the campaign for a candidate and really begin engaging in grassroots organizing and mobilizing. I think even my dear brother Michael Moore tends to put too much confidence in Barack Obama. In his film you get the sense that here comes Barack Obama speaking the language of deep democracy. No, no, no, he's been a liberal all his life. He uses that language to mobilize, but in the end he's going to capitulate and defer to the neo-liberal establishment, which is what he has done so far. Now granted, there's still some possibilities there, even when you talk about just extending unemployment benefits. This is nothing revolutionary at all, but it does alleviate some of the suffering. But if we don't get some restructuring going on, if we don't get some Marshall Plan activity of massive investments in infrastructure here, in this country....You've got four billion dollars every month in Afghanistan. You can come up with that all the time. : I think even my dear brother Michael Moore tends to put too much confidence in Barack Obama. In his film you get the sense that here comes Barack Obama speaking the language of deep democracy. No, no, no, he's been a liberal all his life. He uses that language to mobilize, but in the end he's going to capitulate and defer to the neo-liberal establishment, which is what he has done so far. Now granted, there's still some possibilities there, even when you talk about just extending unemployment benefits. This is nothing revolutionary at all, but it does alleviate some of the suffering. But if we don't get some restructuring going on, if we don't get some Marshall Plan activity of massive investments in infrastructure here, in this country....You've got four billion dollars every month in Afghanistan. You can come up with that all the time. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama to sign Compromise Health Care Plan by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 17, 2009

Only 12 stand up against more Iran sanctions by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 16, 2009

Obama defends Prof. Yoo by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 13, 2009

Nuremberg Revisited: Obama Administration Files To Dismiss Case Against = John Yoo by JONATHAN TURLEY December 9, 2009 =20 John Yoo is being defended in court this month by the Administration. = Not the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration. As with the = lawsuits over electronic surveillance and torture, the Obama = administration wants the lawsuit against Yoo dismissed and is defending = the right of Justice Department officials to help establish a torture = program - an established war crime. I will be discussing the issue on = this segment of MSNBC Countdown. =20 The Obama Administration has filed a brief that brushes over the war = crimes aspects of Yoo's work at the Justice Department. Instead, it = insists that attorneys must be free to give advice - even if it is to = establish a torture program. =20 In its filing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice = Department insists that there is "the risk of deterring full and frank = advice regarding the military's detention and treatment of those = determined to be enemies during an armed conflict." Instead it argues = that the Justice Department has other means to punish lawyers like the = Office of Professional Responsibility. Of course, the Bush = Administration effectively blocked such investigations and Yoo is no = longer with the Justice Department. The OPR has been dismissed as = ineffectual, including in an ABA Journal, as the Justice Department's = "roach motel"-"the cases go in, but nothing ever comes out." =20 The Justice Department first defended Yoo as counsel and then paid for = private counsel to represent him (here). His public-funded private = counsel is Miguel Estrada, who was forced to withdraw his nomination by = George Bush for the Court of Appeals after strong opposition from the = Democrats.=20 =20 Yoo is being sued by Jose Padilla, who was effectively blocked in = contesting his abusive confinement and mistreatment as part of this = criminal case and in a habeas action. The Bush Administration brought = new charges to moot a case before the Supreme Court could rule. The = Court previously sent his case back on a technicality.=20 It is important to note that the Administration did not have to file = this brief since it had withdrawn as counsel and paid for Yoo's private = counsel. It has decided that it wants to establish the law claimed by = the Bush Administration protecting Justice officials who support alleged = war crimes. They are effectively doubling down by withdrawing as counsel = and then reappearing as a non-party amicus.=20 =20 The Obama Administration has gutted the hard-fought victories in = Nuremberg where lawyers and judges were often guilty of war crimes in = their legal advice and opinions. The third of the twelve trials for war = crimes involved 16 German jurists and lawyers. Nine had been officials = of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the others were prosecutors and judges = of the Special Courts and People's Courts of Nazi Germany. It would have = been a larger group but two lawyers committed suicide before trial: = Adolf Georg Thierack, former minister of justice, and Carl Westphal, a = ministerial counsellor. =20 =20 They included Herbert Klemm, who was sentenced to life imprisonment and = served as minister of justice, director of the Ministry's Legal = Education and Training Division, and deputy director of the National = Socialist Lawyer's League. =20 Oswald Rothaug received life imprisonment for his role as a prosecutor = and later a judge. =20 Wilhelm von Ammon received ten years for his work as a justice official = in occupied areas.=20 =20 Guenther Joel received ten years for being an adviser (like Yoo) to the = Ministry of Justice and later a judge.=20 =20 Curt Rothenberger was also a legal adviser and was given seven years for = his writings at the Ministry of Justice and as the deputy president of = the Academy of German Law =20 Wolfgang Mettgenberg received ten years as representative of the = Criminal Legislation Administration Division of the Ministry of Justice, Ernst Lautz (10 years) had been chief public prosecutor of the People's = Court. =20 Franz Schlegelberger, a former Ministry of Justice official, was = convicted and sentenced to life for conspiracy and other war crimes. The = court found:=20 =20 '.that Schlegelberger supported the pretension of Hitler in his = assumption of power to deal with life and death in disregard of even the = pretense of judicial process. By his exhortations and directives, = Schlegelberger contributed to the destruction of judicial independence. = It was his signature on the decree of 7 February 1942 which imposed upon = the Ministry of Justice and the courts the burden of the prosecution, = trial, and disposal of the victims of Hitler's Night and Fog. For this = he must be charged with primary responsibility. =20 'He was guilty of instituting and supporting procedures for the = wholesale persecution of Jews and Poles. Concerning Jews, his ideas were = less brutal than those of his associates, but they can scarcely be = called humane. When the "final solution of the Jewish question" was = under discussion, the question arose as to the disposition of half-Jews. = The deportation of full Jews to the East was then in full swing = throughout Germany. Schlegelberger was unwilling to extend the system to = half-Jews.' =20 =20 It was the "ideas" that these lawyers advanced that made the war crimes = possible. Other officials were tried but acquitted. All of these = officials used arguments similar to those in the Obama Administration's = brief of why lawyers are not responsible for war crimes that they defend = and justify. Bush selected people like Yoo to justify the war crime of = torture. If they had written against it, the Administration might have = abandoned the effort. The CIA director and others were already concerned = about the prospect of prosecution. The Obama Administration's brief = revisits Nuremberg and sweeps away such quaint notions. Indeed, the = brief for Yoo could have been used directly to support legal advisers = Wolfgang Mettgenberg, Guenther Joel, and Wilhelm von Ammon.=20 =20 If successful in this case, the Obama Administration will succeed in = returning the world to the rules leading to the war crimes at Nuremberg. = Quite a legacy for the world's newest Nobel Peace Prize winner.=20 =20 Defenders of the Administration insist that the brief does not = expressly gut Nuremberg or reference war crimes. Of course, that is the = point. The brief does not make any exception for liability for legal = advice when it is part of a torture program or war crime. When combined = with the Administration's refusal to appoint a special prosecutor for = the torture program (and the President's promise that no CIA employees = would be prosecuted), the brief closes the circle: there will be no = criminal or civil liability for the war crimes committed by the Bush = Administration.=20 The only reference to substantive criminal prosecution is in the = following abstract statement: =20 That is not to say that the actions of a Department of Justice attorney = providing advice should go unchecked. Department of Justice attorneys, = if they abuse their authority, are subject to possible state and federal = bar sanctions, see 28 U.S.C. =A7 530B, investigation by both the Office = of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General, = as well as criminal investigation and prosecution, where appropriate. If = Congress believes that additional avenues of recourse are necessary in = cases where Department of Justice attorneys provide legal advice = regarding matters relating to war powers and national security, it could = enact appropriate legislation. Given the sensitivities of such claims, = and the risk of deterring full and frank advice regarding matters of = national security, however, this is a clear case where "special factors" = strongly counsel against the recognition of a Bivens action. =20 "[W]here appropriate" are the key words. The Administration has already = blocked criminal prosecution for torture. More importantly, this case is = about Yoo's involvement in creating that program. However, even in = assisting in the establishment of a torture program, the Administration = insists that there can not be civil liability (let alone criminal = liability). If the Administration wanted to maintain the rule created at = Nuremberg, it would have stated clearly that no privilege or law = protects a lawyer who is assisting in the establishment of a war crime = or torture program. Of course, the Administration has already said the = opposite. Obama and Holder have stated that "just following orders" is a = complete defense for CIA employees (here).=20 =20 The effort to ignore the clear position of this Administration shows the = dangers of a cult of personality. Just as conservatives ignored Bush's = violation of core conservative values on the budget and big government, = some liberals are ignoring Obama's violation of core liberal values on = civil liberties and privacy.=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Gates: Since 1944 no war popular in the US by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 13, 2009

Cornel West: Obama's fiercist critic? by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 10, 2009

Progressive Policy Institute backs Obama's wars by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 9, 2009

Why it's so easy for Obama to wage war by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 9, 2009

Only 25 Dems stand up against Obama's wars by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 7, 2009

Nader and Mckinney socialists? by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 7, 2009

Equality Now supports Obama's war by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 6, 2009

Another feminist for Obama's war by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 4, 2009

Peace prize for a warmonger by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 4, 2009

Obama losing supporters by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 3, 2009

US media whitewash Honduran vote by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 2, 2009

Who knew ? 300 protest Obama at West Point by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 2, 2009

Secret US nukes in Europe by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 2, 2009

Afghans say Obama builds occupation by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 1, 2009

US and rightist govts isolated on Honduras vote by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 1, 2009

War tax debate begins by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 30, 2009

Challenge your congressperson! by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 30, 2009

Afghan feminist: Obama's escalation a war crime by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 30, 2009

Obama can lose Afghanistan only if he stays: by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 29, 2009

Latin America furious at Obama's Honduran collapse by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 28, 2009

When will liberals stand up against Obama's wars by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 28, 2009

'feminist supports Afhgan occupation by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 28, 2009

Honduran President denounces Obama by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 27, 2009

More on: How about a WAR TAX to pay for Obama's wars? by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 27, 2009

How about a war tax to wake people up? by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 26, 2009

obama backs coup elections in Honduras by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 24, 2009

Fwd: Hating the Occupier by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 24, 2009

Mon-Wed Call Obama: Send no more troops by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 23, 2009

Nov 23-25 call Obama: No more troops for Afganistan Dear Friend, VIA"Peace and Justice Works" Today, we have much news to share about our Afghanistan peace campaign and an opportunity for action. First, thank you all for your calls to the White House last week -- and for your photos and comments on our Facebook Postcards to Obama initiative. http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=81QzgMNV7L2Qji-InM3HHQ.. This week, we are redoubling our efforts. AFSC is joining with many other peace and justice groups for White House Call-in Days, Monday through Wednesday. And we need your help. Last week, the White House held three meetings to reach out to academics and peace activists, development agencies, and representatives from faith communities to elicit their views on Afghanistan strategy. An AFSC colleague of ours in Washington attended the faith communities meeting, and tells us that the Obama Administration is clearly listening. So, this week's call-in days are all the more important. Please take action today and join with the pro-peace majority in calling for an end to this war. Call the White House to Say "No More Troops in Afghanistan" National White House Call-In Days Monday, November 23 - Wednesday, November 25 We are at a cross roads. President Obama will soon announce the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, including the role of U.S. troops. Call him and tell him that more troops will not bring more peace. This situation needs a strategy based on diplomacy, the rule of law, government accountability and development. This long-term vision requires transparent and sustained support for civilian led and accountable community institutions. Investment in civilian institutions helps citizens strengthen their communities, which will help to prevent rather than escalate violence. It also costs a fraction of the price of a military surge. This would mean more money at home for job creation, prevention of foreclosures, healthcare and other human needs. Previous U.S. governments have shown that the U.S. is prepared to invest lives and treasures in war. Encourage this administration to invest in peace. White House comment line: 202-456-1111 Talking points: 1. No additional troops to Afghanistan. 2. A timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and for diplomacy and dialogue with all parties to the conflict, without preconditions. 3. Badly needed development aid provided, to be coordinated by civilian-led organizations, not the military. 4. Redirect the more than $44 billion spent yearly on war to supporting real human needs in Afghanistan and at home. Help President Obama make the best decision on Afghanistan. Please take a moment and make your call today. The National White House Call-in Days are being jointly organized by United for Peace and Justice, American Friends Service Committee, Peace Action, CODEPINK, Just Foreign Policy, Voters for Peace, Pax Christi USA, Common Dreams, Historians Against War, and others. Please forward this action alert to your group or community. http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=uqRTvPosgwyfkPkOmkmWXQ.. Thank you for taking the steps to support a more peaceful world and have a happy Thanksgiving. Peace, Peter Lems and Mary Zerkel American Friends Service Committee P.S. While you are at your phone, won't you call to your Representative and Senators? They approve the money for war and will be asked for additional funds if more troops are sent. United Against Afghanistan Escalation is an excellent companion to this effort that provides contact information for your representative, bills to support, and a grid that will allow you to post the response you receive. http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=SdDnwVKwtm2tU-5UiqCc2A.. P.P.S. For more ideas on what a better strategy for Afghanistan will look like, see AFSC's op-ed in the Huffington Post. If you'd like, take a moment to share your thoughts on the site as well. http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=ijiZxM8w22DBtfJPZWjDFg.. American Friends Service Committee 1501 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=CSeuWsHbUQOxlUbwjlCJug.. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why did Bush I reject Najibullah;s offer? by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 16, 2009

Afghan woman ex-MP to Obama: end occupation now by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 11, 2009

NYT: Call it socialism? by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 9, 2009

BBC: World opinion critical of capitalism by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 8, 2009

Free market flawed, says survey=20 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm VIA Renate B.=20 By James Robbins=20 Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News =20 =20 =20 Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has = found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism.=20 In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those = questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well.=20 Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were = necessary.=20 There were also sharp divisions around the world on whether the = end of the Soviet Union was a good thing.=20 Economic regulation In 1989, as the Berlin Wall fell, it was a victory for ordinary = people across Eastern and Central Europe.=20 It also looked at the time like a crushing victory for free-market = capitalism.=20 =20 Twenty years on, this new global poll suggests confidence in free = markets has taken heavy blows from the past 12 months of financial and = economic crisis.=20 More than 29,000 people in 27 countries were questioned. In only = two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five = people feel that capitalism works well as it stands.=20 Almost a quarter - 23% of those who responded - feel it is fatally = flawed. That is the view of 43% in France, 38% in Mexico and 35% in = Brazil.=20 And there is very strong support around the world for governments = to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of = the 27 countries.=20 If there is one issue where a global consensus seems to emerge = from the survey it is this: there are majorities almost everywhere = wanting government to be more active in regulating business.=20 It is only in Turkey that a majority want less government = regulation.=20 Opinion about the disintegration of the Soviet Union is sharply = divided.=20 Europeans overwhelmingly say it was a good thing: 79% in Germany, = 76% in Britain and 74% in France feel that way.=20 But outside the developed West it is a different picture. Almost = seven in 10 Egyptians say the end of the Soviet Union was a bad thing = and views are sharply divided in India, Kenya and Indonesia.=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - =20 =20 =20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

No swine vacine panic under real socialized health care by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 8, 2009

In Europe, most swine flu shots by invitation only By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Nov 6, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_europe_swine_flu LONDON - In Britain, there are no long lines of people seeking swine flu = vaccine. Doctor's offices aren't swamped with desperate calls. And there = are no cries of injustice that the vaccine is going to wealthy = corporations or healthy people who don't really need it. Here, and across most of Europe, vaccine to protect against the pandemic = flu is mostly given by invitation only to those at highest risk for flu = complications. "That is one of the great advantages of the British health system," said = Dr. Steve Field, president of the Royal College of General Physicians. = "We have a list of all the names of patients who qualify to be = vaccinated." When Britain unrolled its pandemic vaccination program last month, it = designed its campaign to ensure that priority groups - including = pregnant women, health workers and those with chronic health problems = like diabetes, cancer and AIDS - get the shots first. Instead of advertising that vaccine had arrived and waiting for the = lines to form, Britain's National Health Service sent letters, inviting = all those who qualify to make an appointment and get the shots first. Field said Britain's socialized health care system allows the country to = target people who need to be vaccinated quickly: "It's not like the = U.S., where it's the survival of the fittest and the richest." Just this week, Americans learned that Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs = and Citigroup got swine flu vaccine, even as many doctor's offices and = community clinics still had none. The companies obtained the vaccine = through standard procedures, and it was targeted to employees who met = criteria for vaccination. But the perception of unfairness set off an = outcry. In the United Kingdom, the general population will be offered the shot = after priority groups have been taken care of, probably in about two = months. For now, only children with health problems are a priority; = healthy children are not. Similar programs are being carried out in other European countries, all = of which have socialized medicine: . In Germany, doctors have also been contacting high-priority patients = to come in for their swine flu shot, though other people who have asked = for one have not been turned away. . In Sweden, Denmark and Finland, some local governments are sending = invitations to people in high-risk groups or posting information about = vaccine availability on their Web sites. . So far, France is only vaccinating health care workers. Its health = minister said 6 million people in priority groups would start getting = invitations to be vaccinated next week. In North America, swine flu vaccination has largely been a free-for-all, = although some U.S. states have recently beefed up their screening = process to ensure pregnant women, children and people with health = problems get shots before healthy older people. In Canada, which has a form of socialized medicine, health officials = began an investigation this week after professional hockey and = basketball players got the vaccine ahead of thousands of children. Another trend has also affected the trans-Atlantic vaccination picture: = While Americans and Canadians appear to be clamoring for the vaccine, = many Europeans appear indifferent. Verona Hall, a London-based midwife, said that among her dozens of = pregnant patients none has accepted the invitation to take the shot. The = reluctance among pregnant women stems in part from fears the vaccine = could hurt their babies, but other priority groups have also shown = little interest in the flu shot. Hall herself recently received a text message asking her to book an = appointment to get the vaccine. She declined. "It just doesn't seem that = serious here," she said. "Maybe if there are a lot more cases, more = people will consider having it. But right now it isn't a priority." British officials estimate there have been more than 600,000 swine flu = cases since the virus was identified in April. In the U.S., experts say = there have been millions.=20 In the U.S., the federal government is paying for the vaccine and = rationing supplies to each state. Then state and local health = departments decide where it goes next - from schools to doctor's offices = to community health clinics and even some large companies with health = directors.=20 On Thursday, the director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and = Prevention wrote to local health departments, asking them to ensure the = vaccine is getting to high-risk groups first. Dr. Thomas Frieden warned = that decisions that appear to send vaccine beyond high-priority groups = "have the potential to undermine the credibility of the program."=20 Lenny Marcus, a public health expert at Harvard University, said the = anxiety among Americans about vaccine shortages may have a snowball = effect.=20 Early on, U.S. officials predicted there would be 120 million vaccine = doses available by October. They later slashed that estimate, and as of = this week there were only about 38 million doses in the country.=20 "When people believe there's a shortage, that increases demand," Marcus = said. "The images of people lining up for hours to get the vaccine, = which is in short supply, has a big impact. ... Parents with kids may = suddenly be desperate to get them immunized."=20 In contrast, there are no pictures in the British tabloids of crowded = clinics. And the Department of Health won't reveal how many doses are = available, saying only that enough vaccine to cover the entire = population - 60 million people - had been ordered.=20 For now, the biggest problem confronting Britain's vaccination effort is = not a shortage or public demand. In recent weeks, postal strikes have = delayed delivery of about 35 million letters. Health officials worry = that high-risk patients waiting for their swine flu vaccine invitation = letters might never get them.=20 "The timing isn't great," said Field, adding doctors would also be = telephoning or sending patients text messages if they qualified to get a = swine flu vaccine. "So far we have not had a lot of terribly anxious = people here."=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why false health reform passed the House. by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 8, 2009

Weiner caves to Obama, Pelosi, Waxman! by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 6, 2009

World endorses Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 5, 2009

The pathetic House of Reps vote denouncing it was decisively repudiated Bu the UN; Obama and Israel isolated with only 16 supporters UN endorses Goldstone report Al-Jazeera, Nov 5, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/2009115224442710473.html Most of the report's criticism was directed towards Israel's conduct during the Gaza offensive [AFP] The United Nations General Assembly has voted in favour of resolution endorsing a UN-sponsored report into war crimes committed during Israel's war on Gaza. The Goldstone report, which accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes, was endorsed by the assembly on Thursday by a margin of 114 to 18, after two days of debate. Forty-four member-nations abstained from voting. The report, which was compiled by a panel led by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge, had already been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council, which sponsored the fact-finding commission. The report calls on both Israel and the Palestinians to investigate within three months accusations of human-rights violations during the 22-day conflict in December and January. Most of the criticism in the Goldstone report was directed towards Israel's conduct during the offensive, in which human rights organisations say about 1,400 Palestinians - many of them women and children - were killed. Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed over the course of the war. The report concluded that Israel used disproportionate force in the war, deliberately targeting Gaza civilians, using them as human shields, and destroying civilian infrastructure. Offensive conduct Apart from Israel and the United States, a number of European countries including Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic, voted against the resolution. Britain and France were among EU member nations who abstained. In depth Video: Interview with Richard Goldstone Timeline: Gaza War Analysis: War crimes in Gaza? Goldstone's full report to the UN rights council Key points of the Goldstone report UN inquiry finds Gaza war crimes 'Half of Gaza war dead civilians' PLO: History of a Revolution 'Israel has to be accountable' Al Jazeera is not responsible for external websites' content Most developing countries voted in favour of endorsing the report. Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN observer called it "an important night in the history of the General Assembly and the history of fighting against impunity and seeking accountability." Earlier, speaking ahead of the final UN vote, he said Goldstone report had concluded that the Israeli military onslaught "was planned in all of its phases as a deliberately disproportionate and systematic attack aimed at punishing, humiliating and terrorising the Palestinian civilian population". But Daniel Carmon, Israel's deputy ambassador to the UN, told the assembly that the resolution "endorses and legitimises a deeply flawed, one-sided and prejudiced report of the discredited Human Rights Council and its politicised work that bends both fact and law". Alejandro Wolff, the US deputy ambasssador to the UN, also accused the the resolution of being flawed, saying that it failed to name Hamas, the Palestinian group that has de facto control of Gaza. The non-binding resolution passed on Thursday by the General Assembly asks Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, to pass the report to the UN Security Council. However, diplomats have said that the five permanent members of the 15-member Security Council have signalled that they are opposed to council involvement - meaning that it is unlikely that the 15-nation body would take action. The debate at the General Assembly, which began on Wednesday, was called for by the Arab UN group, with the backing of the 118-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Al Jazeera's Kristen Saloomey, reporting from the UN in New York ahead of Thursday's vote, said the debate represented a push to keep the Goldstone report alive. "The resolution endorses the report and also attempts to force it upon the Security Council, by getting the secretary-general involved," she said US House vote On Tuesday the US House of Representatives dismissed the Goldstone report as being "irredeemably biased" against Israel. The house voted in favour of a non-binding resolution calling on Barack Obama, the US president, to maintain his opposition to the report. Richard Goldstone himself last week sent a letter to the US House of Representatives saying that the text of the US resolution had "factual inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken grossly out of context". He offered several rejections and clarifications of the ideas expressed in the resolution. In response to Goldstone's criticism, three parts of the resolution were amended on Tuesday to clarify that Goldstone had sought an expansion to the commission's mandate so that his team could investigate claims that Hamas had violated international law during the Gaza war. The report called for cases to be referred to the ICC in The Hague if Israel and Hamas do not investigate the war crimes allegations against them within six months. Hamas has agreed to hold such an investigation, but Israel has not. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Capitalism accelerates swine flu epidemic by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 3, 2009

Sick leave hits profits:. The NYTimes today reports that the barriers to sick pay in private employment encourage the sick to go to work and spread disease. Full story at http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/who-receives-sick-leave/?scp=2&sq=Steven%20greenhouse&st=cse visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why Obama will escalate Afghan war again by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 2, 2009

US CNN censors Afghan MP on US occupation by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 1, 2009

Does your Rep oppose discussion of the UN war crimes report? by Michael Munk Sat, Oct 31, 2009

War criminal pleads amnesia by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 30, 2009

CREW LAWSUIT RESULTS IN RELEASE OF NOTES OF CHENEY'S FBI INTERVIEW IN = WILSON LEAK CASE http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/43169 =20 30 Oct 2009 // Washington, D.C. - Today, after successfully winning a = lawsuit against the Department of Justice, under court order, CREW = received documents related to former Vice President Dick Cheney's = interview with the FBI in the investigation into the leak of Valerie = Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity. The transcript reveals that Mr. = Cheney - generally credited with razor sharp intellect and recall - = demonstrated an astonishing inability to recollect even simple facts = much less the numerous conversations others have testified to regarding = his involvement in the administration's efforts to discredit former = Ambassador Joe Wilson. Mr. Cheney's memory frequently failed to improve, = even when confronted with his own hand-written notes. The transcript = does indicate however, that Mr. Cheney held Mr. Wilson in low regard and = called the CIA's decision to send Mr. Wilson to Niger "amateur-hour."=20 Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said, "For years the American = people have wondered what role Vice President Cheney played in outing = former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. While we may never know the = whole story, with the release of these documents we are one step = closer." Sloan continued, "In his closing statement at Scooter Libby's = trial, Special Counsel Fitzgerald said a cloud remained over the = vice-president. Mr. Cheney's near total amnesia regarding his role in = this monumental Washington scandal - resulting in the conviction of his = top aide - shows why."=20 Consistent with President Obama's promise of transparency, the = administration did not appeal the court's order. Click here to read the interview transcript, and read leak investigation = notes here and here.=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The disconect between US and Pakistan opinion by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 30, 2009

I was moved by this McClatchy dispatch from Pakistan: "...the anti-American attitude is so engrained that the Pakistani public, new media and political opposition blame the surge of violence in the country in large part on the US presence in the region." to compose: "Support for the Af-Pak war is so engrained that the American public, news media and political opposition do not blame the surge of violence in large part on the US occupation of Afganistan and its war on Pakistan." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Gay rights in return for more war? by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 30, 2009

Is anyone else appalled that the senate voted an truly obscene $680B for the Pentagon that includes $130B for Obama's wars in Iraq and Afganistan? There were 29 votes against it but only one was cast by an opponent of the war (Feingold D-Wisc). The others were the most reactionary Repubs who are redhot for war but against gay rights. The leadership tacked on an amendment making violence against gays a federal hate so that anyone voting against war could be considered homophobic! Congress closely questions spending for health care but not spending for the military industrial complex. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

UN: Only Israel and Palau endorse Obama's Cuba blockade by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 28, 2009

UN condemns US embargo on Cuba Al-Jazeera, Oct 28, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/20091028192024534424.html The United Nations' General Assembly has voted to condemn the United States' trade embargo on Cuba, in a signal that worldwide opposition to the policy remains strong. The 187-3 vote on Wednesday to condemn the embargo marked a slight rise in opposition to the US policy from last year, when 185 General Assembly member states voted against the restrictions. Israel, Palau and the United States itself were the only nations that voted in favour of the embargo. The General Assembly has now taken up the symbolic measure for each of the last 19 years. Bruno Rodriguez, Cuba's foreign minister, said in his speech before the assembly that the embargo had cost the island's fragile economy tens of billions of dollars during its 47-year duration and that it had prevented Cuban children from receiving medical care. "The blockade is an uncultured act of arrogance," Rodriguez said, adding that the policy was an "an act of genocide" that is "ethically unacceptable". "President Obama has a historical opportunity to lead a change of policy toward Cuba and the lifting of the blockade" The General Aseembly held the annual vote for the first time since Barack Obama, the US president, took office in January and pledged to improve relations with countries that Washington has long been in opposition to. The Obama administration has relaxed finance and travel restrictions on US citizens who have relatives in Cuba, and sent a diplomat to Havana in September in what was called the most senior-level talks between the US and Cuba in years. However, Washington has said that Cuba must still make several economic, political and financial changes before it will consider lifting the embargo. "President Obama has a historical opportunity to lead a change of policy toward Cuba and the lifting of the blockade," Rodriguez said. He said that "there has not been any change in the implementation of the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba" since Obama's inauguration. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, responded by calling Rodriguez's comments "hostile" and "straight out of the Cold War era", and said that the Obama administration remained committed to engaging with the Cuban government. "The United States has demonstrated that we are prepared to engage the government of Cuba on issues that effect the security and well-being of both our peoples," Rice said during her speech to the assembly. But several respesentatives spoke against the embargo, calling it an affront to international law and that it had hurt ordinary Cubans rather than the country's government. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's secret military activities in Pakistan by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 28, 2009

From a longer Pakistani report on US pressures and secret interventuions there. Read it at http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/some-question-to-mrs-clinton-and-mr-qureshi/ RE: "The shenanigans, in Islamabad, of US diplomats and covert operatives - be they linked to Blackwater, Dyncorps or Inter-Risk. On Tuesday, early morning, four US diplomats were caught with weapons in the vicinity of Margalla police station in sector F-8 - but as always the police were helpless in the face of US pressure and had to let the men go. This is the sixth known case in recent times of US diplomats and undercover operatives being caught with weapons and/or harassing local citizens. One such incident also involved Dutch diplomats. But the question is: what are these diplomats doing carrying weapons to and from their embassy? Whom are they delivering these weapons to and who are they taking these weapons from? When linked to the illicit weapons caches' of Inter Risk and arms licenses being given to the US embassy without following proper procedures, there is a very real issue about US involvement in questionable covert actions in the Capital and beyond. This becomes even more tenable when one goes back to the Inter Risk company's training of at least 200 ex-servicemen for the US, whom the US refused to hand over for questioning to the Pakistani authorities and instead tucked them away in "safe houses. These trained guards were also supposed to have been given some of the illicit weapons." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US resigns to protest Afghan war by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 27, 2009

US official resigns over Afghan war Al-Jazeera, Oct 27, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/20091027173059581834.html Full text: Matthew Hoh's resignation letter (PDF, sourced from www.scribd.com) A US official has resigned from his contract post in Afghanistan over the war there, becoming the first US political representative to step down over the conflict since it began eight years ago. Matthew Hoh, who was a key civilian representative for the US government in Afghanistan's Zabul province, said in a letter released on Tuesday that he had "lost understanding of, and confidence in, the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan". "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end," the letter, which was dated September 10, said. The Washington Post, a US newspaper, reported that Hoh's decision "sent ripples all the way to the White House". Ian Kelly, the White House spokesman, said that while Hoh was entitled to his views on the war, the US government would not change course. "We take his point of view very seriously but we continue to believe that we are on track to achieving the goal that the president has set before us. That is ... improving Afghan governance, providing security, infrastructure, jobs - basically, giving the Afghan people an alternative to the very negative vision of the Taliban and al-Qaeda." Government officials had tried to convince Hoh to stay, amid concerns that he could become a prominent voice against the US's involvement in Afghanistan, the Post reported. Hoh, a former Marine Corps captain who fought in Iraq, also turned down a senior staff-level job at the US embassy in Kabul after he resigned from hos one-year contract position as a political officer in Zabul. He was then called to Washington to meet Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview with The Washington Post. Hoh was initially convinced to stay by Holbrooke's insistence that he would be more effective inside government, but the diplomat changed his mind days later and once more handed in his resignation. The former diplomat said that his resignation, which became final on Wednesday, was tended because staying in his post "was not the right thing to do," he told the Post. "... you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve" "I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," he said. "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right'." Rosiland Jordan, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Washington, said that the content of the letter had won some endorsement. "There is already support coming from liberal quarters [in the US] for what Matthew Hoh wrote in his resignation letter, which indicated that, in his view, the US has the wrong perception of who the enemy is inside Afghanistan. "He said that all his efforts inside Afghanistan were being over-run by [what he called] the fact that people in Afghanistan do not like outsiders, regardless of what flag they work under." Many Afghans fight US forces because of their presence in the country, Hoh said in his letter. He also criticised Washington's backing of the Afghan national government that is widely considered to be corrupt. Hoh called for the Obama administration to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan, while calling for more support for neighbouring Pakistan in its fight against fighters allied to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. "We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath," Hoh told the Post. "But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve." Hoh's appeal for Obama to pull US troops out of Afghanistan is in contrast to the call by the senior commander of US and Nato forces in the country to send more soldiers. General Stanley McChrystal is reported to have asked Obama for 40,000 more troops to be deployed to Afghanistan, to fight a war that he says the US is currently at risk of losing. Obama has said that he will not make a decision on troop numbers until a review of military strategy in Afghanistan is completed. In his resignation letter, Hoh said that next year "the United States's occupation will US official resignsequal in length the Soviet Union's own physical involvement in Afghanistan. "Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people," the letter said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Who knew? Germany wants US nukes out! by Michael Munk Mon, Oct 26, 2009

This bomshell was dropped into a NYTimes report Oct 25: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25merkel.html?ref=europe The new foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, who is the leader of the Free Democrats, wants to rid Germany of the remaining American nuclear weapons stationed here, signaling a big shift in relations with NATO and the United States because the issue until now has been largely taboo. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama cuts money for Iran regime changers by Michael Munk Thu, Oct 22, 2009

No info here about US support for Iran terrorist groups like Jundalla, which probably came from other sources.. US cuts funding to Iran opposition By Bahman Kalbasi BBC News, Washington OPct 21, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8315120.stm VIA cordymac@hotmail.com> In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund. While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists. The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian NGOs. While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program were overwhelmingly negative. US funds are going to people who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of the hardline government in Iran: "The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's government of being American spies because a few groups in America used these funds." The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US government. Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi. It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever." Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian government's human rights abuses have sharply increased. The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these circumstances. Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most.'' Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why the fund should be cut. In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent means. Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in Iran. Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai - a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences. The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a severe crackdown on Iranian civil society. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Kurd advocate had secret oil investments by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 16, 2009

Former diplomat denies oil dealings influenced views Galbraith helped Iraqi Kurds keep rights to fields Peter Galbraith said his business dealings in Kurdistan are not a conflict of interest because he was a private citizen. By Farah Stockman Boston Globe October 16, 2009 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/10/15/former_diplomat_denies_iraqi_oil_dealings_influenced_views/?page=full WASHINGTON - Peter Galbraith, a former American diplomat who has been among the most forceful advocates for Iraqi Kurds to retain control over the oil in their region, acknowledged yesterday that he has had business dealings involving oil companies in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2004. But Galbraith, a key adviser to Iraqi Kurdish politicians who also helped shape US public opinion on Iraq with his writings, said his business relationships did not drive his support for the Kurdish cause, or present a conflict of interest, because he was working as a private citizen at the time. "The business interest, including my investment into Kurdistan, was consistent with my political views,'' he told the Globe. "These were all things that I was promoting, and in fact, have brought considerable benefit to the people of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan oil industry, and also to shareholders.'' It is not illegal or unheard of for former US officials to do business with people they worked with during their time in government. But ethical questions often arise when such dealings become public. Some analysts said yesterday that Galbraith stood to gain personally from language that he helped draft for the Iraqi Constitution when he was advising Kurdish leaders during negotiations with Iraqi and US officials in 2005. They said his business ties should have been publicly disclosed at the time. "Galbraith has been such a central person to the shaping of the Iraqi Constitution, far more than I think most Americans realize,'' said Reider Visser, a historian of southern Iraq and who edits the Iraq-focused website, www.historiae.org. "All those beautiful ideas about principles of federalism and local communities having control are really cast in a different light when the community has an oil field in its midst and Mr. Galbraith has a financial stake.'' Galbraith said in a telephone interview that Kurdish leaders knew of his oil interests, but he was not under any obligation to tell the US and Iraqi officials involved in the negotiations. The controversy is the latest twist in a high-stakes struggle between Iraq's Kurds and the central government over oil, the biggest source of the nation's wealth. In December, the government plans to auction 10 undeveloped oil fields believed to contain reserves worth about $3 trillion at current prices. It is also another chapter in the storied life of a man who has played many powerful roles. Galbraith, the son of famed Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, lives in Vermont and mulled a run for governor there earlier this year. Instead, he took a job as a top United Nations official in Afghanistan, but was fired late last month after accusing his boss of covering up election fraud to protect President Hamid Karzai. Iraq has been a main focus of Galbraith's career. His ties to Iraqi Kurdistan date back to the 1980s, when he traveled there as a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to research Saddam Hussein's genocidal attacks on Kurds. Galbraith's research bolstered support for a US no-fly zone that allowed Iraqi Kurds to set up their own de facto government. In 1993, Galbraith was appointed US ambassador to Croatia, where he became even more deeply convinced that some ethnic minorities should be allowed to govern their own affairs. In late 2002, as the Bush administration began preparing to invade Iraq, Galbraith worked as a professor at the Naval War College and gave advice to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on how to handle problems in Kurdistan. But within months of the invasion, Galbraith left the US government and became one of its critics. In speeches, meetings with US officials, and articles in the New York Review of Books, Galbraith said Kurds should be given maximum autonomy and should have the right to develop their own oil fields, free of control by Iraq's central government. But the same time, Galbraith was quietly entering into business deals that gave him a financial stake in the positions he was advocating. In late 2003 and early 2004, he worked as a paid consultant to Kurdish politicians, advising them on legal language they should seek to insert into Iraqi laws to keep future oil development under their control. Later, in 2005, he advised them again on an unpaid basis. On June 23, 2004, Galbraith and his son, Andrew, registered a Delaware partnership called Porcupine, which entered into a business arrangement with DNO, a Norwegian oil company, according to company documents and a statement recently circulated by Porcupine. Two days after Porcupine was established, the Kurdistan Regional Government signed a contract to develop Kurdistan's first oil field with DNO, ushering in a potential economic windfall for the semiautonomous region. DNO eventually struck oil, and currently owns a 55 percent stake in the Tawke field. But Iraq's central government has refused to accept the legality of its agreement, creating a heated standoff that has stopped the flow of oil from Kurdistan in recent days. Rumors of Galbraith's financial dealings in Iraq have swirled for years. But the level of his involvement was not publicly known until last weekend, when Dagens Naeringsliv, Norway's largest business newspaper, reported that Porcupine was seeking compensation from DNO in a closed-door arbitration proceeding in London. Ben Willey, a DNO spokesman, said the company had been "introduced to the Kurdistan opportunity back in 2003 and 2004 by a third party'' he declined to name. He said the Kurdistan Regional Government gave that third party a 5 percent stake in the DNO deal in 2004, but that the contract was renegotiated last year and "somebody lost out.'' Now, Willey said, that third party is asking for compensation from DNO, which is set to export roughly 43,000 barrels a day from Kurdistan, earning approximately $30 million annually. Dagens Naeringsliv, said that besides Porcupine, a wealthy Yemeni businessman is also seeking compensation. Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who closely follows Iraq, said the DNO deal could pose an ethical problem because Galbraith "played a significant role'' in helping to draft constitutional provisions that gave the Kurds control over 100 percent of new oil development. But Galbraith said yesterday his role in the constitutional negotiations was unpaid and informal, and therefore he was under no obligation to disclose his business interests to the US or Iraqi governments. He also said confidentiality agreements prevented him from publicly disclosing details of the business. Galbraith said he did make a full disclosure to the UN before his recent job in Afghanistan. A UN official, however, said he was hired over the objections of some officials who believed he was too close to Kurdish leaders seeking to break away from Iraq, a UN member state. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Tom Tomorrow: The Idea of Obama by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 14, 2009

VIA VABVOX@aol.com=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Helen Keller in US Capitol for Alabama by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 13, 2009

To the Editor The Oregonian, Oct 12, 2009 http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/10/letters_to_the_editor_19.html Irony in bronze How ironic that on Oct. 7, a statue of Helen Keller was unveiled in the U.S. Capitol representing the best of Alabama. Probably not one of those present realized that Helen Keller was a socialist. She joined the party in 1909. And in just three years she was speaking on behalf of "socialism and working-class solidarity," according to the Keller reference archive at www.marxists.org. Keller would have been an advocate for the government option so many of her adulators are against. ANCIL NANCE Southeast Portland visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Liberal Barney Frank in bed with Banks by Michael Munk Sat, Oct 10, 2009

Have Banks No Shame? By JOE NOCERA New York Times: October 10, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/10nocera.html?pagewanted=1 A few months ago, I asked Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, now a prominent critic of the banking industry, what he thought the banks owed the country after all the government bailouts. "They can't pay what they owe!" he began angrily. Then he paused, collected his thoughts and started over: "Tim Geithner saved them on terms extremely favorable to the banks. They should support all of his proposed reforms."Mr. Johnson continued, "What gets me is that the banks have continued to oppose consumer protection. How can they be opposed to consumer protection as defined by a man who is the most favorable Treasury secretary they have had in a generation? If he has decided that this is what they need, what moral right do they have to oppose it? It is unconscionable." I couldn't have said it better myself. Starting on Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee will take up a number of reforms proposed by the Obama administration, hoping to push them through the committee so they can be voted on the House floor as part of a larger financial reform package. Among the proposals the committee will tackle is, yes, the establishment of a new consumer financial protection agency. The administration's outline for this new agency - which would regulate mortgages, credit cards, debit cards, installment loans and any other product issued by a financial institution - was sent up to Capitol Hill in July. Since then, Barney Frank, the committee chairman, has made a number of substantial changes, none of which, I have to say, have strengthened the proposed legislation. He stripped the bill of the much-promoted "plain vanilla" provision, which would have forced, say, mortgage brokers to offer customers a 30-year fixed mortgage alongside any exotic option A.R.M. mortgage they wanted to push. He has changed the nature of an oversight panel, so that it would consist of the top bank regulators - the very same regulators who did such a miserable job looking out for consumers during the housing bubble. He has tinkered with the way the agency will be financed, making it less onerous for the banking industry and more onerous for nonbank financial institutions that will come under the agency's purview. Saddest of all - at least from where I'm sitting - he abandoned the so-called reasonableness standard, which would have forced bankers to make sure their customers both understood the products they were buying and could afford them. Mr. Frank has said that such a provision would put bankers in an "untenable position." Yet that is precisely what brokers are required to do when they sell a stock or a bond to their customers. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to a banker making a mortgage loan? Part of the reason Mr. Frank made those changes is that he needs the support of conservative Democrats if he hopes to turn this bill into law. But it is also because he felt a need to mollify, at least to some extent, the bank lobby, especially the community bankers who populate every Congressional district in the country. Indeed, in a recent missive to its members, the American Bankers Association trumpeted its success in helping make the bill more palatable to the banking industry. Yet even now, despite its success in reining in the proposed agency, the banking industry is still lobbying fiercely against it. Edward L. Yingling, the president of A.B.A., borrowed a line from "Casablanca" to describe the impulse behind the proposed consumer agency. "They're rounding up the usual suspects," he complained to me the other day. "We're the usual suspects." Not long ago, the A.B.A. sent an "action alert" to its member banks, pleading with them to call their congressman in a last-ditch effort to stop the bill. ("Passing more laws that will overly complicate and restrict the products our customers need is detrimental to our banks," the note read in part.) And even if the bill does pass, the industry is hoping to pervert its purpose, so that it will become a means to stifle competition from nonbank financial institutions. To which one can only ask: Have they no shame? "There needs to be more focus on consumers," Mr. Yingling insisted. "We agree with that." Whenever you talk to bankers or their lobbyists about the proposed agency, you hear some variation of what I've come to think of as the party line. It's not that they're against consumer protection, they say. (Heaven forbid!) Rather, they say, this new agency - larded as it will surely be with thousands of newly deputized bureaucrats, each one eager to impose burdensome new regulations - is simply not the way to go about it. No one can doubt that these fees hurt the very people who can least afford to pay them. (If you have college-age children, as I do, you know this firsthand.) But none of the regulators who are now supposed to be looking out for consumers were the least bit concerned. Only after the articles exposing these practices ran on the front page of The New York Times did several banks agree to abandon the fees for small overdrafts. But should it really require newspaper exposés to get banks to do the right thing? Alas, without a consumer agency, that is pretty much what it takes. The real reason current regulators don't pay more attention to consumer problems is not that they are evil (well, mostly they're not), but that they have another mission that takes priority. They are charged with insuring the safety and soundness of the banking system. And safety and soundness means making sure that banks have enough capital - and are compensating for loan losses. When a bank decides to raise a customer's credit card interest rate to 35 percent to make up for losses elsewhere in the credit card portfolio, that believe it or not, is a good thing from the perspective of safety and soundness. Even though it is a terrible thing for consumers. Which is also why the bankers' line about having their current regulators look out for consumers is so bogus. At the Federal Reserve, consumers will never come first; Alan Greenspan had the power to curb abusive subprime loans, but he just wasn't interested. Nor is it any different over at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the nation's other big bank regulator. Not long ago, John C. Dugan, the comptroller, gave a speech in which he said - channeling Mr. Yingling - that the banks had not been responsible for the financial crisis. Regulators who take their talking points from the American Bankers Association don't exactly inspire confidence that they're looking out for consumers. A consumer protection agency, on the other hand, wouldn't have that dual mission; its sole goal would be to try to keep bank - and nonbank - customers from being gouged, deceived or otherwise taken advantage of. Without question, it would occasionally come into conflict with the safety and soundness regulators. But that is why that oversight panel exists: to hash out such conflicts. There are those who believe that Mr. Frank's changes have essentially gutted the bill. John Taylor, the chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, told me that he now opposed the bill because it had been so watered down. But most others still think it is a strong bill. Michael Calhoun, the president of the Center for Responsible Lending, called it "a reasonably strong bill," despite the changes. And although I was worried at first when I saw provisions like plain vanilla and the reasonableness standard falling by the wayside, I'm now convinced that the new agency, as currently conceived, can still do a lot of good. It will have the authority to outlaw unfair products, and to force financial institutions treat their customers like, well, customers - and not lambs to be slaughtered. Who could possibly be against that? Oh, right. The bankers are against it. And just a few days ago, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, that knee-jerk defender of corporate interests, came out against it as well. That clinches it for me. The sooner we can pass the thing, the better. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Ayer's Marxist triumph by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 9, 2009

Stalking William Ayers By Kate Phillips New York Times, Oct 8, 2009 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/stalking-william-ayers/?scp=1&sq=William%20Ayres&st=cse Read this rather breathless account of an admission wrested from William Ayers at Reagan National Airport, during an ambush moment by blogger Anne Leary, the "BackyardConservative." Indeed, stopped by a relative stranger after attending an education conference in Arlington, Va., Mr. Ayers revealed for the very first time that he did write - page-for-page - "Dreams From My Father," the best-selling memoir of Barack Obama's life. Aha! Mr. Ayers, the 1960s radical whose ties to Mr. Obama have been mined for years now, has finally confirmed his intimate knowledge of the president's entire life and affirmed the conspiracy whipping around the blogosphere. Mr. Ayers' ghost-writing was recently reinforced by details in the incredibly authoritative book on the Obamas' marriage by their extremely close BFF, Christopher Andersen. Then watch as Ms. Leary monitors the aggregation site memeorandum.com, updating her posts with the climb upward - No. 2! Wow! Lots of links! (Right now, it's at No. 1) But then, uh-oh. Read Jonah Goldberg, no slouch in the conservative world of writers and bloggers, who deflates this amazing airport revelation by unearthing a little post from the National Journal magazine last week: "It sounds like Ayers is jerking some chains." He cites: National Journal Who actually wrote Dreams From My Father? The book cover says Barack Obama, but one corner of the right-wing blogosphere thinks Obama had a ghostwriter-and that it was Bill Ayers, onetime Weatherman, current academic, perpetual radical. National Journal caught up with Ayers at a recent book festival where he was exhorting a small crowd of listeners to remember that they are citizens, not subjects. "Open your eyes," he said. "Pay attention. Be astonished. Act, and doubt." When he finished speaking, we put the authorship question right to him. For a split second, Ayers was nonplussed. Then an Abbie Hoffmanish, steal-this-book-sort-of-smile lit up his face. He gently took National Journal by the arm. "Here's what I'm going to say. This is my quote. Be sure to write it down: 'Yes, I wrote Dreams From My Father. I ghostwrote the whole thing. I met with the president three or four times, and then I wrote the entire book.'" He released National Journal's arm, and beamed in Marxist triumph. "And now I would like the royalties." -Will Englund Oh! Wait, maybe he'll sue and tell all! Mr. Obama's books had garnered nearly $9 million in sales by last March. You'd think Mr. Ayers would have sought payment some time ago, when either of Mr. Obama's books - and sometimes both - were riding the height of the best seller lists. No? F.Y.I., Mr. Englund tells us that he ran into Mr. Ayers at the Baltimore book festival two Sundays ago. Mr. Ayers was busy promoting "Race Course," a new book he wrote with Bernadine Dohrn. Both authors' names appear on the jacket, by the way. Update: At The Daily Beast, Benjamin Sarlin said he had e-mailed Mr. Ayers about the ghost-writing chatter and posted this reply: "You've all lost your minds," Mr. Ayers is quoted as writing. "Best of luck in the twilight zone." That's all. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Another confused feminist for Obama's war? by Michael Munk Thu, Oct 8, 2009

Bombshell: Did Abbas ask the Israelis to continue Gaza attack? by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 7, 2009

To see the important Interview with Richard Falk in which he = politely criticizes Obama's position on the Goldstone report you need to = go to the article's website=20 = http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/200910712447715422.h= tml =20 =20 UN council to discuss Gaza report Al-Jazeera, Oct 6, 2009=20 =20 =20 Many Palestinians have protested against the delay in = endorsing the Goldstone report [AFP]=20 =20 Members of the UN Security Council will meet to discuss Libya's = request for an emergency session on a report that claimed war crimes = were committed by Israel during last year's offensive on Gaza. Le Luong Minh, Vietnam's ambassador who holds the council = presidency this month, said that he had scheduled closed-door talks for = Wednesday after receiving a request from Libya, the only Arab member on = the 15-nation council. Libya circulated a letter on Tuesday on behalf of the UN Arab = group urgently seeking "an emergency meeting" of the council to consider = the Goldstone report, Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's deputy ambassador, said. The UN Human Rights Council, based in Geneva, Switzerland, = postponed a vote last Friday on a resolution that would have condemned = Israel's failure to co-operate with its investigation into the = December-January war. Israel launched a major offensive on the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip = in December 2008, saying it wanted to stop rockets fired by Hamas into = its territory. At least 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died during the = three-week war. Libyan initiative Ahmed Gebreel, a Libyan spokesman, said his country had requested = the meeting "because of the seriousness of the report and because we = think it's too long to wait until March". Palestinians, including Fatah, the party of President Mahmoud = Abbas, have strongly criticised the Goldstone vote postponement, holding = him responsible for the decision. But following Libya's request, the Palestinian Observer Mission at = the UN expressed "full support" for the move. In video=20 Richard Falk on Palestinian leadership's support to defer UN = vote on Goldstone report =20 "We are welcoming Libya's step that they have asked the Security = Council to meet to discuss the Goldstone report," Abbas told the AFP = news agency in a telephone conversation from Rome, the Italian capital. "Libya's step is supporting the Palestinian people's rights." Palestine TV, the official television channel of the Palestinian = Authority (PA), reported that Abbas would send Riyadh al-Malki, the = Palestinian foreign minister, to New York to assist in the Libyan bid to = have the council address the report. The Security Council session, however, may not be enough to limit = the political damage suffered by Abbas, and by extension Fatah. Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, said that the controversy surrounding = the Goldstone report could affect the Palestinian reconciliation deal = which Egypt has said will be signed later this month. "All the Palestinian factions, including Hamas, are angry at the = [Palestinian] Authority after what happened with the Goldstone report = and this could affect the arrangements for the [reconciliation] = dialogue," he said on Wednesday. "According to Egyptian arrangements up to now, the delegations are = due to go to Cairo ... and Egypt is to fix the date of the signing of = the deal." Telltale videtape The diplomatic and political developments came a day after a = Palestinian news agency, Shahab, reported that PA representatives at a = meeting in the US initially rejected Israel's request not to endorse the = Goldstone report. But, then, Brigadier Eli Avraham, an Israeli representative, = played a videotape showing a meeting between Abbas and Ehud Barak, the = Israeli defence minister during the Gaza war, in which Tzipi Livni, = Israel's former foreign minister, was also present. The tape showed Abbas trying to convince Barak to continue the = offensive, according to Shahab. =20 =20 Avraham also played an audiotape of a telephone call between Dov = Weissglas, a senior Israeli official, and al-Tayyib Abdul Rahim, = secretary-general of the Palestinian president's office. In the conversation, Abdul Rahim noted that circumstances were = suitable for entry of the Israeli army into Jabalya and al-Shatea = refugee camps, and said that the fall of these two camps would end = Hamas's rule in Gaza Strip, Shahab said. Weissglas then told Abdul Rahim that such an army operation would = lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians, but, according to Shahab, = Abdul Rahim said: "They have all elected Hamas, so they are the ones who = have chosen their fate, not us." The Israeli delegation warned the PA representatives that it would = present the recorded material to the UN and news organisations, forcing = the Palestinians to accede to Israel's demand to delay the vote on the = Goldstone report, Shahab said. The Palestinian news agency's report on alleged Israeli = arm-twisting appeared on the same day that a senior Qatari foreign = ministry official said the Palestinians missed a rare chance by delaying = the UNHRC vote. Sheikh Khaled bin Jassem al-Thani, head of ministry's human rights = department, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that the Palestinian = representative to the council had requested a delay until the next = meeting in March. "The Palestinian decision was based on their wishes ... and member = states could not take unilateral measures contrary to the wishes of the = Palestinian Authority," he said. "There were many countries that supported [the report and a vote] = ... it could have been adopted, but I think that an opportunity was = missed and it may not come back." =20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Fw: Outrage at Abbas's capitulation to US/Israel by Michael Munk Sun, Oct 4, 2009

Abbas faces uproar over deferred war crimes vote By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer Oct 4, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_5 RAMALLAH, West Bank - Engulfed by domestic outrage, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rushed Sunday to limit the fallout from his decision to suspend efforts to have Israeli officials prosecuted for war crimes over last winter's military offensive in Gaza. The decision set off a wave of condemnation, not just from his Islamic militant Hamas rivals, but also Palestinian human rights groups, intellectuals and commentators. Leading members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and even Abbas' own Fatah movement quickly distanced themselves, saying they had been taken by surprise. In an attempt to deflect the anger, Abbas announced Sunday he would have a low-level committee look into the decision-making process. It was not clear whether Abbas himself would come under scrutiny. The U.S. exerted pressure to win a deferral on the war crimes allegations, Israeli and Palestinian officials confirmed, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the content of closed-door meetings. The goal appeared to be to keep the hope of renewed Mideast negotiations alive. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned last week that pursuing the war crimes charges would deal a deadly blow to efforts to restart peace talks. At issue is the fate of a U.N. report that accused both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during Israel's three week offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers in December and January. Late last week, the U.N. Human Rights Council considered a resolution to send the report to the U.N. General Assembly for possible action. Instead, Palestinian diplomats said Friday they would agree to delay the vote until March. With the Palestinians out of the picture, Arab and Muslim states did not take the case further. In going along with the U.S., Abbas signaled that he prefers to protect his strong ties with the Obama administration - and the implied promise of U.S. help in getting the Palestinians a state - even at the cost of losing respect at home. It was the third domestic setback for Abbas in less than two weeks. Late last month, the Palestinian leader radiated weakness when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the urging of President Barack Obama. Abbas agreed to the meeting even though he repeatedly said there's nothing to discuss until Israel freezes settlement construction in the West Bank. With the U.S. pushing for a resumption of peace talks despite Israel's refusal to halt construction, Abbas may soon find himself having to choose between defying Washington and the public humiliation of returning to talks on terms he's often called unacceptable. Last week, rival Hamas scored a triumph with the release of 20 Palestinian women prisoners by Israel in exchange for a videotaped sign of life from a captured Israeli soldier. It was seen as a step toward a swap of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for the soldier - a major Israeli concession to Hamas. In contrast, Abbas has failed to engineer a large-scale prisoner release in nearly five years in office. With his latest domestic crisis over the U.N. war crimes report, Abbas may have underestimated the extent of the outrage. Many Palestinians viewed the report, written by respected justice Richard Goldstone, as a rare opportunity to hold Israel accountable for what they consider its harsh policies against them. The report accused Israel of using disproportionate force and targeting civilians in Gaza. It faulted Hamas for firing rockets at Israeli towns. Israel launched its offensive to halt years of Hamas rocket fire. Nearly 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, were killed in the war, along with 13 Israelis. Both sides denied committing war crimes. On Sunday, Hamas, whose forces routed those of Abbas' Fatah movement in a violent takover of Gaza in 2007, lashed out at Abbas for his decision on the U.N. report. Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said the decision was "shameful and irresponsible" and "traffics in the blood of our women and children in Gaza." But others also sharply criticized Abbas. Ali Jarbawi, planning minister in Abbas' West Bank government, said he would seek an explanation when the Cabinet meets Monday. "Someone made a mistake," he said. "There was a wrong decision, and this is terribly bad." Leading members of the Palestine Liberation Organization said they were taken by surprise and called for an investigation. In Syria, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was "astonished" by the Palestinian Authority's position which it said foiled international efforts to "take appropriate measures and implement the report's recommendations." Five Syrian-based radical Palestinian factions called for those responsible for the decision to be put on trial. Abbas responded Sunday by setting up a low-level committee to look into the chain of decision-making. A member of the panel, former legislator Azmi Shuaibi, said the group would talk to Abbas, the Palestinian ambassador to the U.N. and other officials. However, it appears unlikely the investigation would target Abbas. Abbas' aides have defended the decision to defer the vote on the Goldstone report, saying Palestinian diplomats needed more time to win international support for the document. They insisted the report wasn't being shelved. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

22 House Dems oppose more troops for AfPak war by Michael Munk Sun, Oct 4, 2009

H.R.3699 Title: To prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan. Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] (introduced 10/1/2009) Cosponsors (21) Latest Major Action: 10/1/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSPONSORS(21), Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 10/1/2009 Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 10/1/2009 Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 10/1/2009 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 10/1/2009 Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 10/1/2009 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 10/1/2009 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 10/1/2009 Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 10/1/2009 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 10/1/2009 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 10/1/2009 Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 10/1/2009 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 10/1/2009 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 10/1/2009 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 10/1/2009 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 10/1/2009 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 10/1/2009 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 10/1/2009 Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 10/1/2009 Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 10/1/2009 Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 10/1/2009 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 10/1/2009 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The Nuclear Weapons States vs Iran by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 30, 2009

Tommorrow's meeting in Geneva is best described as the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) vs. a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that is not a member of the "nuclear club." The US media usually call the NWS the " five permanent members of the UN Security Council" plus Germany but it is more relevant that they own most of the world's nuclear weapons arsenal.. The NPT confers upon the five SC members the internationally recognized title of NWS. Less formally, the NWS and four other nations known to possess nuclear weapons are referred to as members of the "nuclear club." These are Israel, India, and Pakistan which, unlike Iran or Brazil and 187 other sovereign nations, have not joined the NPT. North Korea did join but formally withdrew from the NPT in 2003, and South Africa was a previous member of the nuclear club that.disassembled its arsenal in the early 1990s and joined the NPT. All this should teach us to regard the meeting as between the owners of world's major nuclear arsenals (plus Germany) most of whom are hostile to the subject of the meeting, a nation without nuclear weapons.. Iran has just released the text of a letter received from the IAEA: "With reference to the letter of 21 September 2009 from HE Ambassador Soltanieh to the Director General of the Agency Dr ElBaradei, I wish to thank the Islamic Republic of Iran for providing the Agency with information about Iran's activities related to the construction of a new pilot enrichment plant. To ensure that appropriate safeguard measures are put in place, I would appreciate receiving, in accordance with Iran's Safeguards Agreement, further information with respect to the name and location of the pilot enrichment facility, the current status of its construction and plans for the introduction of nuclear material into the facility. We kindly request that this information, along with the other information detailed in the attached design information questionnaire, be provided to the Agency as soon as possible. The Agency would also appreciate being given access to the facility as soon as possible. Herman Nackaerts, Director Division Of Operations Department Of Safeguards. IAEA visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dems kill public option in senate committee by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 29, 2009

The five Senate finance committee Dems who embraced all 10 Repubs in voting down Rockefeller's(WV) public option amendment 15-8 were Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND),Carper, (Del),Lincoln (Ark) and Nelson (FL). Baucus and Conrad also voted against Schumer's (NY) much more modest amendment (Lincoln didn't vote) that went down 13-10. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Clinton to Iran : Prove a negative by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 28, 2009

Juan Cole on mideast's only nuke weapons site by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 28, 2009

Honduran gorillas' death toll at 10, violate Constitution by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 28, 2009

Honduras Restricts Liberties to Protect Gorillas [My joke, the Times's biased hede read "to Prevent Rebellion"} By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS New York Times: September 28, 2009 TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) -- Interim government leaders have suspended constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties in a pre-emptive strike against widespread rebellion Monday, three months to the day since they ousted President Manuel Zelaya in a military-backed coup. Zelaya supporters said they would ignore the decree issued late Sunday and march in the streets as planned. Some already had arrived in the capital, Tegucigalpa, from outlying provinces. The measures -- announced just hours after Zelaya called on his backers to stage mass protest marches in what he called a ''final offensive'' against the government -- are likely to draw harsh criticism from the international community, which has condemned the June 28 coup and urged that Zelaya be reinstated to the presidency and allowed to serve out his term, which ends in January. Officials also issued an ultimatum to Brazil on Sunday, giving the South American country 10 days to decide whether to turn Zelaya over for arrest or grant him asylum and, presumably, take him out of Honduras. They did not specify what they would do after the 10 days were up. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva responded, saying that his government ''doesn't accept ultimatums from coup-plotters.'' Interim President Roberto Micheletti has pledged not to raid the Brazilian Embassy building where Zelaya has been holed up with more than 60 supporters since he sneaked back into the country a week ago. The building is surrounded by armed police and soldiers. On Tuesday, the day after Zelaya's return, baton-wielding troops used tear gas and water cannons to chase away thousands of his supporters. Protesters say at least 10 people have been killed since the coup, while the government puts the toll at three. Interim Foreign Minister Carlos Lopez has said that, because Brazil has broken off diplomatic relations with the interim government, it would have to remove the Brazilian flag and shield from the Embassy ''and it (the building) becomes a private office.'' The government's suspension of civil liberties violates rights guaranteed in the Honduran Constitution: The decree prohibits unauthorized gatherings and allows police to arrest without a warrant ''any person who poses a danger to his own life or those of others.'' The Honduran Constitution forbids arrests without warrants except when a criminal is caught in the act. The government measures also permit authorities to temporarily close news media outlets that ''attack peace and public order.'' In a nationally broadcast announcement, the government explained it took the steps it did ''to guarantee peace and public order in the country and due to the calls for insurrection that Mr. Zelaya has publicly made.'' There was no immediate reaction from Zelaya, who is demanding to be reinstated and has said that Micheletti's government ''has to fall.'' Zelaya's supporters pledged to ignore the restrictions and forge ahead with their scheduled demonstrations. ''The protest is on,'' said pro-Zelaya leader Juan Barahona. ''Tomorrow we will be in the streets.'' The media restrictions appear aimed at pro-Zelaya radio and television stations that -- while subject to brief raids immediately after the coup -- had been allowed to operate freely, openly criticizing the interim government and broadcasting Zelaya's statements. Under Sunday's order, authorities may now ''prevent the transmission by any spoken, written or televised means, of statements that attack peace and the public order, or which offend the human dignity of public officials, or attack the law.'' The decree states that the country's national telecommunications commission, known as Conatel, is authorized ''through police and the armed forces ... to immediately suspend any radio station, cable or television network whose programming does not comply with these regulations.'' Pro-Zelaya television station Channel 36 warned earlier Sunday that restrictions on the news media were coming and said they were part of a pattern by the interim government of quashing constitutional rights. Micheletti's administration had previously bragged about the democratic atmosphere in the country, citing media outlets such as Channel 36 as proof. The station continued broadcasting without interruption Sunday night. Talks between Zelaya and interim government officials aimed at resolving the political standoff have gotten nowhere. Prospects for success appeared even grimmer Sunday after the government expelled at least four members of an advance team from the Organization of American States who had arrived Sunday to re-establish negotiations. Micheletti has previously said the OAS was welcome to come, but suggested that representatives begin arriving Monday. Foreign Minister Carlos Lopez said that the team's arrival didn't come ''at the right time ... because we are in the middle of internal conversations.'' In addition, while many nations have announced they would send diplomatic representatives back to Honduras to support negotiations, the interim government said Sunday that it would not automatically accept ambassadors back from some nations that withdrew their envoys. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Ritter on Iran's new nuke factory by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 28, 2009

Keeping Iran honest Iran's secret nuclear plant will spark a new round of IAEA inspections and lead to a period of even greater transparency Scott Ritter in The Guardian (UK) 25 September 2009 VIA http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/46410 It was very much a moment of high drama. Barack Obama, fresh from his history-making stint hosting the UN security council, took a break from his duties at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh to announce the existence of a secret, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran which was inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear programme, underscoring the president's conclusion that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow". Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity. The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning. Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA. This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation. In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material. While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong. There are many ways to interpret Iran's decision of March 2007, especially in light of today's revelations. It should be underscored that what the Qom facility Obama is referring to is not a nuclear weapons plant, but simply a nuclear enrichment plant similar to that found at the declared (and inspected) facility in Natanz. The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be enriched. Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran's nuclear material stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant (since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran today. Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility. One could make the argument that the existence of this new plant provides Iran with a "breakout" capability to produce highly-enriched uranium that could be used in the manufacture of a nuclear bomb at some later date. The size of the Qom facility, alleged to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges, is not ideal for large-scale enrichment activity needed to produce the significant quantities of low-enriched uranium Iran would need to power its planned nuclear power reactors. As such, one could claim that its only real purpose is to rapidly cycle low-enriched uranium stocks into highly-enriched uranium usable in a nuclear weapon. The fact that the Qom facility is said to be located on an Iranian military installation only reinforces this type of thinking. But this interpretation would still require the diversion of significant nuclear material away from the oversight of IAEA inspectors, something that would be almost immediately evident. Any meaningful diversion of nuclear material would be an immediate cause for alarm, and would trigger robust international reaction, most probably inclusive of military action against the totality of Iran's known nuclear infrastructure. Likewise, the 3,000 centrifuges at the Qom facility, even when starting with 5% enriched uranium stocks, would have to operate for months before being able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear device. Frankly speaking, this does not constitute a viable "breakout" capability. Iran has, in its declaration of the Qom enrichment facility to the IAEA on 21 September, described it as a "pilot plant". Given that Iran already has a "pilot enrichment plant" in operation at its declared facility in Natanz, this obvious duplication of effort points to either a parallel military-run nuclear enrichment programme intended for more nefarious purposes, or more likely, an attempt on the part of Iran to provide for strategic depth and survivability of its nuclear programme in the face of repeated threats on the part of the US and Israel to bomb its nuclear infrastructure. Never forget that sports odds makers were laying 2:1 odds that either Israel or the US would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities by March 2007. Since leaving office, former vice-president Dick Cheney has acknowledged that he was pushing heavily for a military attack against Iran during the time of the Bush administration. And the level of rhetoric coming from Israel concerning its plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran have been alarming. While Obama may have sent conciliatory signals to Iran concerning the possibility of rapprochement in the aftermath of his election in November 2008, this was not the environment faced by Iran when it made the decision to withdraw from its commitment to declare any new nuclear facility under construction. The need to create a mechanism of economic survival in the face of the real threat of either US or Israeli military action is probably the most likely explanation behind the Qom facility. Iran's declaration of this facility to the IAEA, which predates Obama's announcement by several days, is probably a recognition on the part of Iran that this duplication of effort is no longer representative of sound policy on its part. In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran's nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility, has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for these items as well. Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration". Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How Iran's nukes reported by the US by Michael Munk Sun, Sep 27, 2009

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/26/iran/print.html Should any Iraq lessons be applied to Iran? The claims about Iran raise more questions than they answer. Virtually = none is being asked by America's media.=20 Glenn Greenwald Sep. 26, 2009 |=20 (Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV )=20 Anonymous Obama officials yesterday dictated to Helene Cooper and Mark = Mazzetti of The New York Times their version of the dramatic and = exciting behind-the-scenes events that led to the administration's = announcement this week about Iran's nuclear facility -- a late-night = strategy session; secret consultation with allies; high-level diplomatic = wrangling; the White House's decision to "outflank the Iranians." = Cooper and Mazzetti faithfully wrote down everything they were told and = produced this breathless front-page article (though, to their credit, = they noted the motive of their anonymous sources: "all of whom want the = story known to help support their case against Iran"). Perhaps the most = meaningful paragraphs came at the very end: The Chinese, one administration official said, were more skeptical, and = said they wanted to look at the intelligence, and to see what = international inspectors said when they investigated. The lessons of the Iraq war still lingered. "They don't want to buy a pig in a poke," the senior administration = official said. That's rational, isn't it? Shouldn't the American media infuse its = coverage with some of that same skepticism, along with a similar desire = to see actual evidence to support the claims being made? Isn't that = exactly the lesson every rational person should have learned from the = Iraq War? Identically, don't the two decades worth of false warnings = about how Iran would have a nuclear bomb in "a couple of years" if we = did not act by themselves warrant a demand for evidence before = mindlessly embracing these claims? Obviously, the Chinese have their own self-interested motives when it = comes to Iran. And although the official position of the American = intelligence community remains that Iran is not attempting to develop a = nuclear bomb, it would hardly be a shock (or even irrational) if they = did harbor that ambition. As the long list of nuclear states = demonstrate -- which ironically includes all of the ones expressing such = anger over Iran -- many governments believe, rationally, that their = security will be enhanced if they obtain one. After all, the U.S. has = more or less explicitly stated that it wants to prevent other nations = from obtaining a nuclear weapon to ensure we can still attack them if we = choose. Under those circumstances, it's not hard to believe that = countries like Iran want to obtain nuclear weapons. It would be more = surprising if they didn't. Still, the accusations issuing about Iran are unaccompanied by evidence = and raise at least as many question as they answer. Yet here we have, = yet again, inflammatory (and, in many eyes, war-justifying) accusations = made against an American Enemy, and the American establishment media = seems capable of nothing other than mindlessly repeating it, asking no = real questions, and doing little other than fueling the fire. By contrast, The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman spent all day = yesterday diligently and critically grappling with the question of = whether Iran even breached any of its obligations under the NPT (he = quotes an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists' Strategic = Security Program who points out out that the NPT requires notification = to the IAEA no less than 6 months before a facility is operational -- = which Iran plainly did -- but also notes there may be non-public = Iran/IAEA agreements requiring earlier notification). Either way, = everyone agrees that -- despite all the rhetoric about Iran getting = caught red-handed -- it was Iran itself which notified the IAEA of this = facility; the facility is far from operational; and there's no evidence = that it contains or even can produce weapons-grade material. Until = there's an IAEA inspection -- which Iran said it would permit -- it's = impossible to know the true purpose and capabilities of this facility, = which is the cause for the Chinese's skepticism and should cause = skepticism among every thinking person, beginning with the American = media. Can anyone point to any such skepticism anywhere? Listening to = the media coverage, one would think that Iran just got caught sitting on = a secret atomic bomb. The reason such accusations deserve so much scrutiny is obvious: there = is a substantial faction in our political culture which craves a = military attack on Iran -- the same faction, more or less, that caused = us to attack Iraq -- and will seize on anything to justify that. Anyone = who doubts that should look at this creepily excited and chest-beating = statement yesterday from Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, GOP Sen. John Kyl, = and Sen. Joe Lieberman: Iraq War supporters all. Contradicting the = 2007 NIE, they declare as an "inescapable conclusion" that "Iran is = determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Their joint statement threatens = "catastrophic consequences" against Iran and vows that "we are prepared = to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear breakout." Just in case = anyone is still confused by what they are threatening, they favorably = cite a "bipartisan" report from former Senators Chuck Robb (D) and Dan = Coats (R) which urges the President to begin preparing for military = action against Iran, and lays out a detailed plan for what it would = entail, beginning with a naval blockade and extending to "devastating = strikes" against "assets" inside Iran that "would probably last up to = several weeks and would require vigilance for years to come." That's = what three key U.S. Senators are explicitly threatening. In the absence of what they call "immediate" compliance, the Senators = call for "crippling new sanctions against Iran." In The Washington Post = today, AIPAC's most trusted House member -- Foreign Affairs Committee = Chairman Howard Berman (D) -- similarly recommends sanctions that would = "cause the Iranian banking system to collapse" and impose other severe = economic hardships. So much for all of that oh-so-moving, profound, = green-wearing concern for the welfare of The Iranian People. Time to = bomb them or, at best, starve them until their government complies with = our dictates. The Post Editorial Page repeats the same claim made for = two decades about Iran ("officials say that when it is operational, it = could deliver the material for a bomb in a year") and warns: "If it had = not been discovered, the Qom plant could have given Iran the means for a = bomb by 2011 without the world knowing about it. And if there is one = clandestine facility, most likely there are others." So we can all see where this is headed. Obama, to his credit, is one of = the least inflammatory and fear-mongering establishment voices in all of = this. And whatever else one might think of the whole Iran question, = Obama officials -- just on a strategic level, in terms of negotiating = tactics -- are infinitely smarter and more calculating than the ones who = preceded them. They seem intent on formulating a negotiation strategy = that will be most likely to resolve the matter through mutual agreement. = But the drooling, belligerent sentiments being unleashed by the = reporting of this story -- eagerly fueled by the always-war-hungry = Bayh/Kyl/Lieberman faction -- could easily produce its own momentum. =20 Just look at how these people think -- the ones who exert great = influence over our actions. Here's the deeply Serious Evan Bayh in = 2008: You just hope that we haven't soured an entire generation on the = necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such = a debacle. That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They're = everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't. They are seeking nuclear = weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy = Israel, and they've threatened us, too. In other words: Whoops. We bombed, invaded and destroyed the wrong = country. We should have attacked that one over there rather than this = one here. Silly us. It sure would be awful if our little mistake in = Iraq prevented us from attacking Iran or caused people not to trust what = we say. And here's what Joe Lieberman is, as reported by Jeffrey = Goldberg, then of The New Yorker: In another conversation, [Lieberman] told me that he was reading = "America Alone," a book by the conservative commentator Mark Steyn, = which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, = to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its = confrontation with Islamic extremism [GG: that book also flirts with = explicit advocacy of anti-Muslim genocide]. . . . Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in = a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, = Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was "Behind Enemy Lines," in which = Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the = American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and = said, "Yeah!" and "All right!" With people like that at the center of American power -- and with recent = history demonstrating how literally crazed and bloodthirsty our = political establishment is -- nothing is more vital than aggressive = media scrutiny and skepticism towards war-fueling accusations against = our Enemy Du Jour, the latest Hitlers. But we have the opposite. = Nothing excites them like the smell of aggressive American confrontation = with the bad people. As a result, all of the genuine questions raised = by this latest Iran episode are completely obscured, and the most = inflammatory and hysteria-generating assertions are assumed to be true = and disseminated as such by our "journalists." =20 UPDATE: Daniel Larison has some typically insightful observations about = all of this, which should be read in their entirety, including this: Significant Russian cooperation with a sanctions regime would make it = more "successful" in that it would isolate Iran more fully, which would = at least address part of the practical problem of imposing sanctions on = Iran, but this would not lead to the result that sanctions advocates = want. Most likely, China would pick up the slack and become even more = heavily invested in trade with Iran than it has been. On the contrary, = as opponents of sanctions keep saying, a tighter sanctions regime will = harm internal political opposition to the regime, increase the = political-military establishment's hold on the economy and cause = Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of outside = hostility. One of the things the American political establishment has the greatest = difficulty accepting is that sometimes we can't force other countries to = do what we order by bombing them or otherwise harming them, and that the = far more likely way to obtain the outcome we want is through consensual = agreement. That doesn't produce the same pulsating sensations of power = and strength as Shock and Awe -- it won't cause Joe Lieberman to pump = his fists and yell "Yeah!" and "All right!" -- but it is still the most = rational and effective course of action. =20 UPDATE II: The CIA's personal spokesman at The Washington Post, David = Ignatius (who, needless to say, supported the attack on Iraq), says = today that the confrontation with Iran is "the Cuban Missile Crises in = slow motion" and excitedly concludes: "It's hard to see how this one = will end short of military confrontation if the Iranians don't start = bargaining for real." How exciting: we have our own Cuban Missile = Crises that is heading for military attack, and will end with us waging = war simultaneously against three Muslim countries -- because we're good = and peaceful. Along the same lines, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution = (who, needless to say, supported the attack on Iraq), has a new book out = this week with this cover (h/t sysprog): That perfectly sums up the American establishment's view of war: a fun = and fulfilling game where we sit around strategizing and put camouflage = hats onto human beings whom we view as pawns (while Joe Lieberman, = sitting with his family and Evan Bayh and John Kyl far away in the = comfort and safety of his house, pumps his fists and yells: "Yeah!" and = "All right!"). Related to all of this -- and highly worth watching in its own right -- = is this: a performance of sand animation from a Ukranian talent show. = Trust me: it's very worth watching. =20 UPDATE III: Iran's top nuclear official claims to be shocked by the = West's reaction to the second enrichment plant, since they disclosed its = existence to the IAEA a year earlier than required by the NPT (i.e., = they disclosed it 18-24 months before operability), and also said the = site would be open to full IAEA inspections. So what "rules" exactly = did Iran violate here? Additionally, Iran claims it opened a second, = secret enrichment site in order to disperse its assets, so as to protect = its civilian nuclear program from an Israeli air attack, which has been = threatened many times. Steve Hynd argues that claim is both plausible = and rational. Iranian assertions shouldn't be believed any more than those from = American officials. The point is that there are competing claims and = the American media shouldn't assume that the American Government's = assertions are true without evidence -- any more than they should have = done so in the run-up to the Iraq War. =20 UPDATE IV: James Acton of Carnegie Endowment for Peace argues that the = rule Iran violated is a 2003 amendment between the Iranians and the IAEA = that purports to require notification to the IAEA immediately upon = Iran's deciding to build such a facility -- not merely 180 days prior to = its receipt of nuclear material. Iran denies the validity of this = agreement, as it was never ratified by its legislature, and -- as early = as 2007 -- advised the IAEA that it did not consider itself bound by = this provision. Thus, it seems clear that Iran complied with all of its = obligations under international law with the possible exception of an = amendment to an agreement between it and the IAEA which Iran has long = claimed is invalid and was never ratified. Everyone can decide for themselves if they find Acton's argument = convincing; it's certainly plausible at the very least, and it seems = clear Iran wanted to hide its construction of this facility (either = because they intended it for nefarious purposes and/or because they = wanted to prevent the Israelis from destroying it). But, given that = Iran did notify the IAEA long before the facility became operational and = has agreed to inspections, this "violation" -- even if one is persuaded = by Acton's argument -- is obviously a very thin reed on which to hang = orgies of international outrage and particularly war threats, to put = that mildly. -- Glenn Greenwald visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

About that socialist's pledge of allegiance by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 25, 2009

About that Socialist pledge Letters to the Editor The Oregonian September 25, 2009 Our schoolchildren should never be instructed by their teachers to quote Socialist propaganda -- even to repeat the eloquent words of President Barack Obama. Imagine an America where classrooms of indoctrinated young students would be directed to stand together every morning, place their hands over their hearts and recite the liberal proclamations of those like avowed Socialist Francis Bellamy, who wrote, in 1892, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Not in this America... Burl Ross Lake Oswego Here's the full story The Pledge of Allegiance A Short History by Dr. John W. Baer Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex. The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston. In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.' His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there. What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge: It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people... The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future? Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all... visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iranian nuke plant no secret by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 25, 2009

The US media is playing this story for maximum scare value refusing to distinguish between weapons and energy development. When Gergen was challenged on CNN last night on his claim of Iran weapons, the discuission was cut off before listeners could learn about his deliberate confusion. The IAEA received Iran announcement that construction had begun on Monday but US leakers at IAEA in Vienna didn't report it. But when Obama confirms the Iranian announcement it becomes big news. Note too that IAEA regulations only require announcement 180 days before new nuclear materials are installed, and that hasn't happened. Since Israel refuses to sign the NPT, it has no oligation to inform the IAEA of its nuclear weapoins arsenalthe plant has nothing to do with nuclear weapons Iran's second enrichment plant 'not secret': nuclear chief by Jay Deshmukh, Sept 25, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090925/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsenrichment_20090925193425 TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's new uranium enrichment plant, whose existence was made public on Friday, is not secret and will operate under the UN nuclear watchdog's rules, the country's nuclear chief told AFP as the United States, Britain and France demanded immediate access to it. "This installation is not a secret one, which is why we announced its existence to the IAEA," Ali Akbar Salehi said. "When I took over the job in July, I committed myself to accelerate cooperation (with the International Atomic Energy Agency) and, within the existing framework of regulations and of our cooperation with the IAEA, we announced the existence of this installation to the agency." Salehi did not say how long the facility had been under construction or whether it is finished. Iranian officials say Tehran is only obliged to inform the UN watchdog of the existence of any new site 180 days before putting radioactive materials into it. Before that, they insist, Iran does not need to say anything about building new nuclear sites. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brushed off Western criticism. Iran has informed the IAEA of the plant's existence and "should be encouraged for that. It was perfectly legal," he said at a news conference in New York on Friday. Denying that the revelation has created a crisis between Iran and Western powers, Ahmadinejad said he is "very hopeful" about talks with six world powers in Geneva on October 1. Also on Friday, he told Time magazine: "We have no secrecy, we work within the framework of the IAEA." Salehi also said the new plant will operate under IAEA guidelines. "In a successful new step, the Islamic republic has created another semi-industrial nuclear fuel enrichment plant. The activities of this facility will be within IAEA regulations," the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying. "Everything has been considered in building this plant, including installing defence systems. "Considering the threats (to the existing nuclear sites), our organisation decided to do what is necessary to preserve and continue our nuclear activities," Salehi later told state television. "So we decided to build new installations which will guarantee the continuation of our nuclear activities which will never stop at any cost." Earlier, the IAEA said Iran had announced it was building a second plant, just days before the Geneva meeting. "On September 21, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country," spokesman Marc Vidricaire said in a statement. US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown threatened tough sanctions if Iran fails to open the facility to IAEA inspection. "We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information and to report to the IAEA board of governors," Obama said, calling the new plant a "direct challenge" to international non-proliferation rules. He said that at the October 1 meeting, Iran must be ready to cooperate fully with the IAEA or face further isolation. Salehi was scathing about the criticism, levelled at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. "Apparently, Mr Obama, Sarkozy and Brown wanted to make some revelations about this site, but we acted on time and informed the IAEA about this site and now they are mad about that because they lost an opportunity. But then that is their problem," he told state television. The West accuses Iran of seeking the atomic bomb, but Tehran insists the activities are entirely peaceful. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in a statement urged Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA, but did not raise the threat of sanctions. He said Iran should show "convincing proof of its intention to develop nuclear energy solely for peaceful aims" in Geneva. Vidricaire said the IAEA has asked Iran for access to the facility "as soon as possible." The IAEA said no nuclear material has yet been introduced to it. Iran told the agency "the enrichment level would be up to 5.0 percent," which is not high enough to make the fissile material for an atomic weapon. Low enriched uranium is used to make nuclear fuel. "Iran's second enrichment centre is similar to the Natanz enrichment facility," the ISNA news agency reported an unnamed source as saying. The New York Times reported on Friday that the new plant is being built inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom, 160 kilometres (100 miles) south of Tehran. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Honduran gorillas kill another supporter of the President by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 24, 2009

and wound another five. Note the difference in media reporting when an Iranian protester is killed One dead in Honduras clash, world pressure grows By Gustavo Palencia Sep 24, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090924/wl_nm/us_honduras TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - A man was shot and killed in a clash between police and supporters of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, as international pressure mounted on the de facto government to let the leftist return to power. It was the first reported death in political violence since Zelaya, forced into exile by a June 28 coup, slipped back into Honduras this week and took refuge in the Brazilian Embassy. A 65-year-old Zelaya supporter was killed in the poor Flor del Campo district of the capital, Tegucigalpa, on Tuesday night, a source at the coroner's office said. Five other pro-Zelaya protesters were shot and wounded in another part of the city, a doctor at the Escuela hospital said. On Wednesday, riot police firing tear gas dispersed thousands of Zelaya supporters marching through the city toward the Brazilian Embassy, according to a Reuters witness. A Red Cross official said there were no immediate reports of injuries. Zelaya slipped back into Honduras on Monday, ending almost three months of exile after he was toppled in the coup and bringing the world's attention to his cause again. Hundreds of soldiers and riot police, some in ski masks and carrying automatic weapons, have surrounded the embassy where Zelaya is taking shelter with his family and about 40 supporters. Brazil and Venezuela called at the United Nations for Zelaya, a former rancher and timber magnate who took office in 2006, to be returned to power. Concerned about the rising tension in Honduras, the United Nations suspended assistance in preparing the presidential election set for November. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who finds himself involved in a political crisis outside Brazil's traditional sphere of influence in South America, said on Wednesday he requested a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama this week to discuss Honduras. The government that has ruled the small Central American country since Zelaya's overthrow said it was suspending a curfew in effect day and night since Monday starting at 6 a.m. (8 p.m. EDT) on Thursday and encouraged people who have been holed up inside to return to work. Large lines formed at stores in the capital as residents rushed to stock up on water and basic foods. State-run television broadcast frequent messages from the de facto government warning that Zelaya would be responsible for any violent acts. Honduras is a major coffee producer but output has not been affected by the crisis. Soldiers toppled Zelaya at gunpoint and sent him into exile in his pajamas after the Supreme Court ordered his arrest, saying he had broken the law by pushing for constitutional reforms that critics say were an attempt to change presidential term limits and extend his rule. Zelaya denies the allegations. De facto leader Roberto Micheletti said Zelaya could stay in the embassy "for five to 10 years" if he wanted, hinting his administration was getting ready for a long standoff. Micheletti, a one-time Zelaya ally who was the head of Congress before the coup, was unmoved by the mounting international pressure on his government. "We're alone, but we're surviving," he said on Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Spanish-language network. The United States, European Union and Organization of American States have urged dialogue to bring Zelaya back to office. The Honduras crisis has been Obama's most serious challenge so far in Latin America, earning him criticism from regional governments for not taking a tough enough stance to reverse the coup despite cutting some aid. Lula, who is facing some criticism at home for harboring Zelaya at Brazil's embassy, called at the U.N. General Assembly in New York for the deposed leader to be reinstated. "The international community demands that Mr. Zelaya immediately return to the presidency of his country and must be alert to ensure the inviolability of Brazil's diplomatic mission in the capital of Honduras," Lula said. The leaders of the coup, backed by the country's military, Supreme Court and Congress, insist Zelaya must face trial for violating the constitution, and have said Brazil must turn him over to Honduran authorities or give him political asylum outside the country. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Krugman ignores Marxist economics by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 24, 2009

How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? Lead letter to the New York Times Magazine: September 16, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/magazine/20Letters-t-001.html?ref=magazine Paul Krugman's How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"(September 6, 2009) offers a refreshing, critical assessment of the academic profession of economics and how it missed the recent economic collapse. While addressing the standard textbook issues in mainstream economics, Krugman seems oblivious to one area of the field that has warned of deep, cyclical crises in capitalism since its inception: Marxist economics. You do not have to believe in revolution or the proletarian struggle to appreciate the centrality of secular crises for this economic tradition. Marx was wrong about a lot of things, but he seems to have been on target when pointing out at least two problems: the severity and depth of periodic crises and the rise of financial speculation. DIEGO VON VACANO Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US media hype Iran, suppress Honduran crackdowns by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 22, 2009

=20 =20 Police disperse pro-Zelaya protest=20 = http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/09/2009922143328780849.ht= ml Al-Jajeera, Sept 22, 2009=20 =20 =20 Protesters gathered near the embassy, despite the = government's efforts to keep them away [AFP] =20 =20 Honduran security forces have dispersed thousands of pro-Zelaya = protesters outside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, where Manuel = Zelaya, the ousted president, has taken refuge. Police fired tear gas at the demonstrations and chased them away = from the embassy in the Honduran capital on Tuesday, a day after Zelaya = sneaked back into the country. Some reports said protesters threw stones at police, but officials = reported no arrests and there was no immediate reports of injuries. Zelaya remained inside the embassy and accused police of preparing = an attack. "The embassy is surrounded by police and the military ... I = foresee bigger acts of aggression and violence, that they could be = capable of even invading the Brazilian embassy," Zelaya said in an = interview with Venezuelan broadcaster Telesur. Tense atmosphere Radio Globo in Honduras later reported that a team of "hooded men" = had stormed the house next to the Brazilian embassy, but there was no = independent confirmation. =20 =20 Mariana Sanchez, Al Jazeera's correspondent reporting from = Honduras, said: "It's difficult to say whether they would go into the = Brazilian embassy and get former president Manuel Zelaya out of there.=20 "Of course, they would be breaking international treaties [if they = did] - the situation is very tense." Later, Roberto Micheletti, Honduras' de facto leader, said he had = no intention of ordering his men to enter the embassy or to confront = Brazil. "We want them [Brazil] to understand that they should give him = political asylum [in Brazil] or turn him over to Honduran authorities to = be tried," he said. "We will respect international and national law. If [Zelaya] wants = to stay there for 5 or 10 years, we don't have any problem with him = living there," Micheletti said Military coup Soldiers toppled Zelaya at gunpoint and sent him into exile in his = pyjamas in a coup on June 28, sparked by his attempts to call a = constitutional referendum on presidential term limits. Micheletti has repeatedly refused to allow Zelaya to return, = insisting he would be arrested if he returned. "It's like an insurrection, you know. The people say they = won't listen to the government so today is going to be a very important = day" Oscar Hendrix, youth activist=20 =20 A statement from Brazil's foreign ministry said that the de facto = government had cut water, electricity and phone lines to the Brazilian = embassy where Zelaya had taken refuge.=20 Brazil currently has no ambassador in Honduras and the embassy is = headed by Francisco Caruda Resende, Brazil's business attache, the = statement said. Micheletti said he would not reopen negotiations and insisted that = Brazil hand over Zelaya to face charges for corruption and violating the = constitution. "I insist that the courts are waiting so he can present himself = there and pay for the crimes he committed," Micheletti said. Honduras's government ordered a 26-hour shutdown of the capital = beginning on Monday afternoon, closed all the nation's international = airports and set up roadblocks on highways leading into town to keep = Zelaya supporters from protesting. 'Insurrection' But Zelaya loyalists ignored the decree and surrounded the = embassy, dancing and cheering and using their mobile phones to light up = the streets after electricity was cut off to the area around the = embassy. Carlos Salgado, a 43-year-old jewellery-maker from Zelaya's home = state of Olancho, said: "We're here to support him and protect him, and = we're going to stay here as long as it's physically possible." Oscar Hendrix, a youth activist in San Pedro Sula, told Al Jazeera = he and others were planning to march to the capital in defiance of the = curfew. "It's like an insurrection, you know. The people say they won't = listen to the government so today is going to be a very important day," = he said. "We will call for [people in] the capital to mobilise ... and they = will see that there are more of us that want constitutional order back = in our country. We're trying to do it in a peaceful way, that's our main = goal." International sanctions Zelaya's surprise return to Tegucigalpa comes as world leaders = gather at the United Nations in New York, putting renewed international = pressure on the interim government to let him return to power. Economic sanctions have already been imposed by the US government = and the EU, while Zelaya has called for negotiations with the leaders = who forced him from the country at gunpoint. His return has overshadowed campaigning for the November = presidential vote that the interim government hopes will restore an = image of international legitimacy. Speaking from New York, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian = president, called for negotiation and said that his coutry was doing = what "any democratic country would do" by granting Zelaya refuge in its = embassy. =20 =20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Elected President back in Honduras by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 21, 2009

Elected (Ousted) leader returns to Honduras, defies arrest . By FREDDY CUEVAS, Associated Press Writer Freddy Cuevas Sept 21, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup_7 TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras - Deposed President Manuel Zelaya defied threats of arrest and returned home to Honduras Monday, three months after he was forced into exile at gunpoint. Seeking safety at the Brazilian Embassy, Zelaya called on his countrymen to come to the capital for peaceful protest. "It is the moment of reconciliation," he said Monday during a televised speech that featured Zelaya's voice but not his image. His surprise arrival sparked demonstrations in the streets outside the embassy as supporters, who have protested for months since his ouster, cheered his return. "We are all happy, because he is the constitutional president of Honduras," teacher Alfredo Rodriguez Escobar told The Associated Press. Overhead a police helicopter hovered over the growing crowd. The return sharply and suddenly escalates the country's political crisis - challenging the government installed by the coup to make good on its promise to arrest Zelaya and making him a polarizing figure for demonstrations - for and against _directly in the country's capital. The country's Congress and Supreme Court, alarmed by Zelaya's political shift into a close alliance with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, backed Zelaya's removal, arguing that he violated the constitution, even if many officials say he should have been arrested rather than sent abroad. Crowds gathered outside the United Nations compound early Monday after Zelaya initially went on television saying he had arrived there, apparently trying to mislead local officials. He later appeared at the Brazilian Embassy. Zelaya said he had "evaded a thousand obstacles" to return. And his staunch supporter, Chavez, described the journey: "President Manuel Zelaya, along with four companions, traveled for two days overland, crossing mountains and rivers, risking their lives. They have made it to Honduras." Zelaya was forced out of the country at gunpoint on June 28. Interim leader Roberto Micheletti has repeatedly said a jail cell awaits Zelaya if he comes back. Most international leaders - including the United States and the Organization of American States - say they still recognize Zelaya as president and demand he be reinstated. Micheletti has said he will step aside after presidential elections are held as scheduled in November. If the interim administration attempts to imprison Zelaya, protesters who have demonstrated against his ouster could turn violent, said Vicki Gass at the Washington Office on Latin America. "There's a saying about Honduras that people can argue in the morning and have dinner in the evening, but I'm not sure this will happen in this case," said Gass. "It's been 86 days since the coup. Something had to break and this might be it." But Juan Carlos Hidalgo, project coordinator for Latin America at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Zelaya should expect to be jailed. "If he is back, his options are quite limited, because the moment that his location is discovered or that he publicly comes out of the trees where he's hiding, he's going to be arrested for sure," he said visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The resistance US media ignores in favor of Iran's by Michael Munk Sun, Sep 20, 2009

September 15 Neocolonialism Meets Resistance in Honduras 18 September 2009 http://www.truthout.org/092009Z?n by: Tom Loudon, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis On the 80th day of the coup, both the de facto government and the resistance movement against the coup held marches to celebrate the anniversary of Central America's independence from Spain. At a military parade, de facto President Roberto Micheletti defiantly insisted that it would take a military intervention to remove him. Meanwhile, thousands of coup resisters, with elected President Manuel Zelaya's wife at the head, marched through the central park of Tegucigalpa, where last month police and military attacked peaceful protesters and passers-by. The massive resistance movement in Honduras continues to grow, denouncing the violent coup as an illegal takeover on the part of neocolonial economic and military interests. The EU used the occasion of the anniversary to promise further sanctions if there was not a return to constitutional order. Secretary of State Clinton merely lamented "the turmoil and political differences that have ... divided Honduras." During the month of August, the coup government of Honduras suffered a number of setbacks on the international level. First, was the release of an Amnesty International Report highlighting "serious human rights concerns which should be addressed as a matter of urgency." The report corroborated "increasingly disproportionate and excessive use of force being used by the police and military to repress legitimate and peaceful protests across the country." Subsequently, delegations arrived from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACH), the OAS and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The preliminary report from the IAHC confirmed that coup leaders in Honduras have committed thousands of violations of human rights. The Commission also said that "only a return to institutional democracy" will allow Honduras to restore individual rights. The OAS delegation, after two unsuccessful attempts to enter Honduras, made a short visit in which they again attempted to persuade the coup government to accept the San Jose Accords. During his visit, OAS Secretary General Insulza stated: "The message to the de facto government is still very clear: Why cause harm to the population when there is a very clear solution by way of the San José Accord? I hope that this is understood." The visit, which perhaps had the most influence on the behavior of the coup government, was that of the International Criminal Court. One of the members of this delegation was Judge Garzon, the Spanish judge who brought the infamous Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to trial. Garzon stated that he was, " gravely concerned by the human rights situation in the country." Honduras, unlike the United States, is a signatory to the ICC. Serious human rights crimes committed in Honduras and not prosecuted by Honduran authorities can lead to charges being filed by the International Court. At a press conference, ICC representatives indicated that among the cases they investigated were seven which they considered possible cases for the ICC. They also stated that charges could be brought against intellectual authors of crimes as well as actual perpetrators. By the end of August, tactics of the security forces had changed. Frontal attacks on marches and caravans seem to have stopped. However, other forms of intimidation have been adopted. The police and army follow along with the marchers, (in an attempt to intimidate them), either directly behind or on either side of peaceful protesters. Security forces take photographs of protesters and follow them after the marches disburse. They arrest anyone caught spray-painting. A notable exception to this new approach occurred during a protest in Choluteca when the mayor arrived at a protest armed with a pistol and accompanied by some 100 men armed with machetes, who proceeded to attack the demonstration. The demonstrators were protesting the presence of Elvin Santos, the Liberal Party candidate for president, whom they consider illegitimate. Five of the protesters were arrested. Selective murders continue on a weekly basis. On Saturday, August 29, Ismael Padilla was murdered by unknown assailants in front of his house. Padilla was president of the Association of Microbuses, and had accompanied President Zelaya to pick up ballot boxes in one of the buses on the day before the coup. His assassination was a clear message to all who oppose the coup and support the call for a Constitutional Assembly. International pressure on the coup government mounted in September. Most countries, including the United States, have said that they will not recognize elections if Zelaya is not first returned to power. The EU recently promised further sanctions if there is not a return to constitutional order. The EU also said that it will not send observers to the November vote if it is overseen by the coup regime. The UN announced that it has cut off funding that it had been providing for the election process. The United States cut more aid and announced that visas were being revoked for 17 key people in the coup government, including the de facto president, attorney general, head of armed forces and all 14 Supreme Court judges. Perhaps even more threatening to the coup regime, the United States canceled an unknown number of visas for powerful civilians who back the coup. This past weekend, Adolfo FacussÈ, president of the powerful National Association of Industries of Honduras, which many think has financed the coup, was taken off his flight from Honduras and held by ICE agents in Miami before being deported back to Honduras. Creating this kind of embarrassment may just be the most effective thing the US has done to date to discourage supporters of the coup. A few days prior to his trip, Mr. FacussÈ announced a plan devised by business owners to increase the vote in the November elections. Pro-coup businesses are considering offering discounts to people who show the ink on their fingers indicating that they have voted. Earlier this week, an incident occurred at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Several countries, including Brazil, Argentina and Mexico refused to allow the representative from Honduras to stay in the session unless he was approved by President Zelaya. After several hours of conflict, which postponed the opening of the session, he was escorted out by UN guards. Despite increasing international pressure, the coup government seems determined to hold out at all costs. As the day of the scheduled election grows closer, a negotiated solution to the crisis becomes less viable. A broad-based national coalition against the coup has called for a boycott of the elections if President Zelaya has not been returned to power. But the coup regime passed a law making it illegal to advocate that others not vote. If elections are held under these conditions, it will certainly spark increased social unrest. Independence from national and foreign neocolonial elites remains a vibrant hope for the people of Honduras. The resistance movement in Honduras has called on the international community to take more measures to isolate the coup regime. Given the history of US domination of Honduras and increasing evidence linking US corporate interests and senior US government officials with the coup, the Obama Administration has a particular obligation to make sure that US policy in Central America is aligned with democratic efforts to build more just and equitable societies, rather than neocolonial elites. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Israeli nukes called threat by IAEA by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 18, 2009

Nuclear conference criticizes Israeli nukes Nuclear meeting passes resolution critical of Israeli atomic program for first time since 1991 GEORGE JAHN AP News http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/nuclear_conference_criticizes_israeli_nukes.php?ref=fpa Sep 18, 2009 Overriding Western objections, a 150-nation nuclear conference on Friday passed a resolution directly criticizing Israel and its atomic program for the first time in 18 years. Iran hailed the vote as a "glorious moment." The result was a setback not only for Israel but also for the U.S. and other backers of the Jewish state, which had lobbied for 18 years of past practice - debate on the issue without a vote. It also reflected building tensions between Israel and its backers and Islamic nations, backed by developing countries. Of delegations present at the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting Friday, 49 voted for the resolution. Forty-five were against and 16 abstained from endorsing or rejecting he document, which "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities," and links it to "concern about the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons for the security and stability of the Middle East." The result once again exposed the deep North-South divide gripping IAEA meetings. The United States and its allies consider Iran the greatest proliferation threat, fearing that Tehran is trying to achieve the capacity to make nuclear weapons despite its assertion that it is only building a civilian program to generate power. They also say Syria - which, like Iran is under IAEA investigation - ran a clandestine nuclear program, at least until Israeli warplanes destroyed what they describe as a nearly finished plutonium-producing reactor two years ago. But Islamic nations insist that Israel is the true danger in the Middle East, saying they fear its nuclear weapons capacity. Israel has never said it has such arms, but is universally believed to posses them. The Muslim countries enjoy support from the developing world which is critical of the U.S. and other nuclear weapons nations for refusing to disarm and suspects that developed nations are trying to corner the market on peaceful nuclear technology to their disadvantage. Israeli delegate David Danieli denounced the vote as "openly hostile to the state of Israel" and accused Iran and Syria of "creating a diplomatic smoke screen" to cover up their "pursuit of nuclear weapons." But chief Iranian delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh said the vote should serve as a warning to Washington and other supporters of the Jewish State. "The U.S. Administration .... has received a message that they should not continue supporting Israel at any price," he told reporters. Since the conference passed a harshly worded anti-Israel resolution in 1991, there has been annual Islamic criticism of Israel's nuclear program and its refusal to join the Nonproliferation Treaty. But - until Friday - the West had lobbied successfully against a vote, arguing they could damage hopes of a Middle East peace through negotiations. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why I threw the shoe by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 18, 2009

Somalis denounce Obama's death squads by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 15, 2009

Somali rebels slam U.S. killing of al Qaeda suspect Sept 15, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090915/wl_nm/us_somalia_conflict MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Somalia's al Shabaab insurgents denounced a U.S. commando raid that killed one of Africa's most wanted al Qaeda suspects and vowed on Tuesday to continue their fight against Western nations. U.S. special forces in helicopters struck a car in rebel-held southern Somalia on Monday, killing the Kenyan said to have built the truck bomb that claimed 15 lives at an Israeli-owned beach hotel on the Kenyan coast in 2002. Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, 28, was also accused of involvement in a simultaneous, but botched, missile attack on a Israeli airliner packed with tourists as it left nearby Mombasa. Several senior Somali government sources said he had been killed along with four other foreign members of al Shabaab, which Washington describes as al Qaeda's proxy in Somalia. The rebel group responded angrily to his death. "Al Shabaab will continue targeting Western countries, especially America ... we are killing them and they are hunting us," an al Shabaab spokesman, Sheikh Bare Mohamed Farah Khoje, told Reuters by telephone from the southern region of Gedo. "We wish we could eradicate them all. We will never forget our brothers who were targeted illegally by the United States." The attack marked an apparent change in tactics for the U.S. military, which has previously targeted wanted militants in Somalia using missiles, as opposed to helicopter-borne troops. Western security agencies say the failed Horn of Africa state has become a safe haven for militants, including foreigners, who use it to plot attacks in the region and beyond. Another Islamist group linked to al Shabaab also expressed its outrage and said the raid would feed local resentment. "WE CONDEMN AMERICA" "This will only increase Somalis' hatred for the United States," Sheikh Mohamed Ibrahim Bilal, chairman of Amal Islam, told Reuters. "The United States never abides by international law. We condemn America. All these raids show its war on Islam." A moderate Somali militia that has been battling al Shabaab praised the U.S. operation, however, and called for more strikes to wipe out foreign jihadists hiding in Somalia. "We are very pleased with the helicopters that killed the foreign al Shabaab fighters," Sheikh Abdullahi Sheikh Abu Yussuf, the spokesman for Ahlu Sunna Waljamaca, told Reuters. "God sent birds against those who attacked the Holy Mosque, the Ka'ba, millennia ago. The same way, God has sent bombers against al Shabaab. We hope more aircraft will destroy the rest of al Shabaab, who have abused Islam and massacred Somalis." Ahlu Sunna has fought al Shabaab for months across Somalia's central and southern regions. It is allied with the U.N.-backed government of President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, which controls just parts of the central region and some of Mogadishu. Nabhan was killed near Roobow village in Barawe District, 250 km (150 miles) south of the capital. A U.S. official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. special forces aboard two helicopters that flew from a U.S. Navy ship opened fired on a vehicle that they believed contained Nabhan. They then took the body into custody, the official said, and were confident it was Nabhan. "We appreciate the good job they have done," Somali Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Sharmarke told Reuters in Mogadishu, referring to the U.S. armed forces. The U.S. military has launched several airstrikes inside Somalia in the past against individuals including those blamed for the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ora Anter, mother of two Israeli boys who were killed in the 2002 bombing of the Paradise Hotel near Mombasa, told Israeli Army Radio that news of Nabhan's death brought her no pleasure. "This isn't something you can feel happy over, that they have been killed and are no more. Unfortunately there will be (more terror attacks), they rise up like mushrooms," she said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Sept 14: Obama extends Cuba embargo another year by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 15, 2009

Obama Taking Wrong Course with Conditionality Approach to Cuba The Washington Note Sept. 14, 2009 By Steve Clemons http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/09/obama_undermine/ President Obama has missed yet another chance to pressure Congress to end the self-inflicted damage of a "unilateral embargo" against Cuba and to take American foreign policy writ large in a new, more constructive direction. Today, the President officially extended the trade embargo against Cuba for another year -- putting the US at odds again with roughly 183 nations that vote against the embargo each year in the United Nations. The President's global mystique has been based on a perception that he would shift the Bush era gravitational forces in more constructive directions -- that he would support engagement and exchange as tools of American foreign policy in order to try and get better outcomes in international affairs. But by continuing an embargo that undermines American interests and even US national security, he chooses the continuity of failure over the opportunity for change and over his own principles. By arguing that "he will not lift the embargo until Cuba undertakes democratic and economic reforms," Obama is perpetuating a fallacy that conditionality produces results in Cuba's domestic internal affairs. That approach has failed for decades -- and needs to be dropped. The President has made some progress on Cuba -- but its mostly progress that the most hawkish, right wing elements of the Cuban-American community desired, not progress that was based on the interests of the nation as a whole. Obama needs to fix his course on Cuba, or despite the modest creep forward recently -- helping a single class of ethnic Americans access Cuba but keeping up prohibitions on other American citizens, he will be added to a long roster of Presidents who maintained a Cold War in the America's backyard that is, as David Rothkopf called it, "the edsel" of US foreign policy. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Hedges on Obama by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 14, 2009

Letter from Kabul: Stop spending $5 B/mo on death and destruction by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 14, 2009

Letter from Kabul by Zaher Wahab, Guest opinion=20 The Oregonian: September 12, 2009 http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/09/letter_from_kabul_aft= er_the_el.html Courtesy of ZAHER WAHABZaher Wahab (right) visited his brother and = mother in Afghanistan during an earlier trip. Guns are widely available = in the country, says the Portland professor, who has been unable to = visit his mother this year because the 100-mile trip on the main highway = from Kabul is too dangerous. Editor's note: Lewis & Clark College professor Zaher Wahab is a native = of Afghanistan who has been returning every year since 2002 to help = rebuild the country's higher education system. Below, in a handwritten = letter composed Thursday and edited for clarity, he describes life in = Afghanistan following the Aug. 20 election. Read more of his experiences = at his blog, called "Dispatches From Afghanistan."=20 Even though Kabul looks like a city under siege -- with thousands of = heavily armed Afghan-NATO-ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] = forces everywhere -- there is little to no security.=20 Two days ago, insurgents rocketed the city, killing a family of four, = and a suicide bomber drove to the inner gate of the heavily protected = Kabul military-civilian airport, killing and injuring several. There is = fighting in the south, east, north and west of the country. Two-thirds = of the country is considered unsafe by the U.N. and the Afghan Ministry = of Interior. I have irregular Internet access and electricity at Kabul = Education University. And we are told to keep a low profile and avoid = crowds. I am not allowed, and would not consider, traveling to where I = was born to see my mother -- about 100 miles on the main highway. I = won't get out alive and would endanger the people I visit.=20 You heard about the bombing of the two tankers in Kunduz, in the north = at 2:30 a.m. last Friday, killing at least 125 people, mostly civilians. = And you probably read about the killing of Afghan journalist Sultan = Munadi, and Stephen Farrell's abduction; Farrell, a correspondent for = The New York Times, was rescued alive.=20 Afghans of all kinds are mad as hell, both at the insurgents and all the = foreign troops, which they call the occupiers, who behave worse than the = Red Army in the 1980s.=20 My students, even those who live 20 miles from Kabul, risk their lives = visiting their families. They must grow a beard, wear traditional = clothes, remove all ID documents and cell phones, and pretend that they = have no connection with the government or the foreigners. I, myself, = travel in an armored car with armed bodyguards. I am not allowed to go = to the corner bakery alone. And I cannot post my name or office hours on = my door inside the university campus.=20 The election=20 and democracy=20 In a country where 90 percent of the women and 70 percent of the men are = illiterate, there are no political parties. The vast majority of the = women are not allowed to leave their house, be seen or heard by strange = men, or have their picture taken.=20 Eighty percent of the people live in rural areas, isolated hamlets, = mountains, deserts, in transition as internally displaced people.=20 Most people have no ID cards.=20 About 3.5 [million] to 4 million Afghans live as refugees in Iran and = Pakistan and could not/did not vote.=20 Most people do not know how old exactly they are.=20 The country is in fact under occupation and not free. Most of the = country/people are controlled by warlords, strongmen, drug lords and/or = insurgents.=20 The official government barely controls the cities and their compounds.=20 Many people are geographically so isolated that you simply cannot reach = them.=20 Up to and including the election day, official Washington -- H. Clinton, = Obama, Holbrooke -- the European Union, NATO, [Army generals] McChrystal = and Eikenberry, and the mainstream American press could not contain = themselves regarding "democraticizing Afghanistan." The West spent $500 = million on the election itself, and much more on security.=20 Now, the whole world knows that there was "massive, organized and = systemic" fraud. Very true, and all those cheerleaders must eat their = words.=20 We know that voting cards were sold and bought all over the country.=20 Underage voting took place.=20 Fake booths were set up and ballot boxes stuffed.=20 People were forced at gunpoint to vote a certain way.=20 At best 30 percent of the 16 million registered voted.=20 Strongmen, government officials took the ballot boxes home and filled = them.=20 There were more ballots cast than registered voters.=20 Candidates made deals with known criminals, drug lords and assassins.=20 In many places, the [polling] stations didn't open so no voting = occurred.=20 In some places like Kandahar, 100 percent of the votes went to one = candidate and none to another.=20 Candidates bribed, fed and promised positions to people to vote for = them.=20 The open secret is that Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and America = supported (with money also) their favorite candidates.=20 26 people were killed, one had his fingers -- and another his nose and = ears -- cut off by insurgents for voting. There were at least 600 = attacks on voting day.=20 The permanent ink to prevent repeat voting was not permanent.=20 The independent election commission was appointed by President Karzai, = and it declared him the winner before the 2,600 complaints can be = investigated by the five-member U.N.-sponsored commission.=20 Now the farce and charade is exposed and we have a recount.=20 The aftermath=20 The country is thrown into deeper and more serious political, = constitutional and ethnic crisis because of the election. People are = anxious, fearful and uncertain about the outcome; some are organizing = and threatening "Iranian-style street action with Kalashnikovs." The = price of light weapons is going up, and weapons are being moved north = and south. People fear resurgent civil war between Abdullah Abdullah's = followers in the north and Karzai's followers in the Pashtun south.=20 The American-installed Karzai regime has zero credibility. It is = corrupt, ineffective, indifferent, autocratic and American-made. No = matter what is done with the election, no government will have any = legitimacy or credibility. And Americans and Europeans who support this = bankrupt system have little place here, either. It is too simple and = ignorant to blame everything on extremist Taliban or al-Qaida. This is a = multifaceted insurgency ranging from the drug mafia to nationalists to = fundamentalists. There are no al-Qaida or terrorists here. And the = insurgency are not a threat to the west.=20 This is part civil war between Pashtuns (60 percent of the population) = and others in the north. It is also a multidimensional anti-imperialist = struggle by people who don't like being invaded, searched, arrested, = tortured, killed and bombed. Knowing the Afghans, there is no way they = can be subdued. It is best to:=20 Withdraw U.S.-NATO [troops] soon and replace them with peacekeeping = forces from neutral Muslim countries.=20 Commit to developing the country's education, agriculture, health care, = energy resources, transportation, mining.=20 Build state apparatus.=20 Reconcile ethnic, religious conflicts, restore proportional power = structure. Have Loya Girga [the grand council of tribes] develop a new = constitution.=20 Let the Afghans develop their own polity, economy, culture, etc., in = their own way.=20 Ensure the country's independence and neutrality.=20 Stop spending $5 billion per month on death and destruction.=20 Regards,=20 Zaher Wahab=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

West NGOs exaggerated Darfur victims by Michael Munk Sat, Sep 12, 2009

Darfur groups 'padded' death tolls Al-Jazeera, Sept 12, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/09/200991083039170414.html A group of former Sudanese activists says some of the figures of those reported dead and displaced in the conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region were exaggerated. The former Darfur rebel activists told Al Jazeera that they increased tolls and gave false evidence during investigations conducted by delegates from foreign organisations into the conflict. "We used to exaggerate the numbers of murders and rapes," Salah al Din Mansour, a former translator with World NGOs in Darfur, said. "If the figure was 10, for example, we asked people to say two or three hundred." "In case of an attack on a certain village, from the Janjawid, we used to ask them to mention the government forces with their Land Cruiser cars, in order to involve the government in the tribal clashes." The group said they had decided to admit to their fabrications in an attempt to put an end to the crisis. Al Jazeera's Mohamed Vall said the group claimed its false testimonies also helped build a criminal case against Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC issued a warrant for al-Bashir's arrest in March on counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the conflict in Darfur. But the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the Sudanese leader for genocide. Al-Bashir has denied the prosecution's allegations and has refused to recognise the court's jurisdiction. He also expelled 13 international aid groups and three local aid organisations from Darfur after the ICC decision, accusing them of co-operating with the ICC against him, a charge the groups denied. The government later agreed to allow some of the groups back in after international pressure. The UN says the fighting in Darfur has killed up to 300,000 people and displaced an estimated 2.7 million. But officials in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, dispute the figures, saying that only 10,000 people have died since ethnic minority fighters rose up against the Arab-dominated government and its allies. Government officials have hailed the activists' alleged confessions as vindication of their long-time denial of committing war crimes in Darfur. "We will continue listening to these confessions with the UN, with the permanent and non-permanent members ... namely in terms of raising the awareness of the international community to the necessity to support the national efforts," Halim Abdul Mahmoud, Sudan's ambassador to the UN, said. But Yahia Bolad, a spokesman for the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement, said the people making the allegations were not a part of Sudan's resistance group and were fabricating their claims. "Many NGOs and many international leaders visited Darfur and they concluded that there are war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the United States also labelled it as a genocide," he told Al Jazeera. "The evidence was there. The villages were destroyed, the IDPs [internally displaced persons], the refugees - this is clear evidence." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Sept 14: Shoe-thrower hero free by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 11, 2009

Soon to Be Freed, Shoe-Throwing Iraqi Journalist Showered With Gifts: "I Feel Like Michael Jackson" By Martin Chulov and Rory McCarthy, The Guardian (UK) September 11, 2009. http://www.alternet.org/story/142529/soon_to_be_freed%2C_shoe-throwing_iraqi_journalist_showered_with_gifts%3A_%22i_feel_like_michael_jackson%22 Muntazer al-Zaidi has won the adulation of millions, who believe his act of defiance did what their leaders had been too cowed to do. As his size 10s spun through the air towards George W Bush, Muntazer al-Zaidi -- the man the world now knows as the shoe-thrower -- was bracing for an American bullet. "He thought the secret service was going to shoot him," says Zaidi's younger brother, Maitham. "He expected that, and he was not afraid to die." Zaidi's actions during the former U.S. president's swansong visit to Iraq last December have not stopped reverberating in the nine months since. Next Monday, when the journalist walks out of prison, his 10 raging seconds, which came to define his country's last six miserable years, are set to take on a new life even more dramatic than the opening act. Across Iraq and in every corner of the Arab world, Zaidi is being feted. The 20 words or so he spat at Bush -- "This is your farewell kiss, you dog. This is for the widows and orphans of Iraq" - have been immortalized, and in many cases memorized. Pictures of the president ducking have been etched onto walls across Baghdad, made into T-shirts in Egypt, and appeared in children's games in Turkey. Zaidi has won the adulation of millions, who believe his act of defiance did what their leaders had been too cowed to do. Iraq has been short of heroes since the dark days of Saddam Hussein, and many civilians are bestowing greatness on the figure that finally took the fight to an overlord. "He is a David and Goliath figure," said Salah al-Janabi, a white goods salesman in downtown Baghdad. "When the history books are written, they will look back on this episode with great acclaim. Al-Zaidi's shoes were his slingshot." From his prison cell, Zaidi has a sense of the gathering fuss, but not the full extent of the benefactors and patrons preparing for his release. A new four-bedroom home has been built by his former boss. A new car -- and the promise of many more -- awaits. Pledges of harems, money and healthcare are pouring in to his employers, the al-Baghdadia television channel. "One Iraqi who lived in Morocco called to offer to send his daughter to be Muntazer's wife," said editor Abdul Hamid al-Saij. "Another called from Saudi offering $10m for his shoes, and another called from Morocco offering a gold-saddled horse. "After the event, we had callers from Palestine and many women asking to marry him, but we didn't take their names. Many of their reactions were emotional. We will see what happens when he is freed." From the West Bank town of Nablus, Ahmed Jouda saw the incident on television news and felt so moved that he called together his relatives for a meeting in a nearby reception hall. Jouda, 75, a farmer and head of a large extended family, convinced his relatives to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to support Zaidi's legal case. Jouda himself decided to sell half his herd of goats; another man asked if he might offer a young woman from his family as a bride. Jouda said he would, if Zaidi was interested. "I said we are willing to present him with a bride loaded with gold," said Jouda. "We are people of our word. If he decided to marry one of our daughters we would respect what we said. "We are compassionate and supportive to the Iraqi people for what they have gone through. "We are people who have tasted the bitterness, sorrow and agony of occupation too. What he did, he did for all the Arabs, not just the Iraqis, because Bush was the reason behind the problems of all the Arab world." Zaidi's brother insists that no one put Muntazer up to such an act. But he revealed that Muntazer had told him he had pre-scripted at least one line ahead of the fateful press conference. From the roof of his brother's new home, Maitham al-Zaidi said: "He always thought he would die as a martyr, either by al-Qaida or the Americans. More than once he was kidnapped by insurgents. He was surprised that Bush's guards didn't shoot him on the spot." Muntazer al-Zaidi has told Maitham, and another brother, Vergam, that he is planning to open an orphanage when he leaves prison and will not work again as a journalist. "He doesn't want his work to be a circus," said Vergam. "Every time he asked someone a difficult question they would have responded by asking whether he was going to throw his shoes at them." Muntazer has alleged that after his actions he was tortured by government officials. Medical reports say he has lost at least one tooth and has two broken ribs and a broken foot that have not healed properly. "He will stay in Iraq, but first he has to leave the country to get his health fixed," said Vergam. In the run-up to his release, Maitham has a sense of the reception awaiting his brother. "I feel like Michael Jackson at the moment. Everywhere I go, people are taking pictures of me and asking for my photo. If they do that for me, what will they do for Muntazer himself?" visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dem doubts on Obama's war by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 11, 2009

Obama Facing Doubts Within His Own Party on Afghanistan By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER New York Times: September 11, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/world/asia/11military.html?_r=1&hp WASHINGTON - The leading Senate Democrat on military matters said Thursday that he was against sending more American combat troops to Afghanistan until the United States speeded up the training and equipping of more Afghan security forces. The comments by the senator, Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, illustrate the growing skepticism President Obama is facing in his own party as the White House decides whether to commit more deeply to a war that has begun losing public support, even as American commanders acknowledge that the situation on the ground has deteriorated. Senator Levin's comments, made in an interview and in the draft of a speech he will deliver Friday, are significant because his stature on military matters gives him the ability to sway fellow lawmakers, and his pivotal committee position provides a platform for vetting Mr. Obama's major decisions on troops. Underscoring the increasing unease, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said earlier on Thursday that the president would face opposition if he sought to fulfill an expected request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, for more American combat troops. "I don't think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress," Ms. Pelosi told reporters, emphasizing that she was eager to see a report due from the White House in two weeks on benchmarks to measure the success of the administration's six-month-old strategy. The White House has begun to indicate that it could be weeks or perhaps much longer before Mr. Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Administration officials say they want to do a complete review of the effectiveness of the last troop increase, which will put the American presence at 68,000 troops by year's end, an all-time high. They are also digesting a strategic assessment of the Afghan mission that General McChrystal has submitted. A delay on deciding whether to increase American troop levels would also have the political advantage of pushing down the road a split within Mr. Obama's party while he is trying to build coalitions for overhauling the health care system. In the telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Levin said he was not ruling out sending more troops eventually, but rather insisted that the United States try again on a years-old project: finding a way to expand and accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces. "I just think we should hold off on a commitment to send more combat troops until these additional steps to strengthen the Afghan security forces are put in motion," he said. Mr. Levin, who returned from a trip to Afghanistan just last week, said that the Afghan national army should be increased to 240,000 troops by 2012 from a current goal of 134,000 by next year, and that Afghan national police forces should grow to 160,000 officers from 96,800 in the same period. These troop goals are consistent with General McChrystal's planning but would be reached a year earlier, the senator said. Mr. Levin acknowledged that more American trainers would be needed to meet that goal, but he said that he did not know how many. In the most recent deployment of 21,000 American troops, about 4,000 were trainers. The last of those forces will not be in place until November. In counterinsurgency operations, there are sometimes few distinctions between trainers, support troops and combat forces, a fact that Mr. Levin said he recognized. He said the United States should send Afghan forces more equipment - including rifles, bullets and trucks - and shift more equipment to Afghanistan from stocks now in Iraq. Finally, Mr. Levin said the administration needed to adopt a plan to separate low- and midlevel insurgents from hard-core Taliban fighters and commanders. He said the current American efforts to do this had been tentative and halfhearted. Mr. Levin, who said he intended to outline his proposal in a speech on the Senate floor on Friday, said he explained his concerns in meetings on Wednesday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Gates has indicated that he is willing to consider a request for more forces. Separate from any troop request forwarded by the commanders in Afghanistan, Mr. Gates has said he will press for more troops and equipment to protect American, allied and Afghan forces from improvised explosive devices, which are the roadside bombs that have been the leading cause of death and injuries in Afghanistan. Troops for the mission to counter roadside bombs, which potentially could number in the thousands, would include route- clearance teams and ordnance-disposal units - some of the most dangerous jobs in the military - as well as intelligence analysts and medical personnel. They would be in addition to a substantial increase in the number of armored troop transport vehicles sent to Afghanistan. While Mr. Levin traveled to Afghanistan last week with two other colleagues, the lawmakers did not agree on all positions. Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview that he agreed with the need to speed the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces and to reintegrate any Taliban fighters willing to recognize the Afghan government. Mr. Reed said he was waiting for the analysis by General McChrystal on possible troop increases before making up his mind. "What the president has to do is continually point to the fact that Al Qaeda is operating in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. "Given the chance to reconstitute themselves and operate in those border spaces, they'll pose a threat to the United States." Representative Adam Smith, a Washington State Democrat on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the past week, said he also wanted more information before deciding. "But my general position is we have to give General McChrystal what he needs to get the job done," he said. Other Democrats said Mr. Obama and his military commanders needed to make a more persuasive case to sell the administration's Afghanistan strategy. "They have a relatively short period of time to show that we're on a path that's going to demonstrate positive results," said Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat who visited Afghanistan last week. "This is our last best chance to change things around." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Howard Dean backs Obama's war by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 9, 2009

Remember Niger yellowcake forgery+ by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 9, 2009

Progressives wobble on public option by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 8, 2009

Oregon docs start single payer tour to DC by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 8, 2009

Obama in hock to Repubs for his wars by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 2, 2009

differences between O's 1st term and Bush's 3rd by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 2, 2009

Obama adopts Bush's War on Terror by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 1, 2009

6 Oregon docs on roadtrip for single payer by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 1, 2009

do liberals really back Obama's wars? by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 1, 2009

Why is US ambassador still in Honduras/ by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 30, 2009

where are Cindy's antiwar supporters? by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 28, 2009

Sheehan brings her protests to Obama by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 28, 2009

More bad news for Obama Hopers by Michael Munk Mon, Aug 24, 2009

Keep those Torture Taxis Flying! Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON New York Times: August 24, 2009 WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to insure they are not tortured, administration officials said on Monday. The administration officials, who announced the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused. "The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas," said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations. But human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying it would permit the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture and that promises of humane treatment, called "diplomatic assurances," were no protection against abuse. "It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture," said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush. She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway. The Obama task force proposed improved monitoring of treatment of prisoners sent to other countries, but Ms. Singh said the usual method of such monitoring - visits from American or allied consular officials - had also been ineffective. A Canadian consular official visited Mr. Arar several times, but the prisoner was too frightened to tell him about the torture, according to a Canadian investigation of the case. The new transfer policy was one of a series of recommendations proposed by a working group set up in January to study changes in rendition and interrogation policies under an executive order signed by President Obama. In addition, the Obama administration is setting up a new administrative interrogation unit, to be housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which will oversee the interrogations of top terror suspects using largely non-coercive techniques approved by the administration earlier this year. The creation of the new unit will formally end the Central Intelligence Agency's primary role in questioning high level detainees after years in which some lawmakers and human rights groups complained of abusive treatment. Bill Burton, the deputy White House spokesman who is with the vacationing president in Oak Bluffs, Mass., said that creation of the unit does not mean the C.I.A. is out of the interrogation business. The new unit will include "all these different elements under one group," he said at the briefing, and would work out of F.B.I. headquarters in Washington. The announcement of the new unit came as the administration released a long withheld C.I.A. Inspector General's report written in 2004 that is said to be a scathing critique of how the C.I.A. carried out interrogations of terror suspects. The new unit, to be called the High Value Interrogation Group, will be comprised of analysts, linguists and other personnel from the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies who will contribute expertise to interrogations. The group will operate under policies set by the National Security Council. The officials said all interrogations will comply with guidelines contained in the Army Field Manual, which outlaws the use of physical force. The new interrogation group will study interrogation methods, however, and may add additional non-coercive methods in the future, the officials said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

More US mercenaries than troops in Afganistan by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 23, 2009

Obama's war is bigger than he want the public to understand. By the end of the year, he will have almost 150,000 troops and mercenaries in Afganistan, compared to the 250,000 now in Iraq. Afghanistan Contractors Outnumber Troops Despite Surge in U.S. Deployments, More Civilians Are Posted in War Zone; Reliance Echoes the Controversy in Iraq. By AUGUST COLE Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125089638739950599.html Even as U.S. troops surge to new highs in Afghanistan they are outnumbered by military contractors working alongside them, according to a Defense Department census due to be distributed to Congress -- illustrating how hard it is for the U.S. to wean itself from the large numbers of war-zone contractors that proved controversial in Iraq. The number of military contractors in Afghanistan rose to almost 74,000 by June 30, far outnumbering the roughly 58,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground at that point. As the military force in Afghanistan grows further, to a planned 68,000 by the end of the year, the Defense Department expects the ranks of contractors to increase more. The military requires contractors for essential functions ranging from supplying food and laundry services to guarding convoys and even military bases -- functions that were once performed by military personnel but have been outsourced so a slimmed-down military can focus more on battle-related tasks. The Obama administration has sought to reduce its reliance on military contractors, worried that the Pentagon was ceding too much power to outside companies, failing to rein in costs and not achieving desired results. President Obama has repeatedly called defense contractors to task since taking office. "In Iraq, too much money has been paid out for services that were never performed, buildings that were never completed, companies that skimmed off the top," he said during a March speech. In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000 civilian officials during to cut the percentage of contractors in the Pentagon's own work force, and last month he told an audience of soldiers that contractor use overseas needed better controls. .Military contractors' personnel for a time outnumbered U.S. troops in Iraq. The large contractor force was accompanied by issues ranging from questionable costs billed to the government to shooting of civilians by armed security guards. A September 2007 shooting incident involving Blackwater Worldwide guards working for the U.S. State Department, in which 17 Iraqis were killed, forced the U.S. to aggressively rework oversight of security firms. Yet in Afghanistan as in Iraq, the Pentagon has found that the military has shrunk so much since the Cold War ended that it isn't big enough to sustain operations without using companies to directly support military operations. "Because of the surge, we're trying to get ahead of the troops," said Gary Motsek, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Program Support, who helps oversee the Pentagon's battlefield contractor efforts. "So we're pushing contractors in place, doing it as fast as we can, and trying to be responsible about it." The heavy reliance on contractors in Afghanistan signals that a situation that defense planners once considered temporary has become a standard fixture of U.S. military operations. "For a sustained fight like our current commitments, the U.S. military can't go to war without contractors on the battlefield," said Steven Arnold, a former Army general and retired executive at logistics specialists Ecolog USA and KBR Inc. KBR was formerly owned by Halliburton Co. He added, "For that matter, neither can NATO." That poses a challenge for military planners who must keep tabs on tens of thousands of people who are crucial to their operations yet are civilians outside the chain of command. In Congress, there's a particular concern about security contractors who might upset diplomatic and military relationships. "We've had incidents when force has been used, we believe, improperly against citizens by contractors," said Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. "This creates huge problems, obviously, for those who have been injured or killed and their families, but it also creates huge problems for us and our policies in Afghanistan." .In Iraq, as of June 30 there were 119,706 military contractors, down 10% from three months earlier and smaller than the number of U.S. troops, which stood at approximately 132,000. But as the Pentagon has been drawing down contractors in Iraq, their ranks have been growing in Afghanistan -- rising by 9% over that same three-month period to 73,968. More than two-thirds of those are local, which reflects the desire to employ Afghans as part of the counterinsurgency there. Many contractors in Afghanistan are likely to face combat-like conditions, particularly those manning far-flung outposts, and are exposed to possible militant attacks -- blurring the line between soldier and support staff. The reliance on contractors has prompted a shift in the defense industry, sending more money to logistics and construction companies that can perform everything from basic functions to project engineering. A recent contract is worth up to $15 billion to two firms, DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corp., to build and support U.S. military bases throughout Afghanistan. Meanwhile, government auditors have repeatedly uncovered military mismanagement of contractors. The Wartime Contracting Commission reported finding during an April trip that the military had accepted a new headquarters building in Kabul hobbled by shoddy construction. Officials in Iraq and Afghanistan were unable to give the commission complete lists of work being contracted out at the bases they visited. Coordination of security contractors, one of the most charged issues in Iraq, is being beefed up for Afghanistan, said Mr. Motsek, the Pentagon official. A new umbrella contract planned for later this year is designed to make awarding work speedier and to help oversight and vetting. As well, he said more Defense Department civilians are being sent to oversee all types of contracts, and they will stay longer overseas than their predecessors did in Iraq. Video conferencing and other remote management tools had fallen short as a substitute. The Army is also adding hundreds of civilian contracting personnel, among the measures being put in place. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Doubts about Lockerbie conviction by Michael Munk Sat, Aug 22, 2009

Krugman's new take on progressive Dems by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 21, 2009

Krugman favored Hillary during the primaries, and thus his concern for the priorities of progressive Dems is new-found. Obama's Trust Problem By PAUL KRUGMAN New York Times: August 21, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1 According to news reports, the Obama administration - which seemed, over the weekend, to be backing away from the "public option" for health insurance - is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives. Well, I'm shocked and surprised at their shock and surprise. A backlash in the progressive base - which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory - has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it's also a proxy for broader questions about the president's priorities and overall approach. The idea of letting individuals buy insurance from a government-run plan was introduced in 2007 by Jacob Hacker of Yale, was picked up by John Edwards during the Democratic primary, and became part of the original Obama health care plan. One purpose of the public option is to save money. Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums down. And let's be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That's not just my opinion; it's what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers. Also, and importantly, the public option offered a way to reconcile differing views among Democrats. Until the idea of the public option came along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled some of those qualms. That said, it's possible to have universal coverage without a public option - several European nations do it - and some who want a public option might be willing to forgo it if they had confidence in the overall health care strategy. Unfortunately, the president's behavior in office has undermined that confidence. On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat who talks of "bending the curve" but has only recently begun to make the moral case for reform. Mr. Obama's explanations of his plan have gotten clearer, but he still seems unable to settle on a simple, pithy formula; his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee. Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy. And then there's the matter of the banks. I don't know if administration officials realize just how much damage they've done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing. But I've had many conversations with people who voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money. When I press them, it turns out that they're really angry about the bailouts rather than the stimulus - but that's a distinction lost on most voters. So there's a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that's why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar. Now, politics is the art of the possible. Mr. Obama was never going to get everything his supporters wanted. But there's a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will "pull the plug on grandma," and two days later the White House declares that it's still committed to working with him. It's hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can't be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled. Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced that co-ops, too, were unacceptable. So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Pakistani: We hate all Americans by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 21, 2009

.U.S. Officials Get a Taste of Pakistanis' Anger at America "Thousands of innocent people have been killed because the US is trying to find Osama bin Laden." By HELENE COOPER New York Times: August 19, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/world/asia/20holbrooke.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Pakistani%20anger%20at%20America&st=cse KARACHI, Pakistan - Judith A. McHale was expecting a contentious session with Ansar Abbasi, a Pakistani journalist known for his harsh criticism of American foreign policy, when she sat down for a one-on-one meeting with him in a hotel conference room in Islamabad on Monday. She got that, and a little bit more. After Ms. McHale, the Obama administration's new under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, gave her initial polite presentation about building bridges between America and the Muslim world, Mr. Abbasi thanked her politely for meeting with him. Then he told her that he hated her. " 'You should know that we hate all Americans,' " Ms. McHale said Mr. Abbasi told her. " 'From the bottom of our souls, we hate you.' " Beyond the continuation of the battle against militants along the Pakistani-Afghan border, a big part of President Obama's strategy for the region involves trying to broaden America's involvement in the country to include nonmilitary areas like infrastructure development, trade, energy, schools and jobs - all aimed at convincing the Pakistani people that the United States is their friend. But as Ms. McHale and other American officials discovered this week, during a visit by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, making that case was not going to be easy. "We have made a major turn with our relationship with Pakistan under President Obama," Mr. Holbrooke told reporters at a news conference in Karachi on Wednesday. Time and again, Mr. Holbrooke tried to delineate the differences between the Obama administration and the Bush era, painting the new administration as one that wants to see a better life and more business opportunities for Pakistanis. He said his very presence in Karachi - Pakistan's largest city and its commercial capital - demonstrated that drone attacks and the hunt for Al Qaeda were not the only American foreign policy activities in the country. To polite applause, Mr. Holbrooke told local officials at the Governor's House that the United States Consulate in Karachi would start granting business visas -100 a week - instead of making would-be business travelers to the United States go to Islamabad for the visas, as has been the case. He stopped at a shantytown in the city to chat with schoolboys crowded into three classrooms, and even visited the home of a local resident, to get a feel for how people in Karachi live. On Tuesday, he met with opposition leaders in Islamabad, including Liaqat Baloch, the secretary general of the anti-American political party Jamaat-e-Islami, and Fazlur Rehman, the leader of another anti-American party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, who is sometimes referred to as the spiritual founder of the Taliban. In Karachi on Wednesday, Mr. Holbrooke kept bringing up a trade bill that just passed the House, which would set up so-called reconstruction opportunity zones so that textiles and other goods made in Pakistan's tribal areas could get preferential access to the United States market. And Ms. McHale, whose job is, in part, to try to repair America's relations with the Muslim world, strayed from his side only when she ventured out on fence-mending missions of her own, meeting with 17 Pakistani journalists, 8 officials of nongovernmental organizations and members of several political parties, all in an effort to deliver one message: America cares about Pakistan. But Mr. Abbasi's reaction - a response that, Ms. McHale acknowledged, apparently reflects the feelings of about 25 percent of the population, according to a recent poll - demonstrated just how tough the job is. For all of the administration's efforts to call attention to the nonmilitary ties that would bind the two countries, America is still being judged by many Pakistanis as an uncaring behemoth whose sole concern is finding Osama bin Laden, no matter the cost in civilian Pakistani lives. "He told me that we were no longer human beings because our goal was to eliminate other humans," Ms. McHale said Wednesday, recounting the conversation with Mr. Abbasi. "He spoke English very well, and he said that thousands of innocent people have been killed because we are trying to find Osama bin Laden." Following Mr. Holbrooke's example when he received a similar lashing from Mr. Baloch, Ms. McHale said she argued her points with Mr. Abbasi, points that to many Americans would appear logical, but that often fail to impress over here: Al Qaeda and Mr. bin Laden attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001; the war in Afghanistan, unlike the war in Iraq, is blessed by the United Nations and is a multinational effort; America will always do whatever it takes to defend itself. She said that even though she knew that she did not sway Mr. Abbasi, it was good to hear what he thought because she wanted to try to understand the source of much of the anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Meanwhile, in Karachi, Mr. Holbrooke continued to push an agenda of soft power, telling business leaders that the United States wanted to invest in energy projects in Pakistan. But he acknowledged that some of the projects that Karachi technocrats put before him, with their complex ownership structures, would never get approval in the Congress. The trade bill, now before the Senate, has labor provisions that are unlikely to get past free-trade Republicans, whose support is needed for it to pass. And on top of that, in a concession to the United States textile industry, the bill would not include imports of cotton tops and pants, items that are made in abundance in Pakistan. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US media obsessed with IOran's protests, ignore Honduras' by Michael Munk Thu, Aug 20, 2009

Amnesty: Honduras Testimonies Show Extent of Police Violence http://www.truthout.org/082009C?n 20 August 2009 by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective There has been very little attention in the US press to repression in Honduras under the coup regime. Hopefully, that will now change: Amnesty International issued a report today documenting "serious ill-treatment by police and military of peaceful protesters" in Honduras, warning that "beatings and mass arrests are being used as a way of punishing people for voicing their opposition" to the coup. An Amnesty International delegation interviewed people, who were detained after police and military broke up a peaceful demonstration July 30. Most detainees had injuries as a consequence of police beatings. Esther Major, Central America researcher at Amnesty International, said: "Detention and ill treatment of protesters are being employed as forms of punishment for those openly opposing the de facto government, and also as a deterrent for those contemplating taking to the streets to peacefully show their discontent with the political turmoil the country is experiencing." US media often rely heavily on international human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to report on human rights abuses. So, it will be interesting to see how much US press coverage the Amnesty report gets. If the repression under the coup regime were more widely known, it would be much more difficult for representatives of that regime to peddle their story in Washington that their government is "democratic" and "respects the rule of law." How is the coup's hired gun Lanny Davis going to spin Amnesty's report on police repression of peaceful dissent against the coup? Amnesty urgently calls for the "international community" to seek a resolution to the political crisis. But not all members of the "international community" have equal say. Last week, the president of Brazil called on the United States to use more political influence to help solve the crisis. Brazil's foreign minister said President Zelaya's return would depend largely on the position of the United States. No one is calling on the US to send the Fourth Fleet to Honduras. The Obama administration has modest policy levers it has not employed. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona) and 15 other members of the House have written to President Obama, urging him to speak out about the repression in Honduras and to cancel US travel visas and freeze US bank accounts of leaders of the coup regime to pressure it to accept a compromise for President Zelaya's return. The coup regime "must be disabused" of the notion that it can "run out the clock" until a November presidential election, wrote The New York Times in a recent editorial. The US must be prepared to exert more pressure on the coup regime if it refuses to accept a compromise for President Zelaya's return, the Times said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

White House attacks progressive Dems by Michael Munk Thu, Aug 20, 2009

TPMDC Anonymous White House Official Slams Liberals Over Public Option Brian Beutler | August 19, 2009 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/anonymous-white-house-official-slams-liberals-over-public-option.php?ref=fpb In case progressives were beginning to feel as if the Obama administrationdoesn't really care what they think, they can rest assured: the White Househears them loud and clear. It just doesn't like the message."I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is theirWaterloo," an anonymous senior White House adviser tells the WashingtonPost. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left isdetermined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how thathas become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform. "That's probably not a characterization--"left of the left"--liberals wouldhave chosen for more than five dozen members of the Democratic caucus. Andit doesn't exactly inspire faith that the White House sees the public optionas more than a sliver of reform. But it also doesn't suggest they'reexpecting House progressives to fold.And, in a bit of good news for progressives, it comes just as White Housechief of staff Rahm Emanuel--who could even be the Post's anonymousofficial--tells the New York Times that the GOP "has made a strategicdecision that defeating President Obama's health care proposal is moreimportant for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."If health care bipartisanship is dead or dying, then the public optionsuddenly loses much (though certainly not all) of its political volatility. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Americans reject Obama's war by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 19, 2009

Majority in Post-ABC Poll Say Afghan War Not Worth Fighting By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen,Washington Post Staff Writers August 19, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903066.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009081http://www.http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/update A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Most have confidence in the ability of the United States to meet its primary goals -- defeating the Taliban, facilitating effective economic development and molding an honest and effective Afghan government -- but very few say Thursday's elections there are likely to produce such a government. When it comes to the baseline question, 42 percent of Americans say the U.S. is winning in Afghanistan; about as many, 36 percent, say it is losing the fight. The new poll comes amid widespread speculation that the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, will request more troops for his stepped-up effort to root the Taliban from Afghan towns and villages. That is a position that gets the backing of 24 percent of those polled, while nearly twice as many, 45 percent, want to decrease the number of military forces there. (Most of the remainder say to keep the level about the same.) In January, before President Obama authorized sending an additional 17,000 troops to the country, public sentiment tilted more strongly toward a troop increase. Should President Obama embrace his general's call for even more U.S. military forces, he risks alienating some of his staunchest supporters While 60 percent of all Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troops. Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels. Nearly two-thirds of the most committed Democrats now feel "strongly" that the war was not worth fighting. Among moderate and conservative Democrats, a slim majority say the United States is losing in Afghanistan. Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war's strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama's policies. A narrow majority of conservatives approve of Obama's handling of the war (52 percent), as do more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent). Among all adults, 51 percent now say the war is not worth fighting, up six points since last month and four points above the previous high, reached in February. Less than half, 47 percent, say the war is worth its costs. Those strongly opposed (41 percent) outweigh strong proponents (31 percent). Opposition to the Iraq war reached similar levels in the summer of 2004 and deteriorated further, through the 2006 midterm elections, becoming issue No. 1 in many congressional races that year. By the time support for the Iraq war had fallen below 50 percent, disapproval of President George W. Bush's handling of it had climbed to 55 percent, in contrast to Obama's solid overall approval on dealing with Afghanistan. But there are warning signs for the president. Among liberals, his rating on handling the war, which he calls one of "necessity," has fallen swiftly, with strong approval cratering by 20 points. Nearly two-thirds of liberals stand against a troop increase, as do about six in 10 Democrats. On the GOP side, views are more evenly distributed, as Republicans divide about equally in support of an increase, a decrease and no change to troop levels. Partisan divisions on the handling of the war itself are tempered when it comes to faith in the ability of the United States and its allies to get the job done in Afghanistan. Broad majorities across party lines say they are confident the U.S. will defeat the Taliban and succeed in spurring economic development. Independents express slightly less confidence on these issues, and less than half of independents (46 percent) say they are confident that the United States can encourage an honest and effective Afghan government. Overall, 55 percent are confident that the United States could help establish an honest and effective government. Far fewer, 34 percent, say the country's national election will result in an effective government, with just 3 percent "very confident." Beyond ideological and partisan divisions on the war, women have shifted against the war more sharply than men and are far more apt to say troop levels should be decreased (51 percent) than are men (38 percent). Nearly six in 10 women say the war was not worth fighting, up from just under half last month. The Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Aug. 13-17 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults including users of both conventional and cellular phones. Results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points; it is higher among subgroups visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Will liberal Dems oppose no reform health bill? by Michael Munk Mon, Aug 17, 2009

Obama Picks Fight With Left on Health Reform 16 August 2009 http://www.truthout.org/081709B?n by: Ian Swanson | Visit article original @ The Hill In backing away from its support for a public option in healthcare reform, the Obama administration is picking a fight with the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Liberal Democrats have insisted a public insurance option is necessary to ensure competition for private insurers. Just this week, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean predicted there could be Democratic primary challenges if a healthcare bill without a public option is approved by Congress. Dean also told liberal bloggers gathered last week at the "Netroots Nation" convention that the only piece of reform left in the House bill that is worth doing is the public option. The left wing of the Democratic party already has been irritated by concessions its leaders have made on healthcare to centrists in the House and Senate. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) told CNN on Sunday it would be "very difficult" for her and other liberals to support legislation that does not include a public option. "The only way we can be sure that very low-income people and persons who work for companies that don't offer insurance have access to it, is through an option that would give the private insurance companies a little competition," she said. Johnson added that House liberals have already told Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that she should insist on White House support for a public option. Some liberals are already disappointed with positions President Barack Obama has taken since his election. For example, Obama hasn't moved to repeal the don't ask, don't tell law on gays in the military, to the dismay of some liberals. Others were upset with his decision to not release photos detailing the abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the weekend, Valarie Jarrett, a close advisor to Obama, was hissed at and booed by some attending the Netroots Nation over the photo issue, according to a report in The Huffington Post. Still, liberals might have a hard time dropping their support for landmark legislation reforming healthcare over the lack of a public plan, particularly if a final bill does set up co-ops. In addition, the dropping of a public option could make it easier for the bill to attract support from conservative Democrats and Republicans. Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.), a blue dog Democrat who won several concessions for conservative Democrats in a House Energy and Commerce Committee healthcare bill approved by the panel just before the recess, said a final bill by Congress is likely to be written by the Senate Finance Committee. "It's probably going to have to be bipartisan in the Senate, which I think it should be, and - so I know a lot of members in my party in the House don't want to hear this, but the reality is that what comes out of that conference report, which is what really matters, my guess is about 90 percent of it will be reflected from what's in the Senate Finance Committee," Ross said on CNN. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a key member of Finance involved in negotiations on the panel's bill, all but said a public option is dead in comments today on Fox. The administration signaled its shift on the public option in comments Sunday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Sebelius said that what the president sees as essential is to set up competition to private insurers in the healthcare system. But she said that doesn't have to come from a public health insurance option. "Well, I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," she said on CNN. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition." A short time later, Gibbs stopped far short of earlier calls insisting on a public plan. "What the president has said is in order to inject choice and competition. . . people ought to be able to have some competition in that market," Gibbs said on CBS's "Face the Nation." Asked if he was hedging on support for a public plan, Gibbs said, "The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done with a public option." Gibbs and Sebelius seemed to be making clear what President Barack Obama had hinted at on Sunday during a town hall event in Colorado broadcast across the country on cable television. Obama, who has fielded questions at town halls from people worried about the public plan, described it as only a "sliver" or "aspect" of reform. "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform," Obama said at the town hall event in Colorado. "This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else." Republicans, signaling a victory, pounced Sunday afternoon on the administration's shift. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) office circulated a list of quotations from Obama to illustrate how the president had previously insisted on including a public option in a healthcare reform bill. "I also strongly believe that one of the options in the exchange should be a public option in order for us to create some competition for the private insurers to keep them honest," Obama had said in an online town hall on July 1. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama channels Bush, urges support for his war in Afpak by Michael Munk Mon, Aug 17, 2009

Obama, urging patience, says Afghan war worth fighting By Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason Aug 17, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090817/pl_nm/us_obama_afghanistan_4 PHOENIX (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday called the conflict in Afghanistan "a war worth fighting" as he sought to stiffen U.S. public support before an election there this week that will test his new strategy. Obama's words were designed to prepare Americans for the long haul. U.S. combat deaths have risen since he ordered a troop buildup to confront a resurgent Taliban, and polls show public backing for the eight year-war has softened. "The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight, and we won't defeat it overnight," Obama said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the largest U.S. military veterans group. "This will not be quick nor easy." Obama described why he believes the Afghanistan policy he unveiled earlier this year is working and why the United States must remain committed to stabilizing the war-ravaged country. "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity," Obama said. "Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." "So this is not only a war worth fighting, this is fundamental to the defense of our people," Obama said. Since taking office in January, he has shifted focus from the more unpopular war in Iraq to Afghanistan as his top foreign policy priority. Obama spoke as Afghans prepared to vote in a presidential election Thursday that the Taliban, stronger than at any time since they were driven from power in 2001, have vowed to disrupt. Securing the balloting will be a crucial test for Obama's strategy that has rushed 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan this year. Underlining the threat, the Taliban Saturday claimed a suicide car bomb that killed seven people in Kabul. PRESSURE TO SHOW RESULTS In a speech that also covered Iraq, defense spending and healthcare for veterans, Obama did not comment on the Afghan presidential contenders to avoid charges of U.S. interference. Despite the administration's unease with President Hamid Karzai, polls show the incumbent comfortably leading his nearest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, but not by enough to avoid a run-off. The new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, will deliver a strategy assessment shortly after the election. It comes as surging Taliban violence is exerting pressure on Washington to show results. After a record 44 U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan in July, a recent CNN poll showed U.S. public support for the war at a new low of 41 percent, with 54 percent opposed. Obama's strategy has called for increased reconstruction aid as well as troops, but the effort to bring in more civilians to help rebuild has been slow. He has worked to draw neighboring Pakistan into a regional crackdown on al Qaeda and their Taliban allies. Obama said his strategy recognizes that the insurgents had moved their bases to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. He reiterated that the United States was on track to "remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." During last year's presidential campaign, Obama had accused the Bush administration of being distracted by Iraq and neglecting Afghanistan. Obama addressed the VFW a year ago when he was still a candidate and had to defend his credentials to serve as U.S. commander-in-chief. This time, the Democratic president received a polite but less-than-rousing reception from the group, which is known for conservative views. In Phoenix, Obama was unable to escape the fierce domestic debate over healthcare reform. Dozens of protesters on each side stood on opposite sides of the street shouting at each other outside the convention hall where he spoke. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Chavez corrects Obama by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 16, 2009

Chavez is of course correct:Obama claims Latin America wants US to "intervene" in Honduras, while what they demand is the opposite: withdraw US troops from Honduras and stop the money subsidy to the gorillas. Chavez says Obama "lost in space" on Latin America http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090816/pl_nm/us_venezuela_obama_1 Aug. 16, 2009 CARACAS (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama is "lost in the Andromeda" galaxy on Latin American policy, his chief critic in the region, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, said on Sunday, while demanding the closure of U.S. military bases. Last week Obama said critics of U.S. involvement in Latin America who are now asking Washington to do more to restore the ousted president of Honduras "can't have it both ways." "We are not asking you to intervene in Honduras, Obama. On the contrary, we are asking that "the empire" get its hands off Honduras and get its claws out of Latin America," Chavez said in a rambling weekly television and radio show. "President Obama is lost in the Andromeda Nebula, he has lost his bearings, he doesn't get it," he said. Chavez repeated an accusation that the United States had prior knowledge of the coup that deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 and the military plane that flew Zelaya out of the country had used a U.S. base in Honduras. Despite Chavez's frequent tirades against U.S. imperialism, the United States remains the main client for Venezuelan oil, though the OPEC country is gradually increasing sales to other countries, especially China. Chavez, who expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela at the end of the Bush administration but allowed him back when Obama took office, said he still believes Obama has good intentions. Obama has promised to improve U.S. relations with Latin America. U.S. officials say his administration will put more effort into ties with the region to counter Chavez's growing influence. The leftist Venezuelan leader is furious, however, at a U.S. security agreement with Colombia that will give the Pentagon access to seven Colombian military bases. Chavez has cut trade with his neighbor as a reprisal. The United States and Colombia say the deal is an expansion of an existing accord and will help fight drug traffickers and guerrillas involved in the Colombian cocaine trade. Chavez says a larger U.S. troop presence risks sparking war in the region. Venezuela is planning to beef up its army by buying tanks and other weapons from Russia, Chavez said, adding that his country needs to be prepared for an attack. Chavez claims the United States wants to control Venezuela's huge oil reserves as well as the Amazon region. "This is just the start of an imperial military expansion," Chavez said of the U.S.-Colombian security arrangement. Chavez asked Obama to withdraw U.S. forces from the Palmerola air base in Honduras (also known as Soto Cano) and from Guantanamo Bay which the U.S. Navy has used as a base in Cuba for over a century. "Until when? Get with it, Obama -- get with it, brother," Chavez said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Torture pyschologists Spokane company shut down by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 12, 2009

Note: The American Pyschological Association has been reluctant to discipline these torture contractors. In fact a former APA president, retired Oregon Health Sciences University professor Joseph Dominic Matarazzo, owned one percent of Mitchell Jessen & Associates and was one of five members of the firm's governing board. Interrogation Inc: 2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11's Wake By SCOTT SHANE New York Times: August 12, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/12psychs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp WASHINGTON - Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were military retirees and psychologists, on the lookout for business opportunities. They found an excellent customer in the Central Intelligence Agency, where in 2002 they became the architects of the most important interrogation program in the history of American counterterrorism. A former Air Force explosives expert and a natural salesman, Dr. Mitchell and his colleague had no expertise on Al Qaeda and had never conducted an actual interrogation. But they had psychological credentials and an intimate knowledge of a brutal treatment regimen used decades ago by Chinese Communists. They had never carried out a real interrogation, only mock sessions in the military training they had overseen. They had no relevant scholarship; their Ph.D. dissertations were on high blood pressure and family therapy. They had no language skills and no expertise on Al Qaeda. But they had psychology credentials and an intimate knowledge of a brutal treatment regimen used decades ago by Chinese Communists. For an administration eager to get tough on those who had killed 3,000 Americans, that was enough. So "Doc Mitchell" and "Doc Jessen," as they had been known in the Air Force, helped lead the United States into a wrenching conflict over torture, terror and values that seven years later has not run its course. Dr. Mitchell, with a sonorous Southern accent and the sometimes overbearing confidence of a self-made man, was a former Air Force explosives expert and a natural salesman. Dr. Jessen, raised on an Idaho potato farm, joined his Air Force colleague to build a thriving business that made millions of dollars selling interrogation and training services to the C.I.A. Seven months after President Obama ordered the C.I.A. interrogation program closed, its fallout still commands attention. In the next few weeks, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to decide whether to begin a criminal torture investigation, in which the psychologists' role is likely to come under scrutiny. The Justice Department ethics office is expected to complete a report on the lawyers who pronounced the methods legal. And the C.I.A. will soon release a highly critical 2004 report on the program by the agency's inspector general. Col. Steven M. Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator and intelligence officer who knows Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen, said he thought loyalty to their country in the panicky wake of the Sept. 11 attacks prompted their excursion into interrogation. He said the result was a tragedy for the country, and for them. "I feel their primary motivation was they thought they had skills and insights that would make the nation safer," Colonel Kleinman said. "But good persons in extreme circumstances can do horrific things." For the C.I.A., as well as for the gray-goateed Dr. Mitchell, 58, and the trim, dark-haired Dr. Jessen, 60, the change in administrations has been neck-snapping. For years, President George W. Bush declared the interrogation program lawful and praised it for stopping attacks. Mr. Obama, by contrast, asserted that its brutality rallied recruits for Al Qaeda; called one of the methods, waterboarding, torture; and, in his first visit to the C.I.A., suggested that the interrogation program was among the agency's "mistakes." The psychologists' subsequent fall from official grace has been as swift as their rise in 2002. Today the offices of Mitchell Jessen and Associates, the lucrative business they operated from a handsome century-old building in downtown Spokane, Wash., sit empty, its C.I.A. contracts abruptly terminated last spring. With a possible criminal inquiry looming, Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen have retained a well-known defense lawyer, Henry F. Schuelke III. Mr. Schuelke said they would not comment for this article, which is based on dozens of interviews with the doctors' colleagues and present and former government officials. In a brief e-mail exchange in June, Dr. Mitchell said his nondisclosure agreement with the C.I.A. prevented him from commenting. He suggested that his work had been mischaracterized. "Ask around," Dr. Mitchell wrote, "and I'm sure you will find all manner of 'experts' who will be willing to make up what you'd like to hear on the spot and unrestrained by reality." At the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Mitchell had just retired from his last military job, as psychologist to an elite special operations unit in North Carolina. Showing his entrepreneurial streak, he had started a training company called Knowledge Works, which he operated from his new home in Florida, to supplement retirement pay. But for someone with Dr. Mitchell's background, it was evident that the campaign against Al Qaeda would produce opportunities. He began networking in military and intelligence circles where he had a career's worth of connections. He had grown up poor in Florida, Dr. Mitchell told friends, and joined the Air Force in 1974, seeking adventure. Stationed in Alaska, he learned the art of disarming bombs and earned bachelor's and master's degrees in psychology. Robert J. Madigan, a psychology professor at the University of Alaska who had worked closely with him, remembered Dr. Mitchell stopping by years later. He had completed his doctorate at the University of South Florida in 1986, comparing diet and exercise in controlling hypertension, and was working for the Air Force in Spokane. "I remember him saying they were preparing people for intense interrogations," Dr. Madigan said. Military survival training was expanded after the Korean War, when false confessions by American prisoners led to sensational charges of communist "brainwashing." Military officials decided that giving service members a taste of Chinese-style interrogation would prepare them to withstand its agony. Air Force survival training was consolidated in 1966 at Fairchild Air Force Base in the parched hills outside Spokane. The name of the training, Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, or SERE, suggests its breadth: airmen and women learn to live off the land and avoid capture, as well as how to behave if taken prisoner. In the 1980s, Dr. Jessen became the SERE psychologist at the Air Force Survival School, screening instructors who posed as enemy interrogators at the mock prison camp and making sure rough treatment did not go too far. He had grown up in a Mormon community with a view of Grand Teton, earning a doctorate at Utah State studying "family sculpting," in which patients make physical models of their family to portray emotional relationships. Dr. Jessen moved in 1988 to the top psychologist's job at a parallel "graduate school" of survival training, a short drive from the Air Force school. Dr. Mitchell took his place. The two men became part of what some Defense Department officials called the "resistance mafia," experts on how to resist enemy interrogations. Both lieutenant colonels and both married with children, they took weekend ice-climbing trips together. While many subordinates considered them brainy and capable leaders, some fellow psychologists were more skeptical. At the annual conference of SERE psychologists, two colleagues recalled, Dr. Mitchell offered lengthy put-downs of presentations that did not suit him. At the Air Force school, Dr. Mitchell was known for enforcing the safety of interrogations; it might surprise his later critics to learn that he eliminated a tactic called "manhandling" after it produced a spate of neck injuries, a colleague said. At the SERE graduate school, Dr. Jessen is remembered for an unusual job switch, from supervising psychologist to mock enemy interrogator. Dr. Jessen became so aggressive in that role that colleagues intervened to rein him in, showing him videotape of his "pretty scary" performance, another official recalled. Always, former and current SERE officials say, it is understood that the training mimics the methods of unscrupulous foes. Mark Mays, the first psychologist at the Air Force school, said that to make the fake prison camp realistic, officials consulted American P.O.W.'s who had just returned from harrowing camps in North Vietnam. "It was clear that this is what we'd expect from our enemies," said Dr. Mays, now a clinical psychologist and lawyer in Spokane. "It was not something I could ever imagine Americans would do." In December 2001, a small group of professors and law enforcement and intelligence officers gathered outside Philadelphia at the home of a prominent psychologist, Martin E. P. Seligman, to brainstorm about Muslim extremism. Among them was Dr. Mitchell, who attended with a C.I.A. psychologist, Kirk M. Hubbard. During a break, Dr. Mitchell introduced himself to Dr. Seligman and said how much he admired the older man's writing on "learned helplessness." Dr. Seligman was so struck by Dr. Mitchell's unreserved praise, he recalled in an interview, that he mentioned it to his wife that night. Later, he said, he was "grieved and horrified" to learn that his work had been cited to justify brutal interrogations. Dr. Seligman had discovered in the 1960s that dogs that learned they could do nothing to avoid small electric shocks would become listless and simply whine and endure the shocks even after being given a chance to escape. Helplessness, which later became an influential concept in the treatment of human depression, was also much discussed in military survival training. Instructors tried to stop short of producing helplessness in trainees, since their goal was to strengthen the spirit of service members in enemy hands. Dr. Mitchell, colleagues said, believed that producing learned helplessness in a Qaeda interrogation subject might ensure that he would comply with his captor's demands. Many experienced interrogators disagreed, asserting that a prisoner so demoralized would say whatever he thought the interrogator expected. At the C.I.A. in December 2001, Dr. Mitchell's theories were attracting high-level attention. Agency officials asked him to review a Qaeda manual, seized in England, that coached terrorist operatives to resist interrogations. He contacted Dr. Jessen, and the two men wrote the first proposal to turn the enemy's brutal techniques - slaps, stress positions, sleep deprivation, wall-slamming and waterboarding - into an American interrogation program. By the start of 2002, Dr. Mitchell was consulting with the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorist Center, whose director, Cofer Black, and chief operating officer, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., were impressed by his combination of visceral toughness and psychological jargon. One person who heard some discussions said Dr. Mitchell gave the C.I.A. officials what they wanted to hear. In this person's words, Dr. Mitchell suggested that interrogations required "a comparable level of fear and brutality to flying planes into buildings." By the end of March, when agency operatives captured Abu Zubaydah, initially described as Al Qaeda's No. 3, the Mitchell-Jessen interrogation plan was ready. At a secret C.I.A. jail in Thailand, as reported in prior news accounts, two F.B.I agents used conventional rapport-building methods to draw vital information from Mr. Zubaydah. Then the C.I.A. team, including Dr. Mitchell, arrived. With the backing of agency headquarters, Dr. Mitchell ordered Mr. Zubaydah stripped, exposed to cold and blasted with rock music to prevent sleep. Not only the F.B.I. agents but also C.I.A. officers at the scene were uneasy about the harsh treatment. Among those questioning the use of physical pressure, according to one official present, were the Thailand station chief, the officer overseeing the jail, a top interrogator and a top agency psychologist. Whether they protested to C.I.A. bosses is uncertain, because the voluminous message traffic between headquarters and the Thailand site remains classified. One witness said he believed that "revisionism" in light of the torture controversy had prompted some participants to exaggerate their objections. As the weeks passed, the senior agency psychologist departed, followed by one F.B.I. agent and then the other. Dr. Mitchell began directing the questioning and occasionally speaking directly to Mr. Zubaydah, one official said. In late July 2002, Dr. Jessen joined his partner in Thailand. On Aug. 1, the Justice Department completed a formal legal opinion authorizing the SERE methods, and the psychologists turned up the pressure. Over about two weeks, Mr. Zubaydah was confined in a box, slammed into the wall and waterboarded 83 times. The brutal treatment stopped only after Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen themselves decided that Mr. Zubaydah had no more information to give up. Higher-ups from headquarters arrived and watched one more waterboarding before agreeing that the treatment could stop, according to a Justice Department legal opinion. The Zubaydah case gave reason to question the Mitchell-Jessen plan: the prisoner had given up his most valuable information without coercion. But top C.I.A. officials made no changes, and the methods would be used on at least 27 more prisoners, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The business plans of Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen, meanwhile, were working out beautifully. They were paid $1,000 to $2,000 a day apiece, one official said. They had permanent desks in the Counterterrorist Center, and could now claim genuine experience in interrogating high-level Qaeda operatives. Dr. Mitchell could keep working outside the C.I.A. as well. At the Ritz-Carlton in Maui in October 2003, he was featured at a high-priced seminar for corporations on how to behave if kidnapped. He created new companies, called Wizard Shop, later renamed Mind Science, and What If. His first company, Knowledge Works, was certified by the American Psychological Association in 2004 as a sponsor of continuing professional education. (A.P.A. dropped the certification last year.) In 2005, the psychologists formed Mitchell Jessen and Associates, with offices in Spokane and Virginia and five additional shareholders, four of them from the military's SERE program. By 2007, the company employed about 60 people, some with impressive résumés, including Deuce Martinez, a lead C.I.A. interrogator of Mr. Mohammed; Roger L. Aldrich, a legendary military survival trainer; and Karen Gardner, a senior training official at the F.B.I. Academy. The company's C.I.A. contracts are classified, but their total was well into the millions of dollars. In 2007 in a suburb of Tampa, Fla., Dr. Mitchell built a house with a swimming pool, now valued at $800,000. The psychologists' influence remained strong under four C.I.A. directors. In 2006, in fact, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her legal adviser, John B. Bellinger III, pushed back against the C.I.A.'s secret detention program and its methods, the director at the time, Michael V. Hayden, asked Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen to brief State Department officials and persuade them to drop their objections. They were unsuccessful. By then, the national debate over torture had begun, and it would undo the psychologists' business. In a statement to employees on April 9, Leon E. Panetta, President Obama's C.I.A. director, announced the "decommissioning" of the agency's secret jails and repeated a pledge not to use coercion. And there was another item: "No C.I.A. contractors will conduct interrogations." Agency officials terminated the contracts for Mitchell Jessen and Associates, and the psychologists' lucrative seven-year ride was over. Within days, the company had vacated its Spokane offices. The phones were disconnected, and at neighboring businesses, no one knew of a forwarding address. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's McChrystal = LBJ's Westmoreland by Michael Munk Tue, Aug 11, 2009

Remember Westy's regular demands for more troops in Vietnam? McChrystal Wants Huge Boost in US Troops and Civilians in Afghanistan 10 August 2009 http://www.truthout.org/081109F?n by: Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel | Visit article original @ McClatchy Newspapers Kabul - In addition to requesting some 45,000 additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the country's top American military commander will ask the Obama administration to double the number of U.S. government civilian workers who are in the country. The proposed civilian "surge" is the fourth leg of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal's emerging strategy to rebuild Afghanistan's economy and government, along with more American troops, vastly expanded Afghan security forces and closer cooperation between U.S. and Afghan troops, including posting troops from both countries at the same bases. The request for additional civilian resources will be part of a 60-day assessment of the strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal's plan also will outline how the military wants to revamp the relationship between civilians and the military so that soldiers shift economic and political development work to civilians. It's not clear, however, whether the State Department can deploy enough civilians fast enough to make progress in an economically backward nation that remains plagued by an Islamist insurgency, internal rivalries, inadequate infrastructure, official corruption and a booming opium trade. What's more, nearly eight years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, one thing that many of its people have in common is growing discontent with the presence of foreign forces. The assessment was to be released later this week, but the Pentagon has announced that it won't be made public until early September. The plan is already a race against time in Afghanistan and in Washington, where the administration is eager to demonstrate significant progress before the 2010 congressional elections. A State Department official said that there were 560 to 570 U.S. government civilian employees in Afghanistan at the end of last year, and that by the end of this year there'll be about 1,000. Only 75 of the new arrivals are in Afghanistan so far. "We're doing this in a planned way. We have to balance getting the right people out there, as opposed to just deploying them quickly," said the official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, as the official wasn't authorized to speak for the record. "We fully expect to be able to get them all out there by the end of the year." Many of the new arrivals will join provincial reconstruction teams, which work with provincial and local officials across Afghanistan. Not all of them are coming from the State Department. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is sending 55 employees into the field as part of an effort to rejuvenate Afghanistan's once-rich agriculture. It may be difficult, however, to convince some disheartened American troops to work with civilians, whom they think haven't had much impact in the places where they've been. In Kabul, though, military officials called the proposal a central part of their plan, saying that rebuilding Afghanistan's shattered economy and cleaning up its corrupt government are key to the U.S. strategy. The military will move to population centers and wrest control from the Taliban, and civilians will move in afterward to rebuild communities. In many places now, the Taliban not only control areas by force but also have established local courts, government centers and businesses and have run government officials out of their communities. "Government is the key, and you will see that in General McChrystal's strategy," said a senior military official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity because he isn't authorized to speak to the news media. "If all we achieve is security, then this won't work." However, even if the surge occurs, "it might not arrive until early 2010," said Andrew Exum, who's at the Washington-based Center for a New American Security, a national-security policy research center, and who serves as an adviser to McChrystal. "For the near term, the military needs to be prepared to take on responsibilities better executed by civilians.... We're on a very short timeline in Afghanistan with respect to shifting momentum, and by the time the civilians arrive in any significant numbers or capabilities, it might be quite late in the game." As for the provincial reconstruction teams, he said, there's no standardization. "What (each one does) depends on their relationship with the Afghan people and their guidance from their home country," Exum said. Many of the new employees are being hired under a special provision of the law that allows the government to hire temporary personnel on an expedited basis. Aside from the new hires, it's not clear where the additional personnel will come from. Some could come from Iraq, where a State Department inspector general's report recently recommended that the U.S. Embassy be downsized significantly and provincial reconstruction teams be phased out. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has alerted the State Department that hundreds more civilians beyond the total of 1,000 now planned probably will be needed in 2010 and 2011, officials said. The total could end up reaching 1,350, with about 800 in Kabul and about 550 outside the capital. Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, dismissed criticism that the civilian buildup has been insufficient so far. "We have a very sustained plan. This is not like taking an existing military unit out of Fort Bragg and training them and then sending them out," Holbrooke said at a briefing last month. "We have hundreds of people in the pipeline." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Honduran gorillas being back death squad terrorist by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 9, 2009

So why is Obama afraid to break with those guys? A Cold War Ghost Reappears in Honduras By GINGER THOMPSON New York Times: August 7, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/americas/08joya.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras THE coup here has brought back a lot of Central America's cold war ghosts, but few as polarizing as Billy Joya, a former police captain accused of being the former leader of a death squad. He didn't sneak quietly back into national politics. He made his reappearance on a popular evening talk show just hours after troops had rousted President Manuel Zelaya out of bed and loaded him onto a plane leaving the country. Mr. Joya's purpose, he said, was to defend the ouster and help calm a public that freed itself from military rule less than three decades ago. Instead, he set off alarms among human rights activists around the world who worried that the worst elements of the Honduran military were taking control. "The name Billy Joya reverberated much more than Micheletti," Mr. Joya protested, perhaps a little too strenuously, referring to the head of the de facto government, Roberto Micheletti, installed by the military. "Instantly, my image was everywhere." Mr. Joya's conflicting images - a vilified figure who portrays himself as a victim - are as hard to reconcile as his life story. Human rights groups consider him one of the most ruthless former operatives of an American-backed military unit, known as Battalion 316, responsible for kidnapping, torturing and murdering hundreds of people suspected of being leftists during the 1980s. Today, Mr. Joya, a 52-year-old husband and father of four, has become a political consultant to some of the most powerful people in the country, including Mr. Micheletti during his failed campaign to become president last year. Now that Mr. Micheletti has effectively secured that post, Mr. Joya has resurfaced again as a liaison of sorts between Mr. Micheletti and the international media. Mr. Joya looks straight out of central casting, though not for the role of a thug. He has more of the smooth, elegant bearing of a leading man. And in the 14 years since he was first brought to trial on charges of illegally detaining and torturing six university students, he has undertaken a solitary quest - one that can at times border on obsession - aimed not only at defending himself, but also at vindicating the government's past fight against Communism. In 1995, he released a 779-page volume of newspaper clippings, government records and human rights reports meant to substantiate the military's narrative of the cold war, which essentially accuses its opponents of having blood on their hands as well. And in 1998, after living for a couple of years in exile in Spain, Mr. Joya said he was the first and only military officer to surrender himself for trial. "Not once in 14 years has there been a single legitimate piece of evidence linking me to these crimes," he said. Referring to human rights organizations, he said, "What they have done is to condemn me in the media, because they know if they proceed with these cases in court, they are going to lose." The odds would appear to be on Mr. Joya's side. In 1989, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights determined that the Honduran military was responsible for systematic abuses against government opponents. Still, in the 27 years since this country returned to civilian rule, authorities say, Honduran courts have held only two military officials - Col. Juan Blas Salazar Mesa and Lt. Marco Tulio Regalado - accountable for human rights violations. ONLY about a dozen other officers ever faced formal charges. And most of those cases, like Mr. Joya's, remain unresolved by a judicial system that remains crippled by corruption. Meanwhile, Mr. Joya has not suffered silently in legal limbo. In some ways, he has hardly suffered at all. His business as a security consultant and political adviser to some of the most powerful elected officials and businessmen in the country has been lucrative. "He is like one of those guys who went to Vietnam," said Antonio Tavel, president of Xerox in Honduras. "He had an ugly job to do once upon a time, and now he's a regular family guy." Mr. Joya is the son of a businessman who helped start several successful companies in Honduras but gambled away more money than he made. Mr. Joya, one of four children, said he enrolled in the military academy at 14, mostly as a way to gain early independence. He was expelled from the academy, he said, when a teacher caught him cheating on an exam. But instead of giving up his dream to be a soldier, he enlisted as a private and within two years had risen to become the youngest sergeant in the army. Mr. Joya joined the military police, and in 1981 - as the Reagan administration spent tens of millions of dollars to turn this impoverished country into the principal staging area for a covert war against the region's left-wing guerrilla groups - Mr. Joya said that he and 12 other Honduran soldiers received six weeks of training in the United States. He acknowledged that he went on to become a member of Battalion 316. But that's where his version of events diverges from those of his accusers. He has been charged with 27 crimes, including illegal detention, torture and murder. The most noteworthy case involved the illegal detention and torture of the six university students in April 1982. The students said they were held in a series of secret jails for eight days. During that time, the students testified, they were kept blindfolded and naked, denied food and water, and subjected to beatings and psychological torture. Among those detained was Milton Jiménez, who later became a lawyer and a member of Mr. Zelaya's cabinet. In 1995, Mr. Jiménez told The Baltimore Sun that officers from the battalion stood him before a firing squad and threatened to shoot him. "They said they were finishing my grave," he said at the time. "I was convinced I was going to die." Edmundo Orellana, the former Honduran attorney general who was the first to try to prosecute human rights crimes, said it was "absurd" that Mr. Joya remained free. "Billy Joya is proof that civilian rule has been a cruel hoax on the Honduran people," Mr. Orellana said. "He shows that ignorance and complicity still reign inside our courts, especially when it comes to the armed forces." Absurd, Mr. Joya countered, are the charges against him. After his television appearance, he said he received so many threats that he took his wife and youngest daughter to the United States. Now he returns to Honduras only intermittently to meet with clients. PORING over dozens of newspaper clippings and court dockets during an interview, he argued that Battalion 316 was not established until two years after Mr. Jiménez's detention, and that it was a technical unit specializing in arms interdiction, not counterinsurgency. He also argued that the former students' testimony against him is rife with contradictions. He said Mr. Jiménez, for example, later recanted his charge that Mr. Joya was involved in his interrogations. "It was never my responsibility to detain people, to torture people or to disappear people," Mr. Joya said. "But if those had been my orders, I am sure I would have obeyed them, because I was trained to obey orders. "The policy at that time was, 'The only good Communist is a dead Communist, " he continued. "I supported the policy." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Where is Cornel West? by Michael Munk Sat, Aug 8, 2009

Will any "Progressive" members of Congress stand up against Obama's disgraceful deal with to preserve profits for Big Pharma? He worked primarily through Nancy-Ann DeParle, his chosen aide to oversee the health care overhaul. DeParle was evidently selected because of her lucrative connections with the medical industrial complex. She turned her time in the Clinton adminsitraon into a $6 million career as director of several health related companies that faced federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, including Accredo Health Inc., Boston Scientific, Cerner Corp., DaVita, Guidant, Medco Health Solutions, Speciality Laboratories, Triad Hospitals and CCMP Capital. Most of them stand to profit from the health "reform" she is leading. Too many Obama "hopers" are turning into "realists" and trying to ignore or justify what is happening in broad daylight. Where, oh where, is Cornel West and his ilk (like me)? We famously declared during the campaign that we hoped Obama would be elected, after which we pledged to "become his fiercest critic." Obama's $80 Billion Deal with Pharma Is a Very Bad Deal for Us By William Greider, The Nation. August 8, 2009. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/greider So now we know why the president wants everyone to make nice in the healthcare debate. His White House has cut a deal with Big Pharma that smells like the same old rotten politics that candidate Obama regularly denounced and promised to end. The drug industry agrees to deliver $80 billion in future savings and the president promises the government will not use its awesome purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Wow. This is roughly the same deal that George W. Bush cut with the drug makers when he was legislating Medicare's new coverage of drug purchases. It is the same bargain that Democrats in Congress universally condemned as wasteful and corrupt. The deal does not smell any better now that a Democratic president is embracing it. In effect, Obama wants to give away one of the principal objectives of strong reform. The details were spelled out in today's New York Times and revealed by Big Pharma's top-dog lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, a former Republican congressman who leads the industry association. Tauzin called it a "rock-solid deal," and the White House did not dispute as much. But that is not the last word. People who believe in real healthcare reform should not be nice about this. They must rise up and rebel against our popular new president's outrageous concession. They must demand that Congress declare the private deal-making null and void. If Congress lacks the nerve to do this, then this exercise in reform begins to look more and more like previous attempts that were eviscerated by the clout of the corporate interests. The fate of healthcare reform may depend not on the Senate or the White House but on Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. What prompted Billy Tauzin to spill the beans on his deal-making with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was the House measure that specifies government's right to bargain for lower prices. No, no, no! Tauzin said. We've got a deal with the president, who says that won't be allowed. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi simply responds that the House is not bound by any deals made with the Senate or the White House. Her caucus must back up her words. They should pass the House bill, which will allow the government to do what any major customer would do in the same circumstances -- use its leverage to demand lower prices. If House Democrats stand their ground, then they will force a debate they can win with the American public. President Obama will have to choose between standing with the drug manufacturers or defending the original purpose of healthcare reform. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Media spin unemployment numbers by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 7, 2009

A little rationality injected: the rate went down because fewer people told interviewers they were looking for work during the survey week, because the actual number of people with jobs continued to drop. If the Labor Department would count those who didn't look because they did not believe they could find work and those working parttime involuntarily, the correct rate would remain about 20%. Not as Bad, but Not Good by Floyd Norris New York Times, August 7, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/pages/business/global/index.html There are clear signs that world economy is turning up, or at least not sinking further, but today's jobs report is not a bright spot. The unemployment rate went down, from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent, but that is statistically unimportant given the sampling error in the household survey. In any case, it fell not because more people said they had jobs - employment was down in that survey - but because fewer people were still looking for work. I'll get back to dissecting the job figures in a moment, but first I want to reprint part of a release from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development today. OECD composite leading indicators (CLIs) for June 2009 point to stronger signs of improvement in the economic outlook of OECD economies compared with last month's release. This is typified by stronger recovery signals in Italy and France and clearer signals of troughs in Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. In Japan tentative signs of improvement have also emerged. Troughs can also be observed in China and India, with tentative trough signals now appearing in Brazil and Russia. It is clear that business fell too far off the cliff last fall, in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse. Final sales fell, but not nearly as far as production and shipments. People were scared at all levels of the supply process, and in some cases importers simply could not get credit. That made an inventory-led bounce inevitable, and we are seeing it in recovering exports around the world. But there is as yet little indication that final sales are picking up in this country. A double-dip recession, or a very slow recovery, remain possible. Now, back to the employment report. As I went over the numbers, the one that leaped out at me was that the auto manufacturing business had added 28,200 workers. Added? That sure is not the impression you'd get from the reports coming from Detroit. It turns out those are seasonally adjusted numbers. Before seasonal adjustment, the number of auto workers fell by 8,600. I doubt the seasonal adjustment factors have much to do with current trends. Still, it is clear that things are getting worse slowly. Fewer people are losing their jobs. But long-term unemployment is higher than ever. The number of unemployed people who have been unemployed for 14 weeks or less was 6.79 million in July, the lowest figure for that group since December. But the number unemployed for 15 weeks or more was 7.88 million, up 74 percent since December and the highest figure ever. For the first time ever - or at least since the government started counting the figures in 1948 - more than a third of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 27 weeks. The average unemployed person had been jobless for less than 20 weeks at the end of last year. Now the figure is over 25 weeks. Is it good news that fewer people are losing their jobs? Yes. Is it bad news that the number of long-term unemployed is rising? Yes. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Venezuelan plotter turns to Honduras by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 7, 2009

Support for Obama's war keeps dropping by Michael Munk Thu, Aug 6, 2009

54% oppose (+6); 41% support (-9). And only Feingold stands up against it? CNN Poll: Support for Afghanistan war drops August 6th, 2009 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/cnn-poll-support-for-afghanistan-war-drops/ WASHINGTON (CNN) - A new national poll indicates that support among Americans for the war in Afghanistan has hit a new low. Forty-one percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday say they favor the war in Afghanistan - down 9 points from May, when CNN polling suggested that half of the public supported the war. Fifty-four percent say they oppose the war in Afghanistan, up 6 points from May. "Afghanistan is almost certainly the Obama policy that Republicans like the most," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Nearly two-thirds of Republicans support the war in Afghanistan. Three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war." A record 44 United States troops were killed in Afghanistan in July, and 11 have been killed so far this month. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted 7/31-8/3, with 1,136 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US /Malaki stop vote on US withdrawal by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 5, 2009

Postponing Iraqi Public Opinion 05 August 2009 http://www.truthout.org/080509A by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report After a news conference at the White House, President Barack Obama (R) and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki (L) walk away together. Though they discussed the US withdrawal deadline, neither Obama nor Maliki mentioned the Iraqi public vote to determine whether that deadline will stand. (Photo: Reuters) When Iraq's Parliament ratified its security pact with the US last year, allowing the presence of US troops until the end of 2011, it built in a provision for a public referendum vote to take place. This would let the Iraqi people decide the ultimate future of the pact. If the public voted to negate it, the US withdrawal deadline would have been shifted up to next summer. The vote, scheduled to take place by July 30, never happened. No formal delay was enacted, but the missed deadline came after persistent urging from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who advocated a postponement until January 2010. Iraq's Parliament - now led by a new speaker sympathetic to Maliki - cooperated, neglecting to bring the procedural law governing the vote's terms to the floor. American interests likely played a significant role in the missed vote. The postponement came a week after Maliki's White House visit, during which both he and President Obama reiterated the December 2011 deadline for withdrawal. Neither mentioned the referendum. Moreover, a mid-June New York Times article stated, "American diplomats are quietly lobbying the government not to hold the referendum," and suggested that any delay in voting might be "in deference to American concerns." Last Thursday's deadline slipped by quietly, with most Iraqi leaders staying mute on the subject. However, Tariq al-Hashemi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents, summed up the frustrations of many. "This date had been carefully chosen to provide the necessary time to have a tangible result," Hashemi said in a public statement. "Failure to meet the date is a delay that denies the Iraqi people their rights." Withdrawal Deadline Tug-of-War The pro-occupation elements of Iraq's government had reason to be scared of a referendum. If Iraqis had cast their votes last Thursday, they may well have rejected the security pact (otherwise known as Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA). In an extensive March ABC/BBC poll, a plurality of Iraqis said they'd prefer a quicker timetable for US withdrawal than the one specified in the SOFA. A rejection of the SOFA would have accelerated the US withdrawal deadline to a year from the vote's date: July 30, 2010. The vote's postponement means that even if the SOFA is negated in January, US troops will stay six months longer than they would have if the vote had been held in July. The skipped referendum vote was in large part a time grab, according to Joseph Gerson, author of "The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of Foreign Military Bases." "As the saying has it, military occupiers, like dead fish, begin to stink after three days," Gerson told Truthout. "Had the vote been held as scheduled, the most likely result would have been that the Iraqi people would have insisted that US forces leave before the 2011 date. It was a matter of buying time." The bought time is a boon for the Pentagon, which to date has not made public any back-up plans for an accelerated withdrawal, should the referendum fail. With 130,000 troops and 132,000 contractors still in Iraq, a rejection of the SOFA would leave the US flailing. For Maliki, whose government is heavily dependent on US support, the delay also means six more months to convince Iraqis that the SOFA is a good idea. Iraq's executive branch is well aware of the issues that would swing a vote against the SOFA, and is hoping that some of those factors improve before the postponed referendum vote takes place, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. "Concern over continued US detention of Iraqis, continued appearances of US forces in Iraqi cities and towns despite the withdrawal of 'combat troops' from populated areas, and Iraq's continued subjection to UN sanctions stemming from the First Gulf War are factors that influence Iraqi public opinion," Fine told Truthout. "Some months from now, these factors may be at least partly resolved, making it more likely that the public will approve the agreement." An Uncertain Future Meanwhile, a mixture of silence and confusion surrounds the referendum vote's prospects for January. Although Maliki recommended setting the vote to coincide with Iraq's elections, no firm date has been set. The executive branch's hedging on the referendum is symptomatic of a larger rift between the Maliki government and the Iraqi people, according to Gerson. "I think it demonstrates that the authoritarian government that the US has created in Iraq does not reflect popular Iraqi opinion, and that the government is quite afraid and is working hard to manage and contain the popular will of Iraqis," Gerson told Truthout. These "management" efforts tend to yield uncertainty more often than unconditional support, according to Ali al-Fadhily, an independent correspondent living in Baghdad, who says that Iraqis are being kept in the dark about the facts of a US withdrawal. "The picture is vague and Iraqis are divided, and as confused as their leaders want them to be," al-Fadhily told Truthout. The progress of the SOFA - and how well the two governments are abiding by its terms - is not clear on the US side, either. During the late July meeting between Maliki and Obama, the president spoke of a "full transition to Iraqi responsibility," but when it comes to what that transition means, details are shaky and oversight is lacking. In the lead-up to the signing of the SOFA, the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight held a series of hearings on the questionable legality of the pact. Currently, further hearings are on hold, according to the office of Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts), chairman of the committee. "We are interested in taking another look at this issue, but nothing has been firmed up," Delahunt's press secretary told Truthout. A crucial factor in the future of the SOFA is the Iraqi elections, coming up in January. If the referendum and the elections are held simultaneously, and Maliki wins another term in office, he could theoretically ignore the referendum results and stick to the SOFA, according to Raed Jarrar, Iraq consultant for the American Friends Service Committee. The matter would then be sent to Iraq's supreme court, prompting an even further delay. Alternately, the January polls could veer in the opposite direction, ousting Maliki and bringing a pro-withdrawal administration to power. "If the anti-occupation groups win - and I think they will - they might cancel the SOFA either way, even if it gets a 'yes' vote," Jarrar told Truthout. "If the pro-occupation groups win, they'll pull every possible trick to keep the US as long as they can. So whoever wins the next elections will decide what will happen." However, the elections may not prove a one-day affair. After Iraq's December 2005 election, five months passed before a Cabinet and prime minister were determined. Iraq's SOFA referendum may well be relegated to a similar fate: an indefinite conclusion. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama; Hope for eventual change--or not by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 5, 2009

=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Watch Weiner stand up for single payer by Michael Munk Mon, Aug 3, 2009

Another Iraq war lie exposed by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 2, 2009

Americans forget that Iraq turned out to be telling the truth when it insisted against US claims that it had WMDs. Now, finally, another US claim turns out the be false and confirms Iraq was again telling the truth: The attacking US pilot was indeed killed when his plane was shot down and he was NOT held prisoner. .Remains of first U.S. Gulf War casualty found http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090802/ts_nm/us_iraq_usa_speicher_3 . By Jim Wolf August 3, 2009 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The remains of a U.S. Navy pilot have been found and positively identified, more than 18 years after he was shot down over Iraq and became the first U.S. casualty of the first Gulf War, the U.S. Defense Department said on Sunday. The Pentagon's announcement resolved questions about the fate of Captain Michael Scott Speicher, who some believed had survived his shoot-down and been taken prisoner by Iraq. Bone fragments and skeletal remains were recovered in the desert last week by U.S. Marines stationed in Iraq's Anbar province, thanks to a tip from an Iraqi citizen, the department said. It said they were identified as Speicher's by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Speicher's F/A-18 Hornet fighter was shot down over west-central Iraq on January 17, 1991, the first night of the first Gulf War, which eventually drove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. An official Navy history identified Speicher as the first American casualty of the conflict. Some reports had emerged that Speicher, 33 when he was downed, might have survived and become a captive of Saddam. On January 11, 2001, Speicher's status was changed from killed in action to missing in action. The U.S. intelligence community had concluded that Baghdad could account for Speicher's fate but was concealing information, according to an unclassified summary of its findings released in March 2001. Then-president George W. Bush, in a September 12, 2002, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, had cited Speicher's possible detention as part of his case for post-September 11 action against Iraq, along with allegations that Saddam was developing banned weapons of mass destruction and was sponsoring terrorism. The Iraqi government had maintained from the start that Speicher died in the crash, although his remains had gone unrecovered, fueling conspiracy theories. The Iraqi who told Marines about the remains said he knew of two Iraqi citizens who recalled a U.S. jet crashing in the desert. One said he had been present when Speicher was found dead at the site and buried there by Bedouin tribesmen. The Iraqis led the Marines to the crash site. "Positive identification was made by comparing Captain Speicher's dental records with the jawbone recovered at the site," a Pentagon statement said. "The teeth are a match, both visually and radiographically." Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, said: "Our Navy will never give up looking for a shipmate, regardless of how long or how difficult that search may be." "We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Captain Speicher and his family for the sacrifice they have made for our nation and the example of strength they have set for all of us," he said in the statement put out by the Pentagon. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How single payer came back on the table by Michael Munk Sat, Aug 1, 2009

As it looks to me, here's a brief sumnmary of the politics that led to the promised House vote on 676 next month. Waxman's Energy & Commerce committee was the scene of the showdown. The seven Blue Dog Democrats on the committee had held up reform for the past several weeks.With a push from Obama whip Emanuel (enabler of many of the Dogs in the last congressional campaign) Waxman struck a deal with four of them --their leader Mike Ross (ARK), Bart Gordon (TN), Baron Hill (IN) and Zack Space (OH). In return for their votes, the deal would (1) delay the full House vote past August, (2) weaken the bill's public health care option and (3) cut $100 billion from health care spending over 10 years, much of it from insurance premium subsidies to uninsured middle income families. Those outrageous concessions finally produced some outrage from House progressives, 57 of whom signed a letter to House leadership threatening to vote against a weak bill. In response, Waxman renegotiated his deal on behalf of Obama with his committee's Blue Dogs and progressives that would (1) delink the public option from Medicare and force it to negotiate its own reimbursement rates, (2) restore the middle-income subsidies by shifting funds from existing federal health care programs and (3) reduce the limit of premiums for the uninsured from 12% to 11% of a household's annual income. But now Waxman faced another challenge from the Left. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) proposed a single payer amendment that would have forced every member of the committee to vote it up or down--a possible embarrasment to progressive members (including Waxman who was a co-signer of 676 last year but took his name off this year).With the support of Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Weiner offered to withdraw his amendment IF Pelosi promised to bring 676 to a floor debate and vote. She agreed and Waxman and Weiner sealed the committee vote at 31-28. In that vote, only three of the original Blue Dogs (Jim Matheson of Utah, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana and Bart Stupak of Michigan) and two other Democrats (John Barrow of Georgia a