Archive: Michael Munk's National Messages:

Insider: DNC shifts from health coverage to care by Michael Munk Mon, Aug 18, 2008

The DNC's "Guaranteed Healthcare" Reality Check By Donna Smith, American SiCKO, national co-chair Progressive Democrats of America 's Healthcare Not Warfare campaign August 11, 2008, Pittsburgh, PA EDITED, go to http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2008-08-11-01-48-02-news.php for the full article So, healthcare voting friends, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) platform committee added the language "guaranteed healthcare for every man, woman and child in America" to its party platform yesterday in Pittsburgh. Was it simply to placate Hillary Clinton delegates? Was the DNC squelching activists' voices for single-payer reform? Or was something else at work here? Perhaps an actual democratic process that played out with a wide variety of motivations but also a wider variety of potential outcomes and wide open possibility? Because I was there--and I mean there as one of the people who negotiated the changes in language with Rep. John Conyers and DNC platform committee member Bob Remer of Chicago--I can tell you that there probably was a little nodding to the Clinton camp and some hope to quiet the single-payer rumblings. It is significant --that language shift from universal health "coverage" to guaranteed health "care"-- and we who are in this for the long haul must grab this moment and this victory and make it our own. And, believe it or not, I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior by our party. Was it a hearkening back to our roots? Was it an effort to quiet a seemingly meaningless rebellion and move a united front to Denver? Or, was it reaching boldly toward the future? Maybe a little of "all of the above...." Are the progressive Dems finished with their fight in favor of HR676, John Conyers' "National Health Insurance Act," already co-sponsored by 91 members of Congress? Not by a long shot. In the AP account of the day's activities, the reporter got it wrong. It's hard to say if someone from the DNC pitched him on the point-I didn't see that happen, but the big boys were working pretty hard. But allow me to set the record straight: single-payer reform was never taken off any table. In fact, a language shift further along in the healthcare section specifically adds the terminology, "everybody in and no one left out." Heard that before? Everybody in, nobody out. And I promise you the reasons for inserting that specific language-as innocuous as it may seem to the general reader-should send a signal of seismic levels to those thundering forward to Denver and beyond.It is in our hands, my friends, it is now in our hands. The Meat Grinder Since I had been in transit the better part of the afternoon and evening, I didn't know whether or not Bob Remer of Chicago, the platform committee member who agreed to offer PDA's amendment on "guaranteed healthcare for all" to the committee, had made the Friday, 5 p.m.filing deadline. I soon found out he had done so and had already been deeply involved in efforts to alter the language of the amendment with the DNC's platform committee leadership. He supports a Clinton-type reform while I am firmly in the single-payer camp. When the DNC folks came to lobby Bob--which they did repeatedly--to alter the amendment's language, I suggested we not agree to any language change on the amendment unless and until Rep. Conyers was with us in the morning. . There were some wonderful local folks who had somehow decided the PDA amendment wasn't single-payer friendly who decided to leaflet against the amendment--interesting strategy, I thought. And because of that leafleting, I think some of the amendment's strength was diminished. It's the old, tired, and failed pattern of activists targeting one of their own rather than forming a united front. It hurt to see that, but I actually thought it quite interesting to see all the various levels of interest playing out--and all the agendas, hidden and not. Conyers arrived, and he and I and Chuck Carpenter participated in a press conference hosted by State Sen. Jim Ferlo of Pittsburgh--a tireless advocate of single-payer healthcare. Meanwhile, Bob was in the DNC platform meeting room. Conyers eloquently talked about the long haul-the plodding, committed work it takes to make legislative change. He repeated the idea that HR 676 will move along much more quickly as soon as a co-sponsor comes from the other side of the political aisle. And it will happen, he said. "Everything is everything," he quipped as he shared a story meant to validate all of the various efforts to push reform-every point of pressure having its place in the whole. When we wrapped up the press conference, Bob and a representative from the Obama/DNC effort came to talk about the amendment language. As Conyers stood up front getting his photo taken with and talking to the onlookers, the DNC fellow said that as soon as Conyers was done, he and Bob would meet with him to discuss the amendment. I couldn't tell exactly what the plan was in terms of my participation, but I quickly said that as a PDA Healthcare Not Warfare co-chair with Conyers, I wanted to come along for this meeting. All agreed. We walked to the center of the open refreshment area of the convention center. Around a raised cocktail table meant to allow folks to eat $3 hot pretzels, chips and sip $2 sodas, Bob, I and the chairman of the House Judiciary (and my fellow PDA Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign co-chair) John Conyers talked platform language with two or three DNC/Obama folks, who made repeated trips to and from the conference room. I was incredibly honored that Conyers deferred to me and Bob on the language of "guaranteed health care" not coverage, and also I referenced a connection I have of my own within the Obama camp with whom I had also reviewed our amendment language to make sure they all understood that this language was agreeable and simply (and strongly) expressed a common goal: to guarantee one of our basic human rights. Both Bob and I commented that the American people are not stupid and they do know the difference between health "care" and insurance coverage, and that we agree that the legislative process must now work out the details of achieving the amendment's pledge. We were unwavering in our commitment to the wording: "guaranteed health care for every man, woman and child." Then we suggested adding the "everybody in and no one left out" phrasing in a later passage of the plank. The DNC/Obama negotiators returned to the conference room from which they originally emerged. I hope that signals to every single-payer advocate in the land that the battle is on. Everyone gathered around that table heard me say that-there was no direct support expressed for our position besides mine, but there also was no opposition expressed. So, the ball is now in our court, good citizens. Conyers patted Bob and me on our backs-wonderful and wise legislator that he is-and said, "This is huge." Did we accomplish all that we wanted? No. Did we make a dent? Did we stake a claim for real reform? Yes, we did. And knowing as Conyers can only know after more than 40 years in Congress, negotiating in the right direction of the desired goal is tough work. When you are just Donna and Bob from Chicago up against some of the country's foremost political hacks and policy wonks who have personal agendas and ambitions, it's tougher still. The DNC/Obama gang returned with the written and corrected amendment for Bob's approval, discussed how it would be presented and then told us it would be up for consideration right after the break. Conyers bid us farewell and walked off for yet some more meetings. Back to the floor Back inside the ballroom, the platform committee was called back to order. Bob stood at the microphone with another committee member and they read the amendment. The chair called for seconds. And here, fellow Dems, is where the nobility and the dignity entered the picture. Do I have seconds for this amendment, the chair asked? And slowly but deliberately, nearly every platform committee member present rose to their feet in support. They stood. For guaranteed healthcare for all. They stood in support. And moments later, after hearing comments of support from Chris Jennings, senior health policy advisor during the Bill Clinton administration (and one of our cocktail table DNC negotiators), the chair called the amendment for a vote. All in favor, "AYE"--All opposed-silence. Guaranteed healthcare for all passed unanimously. Bob and I hugged in the back of the room. And we both cried. A victory from two people who didn't even know one another two days earlier--and who share different views on how we get to the place so clearly stated in our amendment. It is our party that allowed us to do this work, and it is our party that will make guaranteed healthcare for all a reality. Going forward I have no illusions. And especially after these grueling few days. The fight to actually achieve guaranteed healthcare for all is not going to be any easier--and in some ways those who oppose us will grow even more devious and they will pour more money into the battle. As evidenced by the AP report and other reports that somehow show this as a brokering on behalf of a Hillary Clinton plan, the reality was much cleaner and much more clear, and we'll need to be vigilant in our calling for honesty and for clarity as we move forward. In the airport hours later, Chuck Pennachio and I sat sharing just a few moments of joy surrounding our shared victory. We also wanted to honor all those advocates who share our continued commitment to the passage of single-payer healthcare reform. Publicly financed, privately delivered, guaranteed healthcare for all. HR 676. As we brainstormed ideas and stratgeies for the future, Chuck scrawled on an airport napkin what we thought Conyers might want to title HR 676 when he re-introduces it to a new, more progressive Congress in 2009. "The National Guaranteed Healthcare for All Act." Bravo, PDA, bravo. Onward. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Lessons for Georgia from Kosovo by Michael Munk Sat, Aug 16, 2008

John Pilger digs beneath the received wisdom for the break-up of Yugoslavia and points to a largely ignored memoir by the former chief prosecutor in The Hague - and an echo from current events in the Caucasus. Don't Forget Yugoslavia ////////////////// by John Pilger InfoClearingHouse http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20525.htm August 15, 2008 VIA Cord Macguire Even as Blair the war leader was on a triumphant tour of "liberated" Kosovo, the KLA was ethnically cleansing more than 200,000 Serbs and Roma from the province The secrets of the crushing of Yugoslavia are emerging, telling us more about how the modern world is policed. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, this year published her memoir The Hunt: Me and War Criminals. Largely ignored in Britain, the book reveals unpalatable truths about the west's intervention in Kosovo, which has echoes in the Caucasus. The tribunal was set up and bankrolled principally by the United States. Del Ponte's role was to investigate the crimes committed as Yugoslavia was dismembered in the 1990s. She insisted that this include Nato's 78-day bombing of Serbia and Kosovo in 1999, which killed hundreds of people in hospitals, schools, churches, parks and tele vision studios, and destroyed economic infrastructure. "If I am not willing to [prosecute Nato personnel]," said Del Ponte, "I must give up my mission." It was a sham. Under pressure from Washington and London, an investigation into Nato war crimes was scrapped. Readers will recall that the justification for the Nato bombing was that the Serbs were committing "genocide" in the secessionist province of Kosovo against ethnic Albanians. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been murdered. Tony Blair invoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The west's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose murderous record was set aside. The British foreign secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone. With the Nato bombing over, international teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, Del Ponte's tribunal announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide in Kosovo. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent. That was not all, says Del Ponte in her book: the KLA kidnapped hundreds of Serbs and transported them to Albania, where their kidneys and other body parts were removed; these were then sold for transplant in other countries. She also says there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the Kosovar Albanians for war crimes, but the investigation "was nipped in the bud" so that the tribunal's focus would be on "crimes committed by Serbia". She says the Hague judges were terrified of the Kosovar Albanians - the very people in whose name Nato had attacked Serbia. Indeed, even as Blair the war leader was on a triumphant tour of "liberated" Kosovo, the KLA was ethnically cleansing more than 200,000 Serbs and Roma from the province. Last February the "international community", led by the US, recognised Kosovo, which has no formal economy and is run, in effect, by criminal gangs that traffic in drugs, contraband and women. But it has one valuable asset: the US military base Camp Bondsteel, described by the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner as "a smaller version of Guantanamo". Del Ponte, a Swiss diplomat, has been told by her own government to stop promoting her book. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent and multi-ethnic, if imperfect, federation that stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to dominate its "natural market" in the Yugoslav pro vinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991, a secret deal had been struck; Germany recognised Croatia, and Yugoslavia was doomed. In Washington, the US ensured that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans and the defunct Nato was reinvented as an enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in France, the Serbs were told to accept occupation by Nato forces and a market economy, or be bombed into submission. It was the perfect precursor to the bloodbaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Jobless anti-liberal terrorists by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 15, 2008

The Tragic Arkansas Shooting and Conservative Hate Speech by Steven D., Booman Tribune August 14, 2008. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/95112/ I've waited to make my first comments about the murder of the Chair of Arkansas' Democratic Party. I wanted to make sure that there was no personal connection between the shooter and Bill Gwatney, and apparently there wasn't one. Instead, there are some initial eerie similarities between the shooter Timothy Dale Johnson, and the man who massacred members of the Unitarian church in Knoxville, Tennessee last month. Both, for example had just lost their jobs, and both were very, very angry about that fact: Wreaths and flowers lined the sidewalk in front of Arkansas' Democratic Party headquarters Thursday while police and others tried to explain why a man who lost his job at a Target store drove more than 30 miles and fatally shot the party's chairman. Until Wednesday morning, when he wrote profanity-laced graffiti on a store wall, Timothy Dale Johnson had been a good employee in a stockroom, a Target spokeswoman said. Johnson apparently lived alone and had never married. Under most circumstances he probably would have continied this isolated, but not all together unproductive life. He probably had certain emotional difficulties with people. According to neighbors he kept to himself, yet was considered a model employee at target. Yet, after losing his job, the first action he decided to take was to murder a prominent liberal and Democrat, much like Jim David Adkisson decided to take his rage and anger at his personal situation out on the "liberal" church in Knoxville. Both chose to use firearms to murder innocent people they did not know personally. It is logical to assume that they both chose their targets to make a statement. Indeed, we know for a fact that Adkisson, the church shooter, wrote a specific hate filled manifesto detailing his reasons for targeting the most prominent "liberal" church in Knoxville for his massacre. I don't think it is a coincidence that within a few weeks, another disturbed individual who had lost his job (at least by his own perception -- Target is denying they terminated him), chose to shoot someone associated with "liberals" and "Democrats." The right wing bloggers and talk show hosts can deny their complicity in these "random" actions, and, indeed, legally they are not responsible for the criminal actions of a few "rogue" individuals. However, their writings and commentary, widely disseminated has spread a culture where violence against liberals, Democrats, feminists, gays, blacks, immigrants, Muslims and any other out group is frequently expressed as "comedy" or in fantasies of wish fulfillment. They can claim all they like that they cannot be held accountable for the aura of hatred they have engendered in American society, but their protestations ring hollow. People too young to have lived through the Civil Rights era might not remember that much of the same hate speech was prominent among conservative, racist and nativist circles. The result was a wave of violent attacks on prominent liberals and activists, and I am not just referring to the Kennedy brothers and Dr King. A whole host pf people were murdered by those who felt entitled to take the lives of those who threatened their political ideology. The bombings in Birmingham, church burnings, Medgar Evers assassination and many other acts of violence. Since the rise of talk radio and Fox News in the 1990's we have seen the slaughter of hundreds of people at the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City by individuals with right wing leanings. We have seen reports of numerous arrests of right wing "terrorists" (though they are never labeled as such in the media or by the Bush administration) who have planned massacres of "illegal immigrants" and other violence. We have experienced another wave of African American church burnings. We have seen numerous murders of gay men and women, where the defendants raise the ludicrous excuse of "gay panic" as a defense for their evil, premeditated killings. It's past time for members of the the right wing wurlitzer to apologize for their hate speech and to renounce any further use of the language of extermination with respect to their political, religious and ideological adversaries, as well as their demonization of minorities. I don't expect them to do so, but it would be the right thing to do, and aren't they always preaching about how much more moral and decent their movement is compared to us "Leftards' with our evil gay agendas, our eco-terrorists, our traitorous failure to "support the troops" and a myriad of other imagined sins? All I know is no prominent liberal spokespersons have made the following statements: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus -- living fossils -- so we will never forget what these people stood for." -- Rush Limbaugh "I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber." -- Melanie Morgan ""[T]he day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals and it's going to be very amusing to watch." -- Lee Rogers "And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." -- Bill O'Reilly "Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!"-- Michael Reagan "Some liberals have become even too crazy for Texas to execute, which is a damn shame. They're always saying -- we're oppressed, we're oppressed so let's do it. Let's oppress them." -- Ann Coulter "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. ... That's just a joke, for you in the media." -- Ann Coulter My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." -- Ann Coulter "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too." -- Ann Coulter And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. -- Rep. Peter King (R) Where does George Soros have all his money? Do you know? Do you know where George Soros, the big left-wing loon who's financing all these smear [web]sites, do you know where his money is? Curaçao. Curaçao. They ought to hang this Soros guy. -- Bill O'Reilly "Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." -- Karl Rove Miller is not alone, though some are more sanguine when it comes to evaluating the roster of contenders. Here's a note I got recently from a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches: "These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot." -- Kathleeen Parker Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one. They'd like an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon. In fact, Christianity has been one of the great salvations on planet Earth. It's what's necessary in the Middle East. Others have written about it, I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity but I'll get here a little later, I'll move up to that. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings. ... Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don't think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally. Just before -- I'm going to give you a little precursor to where I'm going. Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to these people, just so you understand that I'm not going to be too intellectual about my analysis here in terms of what I would recommend, what Doc Savage recommends as an antidote to this kind of poison coming out of the Middle East from these non-humans. -- Michael Savage Funny, but I have never heard of Michael Moore or Phil Donahue or Keith Olbermann or Al Franken or Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean or (name your favorite liberal here) making public statements recommending the murder of of conservatives, media figures, politicians, or judges. They blame us for 9/11 and Katrina but as Jesus said: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? That's a pretty big beam, my conservative friends. Start doing something about it before we see any more innocent people killed. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

MoveOn. against single payer? by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 13, 2008

What US media don't report about Georgia by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 13, 2008

US blamed over S Ossetia crisis Al-Jazeera, August 12, 2008 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008812204333715324.html The US has had stern words for Russia over its military intervention in Georgia to back South Ossietian separatists, but many analysts say that the Bush administration must share the blame for the crisis. Washington has formed a close bond with the government of Mikheil Saakashvili since he came to power in the 2003 'Rose Revolution,' offering military and economic aid and encouraging Georgia to join Nato. Jon Sawyer, the director for the Pulitzer Centre for Crisis Reporting, said US politicians had encouraged their Georgian counterparts to think they had the backing of the US when Tbilisi decided to launch its attack on South Ossetia last week. "The US has for several years now mishandled the situation in Georgia," he told Al Jazeera. "The way that Mikheil Saakashvili has approached this [has been by] thinking that he could be an extension of the west, a partner of the United States." "In many ways we have given him cause for thinking that, with the many visits to the United States, the talk of Georgia as a beacon for democracy." Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees that US encouragement may have made Saakashvili "miscalculate" and send Georgian troops into South Ossetia. "I think in many respects Saakashvili got too close to the United States and the United States got too close to Saakashvili," Kupchan told the Reuters news agency. "It made him overreach, it made him feel at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble." US backing The statistics seem to back the view that Tbilisi felt itself under the protective wing of the Bush administration. US and Georgian leaders have forged a close relationship As well as diplomatic encouragement, Saakashvili's government was offered both economic and military aid by Washington. US special forces trained Georgian troops in 2002 to combat Chechen fighters in the Pankisi Gorge, which borders Chechnya, as part of the US "war on terror". And Georgian forces continued to recieve training from the US as they prepared to send troops to Iraq, following the US-led invasion in 2003. Washington gave $151 million to the Georgian government in security aid between 2004 and 2006. Tbilisi has also benefited from the Millenium Challenge Corporation, a Bush administration programme intended to reward countries for "effective governance". The corporation has signed agreements totaling $295 million, making Georgia the fourth-biggest recipient of funds. Energy needs The US may have welcomed Georgia as its key ally in the old Soviet Union's sphere of influence. "By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its 'national interest,' the United States made a serious blunder." Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet leader But analysts point to the presence of key natural resources as a reason for the scale of US largesse. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline runs through Georgia, allowing the US access to oil and gas supplies not pumped through Russia to the north or Iran to the south. "Underlying all this is a larger, more significant contest: a geopolitical struggle between Russia and the West over the export of Caspian Sea oil and natural gas," Michael Klare, the author of Resource Wars told the New American Media website. "The United States seeks to use Georgia as an 'energy corridor' to transport Caspian energy to the West without going through Iran or Russia; to this end, it helped build the BTC pipeline across Georgia and helped beef up the Georgian military to protect it. Kosovo connection Other's believe that while Georgia have miscalculated the level of support it had from Washington, the US has also erred in thinking it could influence events so close to Russian borders. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the old Soviet Union, said the US had made a "serious blunder" by allying itself so closely with Georgia. "By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its 'national interest,' the United States made a serious blunder," Gorbachev said in an opinion piece to be published in the Washington Post US newspaper on Tuesday. Other analysts say that US diplomats may have underestimated the level of anger the US recognition of Kosovo created in Moscow, leaving it fearful that Georgia would assert itself further in South Ossetia. "The Kremlin made abundantly clear that it would view Kosovo's independence without Serbian consent and a UN Security Council mandate as a precedent for the two Georgian de facto independent enclaves," Dimitri Simes, the president of the Nixon Centre, wrote in a post on the Washington Note blog. "Furthermore, while president Saakashvili was making obvious his ambition to reconquer Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Moscow was both publicly and privately warning that Georgia's use of force to re-establish control of the two regions would meet a tough Russian reaction, including, if needed, air strikes against Georgia proper." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Pot calls kettle black by Michael Munk Mon, Aug 11, 2008

Zalmay Khalilzad,the former US viceroy in Kabul and Baghdad, was not the best choice, as current UN ambassador, to warn world opinion that Russia seeks "regime change" in Georgia. Khalilzad's previous roles also undermine the US charge that Russia is using "disproportionate" military power against a non threat to its security..Finally, (Granada, anyone?), Russia says its intervention is to protect Russian citizens in South Ossetia and recalls the US-NATO attack on Serbia for seeking to pacify its province of Kosovo. As George Friedman, chief executive of Stratfor, a geopolitical analysis and intelligence company, put it,. "One would think under those circumstances, we'd shut up." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Times calls Croatian a terrorist! by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 10, 2008

I sent a rant to the NYTimes complaining about their July 19 description of Zvonko Busic, leader of Croatian fascist hijackers whose bomb killed a New York City police officer in 1976. Busic was paroled from prison a few weeks ago and now is free in Croatia, which has rehabilitated mamy of its fascists after the fragmentation of Yugoslavia. I protested that the Times called the terrorists "Croatian independence fighters." Also referring to Cuban emigres who blew up a civilain aircreft killingl over a hundred people, I wrote "evidently, you call terrorists "terrorists" only if their cause resists US actions or policies. So the released Croatian terrorist wasn't called a terrorist leader because he killed to oppose a "Communist regime." On the other hand, that's how you routinely call Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Afgan resistance righters. Well, perhaps the Times got the message: It ran a full page hede (although back on A26) reading "Terrorist's Release Reopens Wound of Unsolved Bombing" and correctly referred to it among "chapters of American terrorism." But it tuirns out that federal agents stopped the New York police from fully investigating whether Busic and his terrorist gang also bombed La Guradia airport 10 months before the bombing they were convcited of. That killed 11 people and wounded 75. The article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/nyregion/10laguardia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Army Colonel ridicules Hamdan trial by Michael Munk Thu, Aug 7, 2008

Army Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a former Guantánamo official turned critic, ridiculed the decision to select Hamdan, a poor, illiterate chauffeur who had no operational or planning role, as the first victim of legal revenge for the 9/11 attack. "We can only trust that the next subjects," he said, "will include cooks, tailors, and cobblers without whose support terrorist leaders would be left unfed, unclothed, and unshod, and therefore rendered incapable of planning or executing their attacks." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Samantha Powers predicts catastrophic attack by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 6, 2008

In an otherwise middle of the road review article on "Democrats and National Security" the NY Review of Books ( http://www.truthout.org/article/the-democrats-and-national-security), cashiered Obama foreign policy advisor Samatha Power drops this bombshell: " I am persuaded that revenge, in the form of a catastrophic attack on the homeland, is coming, that a new generation of jihadist martyrs, motivated in part by the images from Abu Ghraib, is, as we speak, planning to kill Americans and that nothing gleaned from the use of coercive interrogation techniques will be of any significant use in forestalling this calamitous eventuality." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Attention! freemarketeers by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 3, 2008

AIPAC spy trial delayed since April by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 1, 2008

torture psychologist Morgan Banks (Col USA) by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 1, 2008

The ignorant Reuters story about his secret testimony at the first "trial" at Guatanamo http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080731/wl_nm/guantanamo_hearings_dc;_ylt=Av30pmzR2hlkcYwfIsv0Qzxm.3QA called his a "pyschiatrist" but the real question is how American psychologists can tolerate such torture enablers in the professional association. Army Col. Morgan Banks, a clinical psychologist at Fort Bragg [testified in the first secret session of the trial]. But journalists and human rights observers were banished from the courtroom at the remote U.S. naval base in southeast Cuba. According to newspaper reports, Banks oversees psychologists involved in the Army's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape program that trains U.S. soldiers to resist harsh interrogation if captured. It involves sensory and sleep deprivation, nakedness and sexual humiliation, loud noises, use of dogs, extreme temperatures and "stress positions" and was adapted and sanctioned by the Pentagon for use in detainee interrogations, according to U.S. congressional testimony in June. Banks was at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan when Hamdan was taken there in December 2001, a defense lawyer said. Banks later briefed Guantanamo-bound mental health officials on the "exploitation, oversight and treatment of detainees and staff in a captivity environment," according to congressional testimony from a former Guantanamo official. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

ElBaradei vs Heinonen in the IAEA by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 31, 2008

From Scott Ritter's knwledgeable analysis of the politics of the IAEA. Go to http://www.alternet.org/audits/93239/?page=entire foer the full story "A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency's Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)? Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran's alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them. And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen's repeated transgressions are treated as a giant "non-event," the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn't really there. Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran's controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works. Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen's Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Over 100 indepedent nations back Iran righrts by Michael Munk Wed, Jul 30, 2008

Nonaligned countries back Iran's nuclear program By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer Jul 30, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080730/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear TEHRAN, Iran - More than 100 nonaligned nations backed Iran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear power on Wednesday, an endorsement sought by Tehran in its standoff with the U.N. Security Council over its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. The decision came as supreme Iranian leader Ayatolla Ali Khamenei pledged to continue the country's nuclear program. Senior Iranian officials depicted the support from a high-level conference of the Nonaligned Movement as deflating claims by the U.S. and its allies that most of the international community wanted Iran to stop enrichment. The conference's backing, which echoes the group's previous declarations, acts to "remove this notion that the international community opposes the nuclear activities of Iran," said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran's top representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the endorsement from the 115 countries present at the Tehran conference sends a "strong positive signal that the only way is negotiation and dialogue" over the nuclear standoff. "Get the message," he said, in blunt comments indirectly aimed at the U.S. and its Western allies, the nations at the forefront of accusations that Tehran wants to build nuclear arms. "Come to the negotiating table." Support was expressed in a three-page declaration in Farsi, translated by The Associated Press. It said the conference "reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all states, to develop research, production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes." The West is seeking an agreement for Iran to curb uranium enrichment, a process that can be use to generate nuclear power or build a weapon. The U.S. and its allies say Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran maintains its program is aimed at harnessing nuclear energy. The Security Council has slapped three sets of sanctions on the Islamic Republic. And a fourth set looms. Only days remain until a deadline expires for Tehran to show it will stop expanding its enrichment program, at least temporarily, or face the threat of new U.N. sanctions. The offer is meant to create space for the start of in-depth negotiations that the West hopes will end in Iran agreeing to permanently mothball its enrichment program in exchange for a package of economic and political concessions. But there was no sign Wednesday that Tehran was willing to bend. Khamenei said that backing down on enrichment in the face of "arrogant powers" would only benefit those six nations - the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany. That message was enforced later both by Mottaki, the foreign minister and Soltanieh, Iran's chief IAEA representative. "We are not giving up our nuclear activities, including enrichment," Soltanieh said. The Nonaligned Movement is made up of such diverse members as communist Cuba, Jamaica and India, but most members share a critical view of the U.S and the developed world in general. In a keynote speech Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "The big powers are going down. "They have come to the end of their power, and the world is on the verge of entering a new, promising era." A separate closing document took the International Criminal Court's prosecutor to task for indicting Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir by an international prosecutor on charges of genocide in Darfur. It also harshly criticized Israel on a broad range of issues. Iran assumed the chairmanship of the conference this week. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

TN murderer read Fox liberal haters by Michael Munk Mon, Jul 28, 2008

Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused shooter's reading list 4-page letter outlines frustration, hatred of 'liberal movement' By Hayes Hickman , Noxville News-Sentinel July 28, 2008 http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/ Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show. Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical. Knoxville Police Department Officer Steve Still requested the search warrant after interviewing Adkisson. who was subdued by several church members after firing three rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun into the congregation. Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets." Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office." Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault." Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly. The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays." Adkisson said he also was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job, Owen said. The letter, recovered from Adkisson's black 2004 Ford Escape, which was parked in the church's parking lot at 2931 Kingston Pike, indicates he had been planning the shooting for about a week. "He fully expected to be killed by the responding police," the police chief said. Owen said Adkisson specifically targeted the church for its beliefs, rather than a particular member of the congregation. "It appears that church had received some publicity regarding its liberal stance," the chief said. The church has a "gays welcome" sign and regularly runs announcements in the News Sentinel about meetings of the Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays meetings at the church. Owen said Adkisson's stated hatred of the liberal movement was not necessarily connected to any hostility toward Christianity or religion per say, but rather the political advocacy of the church. The church's Web site states that it has worked for "desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights" since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers. Adkisson does not appear to be a member of any church himself, Owen said. "In his written statement, he does not ascribe to any affiliation," the chief said. "It does not appear he's a member of any organized group." Officers recovered 76 shells for a 12-gauge, semiautomatic shotgun inside the church. Among those shells were three spent rounds. He had carried the shotgun inside the church in a guitar case, Owen said. "He certainly intended to take a lot of casualties," the chief said. Adkisson is accused of killing two people and injuring seven others. He is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Greg McKendry, 60. Also killed in the shooting was Linda Kraeger, 61, who was visiting the church from Westside Unitarian Universalist Church. Injured were Joe Barnhart, 76, and Jack Barnhart, 69, who are brothers; Betty Barnhart, 71; Linda Chavez, 41; John Worth Jr., 68; Tammy Sommers, 38; and Allison Lee, 42. Jack and Joe Barnhart are brothers, and Jack and Betty Barnhart are married. At about 10:25 a.m., two staffers from Second Presbyterian Church next door, placed a large flower arrangement from their church's sanctuary atop TVUUC's sign along Kingston Pike. "Our hearts go out to this church. This is our community. We love these people," said Julie Lothrop, assistant to the pastor. The shooting began at 10:18 a.m. Adkisson was arrested minutes later after being restrained by church members. Three of those wounded remain in critical or serious condition at the University of Tennessee Medical Center. Two others were treated at a local hospital and released. One of those suffered an injury when trampled as worshippers left the church. The letter was not addressed to anyone but was signed by Adkisson, Owen said. Adkisson's criminal history includes a DUI in Calfornia and in Clinton. He had been a member of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne, according to Owen. Public Defender Mark Stephens' office has been appointed to represent Adkisson. Through a spokeswoman this morning, Stephens said he could not comment. If the suspect's own resume is accurate, Owen said, Adkisson worked in a variety of places across the country and most recently worked in Knoxville in 2006. The chief did not specify where Adkisson last held a job. Adkisson also holds an associates degree in mechanical engineering. More than 200 people were packed into the church's sanctuary watching the children's musical, "Annie Jr." when a gunman opened fire. McKendry, according to witnesses and police, confronted Adkisson, who shot him with a 12-gauge shotgun. Witness Barbara Kemper said Adkisson walked past the area where children were awaiting their stage call and into the sanctuary. Witnesses said Adkisson did not aim the shotgun at children but focused on the pews filled with adults. The first blast left many wondering if the disabling boom was part of the musical program. "We heard the first shot," said Marty Murphy, 66, a church member since 2000. "It sounded like a bomb went off. We thought it was part of the program at first. "The second shot is when everyone started calling 911 and telling everyone to get down." Murphy and others said Adkisson didn't say a thing before he began firing. Kemper, however, said Adkisson was yelling "something hateful." Witnesses said Adkisson had a fanny pack around his waist that contained extra shells for his shotgun. "There were shotgun shells all over the place, so he must have thought he was going to get more shots in," Murphy said. "He had those shells everywhere. "Who would have thought, here in Knoxville?" she said. News Sentinel staff writers Bob Fowler, J.J. Stambaugh, Frank Munger and Amy McRary contributed to this story. More details as they develop online and in Tuesday's News Sentinel. News Sentinel staff writers Bob Fowler, J.J. Stambaugh, Frank Munger and Amy McRary contributed to this story visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

New Oliver Stone flim on Bush by Michael Munk Mon, Jul 28, 2008

Brzezninski against Obama's Afghan surge by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 26, 2008

Olympic torch protests draw selective media frenzy by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 25, 2008

An interesting piece on the media frenzy over anti-China demos is at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3581 Carrying a Torch for Anti-China Protests When an official enemy is targeted, media take notice By Julie Hollar For once, mainstream media have found an anti-government protest to embrace. When the Olympic torch arrived in San Francisco on April 9 and thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to decry human rights abuses by the Chinese government, journalists descended on the scene like ants at a picnic. CNN led the feeding frenzy. The cable network gave the torch and related stories more than 40,000 words of coverage throughout the day, according to a Nexis search, and it frequently played as the top story of the hour. During the three hours of Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, five different correspondents and producers reported from the streets of San Francisco, one "Internet reporter" tracked protesters' web and text messaging activity, and a correspondent in Beijing relayed Chinese reaction-which was minimal, since the action unfolded around 4 a.m. in China. Live feeds came in from several different helicopters circling over the city, and Blitzer boasted that "CNN is watching every angle of this developing story right now." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Afghans challenge Obama's troop escalation by Michael Munk Sun, Jul 20, 2008

Afghan Observers Sceptical of Senator Obama's Plan To Send More Troops Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran External Service Saturday, July 19, 2008 Document Type: OSC Translated Text An Afghan parliamentarian has criticized one of the US presidential candidates for his plan to deploy more troops in Afghanistan. Elaborating on his foreign policy this week, Barack Obama said that as president, he would send two more US combat brigades to the Afghan theatre. According to a report (source indistinct) from Kabul, Afghan MP Kabir Ranjbar asserted on Friday that increasing the number of US and other foreign servicemen would not help Afghanistan at all. Wahid Mozhda, another Afghan political observer, has also warned that the Obama's plan to deploy up to 10,000 additional troops will worsen the situation in Afghanistan. This Afghan observer states according to this plan, the US is trying to resolve the problem through military measures, which is obviously not an effective strategy. In addition, Mr Fahim Dashti, a journalist and observer, has said that the US government officials have decided to increase troops in Afghanistan, at a time when they have failed to defeat remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida in this country. Fahim Dashti says sending additional US and other foreign troops to Afghanistan will cause more problems in the long term, because it may antagonize the people's anti-American feelings. The Afghan analyst accentuated that countries like the USA should organize and equip the Afghan native forces, including the national army and police, as soon as possible if they really want to put an end to insecurity in Afghanistan. posted by Juan Cole @ 7/20/2008 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Independence fighter or terrorist? by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 19, 2008

To the NYTimes Public Editor: Your description of the hijackers who killed a New York City police officer in "Croatian Leader of 1976 Hijacking Is Granted Parole......" (B9, July 19), reveals a troubling double standard. Evidently, terrorists are described as "terrorists" only if their cause challenges US actions or policy. But if they support US objectives, in your eyes they become simply champions of whatever specific cause they kill for. So you call the Croatian terrorist about to be released as the leader of "Croatian independence fighters" because they were "fighting" against a Communist regime. And the Times is reluctant to call the anti-Castro Cuban linked to blowing up a Cuban airliner and granted asylum in Miami a "terrorist." On the other hand, you routinely pin that emotionally charged label on Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Afgan resistance righters. It's an old story on editorial and oped pages: my "freedom fighters" are your "terrorists" and vice versa. But why promote such blatant bias on your news pages? Mike Munk visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

WaPo defends permanent US bases in Iraq by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 18, 2008

Which reps want war with Iran by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 15, 2008

Chomsky: Why we are in Iraq by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 12, 2008

Dems for spying: the names of shame by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 11, 2008

Only 28 Dems against spying by Michael Munk Wed, Jul 9, 2008

US Col Rollins Emmerich OKd Korean atrocities by Michael Munk Sun, Jul 6, 2008

Judge challenges State Secrets in Oregon case by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 5, 2008

North Korea says US obligations not yet met by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 5, 2008

Clark stands up, Obama sits down by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 1, 2008

another academic military contractor killed by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 1, 2008

Naming the Dems who cave by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 30, 2008

What the MSM can't say about the occupation by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 30, 2008

Tatweer: How US advisers wrote the oil contracts by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 30, 2008

The Gang of 8 approves regime change in Iran by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 29, 2008

In his latest New Yorker scoop (read it onTruthout = http://www.truthout.org/article/preparing-battlefield) Bush issued a = Presidential Finding committing the US to "regime change " in Iran and = that Congress has=20 secretly apprpriated 400 million starter dollars for the effort. "Under = federal law," Hersh says, "a Presidential Finding, which is highly = classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets = under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and = Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking = members of their respective intelligence committees - the so-called Gang = of Eight. " His article notes that " although some legislators were troubled by = aspects of the Finding, and "there was a significant amount of = high-level discussion" about it, according to the source familiar with = it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some = members of the Democratic leadership - Congress has been under = Democratic control since the 2006 elections - were willing, in secret, = to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities = directed at Iran, while the Party's presumptive candidate for President, = Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy. " The current members of the "Gang of Eight" are Nancy Pelosi, John = Boehner, Silvestre Reyes and Peter Hoekstra in the House and Harry Reid, = Mitch McConnell, John Rockefeller and Chris Bond in the Senat =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 www.michaelmunk.com

DLC pushing Obama Right by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 29, 2008

Despite a death, Pentagon still recurits academics by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 28, 2008

Vietnamese says McCain lies about torture by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 28, 2008

Nuke expert David Albright exposed by Michael Munk Fri, Jun 27, 2008

Senate votes war spending 92-6! by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 26, 2008

The only No votes were six rightwing Republican deadenders (McCain and Kennedy not voting). At least in the House some liberals stood up against it but in the Senate not a single one did/. The roll of shame is here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00162 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Feingold on FISA filibuster by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 24, 2008

For the complete interview go to Truthout at http://www.truthout.org/article/senator-feingold-will-filibuster-fisa Amy Goodman: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill? Sen. Russ Feingold: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also - Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We're not just going to let it be rubberstamped. Amy Goodman: Would you filibuster, though? Sen. Russ Feingold: That's what I just described. Amy Goodman: Senator Barack Obama last year said that he was opposed to granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms, but he has now indicated support for the FISA deal. Your thoughts? Sen. Russ Feingold: Wrong vote. Regrettable. Many Democrats will do this. We should be standing up for the Constitution. When President Obama is president, he will, I'm sure, work to fix some of this, but it's going to be a lot easier to prevent it now than to try to fix it later. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

What we knew and the media dissed by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 24, 2008

Dem leaders who back the war by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 23, 2008

OR-WA senators sign on to attack Iran by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 23, 2008

Pete Seeger at Wappinger Falls, NY by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 22, 2008

MoveOn to Obama: Fight, don't capitulate on FISA by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 22, 2008

Future of US Occupation at stake by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 21, 2008

Who voted to spend your money on the war by Michael Munk Fri, Jun 20, 2008

Occupation dictates Iraq oil contracts by Michael Munk Fri, Jun 20, 2008

Rice ignores invasion results in Iraq oil contracts by Michael Munk Fri, Jun 20, 2008

Confirmned: Iraq is all about Oil by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 19, 2008

Dem insists occupation overrides Iraq sovergnity by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 18, 2008

Here's the view of Congressman Mark Udall's boss on the Armed Services Comm= ittee regarding the controversial 'Status of Forces' deal that Bush is negotiating with Ira= q. Chairman Skelton's priorities have little to do with Iraqi sovereignty & independence. -Cord >=20 House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Chairman http://armedservices.house.gov For Immediate Release: June 18, 2008 Contact: Loren Dealy o= r Lara Battles 202-225-2539 Skelton Says Status of Forces Agreement Must Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq =20 Washington, DC =96 House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skel= ton (D-MO) sent a letter urging the President to ensure that any the future= Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq adequ= ately protects the safety and security of U.S. troops: June 18, 2008 George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House Washington, DC 20500 =20 Dear Mr. President: =20 I am writing to express my strong concern about the potential impac= t that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) currently being negotiated wit= h the Republic of Iraq may have on the security of U.S. troops stationed in= that country. I am sure you have seen the letter I recently sent with Cha= irman Howard Berman discussing our dissatisfaction with both the amount and= quality of information Congress has received on the subject of the SOFA an= d the accompanying Strategic Framework Agreement. United Nations Security = Council Resolution 1790 will expire at the end of the year and is unlikely = to be renewed in its current form. However, we cannot allow such time pres= sures to undermine the goal of ensuring that any SOFA adequately protects o= ur troops in Iraq.=20 =20 Despite the protestations of several of the Administration official= s who have briefed the Members of the Committee and our staff, there is not= hing =93typical=94 about this SOFA. With very few exceptions, if any, we h= ave never negotiated a SOFA under fire before, where new rules are put in p= lace that govern the behavior and affect the security of U.S. troops alread= y engaged in combat and that has the potential to increase the risk to our = soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Congress should not, and I believe will no= t, permit any agreement to take effect that would unnecessarily increase th= e risk of U.S. casualties. =20 I believe that there are a number of areas in which the proposed SO= FA could affect the safety and security of U.S. troops in Iraq. I have tri= ed to outline the main questions below. =20 Several media articles concerning the SOFA have suggested that U.S. militar= y actions would be subject to coordination with the government of Iraq. It= is understandable for any sovereign government to wish to have situational= awareness about the activities of foreign troops in their country, but how= this coordination is conducted could have a significant impact on the secu= rity of U.S. forces. For example, will U.S. ground forces have freedom of = movement or will they be required to seek permission of local, provincial, = or national Iraqi authorities to conduct patrols? Who can veto proposed U.= S. actions? Will there be limits on the types of actions that can be under= taken, such as restrictions on air strikes, even in self defense? Will U.S= . forces be allowed to conduct counter-battery fire in response to mortar a= nd missile attacks on bases? If patrols and other combat actions must be c= oordinated with Iraqi authorities in advance, with what authorities, and ho= w will operational security be maintained? Will U.S. forces have to seek p= ermission to pursue those who attack them or will units in =93hot pursuit= =94 be allowed to follow their attackers wherever in Iraq it is required? =20 A number of media articles have also discussed proposed limits on U= .S. authorities to arrest and detain Iraqis. While it again is rational fo= r any sovereign government to not allow a foreign army to detain its citize= ns at will, if not handled carefully this could have a directly negative im= pact on the security of U.S. forces and their effectiveness in combat. For= example, what assurances will be given that those who attack U.S. forces w= ill face the Iraqi justice system and won=92t simply be released? Will U.S= . forces be allowed to detain or arrest Iraqi nationals at all? What mecha= nisms will be created to guarantee that intelligence developed from detaine= es that may have an impact on U.S. force protection or operations will be g= iven to U.S. forces? =20 =20 Many media articles, quoting Iraqi officials, have suggested that pr= ivate security contractors would no longer be immune from Iraqi law, even f= or official actions. Security contractors protect many facilities where U.= S. military forces are stationed and have protected convoys carrying suppli= es on which U.S. military forces depend. It is not unreasonable for the Ir= aqis to wish there to be legal controls on the behavior of these contractor= s, but it is also not impossible to imagine that the private security contr= actors will not wish to operate in what is perceived as a hostile legal env= ironment where they could be subject to arrest for actions taken in self-de= fense or simply by local authorities who resent their presence. Have the p= rivate security contractors been consulted about restrictions that could be= placed on their operations? Has the Department of Defense studied what me= asures would have to be taken, and how many personnel would be required, to= replace the security contractors if they no longer were willing or able to= operate in Iraq? If the security contractors were willing to continue to = operate in Iraq, will there be some sort of risk premium and what would the= cost be? =20 In most SOFAs, U.S. troops are not subject to prosecution for offic= ial actions, and are often exempted from any potential prosecution. Some r= ecent articles have suggested that the Government of Iraq may not be willin= g to accept such conditions. However, the judicial system in Iraq is not a= s developed as in some other nations with whom we have SOFAs, and that othe= r SOFAs that grant host nations the authority to arrest and try U.S. person= nel for some criminal actions apply only to U.S. troops stationed in those = countries during times of peace. I believe that the U.S. Congress will insi= st that any SOFA not subject U.S. troops in combat to Iraqi criminal law, a= nd we have passed provisions to this effect in the past. What guarantees w= ill be included in the SOFA providing U.S. troops with full immunity from p= rosecution? =20 =20 Finally, I would note that many other SOFAs require local authoriti= es to coordinate with U.S. forces to ensure the protection of the U.S. troo= ps. Will such a measure be included in the proposed SOFA? If so, how will= such coordination be conducted and ensured? What enforcement mechanism wi= ll be in place for such guarantees? Who will bear the costs for any action= s taken by the Iraqis to enhance U.S. security, and if they refuse to take = actions that we consider necessary, will the U.S. taxpayers have to pay to = make up for the Iraqis lack of action? =20 Many other questions can, and should, be asked about the proposed ag= reements with Iraq, from the strategic justification for such to long-term = basing concerns to how an agreement is used as leverage to push political r= econciliation in Iraq to the potential for an agreement to violate, or at l= east stretch, constitutional boundaries. I share the concerns of most memb= ers of Congress about all these areas, and I hope that the Administration w= ill be forthcoming about addressing all of them. But in my view, we cannot= even begin to discuss them without some assurances that U.S. troops are no= t going to be put at greater risk than they are now by a proposed agreement= . Our troops have done all we have asked, often at tremendous personal ris= k, and they should not be asked to face additional, unnecessary risk for no= good reason. I hope that you agree, and I look forward to your response t= o these questions. =20 Very truly yours, /s/ IKE SKELTON Chairman ###

McCain camp devastated by spokesman's death by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 17, 2008

Demand Bush define permanent (bases) by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 16, 2008

Canadian media report what US ignore by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 14, 2008

Iatterfield (of the AIPAC spy ring) pushes Iraq occupation by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 11, 2008

The Dem nomination by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 11, 2008

Published on Friday, June 6, 2008 by CommonDreams.org Why Obama Won by Stephen Zunes Barack Obama has won the race for the Democratic nomination for president against Hillary Clinton on the issues. Sort of. This is not what the pundits will tell you, who would rather focus upon the most superficial and trivial aspects of the two final candidates' style, personality, associates, personal history, and campaign organization and strategy, not to mention race and gender. This is not what many on the left will say either, in recognition of how little differences there were between the two candidates' stated positions on most policies. Still, Obama was able to defeat the once-formidable Hillary Clinton because he was perceived to be the better candidate among the increasingly progressive base of the Democratic Party. Many progressive supporters of Clinton pointed out how many on the left tended to criticize their candidate incessantly for her militaristic and pro-corporate policies while making excuses for similar positions taken by Obama. Obama's public positions on issues which ran counter to most progressive voters were often rationalized as being necessary in order for him to be elected or as part of the unfortunate reality of corporate power in the American political system, while Clinton's similar positions were attacked as a reflection of her real agenda. To the extent that this was true, a major reason that the left may have cut Obama more slack than it did Clinton is that many progressives gave the Clintons just that kind of benefit of the doubt back in 1992. The line at that time was that "Bill Clinton has to say those things in order to get elected, but once in office, his policies will be far more progressive than his campaign rhetoric, which is aimed at winning votes from the center." The reality, however, was that the policies emanating from the Clinton White House over the next eight years were not to the left but actually to the right of positions he touted during the campaign. Though seven and a half years of President George W. Bush makes the Clinton Era look pretty good by comparison, the reality was that the Clintons presided over the most conservative Democratic administration of the twentieth century. As a result, there was an assumption among many party progressives that a second Clinton White House would be more of the same. Obama, by contrast, has not yet had the opportunity to disappoint. It certainly doesn't mean that he won't. In fact, he probably will. Yet it appears that most Democrats in the progressive wing of the party took the attitude that the Clintons had their chance and blew it, so let's give the nomination to the new guy who worked as a community organizer, who has a more grass roots focus, whose progressive policy positions have been more longstanding and consistent, and who has relied more on small donations and less on corporate contributors. The most significant reason Clinton lost, however, was Iraq. Obama's outspoken and principled opposition to the war back in 2002 and his public recognition that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States or any of Iraq's neighbors contrasted sharply with Clinton's support for the war and her false and alarmist statements about alleged Iraqi WMDs and links to Al-Qaeda. (See my article Obama vs. Clinton - October 2002.) Indeed, Clinton's vote to allow President Bush to invade a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to us went well beyond "bad judgment" and moral culpability for the predictable tragedy that resulted: it was demonstrative of her dismissive attitudes toward international law, the United Nations system, the U.S. Constitution, and common sense. (See my article Why Hillary Clinton's Iraq Vote Does Matter. ) If Clinton had apologized for her vote or come out against the war earlier, as did former Senator John Edwards, she would have probably won the nomination. She failed to do so, however. And, combined with her hawkish policies in regard to Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, there was little reason to suspect that, as president, she wouldn't pursue similarly disastrous policies toward other Middle Eastern conflicts. (See my articles Hillary Clinton on International Law and Human Rights and Hillary Clinton on Military Policy.) It is certainly true that, during his first two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama - like Clinton and virtually every other Senate Democrat - supported unconditional funding for the war, a position that angered his anti-war supporters. Similarly, Obama's own policy statements in regard to Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Iran - as well as nuclear proliferation, globalization and other foreign policy issues - are, while better than Clinton's, still quite disappointing for those of us looking for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy. Still, there is little question that Obama defeated Clinton as a result of the power of the anti-war movement and the fact that, unlike 2004, it is no longer possible for a senator to have unapologetically voted to grant President Bush unconditional authority to launch a war of aggression at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and still receive the Democratic nomination for president. The best hope for a progressive administration under a President Obama, then, may be in the fact that the Illinois senator's base is so much more progressive than he is. Just as any number of Republican politicians - who personally may not have much affinity with the Christian right's obsession with abortion and homosexuality - have felt obliged nevertheless to play to their base with policies and appointments which cater to their interests, Obama may feel similarly obliged in regard to the Democratic left. By contrast, Clinton was more the candidate of the party establishment, which gave rise to the assumption that her appointments and policies would have more reflected those interests. Though this distinction was not absolute - there are plenty of establishment figures supporting Obama and plenty of grass roots feminists and other progressives who supported Clinton - there is little question to whom Obama would owe his election. Perhaps what has been most hopeful about the 2008 Democratic presidential race is the fact that both Obama and Clinton - as well as all the Democratic candidates who had dropped out earlier - took positions on Iraq, global warming, civil liberties, globalization, and other key issues considerably more progressive than did eventual nominee John Kerry or any of the major Democratic contenders in 2004. It is a reminder that it may be less important whom we elect as the choices we give them. As the adage goes, if the people lead, the leaders will follow. Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Status of the Iraq Permanent Base deal by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 11, 2008

Bush Administration Says it May Not Get Iraq Deal This Year ///////////////////////////////////////// by Lolita C. Baldor AP News http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=204946 June 9, 2008 VIA Cord Macguire" The Bush administration is conceding for the first time that the United States may not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before President Bush leaves office. Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much authority the U.S. must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly the handover takes place. The official said the goal is still to have an agreement by year's end. And the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said he feels no pressure from the U.S. political calendar, and that Dec. 31 is "a clear deadline." Still, Crocker also said last week: "My focus on this is more on getting it done right than getting it done quick." The Bush administration is seeking an agreement with Baghdad that would provide for a normal, permanent U.S. military and diplomatic presence in Iraq. The word "permanent" has been a flashpoint for many who oppose the war, both in the U.S. and Iraq. But the U.S. official stressed that the agreement will not call for permanent U.S. bases on Iraqi soil. Instead, the proposed agreement would allow U.S. troops or personnel to operate out of U.S., Iraqi or joint facilities through either short or long-term contracts, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are not public. "The idea that the U.S. will have a normal, diplomatic and military presence, and need access to facilities — not necessarily our facilities, but need facilities — is permanent," said the official, who is close to the ongoing talks. Those facilities, the official said, could belong to the Iraqis, and the U.S. would simply be using them on a renewable basis. Or they could be existing U.S. facilities that over time would be taken over by the Iraqis. U.S. and Iraqi leaders are struggling to negotiate two parallel agreements. One would lay out broad, long-term political, economic and security ties between the U.S. and Iraq, setting up a normal state-to-state relationship. The second — and decidedly more difficult pact — is the Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq. The agreements would replace a United Nations mandate that has been in place since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, but expires at the end of this year. The U.S. and Iraq may be able to map out the broader document describing the two countries' long-term relationship, but may have to extend the current U.N. mandate because many of the thornier military details will require more time, the U.S. official said. Iraqi officials have raised a number of objections to the draft documents, both publicly and privately. And they are now suggesting that the latest proposal isn't even worth submitting to their parliament for approval. On Monday two Iraqi lawmakers who saw the proposed draft said the document, put forward Sunday, said it seeks to address some of Iraq's concerns. It adds an explicit promise that U.S. forces in Iraq will not attack neighboring countries and that Iraqi authorities will be notified in advance of any action by U.S. ground forces, the lawmakers said. While it gives U.S. forces the power to arrest suspects, it says any detainees would be handed over to Iraqi authorities, said the lawmakers, Mahmoud Othman and Iman al-Asadi. Hadi al-Amri, head of the Badr Organization, a pro-government Shiite party with close ties to Iran, said the latest draft was still unacceptable, and warned that the positions and interests of the two sides are so far apart that any kind of agreement is "impossible." Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been meeting with Iranian leaders in Tehran this week, and Iran's supreme leader voiced strong opposition to the U.S.-Iraqi security pact. The Iranians fear the deal would solidify U.S. influence in Iraq and give American forces a launching pad for military action against them. Al-Maliki tried to ease Tehran's concerns, assuring the Iranians that a deal would pose no threat to their security. Preserving Iraq's sovereignty is the critical underpinning of the agreement, affecting all of the more specific, and troublesome issues. For example, while the Iraqis want control of their own air space, the U.S. questions whether Iraq commanders should have to approve every aircraft flight or combat operation. Iraq has been expanding and improving its military, but approving each of the many U.S. troop movements that go on daily all across the country likely would be beyond its current capability. Another option would be for U.S. commanders to coordinate movements with the Iraqis, but only require approval for certain operations. A key priority for Washington is to maintain the U.S. military's ability to gather intelligence and conduct counterterrorism activities. One way to resolve the matter would be to include provisions in the agreement that would expire, or require renewal every year or two. That would allow a gradual transition to greater Iraqi control as the country advances. One key sticking point involves the Iraqis' desire to end the blanket immunity that U.S. contractors now enjoy. But U.S. officials believe that security contractors working for the State Department and Defense Department should continue to be immune under Iraqi law. The issue gained notoriety last year after a shooting incident involving Blackwater Worldwide guards left 17 Iraqi civilians dead. A second point involves coalition forces currently serving in Iraq. The security agreement would only apply to U.S. forces, so the Iraqis would have to decide how to deal with troops from other countries that are included in the U.N. mandate. ***

US role in Israel-Lebanon battle by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 11, 2008

FPIF Policy Report U.S. Role in Lebanon Debacle Stephen Zunes | May 18, 2007 Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco, IPS Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert continues to resist pressure that he resign following the publication late last month of the interim report by a special Israeli commission on Israel's war on Lebanon last summer. Military chief Dan Halutz has already been forced to step down and Defense Minister Amir Peretz has announced he will also be resigning shortly. The report from the Winograd commission concludes that "the decision to respond with an immediate, intensive military strike was not based on a detailed, comprehensive and authorized military plan." In making the decision to go to war in Lebanon, the Israeli government "did not consider the whole range of options, including that of continuing the policy of 'containment.'" Unlike previous Israeli commissions that critically examined alleged government misdeeds, and were appointed by the Israeli Supreme Court, the Winograd Commission was appointed by the Olmert government itself. That makes its harsh criticism all the more surprising. It is also indicative of how, despite years of military occupations and war crimes against its neighbors by successive governments, as well as the systemic discrimination against the country's Arab minority, Israeli democracy is strong enough to allow for a rigorous investigation of their leaders' decision to launch an unnecessary and self-defeating war. It's more than can be said for the United States. During the five weeks of fighting in July and August, 119 Israeli soldiers and 43 Israeli civilians were killed. More than 1,100 Lebanese were killed, the vast majority of whom were civilians. The commission failed, however, to address the fact that the Israeli government went well beyond what constituted legitimate self-defense in its response to Hezbollah's provocative attack on an Israeli border outpost and kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by targeting major segments of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure unrelated to the radical militia. The report also failed to directly address the large-scale war crimes committed by Israeli forces in its attacks on civilian population centers. Bush Administration Exerted Pressure Nor did the commission directly address the reason as to why Israel, in the words of the report, decided to "launch a military campaign and deviate from the policy of containment." The answer in large part lies in pressure exerted on Olmert by the Bush administration, which had long been pushing the Israelis to launch a war on Lebanon to cripple Hezbollah, the anti-American Shiite Islamist movement allied with Iran. Seven weeks before the start of the war, in his May 23 summit with Olmert, Bush strongly encouraged the Israeli prime minister to launch an attack on Lebanon soon, offering full U.S. support for the massive military operation. Just three days later, Israeli agents assassinated two Islamic militants in Sidon, leading to a series of tit- for-tat assassinations and abductions which eventually led to Hezbollah's July 12 seizure of two Israeli soldiers, which was then used as the excuse for a war that had been planned for many months. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh quoted a consultant with the U.S. Department of Defense soon after the outbreak of the fighting as describing how the Bush administration "has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a preëmptive blow against Hezbollah." He added, "It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it." A War Planned in Advance Rather than a spontaneous reaction to Hezbollah's July 12 attack on Israel's northern border, as depicted by the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both parties, Israel and the United States had been planning the war since at least 2004. Israeli officials had briefed U.S. officials with details of the plans, including PowerPoint presentations, in what the San Francisco Chronicle described as "revealing detail." Though the Winograd Commission report cited poor planning on logistics, political science professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University was quoted as saying, "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared. In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal." In addition, Hersh noted how "several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, 'to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear,'" soon getting the final approval from Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and soon thereafter President George W. Bush. Some reports indicated that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was less sanguine about the proposed Israeli military offensive, believing that Israel should focus less on bombing and more on ground operations, despite the dramatically higher Israeli casualties that would result. Still, Hersh quotes a former senior intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld was "delighted that Israel is our stalking horse." As Ze'ev Schiff, dean of Israel's military correspondents put it, "Rice is the figure leading the strategy of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense Minister Amir Peretz." In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Martin Indyk-who served in the Clinton administration as Assistant Secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs and U.S. ambassador to Israel-noted that the United States had no leverage on Hezbollah except "through Israel's use of force." As Haaretz analyst Shmuel Rosner wrote during the fighting, "the way has been found for Israel to recompense the administration for its supportive attitudes during the six year of the Bush administration," illustrating "the regional power's importance for the great power." "America Is Fully Complicit" As the fighting continued into its third week and with civilian casualties mounting, international and domestic pressure increased on Israel to stop the onslaught, but Rice flew to Israel to push the government to continue prosecuting the war. As veteran Israeli journalist Uri Avnery put it, "Rice was back and forth, dictating when to start, when to stop, what to do, what not to do. America is fully complicit." By the first week of August, domestic pressure was forcing the Israelis to rethink continuing the war indefinitely. Fearing the Israelis might seek a cease fire, Bush reportedly told them, "You can't stop now; you're acting for all of us." Israel indicated its willingness to accept a 10,000-member NATO force in southern Lebanon as a condition for a cease-fire, but the Bush administration was demanding that Hezbollah accept a 30,000-member force or be defeated militarily first. However, by the beginning of the second week of August, it was becoming apparent to U.S. officials that Israelis were becoming increasingly resentful of their role as an American proxy. While the worsening humanitarian crisis and international outcry was not enough for the Bush administration to shift U.S. policy, a senior administration official reported that "it increasingly seemed that Israel would not be able to achieve a military victory, a reality that led the Americans to get behind a cease-fire." That the war on Lebanon was fought primarily as an effort to advance America's hegemonic objectives in the Middle East rather than as a defense of Israel's legitimate security interests is made more apparent by how damaging the war was to Israel's political and strategic interests. An Unnecessary War In the years prior to Israel's July 12 air strikes on Lebanese cities, which prompted Hezbollah's retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel cities, the militia had become less and less of a threat. No Israeli civilian had been killed by Hezbollah for more than a decade (with the exception of one accidental fatality in 2003 caused by a Hezbollah anti-aircraft missile fired at an Israeli plane illegally violating Lebanese airspace landing on the Israeli side of the border), and there had been no Hezbollah attacks against civilian targets since well before the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000. Virtually all of Hezbollah's military actions between May 2000 and July 2006 had been against Israeli occupation forces in a disputed border region between Lebanon and the Israel-occupied portion of southwestern Syria. Hezbollah's longstanding policy had been that they would fire into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on their political leadership or on Lebanese civilians. When the Israeli government, in preparation for the U.S.-backed assault on Lebanon, advised residents in northern Israel to participate in a drill in May 2006, a number of communities reported they could not locate the keys to the bomb shelters since they had been out of use for so long. Hezbollah was down to about 500 full-time fighters prior to the Israeli assault, and a national dialogue was going on between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government regarding disarmament. As the Winograd Commission report points out, Hezbollah was not enough of a serious threat to Israel's security that required such a massive strike against it, much less the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon as a whole. Though Hezbollah had hardly renounced their extremist ideology, major acts of terrorism were largely a thing of the past. War Boosted Support for Hezbollah The majority of Lebanese had opposed Hezbollah, both its reactionary fundamentalist social agenda as well as its insistence on maintaining an armed presence independent of the country's elected government. Thanks to the U.S.-backed Israeli attacks on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, however, support for Hezbollah grew to more than 80% according to polls, even within the Sunni Muslim and Christian communities. Within four months of successfully countering the Israeli invasion, Hezbollah was in strong enough a position to launch a civil rebellion to oust Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Sinora's moderate pro-Western government. Even Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of State during Bush's first term and a leading hawk, acknowledged by the third week of the conflict that "the only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis." As Israelis began to recognize how deleterious the war was to Israel's legitimate security interests, a growing awareness emerged of the American role in getting them into that mess. Not long after the beginning of the war, reports began to circulate how a growing number of Israeli leaders, including some top military officials, were furious at Bush for pushing Olmert to war. This was also apparent at the grassroots level. A Haaretz article on an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv July 22 noted how "this was a distinctly anti-American protest" that included "chants of 'We will not die and kill in the service of the United States' and slogans condemning President George W. Bush." U.S. Congress Still Backing War Though Israelis on the streets of Tel Aviv may have been declaring their unwillingness to "die and kill in the service of the United States," an overwhelming bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress passed resolutions that offered unconditional support for Bush's backing of the war on Lebanon. The Senate version passed on a voice vote, and there were only eight dissenting votes in the House. The House version - co-sponsored by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), whom the Democrats later named to chair the House Foreign Relations Committee - went so far as to praise Israel for "minimizing civilian loss," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and to claim that the attacks were "in accordance with international law," despite an a broad consensus of international legal opinion to the contrary. A number of the otherwise liberal members of Congress who supported the July 20 House resolution responded to constituents' outraged at their vote by claiming they were simply defending Israel's legitimate interests. In reality, however, by supporting Bush administration's support for the massive Israeli attacks and blocking international efforts to impose a cease fire, these self-proclaimed "friends of Israel" were in fact defending policies which cynically use Israel to its detriment in order to advance the Bush administration's militarist agenda. Meanwhile, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - now the front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination - defended the role of the Jewish state as an American proxy, praising Israel's efforts to "send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians [and] to the Iranians," for their opposition to the United States' and Israel's commitment to "life and freedom." At that time, American journalist Robert Scheer made the far more reasonable observation that "long after Bush is gone from office, Israel will be threatened by a new generation of enemies whose political memory was decisively shaped by these horrible images emerging from Lebanon. At that point, Israelis attempting to make peace with those they must coexist with will recognize that with friends such as Bush and his neoconservative mentors, they would not lack for enemies." Overwhelming Bipartisan Support Even Israelis who recognize the key role the Bush administration had in goading Israel on to attack Lebanon correctly emphasize that rightist elements within Israel had their own reasons independent from Washington to pursue the conflict. And yet, while they certainly believe that Israeli leaders who agreed to serve as American surrogates and prosecuted the war so poorly should be held accountable for their actions, there is still enormous bitterness that the Bush administration - with overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress - was so willing to sacrifice Israeli lives and Israel's long-term security interests to advance American imperial objectives. Indeed, given the enormous dependence Israel has on the United States militarily, economically, and diplomatically, this latest war on Lebanon could not have taken place without a green light from Washington. President Jimmy Carter, for example, was able to put a halt to Israel's 1978 invasion of Lebanon within days and force Israel to withdraw from the south bank of the Litani River to a narrow strip just north of the border. The strident condemnation of the former Democratic president by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean and other leading Democrats in recent months in response to Carter's recent book in which he reiterates his strong support for Israel but criticizes its occupation policies as contrary to the interests of peace and security is indicative how far to the right the Democratic Party has come under its current leadership. While the Lebanese people, their infrastructure, and their environment suffered the most from this immoral and misguided U.S. policy, Israel was a victim as well. Just as ruling elites of medieval Europe cynically used some members of the Jewish community as money-lenders and tax-collectors in order to maintain their power and set up this vulnerable minority as scapegoats, so the United States is cynically using the world's only Jewish state to advance its hegemonic agenda in the Middle East, thereby contributing to the disturbing rise of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments in the Islamic world. Despite the Winograd Commission's shortcomings,