Archive: Michael Munk's National Messages:

We should be skeptical about US pullout by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 30, 2009

The real reason the US refuses to reveal those numbers is keep Iraqis celebrating a "pullout" ignorant of the facts. US "combat" troops are being rebranded as "advisors and "trainers" and US bases inside cities are being re-mapped as outside.fined as down Iraqi anger. Many analysts who should know better are stenographing the Bush/Obama spin. The occupation continues. US Iraq commander loses cool over troop numbers Jun 30, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN30262848 VIA http://www.legitgov.org/ WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - Tuesday was a day of celebration in Iraq as U.S. forces handed control of the cities to Iraqi authorities, but the top U.S. commander was less than joyous when pressed on how many of his troops would remain. Speaking via satellite from Baghdad, U.S. Army General Ray Odierno lost his cool at a briefing for Pentagon reporters when he was repeatedly questioned about the number of U.S. troops that would remain in the cities as advisers to Iraqi forces. Asked why he could not give a figure, he became visibly irritated, raised his voice and replied: "Because it would be inaccurate! Because I don't know exactly how many are in the cities. It varies day-to-day based on the mission." Pressed to give a rough figure, he snapped: "How many times you want me to say that? I don't know." Odierno, one of the most formidable figures in the U.S. military, apologized for his outburst at the end of the briefing. "Sorry I lost my temper a little bit on the number," he said, to some laughter from reporters. (Reporting by Andrew Gray) visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

2002 NYT celebrates coup; 2009 WSJ celebrates coup by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 29, 2009

How Iran counts votes by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 28, 2009

Apply for taxpayer money to promote democracy in Iran by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 28, 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/usaid.pdf visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Remembering US anti- fascist martyr Mildred Harnack by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 28, 2009

East German stamp (1964), one of a series honoring Mildred and Arvid = Harnack and other members of the "Red Orchestra." If you get the New York Times, check out my letter in today's (June 28) = Sunday Book Review or read it at = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Letters-t-CONDUCTINGRE_LET= TERS.html?ref=3Dreview It's about the American anti-Nazi fighter Mildred Fish Harnack, a brave = Madison, Wisconsin native who was beheaded in 1943 in Berlin's = Pl=F6tzensee prison. She was the only US citizen executed on Hitler's = personal order but pretty much forgotten today. That's her and her = husband (executed a few months before her) on an East German stamp. Both = of them posthumously received the Order of the Red Banner from the = Soviet Union in 1969. On a recent visit to Berlin I visited and photographed three sites which = commemorate Mildred Harnack-- Plotzensee prison in = Charlottenberg-Wilmersdorf, the Bendlerblock German Resistance Center in = Tiergarten and the Mildred Harnack Oberschule in Lichtenberg. For more, = see Shareen Blair Brysac: Resisting Hitler. Mildred Harnack and the Red = Orchestra. Oxford University Press 2000. ISBN 0-19-515240-9 )=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama' s Vietnam: A Brit has to say it by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 28, 2009

Obama Must Call Off this Folly before Afghanistan Becomes his Vietnam by Simon Jenkins The Guardian (UK) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/25/afghanistan-vietnam-taliban-iraq-dannatt VIA cord macguire June 25, 2009 If good intentions ever paved a road to hell, they are doing so in Afghanistan. History rarely declares when folly turns to ­disaster, but it does so now. Barack Obama and his amanuensis, Gordon Brown, are uncannily repeating the route taken by American leaders in Vietnam from 1963 to 1975. Galbraith once said that the best thing about the Great Depression was that it warned against another. Does the same apply to Vietnam? Vietnam began with Kennedy's noble 1963 intervention, to keep the communist menace at bay and thus make the world safe for democracy. That is what George Bush and Tony Blair said of ­terrorism and Afghanistan. Vietnam escalated as the Diem regime in Saigon failed to contain Vietcong aggression and was deposed with American ­collusion. By 1965, despite Congress scepticism, American advisers, then planes, then ground forces were deployed. Allies were begged to join but few agreed - and not Britain. The presence of Americans on Asian soil turned a local insurgency into a regional crusade. Foreign aid rallied to the Vietcong cause to resist what was seen as a neo-imperialist invasion. The hard-pressed Americans resorted to ever more extensive bombing, deep inside neighbouring countries, despite ­evidence that it was ineffective and politically counterproductive. No amount of superior firepower could quell a peasant army that came and went by night and could terrorise or merge into the local population. Tales of American atrocities rolled in each month. The army counted success not in territory held but in enemy dead. A desperate attempt to "train and equip" a new Vietnamese army made it as corrupt as it was unreliable. Billions of dollars were wasted. A treaty with the Vietcong in 1973 did little to hide the humiliation of eventual defeat. Every one of these steps is being re-enacted in Afghanistan. Every sane observer, even serving generals and diplomats, admit that "we are not winning" and show no sign of doing so. The head of the British army, Sir Richard Dannatt, remarked recently on the "mistakes" of Iraq as metaphor for Afghanistan. He has been supported by warnings from his officers on the ground. Last year's denial of reinforcements to Helmand is an open secret. Ever since the then defence secretary, John Reid, issued his 2006 "London diktats", described in a recent British Army Review as "casual, naive and a comprehensive failure", intelligence warnings of Taliban strength have been ignored. The army proceeded with a policy of disrupting the opium trade, neglecting hearts and minds and using US air power against "blind" targets. All have proved potent weapons in the Taliban armoury. Generals are entitled to plead for more resources and yet claim that ­victory is just round the corner, even when they know it is not. They must lead men into battle. A heavier guilt lies with liberal apologists for this war on both sides of the Atlantic who continue to invent excuses for its failure and offer glib preconditions for victory. A classic is a long editorial in ­Monday's New York Times, congratulating Barack Obama on "sending more troops to the fight" but claiming that there were still not enough. In addition there were too many corrupt politicians, too many drugs, too many weapons in the wrong hands, too small a local army, too few police and not enough "trainers". The place was damnably unlike Connecticut. Strategy, declared the sages of Manhattan, should be "to confront the Taliban head on", as if this had not been tried before. Afghanistan needed "a functioning army and national police that can hold back the insurgents". The way to achieve victory was for the Pentagon, already spending a stupefying $60bn in Afghanistan, to spend a further $20bn - increasing the size of the Afghan army from 90,000 to 250,000. This was because ordinary Afghans "must begin to trust their own government". These lines might have been written in 1972 by General Westmoreland in his Saigon bunker. The New York Times has clearly never seen the Afghan army, or police, in action. Eight years of training costing $15bn have been near useless, when men simply decline to fight except to defend their homes. Any Afghan pundit will attest that training a Pashtun to fight a Pashtun is a waste of money, while training a Tajik to the same end is a waste of time. Since the Pentagon ­originally armed and trained the Taliban to fight the Soviets, this must be the first war where it has trained both sides. Neither the Pentagon nor the British Ministry of Defence will win Afghanistan through firepower. The strategy of "hearts and minds plus" cannot be realistic, turning Afghanistan into a vast and indefinite barracks with hundreds of thousands of western soldiers sitting atop a colonial Babel of administrators and professionals. It will never be secure. It offers Afghanistan a promise only of relentless war, one that Afghans outside Kabul know that warlords, drug cartels and Taliban sympathisers are winning. The 2001 policy of invading, ­capturing Osama bin Laden and ­ridding the region of terrorist bases has been tested to destruction and failed. ­Strategy is reduced to the senseless slaughter of hundreds of young western soldiers and thousands of Afghans. Troops are being sent out because Labour ministers lack the guts to admit that Blair's bid to quell the Islamist menace by force of arms was crazy. They parrot the line that they are making "the streets of London safe", but they know they are doing the opposite. Vietnam destroyed two presidents, ­Johnson and Nixon, and ­destroyed the global confidence of a ­generation of young Americans. ­Afghanistan - ­obscenely dubbed the "good war" - could do the same. There will soon be 68,000 American troops in that country, making a mockery of Donald Rumsfeld's 2001 tactic of hit and run, which at least had the virtue of coherence. This is set fair to be a war of awful proportions, cockpit for the feared clash of civilisations. Each new foreign ­battalion taps more cash for the Taliban from the Gulf. Each new massacre from the air recruits more youths from the madrasas. The sheer counterproductivity of the war has been devastatingly analysed by David Kilcullen, adviser to Obama's key general - David Petraeus - no less. Obama is trapped by past policy ­mistakes as were Kennedy and Johnson, cheered by an offstage chorus crying, "if only" and "not enough" and "just one more surge". He and Petraeus have to find a means and a language to ­disengage from Afghanistan, to allow the anti-western hysteria of the Muslim world - which the west has done so much to foster - now to cool. It is hard to imagine a greater tragedy than for the most exciting American president in a generation to be led by a senseless intervention into a repeat of America's greatest postwar debacle. As for British politicians, they seek a proxy for their negligence in Afghanistan by staging a show trial of their ­negligence in Iraq. Why do they fiddle while Helmand burns? Might they at least ask how they can spend £40bn a year on defence yet watch a mere 8,000 troops on their one active front having to be rescued by Americans? *** visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US pulling out of Iraqi cities? by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 25, 2009

Election fraud: what kind the US protests by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 25, 2009

The AP reported three years ago http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14672039/ : "The unanimous decision by the [Mexican] Federal Electoral Tribunal rejected allegations of systematic fraud and awarded [the Right wing candidate] Calderon the presidency by 233,831 votes out of 41.6 million cast in the July 2 elections - a margin of 0.56 percent. The ruling cannot be appealed. " The Mexican Left's street protests were far larger than Iran's, but the US government and media were undisturbed. Obama just killed about 80 Muslims with his drones in Pakistan-many more than killed in Iran (where Iran claims eight of the dead were were Basijis http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98984§ionid=351020101) As Renate Bridenthal reminds us: "Remember when the U.S. didn't back Lopez Obrador who protested Felipe Calderon's stolen election in Mexico? It's never about fraud, it's about which horse we back." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Occupied Iraq opens to big oil by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 25, 2009

Risks battle rewards as Iraq opens up its oilfields By Ahmed Rasheed . Reuters Jun 25, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090625/wl_nm/us_iraq_oil_contracts BAGHDAD (Reuters) - For the first time since the U.S. invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, global oil firms will have a run at Iraq's vast oil resources when Baghdad auctions off contracts in its biggest fields this month. The June 29-30 tender for service contracts in six already producing oilfields and two undeveloped gas fields is fraught with risk following a revolt in the state-run oil industry, and amid violence and political uncertainty. Oil companies say they have no choice but to bid -- the allure of the world's third largest oil reserves, and of greater riches down the road from Iraq's under-exploited and under-explored oil resources is just too great. "These fields are the jewels of the Iraqi oil industry," a senior executive at an international oil company planning to bid told Reuters. "Of course we'll be there. But it's a big risk to take. We can win the contract, but can we execute it? Who will approve the deals? Will the local partners cooperate?" In addition to the revolt, semi-autonomous Kurds have warned they could make it difficult for companies to work around the disputed northern city of Kirkuk, while Iraq's parliament has insisted it must approve every deal. "A huge controversy has surrounded this first licensing round since before it even began," said former oil minister Esam al-Chalabi. "As expected, the process will not be safe and the foreign companies will face inevitable problems ahead." When former President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, critics charged it was because the United States wanted to get its hands on Iraq's 115 billion barrels or more of reserves. Eyebrows may be raised if oil companies from nations that took part in the invasion, like Britain, walk away winners. But on the face of it, it is Iraq that is calling the shots. The contracts are 20-year service deals, which offer payment based on a fixed fee for additional output. Oil firms prefer production sharing deals that allow them to book some of the reserves and take a share of the profit. Winning firms must pay the Iraqi Oil Ministry $2.6 billion in signature bonuses and cover Iraq's 25-percent share of development costs, which it will pay back in oil. Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, summoned before parliament, insisted the deals were in Iraq's interests, and would earn the country $1.7 trillion over the next two decades in additional oil revenues. The first auction aims to add 1.5 million barrels per day to Iraq's output of 2.4 million barrels per day -- lower than before the invasion. A second round at year-end for undeveloped fields could add 2.5 million barrels per day, helping boost output above 6 million barrels per day in five years. Dependent on crude exports for 95 percent of state revenues, Iraq desperately needs cash to rebuild after years of sectarian war between once dominant Sunni Muslims and majority Shi'ites. Some Iraqi oil executives, including the head of the South Oil Co., which produces most of Iraq's oil, oppose the deals because Iraq has invested $8 billion since the invasion in the fields, including super giants North and South Rumaila. "The service contracts will put the Iraqi economy in chains and shackle its independence for the next 20 years. They squander Iraq's revenues," South Oil Co. Director General Fayad al-Nema told Reuters in an interview. But many experts believe Iraq does not on its own have the capital and expertise needed to renovate oil infrastructure wrecked by decades of war, sanctions, sabotage and neglect. "The oil officials who are objecting to these contracts have to prove they can do the same job and raise output, but from what we have seen on the ground over the last six years, that's turned out to be a myth," said Iraqi geologist Whael Matti. Ahmed al-Rawi, a professor at Baghdad University, said Iraq did not have the people, let alone the money, to improve output. "We need the help of foreign companies because all our national capital and all Iraqi scientists have fled abroad." The challenges to operating in Iraq remain huge. The violence that almost tore it apart after the invasion has receded, but bombings that kill dozens remain common. Foreign oil executives and infrastructure will be considered high-value targets by Sunni Islamist insurgents like al Qaeda and the former remnants of Saddam's now outlawed Baath party. The potential legal and political hurdles are also daunting. Iraq's parliament has failed to agree on new hydrocarbon legislation because of a potentially explosive row over oil and land between the Kurds and Baghdad's Arab-led government. Without new laws, Shahristani relies on legislation dating back to the nationalization of Iraq's oil industry in 1972. Iraq holds a parliamentary election next January that could usher in a new government with new oil policies. Parliament may find a way to have the oilfield contracts declared illegal. "If they're relying on Saddam-era laws, then each contract will have to be reviewed ... individually by parliament," said an oil executive at an international energy company. "Any company that signs is taking a huge risk in this climate." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Moment of truth for Obama by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 25, 2009

Robust Health Care Reform is the Moment of Truth for Obama and the Democrats By Theda Skocpol - June 24, 2009, 9:51AM http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/24/robust_health_care_reform_is_the_moment_of_truth_f/?ref=fpd Fellow Americans, and fellow Democrats and Obama supporters, we are at a moment of truth, a pivotal turning point -- in the form of what happens in the next days and weeks with robust, universal health reform. A fork in the road socially, economically -- and politically. It could go either way depending on Obama and the Democratic officeholders many of us worked so hard to elect. They have the power to act, but will they use it -- or lose it? If at this remarkable juncture Obama and the Democrats cannot enact a robust health care reform -- with a strong nationwide public option, cost controls, and nearly universal coverage -- I would not want to be in charge of fundraising and mobilization for them in the 2010 and 2012 elections! Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican.. But if Obama and the Democrats cannot act now on a once in a half century challenge and opportunity, they are not worthy of extra energy. And those of us who wrote big checks last time will tell the Democrats -- especially in the Senate -- to hold pharmaceutical fundraisers instead. Key leaps forward for U.S. public social provision -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- have NEVER happened through "bipartisan" compromises and they always happen in close votes. They have always sqweaked through after gargantuan effort, strong presidential pressure, and refusal to allow eviscerating compromises. Think of Social Security if the Clark amendment -- allowing corporate opt-out -- had passed in 1935. We would not have it. And conservatives and the medical and insurance establishments cried "socialism" in 1965, too. We would not have Medicare if we had listened. Obama and the Democrats are coming off a historic, landslide election. They have all the popular support for robust reform they will ever have. Good policy design as well public desire for change and considerations of social justice and economic efficiency insist that they enact health care reform with a strong public plan in the mix. That is the only way to move toward cost control and guaranteed access with quality to all -- especially for Americans in lower economic strata or in rural states where one or two private insurers call the tune. There is no need for "bipartisanship" and the calls for it from some weak-kneed Democrats are merely excuses for doing the business of the medical-insurance establishment. Senators Baucus, Conrad, Feinstein, Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh -- this means you. All of you come from states where people really need robust reform and you should step up. The stakes here in political-economic terms are NOT between a "free market" and "government control." They are between two alternative uses of government regulations and subsidies: We will in America continue on the path set over the past thirty years: using government regulations and subsidies to distribute income and security upward, to guaranteed private profits; or will we redirect government interventions toward expanding popular security and leveling the economic playing field for various businesses? So-called conservatives seeking "compromise" on health care reform want more subsidies for their buddies' profits, and want to force more Americans to buy inefficient products (through a mandate to buy private insurance). If Obama and the Democrats agree to such compromises under the name of "reform" they will have squandered the country's future economically -- and undercut their own political fortunes for the future. Because let's not kid ourselves: WHATEVER passes this year will make the Democrats owners of the health care mess going forward. If they just throw more subsidies and piecemeal regulations into the current system, they will ensure galloping public costs for residual arrangements and for subsidies to private insurers who will easily find ways to avoid sick or costly patients. Businesses and citizens will grow more and more irritated as time passes, and will blame the Democrats. Rightly so. And to return to my theme at the start: no matter if Senate Democrats still think they are operating in the world of the 1980s or 1993, they are not. Activist Democrats -- mobilizers, volunteers, bloggers, analysts, and donors -- are watching them. We will know exactly who blocks or eviscerates real reform here. We WILL blame the Senate and the responsible individual Senators. And many of us will blame the Obama adminsitration if it does not take a strong stand on the public option and real reform, starting right now. Whatever he says in public, Obama needs to draw lines in the sand with Democrats in private -- and get tough. If he does not, and this fizzles into no legislation or reform in appeance only, energy will dissipate from the Demorats and the Obama movement. There will be the wrong kind of turning point for them -- and for America. So step up now, Obama and the Democratic Party. Your moment is here and now. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Scowcroft: 'of course' US agents in Iran by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 25, 2009

US 'has agents working inside Iran' Al-Jazeera, June 25, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009624225744811593.html The US has intelligence agents in Iran but it is not clear if they are providing help to the protest movement there, a former US national security adviser has told Al Jazeera. Brent Scowcroft said on Wednesday that "of course" the US had agents in Iran amid the ongoing pressure against the Iranian government by protesters opposed to the official result of its presidential election. But he added that he had no idea whether US agents had provided help to the opposition movement in Iran, which claims that the authorities rigged the June 12 election in favour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president. "They might do. Who knows?" Scowcroft told Josh Rushing for Al Jazeera's Fault Lines programme. "But that's a far cry from helping protesters against the combined might of the Revolutionary Guard, the militias and so on - and the [Iranian] police, who are so far completely unified." Scowcroft's admission that Washington has agents stationed in Iran comes a day after the US president issued tougher rhetoric against the government in Iran. Barack Obama's sterner tone came after days of deadly clashes between the opposition and Iranian security forces and militias. Obama has been criticised by US conservative politicians for not taking a stronger line against Tehran amid the government crackdown, but Scowcroft, a former adviser to presidents Gerald Ford and the senior George Bush, said the US could only do so much. "We don't control Iran. We don't control the government, obviously," he said. "There is little we can do to change the situation domestically in Iran right now and I think an attempt to change it is more likely to be turned against us and against the people who are demonstrating for more freedom. "Therefore, I think we need to look at what we can do best, which is to try to influence Iranian behaviour in the region." At least 19 people have been killed in post-election violence in Iran, which broke out at the scene of protests questioning the veracity of the poll results.[NOTE: Iran claims 8 Basijis were among them http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98984§ionid=351020101 ] Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger to Ahmadinejad, has rejected the official results of the vote and has called for a fresh election to be held, while Mehdi Karoubi, another defeated candidate in the election, has called the new government "illegitimate". But the Guardian Council, Iran's highest legislative body, has said that there were no incidences of major fraud in the vote and has declared that the official results will stand. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama bans our own photos but publicizes Iran's by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 25, 2009

Helen Thomas to Obama: If you see the importance of Neda video, why won't you release abuse photos? TPM June 24, 2009 http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/truthseeker77/2009/06/helen-thomas-to-obama-if-you-s.php?ref=fpd For the last question at his press conference yesterday, Obama was asked by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux about his reaction to that video and to reports that Iranians are refraining from protesting due to fear of such violence. As Obama was answering -- attesting to how "heartbreaking" he found the video; how "anybody who sees it knows that there's something fundamentally unjust" about the violence; and paying homage to "certain international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression" -- Helen Thomas, who hadn't been called on, interrupted to ask Obama to reconcile those statements about the Iranian images with his efforts at home to suppress America's own torture photos ("Then why won't you allow the photos --"). The President quickly cut her off with these remarks: THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different question. (Laughter.) The White House Press corps loves to laugh condescendingly at Helen Thomas because, tenaciously insisting that our sermons to others be applied to our own Government, she acts like a real reporter... [Just as in Obama's first news conference, he carefully dodged when Thomas asked him if he knew any countries in the middle east which had nuclear weapons.] visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

2007: CIA launches destabilization against Iran by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 24, 2009

Why Iran is suspicious of "Iran protests, all the time" on US media Bush Authorizes New Covert Action against Iran Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report: ABC News, May 22, 2007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5734 VIA . The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions. "I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region. A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity." The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community. Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq. "There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official. Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran. "Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides." The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear bomb in two years. Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program. "The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said. Under the law, the CIA needs an official presidential finding to carry out such covert actions. The CIA is permitted to mount covert "collection" operations without a presidential finding. "Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders. The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran. Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks. "I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said. Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. "The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it." Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges. He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992. In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions. As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region." U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials. American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection. A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment." A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah. The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Tehran-like demos also banned in US by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 24, 2009

Obama kills 60 Muslims--where's the Twitter? by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 23, 2009

U.S. Drone Strike Said to Kill 60 in Pakistan http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html By PIR ZUBAIR SHAH and SALMAN MASOOD New York Times: June 23, 2009 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - An airstrike believed to have been carried out by a United States drone killed at least 60 people at a funeral for a Taliban fighter in South Waziristan on Tuesday, residents of the area and local news reports said. Details of the attack, which occurred in Makeen, remained unclear, but the reported death toll was exceptionally high. If the reports are indeed accurate and if the attack was carried out by a drone, the strike could be the deadliest since the United States began using the aircraft to fire remotely guided missiles at members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The United States carried out 22 previous drone strikes this year, as the Obama administration has intensified a policy inherited from the Bush administration. Before the attack on Tuesday, the Pakistani Army and Air Force had begun operations in South Waziristan against the forces of the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud. The group's suicide bombings in major cities have terrorized Pakistanis for years. In a serious blow to Pakistan's effort, on Tuesday an assassin loyal to Mr. Mehsud shot and killed a rival tribal leader, Qari Zainuddin, whom the government had hoped to use as an ally in its campaign to corner the Taliban leader. The killing called into question the government's strategy of exploiting tribal fissures in order to defeat Mr. Mehsud and was apparently intended to serve as a reminder that there were serious consequences for crossing him, analysts said. "It tells people, if you side with the government, this is what will happen to you," said Talat Masood, a retired general and a military analyst. "It says the government can't give you protection, but the other side can." The army, which is already involved in operations against Taliban strongholds in the Swat Valley and other areas, would now have to rely more on its own soldiers to take on the Taliban in South Waziristan as well, he said. Mr. Zainuddin was killed in the northwestern town of Dera Ismail Khan, said Iqbal Khan, the town's district police chief, and the tribal leader's death revealed the tenuous hold of his splinter group in the area. The initial investigation, the police chief said, indicated that the shooting was carried out by a guard named Gulbadin Mehsud, who may have infiltrated Mr. Zainuddin's ranks and escaped after the attack. Another guard was wounded in the attack, he said. In recent months, Mr. Zainuddin and his group had helped the government by denying Baitullah Mehsud and his fighters the ability to operate in the region, killing about 30 of Mr. Mehsud's fighters. When he was in his 30s, Mr. Zainuddin was part of Mr. Mehsud's tribe. However, Mr. Zainuddin split with Mr. Mehsud and joined forces with Turkestan Bhaitani, an older Taliban fighter who had switched sides to ally with the government. The two men had held a jirga, or tribal meeting, this month with as many as 100 elders of the Mehsud tribe in the town of Tank in an effort to rally opposition to Mr. Mehsud. Officially, the Pakistani military denies supporting the effort. Mr. Zainuddin was selected as successor to Abdullah Mehsud, a top Taliban militant who died in 2007 as security forces raided a hide-out in Baluchistan Province. Mr. Zainuddin had claimed that he had the ability to take on Baitullah Mehsud with the support of 3,000 fighters. "Baitullah Mehsud is not involved in jihad because Islam does not allow suicide attacks, which his group is perpetrating," Mr. Zainuddin was quoted as saying in an interview. Some reports in the local news media have also suggested that Mr. Mehsud killed Mr. Zainuddin's father years ago. Pakistani jets have aimed at Mr. Mehsud's hide-outs in recent days, and the funeral in Makeen that was hit on Tuesday was being held for a Taliban commander killed that day. While the strike on the funeral may have been conducted by the Pakistani Air Force, residents and local news reports uniformly attributed it to a United States drone. The dead may have included top commanders for Mr. Mehsud. The Geo Television Network, quoting unnamed sources, said that the dead included a trainer of suicide bombers named Qari Hussain as well as a Taliban commander named Sangeen, though there was no way to immediately verify the report. Another television channel, AAJ, put the death toll at 60 and said the attack was carried out by a guided missile. Sabrina Tavernise contributed reporting from Lahore, Pakistan. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Liberal group silent on funding Obama's wars by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 23, 2009

MoveOn Resumes [very modest] Antiwar Stance By Tom Hayden The Nation June 22, 2009 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/hayden?rel=emailNation After being criticized for abandoning the antiwar stance that won it millions of activist supporters, the organization sent targeted mailings supporting the demand for an Obama administration exit strategy report contained in HR 2404, by Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. The measure, which requires the Pentagon to outline an exit strategy from Afghanistan by December 31, had only eighty-four co-sponsors last week, and was blocked by the House Democratic leadership from consideration as part of the supplemental military appropriation of $100 million. Currently it is pending in the House, still opposed by the Obama administration. The bill represents an uncertain trumpet for Democrats who were willing to impose exit deadlines from Iraq on the outgoing Bush administration. Both President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have spoken in favor of an Afghanistan exit strategy in the past, which means their opposition to the McGovern legislation reflects a deep-running struggle between the executive and legislative branches over war-making powers. The White House was extremely active in lobbying Democrats to vote for the war supplemental without conditions. Only thirty-two Democrats were willing to stand up against the administration. The refusal of MoveOn to engage in the supplemental fight, or oppose the escalation in Afghanistan, meant a reduction of grassroots antiwar pressure on wavering Congressional members. Until last week, Congressional antiwar leaders were questioning where MoveOn, with its 5 million members, stood on the vote. Despite its modest nature, MoveOn's entry into the debate could be an important factor in legitimizing antiwar criticism of the Obama policies among Democrats. Antiwar sentiment at the grassroots is smothered by the unwillingness of several organizations to openly oppose the war escalation, despite their roots in the antiwar movement against Iraq. The silent organizations thus far include Democracy for America and its founder, Howard Dean, Ben Cohen's True Majority, and the Obama campaign's offshoot, Organizing for America. The Feminist Majority even supported the $80 billion war supplemental with an amendment supporting women's programs in Afghanistan. The Feminist Majority argued against another antiwar organization, Win Without War, taking an oppositional stand on the supplemental. National Peace Action, while opposing the supplemental, also supported the Feminist Majority's amendment to the supplemental, which failed anyway in the end. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Remember? Iraq is all about oil by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 21, 2009

Oil rush: Scramble for Iraq's wealth Critics said the war was all about the nation's lucrative fuel industry. Are they now being proved right? Patrick Cockburn reports from Baghdad The Independent (UK), 21 June 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/oil-rush-scramble-for-iraqs-wealth-1711570.html For many Iraqis, the reason the US invaded their country in 2003 was to get control of their oil. I never believed this at the time. I thought that the US overthrew Saddam Hussein and occupied Iraq primarily because it wanted to reassert its power after 9/11 and believed the war in Iraq would be easily won. It is only now, six years after the American invasion, that the battle for the control of Iraqi oil production is moving to the centre of politics in Baghdad. On 29 and 30 June, the Iraqi government will award contracts under which international oil companies will take a central role in producing crude oil from Iraq's six super-giant oilfields over the next 20 to 25 years. By coincidence, 30 June is also the date on which the last American troops will be leaving Iraqi cities. On the very day that Iraq regains greater physical authority over its territory, it is ceding a measure of control over the oilfields on which the future of the country entirely depends. The contracts have been heavily criticised inside Iraq as a sell-out to the big oil companies, which are desperate to get back into Iraq - oil was nationalised here in 1972, and Iraq and Iran are the only two places in the world where immense quantities of oil might still be discovered. Several of those criticising the contracts work in the Iraqi oil industry. "The service contracts will put the Iraqi economy in chains and shackle its independence for the next 20 years," said Fayad al-Nema, head of the state-owned South Oil Company, which produces 80 per cent of Iraq's crude. "They squander Iraq's reserves." The government made a serious miscalculation last year. It believed the oil price would stay around the $140-a-barrel mark. It raised government salaries and hired more employees - who now total at least two million, double the level under Saddam Hussein. Some 600,000 people work in the army, the police and the security apparatus. Expensive contracts were signed for the supply of electric plants and aircraft. When the price of oil unexpectedly collapsed - though it has risen again in the past few months - the Iraqi government found itself broke. Its revenues are being swallowed up by the higher salaries, the rationing system and recurrent costs. It has frozen government hiring, but it dare not cut the number of state employees because the availability of new jobs is one reason that levels of violence have fallen. Cut-backs might damage the government's prospects in the crucial parliamentary election next January that will decide who holds power in Iraq for years to come. Government in Iraq is all about oil, because it produces 95 per cent of the state's revenue. Saddam accused Kuwait of deliberately driving down the price of oil in 1990 to wreck the Iraqi economy, and this was one of the reasons he gave for invading the emirate. The fall in the price of oil is bad news for Iraq, but more disastrous is the decline in its output, which has been dropping sharply owing to years of neglect. Out of 1,400 oil wells in southern Iraq - an area responsible for 80 per cent of production - a third are no longer working. "It's a fearful situation," says Jabbar al-Luaibi, a former head of the South Oil Company and a government adviser. Iraqis and non-Iraqis alike have come to think of crises in Iraq in terms of people slaughtering each other. This has been the pattern over the past six years. But Iraqis are now waking up to the fact that they face a different type of crisis, one that will profoundly affect their future. Aside from oil, Iraq exports very little apart from dates. Most of the crude is pumped out of super-giant oilfields such as Kirkuk and Bai Hassan in the north and Zubair, Rumaila, Missan and Qurna in the south. It is their output which is now in disastrous decline. In the last year of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, and despite UN sanctions, the country produced 2.6 million barrels a day of crude. This compares to 2.4 million today, and both these figures are well down on the 3.5 million Iraq produced in the 1970s. The government's desperate need to increase oil output, at a time when it does not have any money to invest, has given it no option but to turn to the international oil companies. The Iraqi Oil Minister, Hussain Shahristani, says he needs $50bn for investment which he does not have. Under the service contracts to be signed at the end of the month, the companies do not get a share of Iraq's oil, but they will get a fee for halting the fall in output and then increasing production. The deal is not perfect from their point of view, but such is their eagerness to return to Iraq that they will go along with it. The government feels it has no choice but to give up a measure of control over its one asset in return for expertise and investment - though this situation is partly of its own making. The economy is a barely floating wreck. It has suffered from 30 years of war, sanctions and occupation. For six years the US and successive Iraqi governments have talked about reconstruction, but they have done little. I long ago developed a simple test for propaganda claims about reconstruction: I climb on the roof of my hotel in the Jadriyah district of Baghdad and study the skyline to see if any cranes are visible. To this day there are almost none - aside from a few rusting ones where Saddam was building a giant mosque, and, until recently, a cluster where the US was erecting a giant new embassy. There are improvements in Baghdad: security is much better than last year. But the two million refugees abroad are still not coming back in large numbers, and it is easy to see why. There is more electricity, but still less than in Amman or Damascus. The petrol supply is better and you only occasionally see long queues of vehicles outside petrol stations. But not all the change is in the right direction. Iraq now has about 18 million mobile phones compared to none under Saddam Hussein. They are essential for communication in a country where violence, checkpoints and traffic jams make it difficult to see people in person. But over the past six months, the mobile phone system has got worse and worse. Often I dial half a dozen times before getting through, and then it is like talking to somebody at the bottom of a mineshaft. I have been driving around Baghdad to see how far ordinary life is returning. I live in Jadriya, in a loop on the river Tigris, which I always hoped was as safe as Baghdad was ever going to get because it is overwhelmingly Shia - the uprising against the US in 2003-07 was Sunni - and President Talabani has his own heavily guarded district across the road from my hotel. These days there are people on the streets at midnight sitting in simple cafes with glaring lights. The same is true in parts of the Karada district where shopkeepers normally live above their shops. But this is not typical. On the other side of the Tigris, in mixed or Sunni areas, restaurants close at nine in the evening. This is inconvenient as people in Baghdad used to be nocturnal at this time of year, to avoid the intense summer heat. I am wary about what restaurants I go to. This is partly because I am invariably the only foreigner. Many of them also have bad memories. I have started going again to the White Palace restaurant, which I had deserted after an Iraqi journalist was shot and wounded there a few years ago. In west Baghdad the Sumad, a Kurdish-owned restaurant, was hit by a car bomb and several killed, but they have reopened with a comforting brick wall just inside the plate glass window. Some areas have gone up and others down in the years of violence. Shurja, once the centre of Baghdad's great markets, is much emptier these days and the big merchants supplying Iraq often live in Dubai. Everywhere there are signs of poverty. In the centre of the city my car had to manoeuvre between a donkey cart and a tricycle rickshaw, one of many being imported from China. Almost nothing is made in Iraq. Even the heaps of watermelons by the fruit stalls are often imported from Syria. Only the rationing system has kept many Iraqis from starvation in recent years, and this alone costs $6bn annually. The government cannot afford to see its oil revenues go down, which explains why it is ignoring criticism of the new oil contracts. The US may not have invaded Iraq in order to control its oil reserves, but a consequence of the invasion has been to bring back the international oil companies. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Are you sure Mousavi (or Bush) won the election? by Michael Munk Fri, Jun 19, 2009

Some Observations on the Iranian Presidential Election and Its Aftermath 19 June 2009 by: Phil Wilayto, t r u t h o u t | Perspective http://www.truthout.org/061909R?n Phil Wilayto is a writer and Black history activist in Richmond. His Virginia Defenders website is http://defendersfje.tripod.com/id58.html and his latest book is "In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic." He can be reached at philwilayto@earthlink.net Phil Wilayto is the editor of The Virginia Defender newspaper and author of "In Defense of Iran: Notes from a US Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic." He can be reached at: DefendersFJE@hotmail.com. As the world watches, massive demonstrations in Iran - some say the largest since the 1979 Revolution - are denouncing the results of the June 12 presidential election. Official announcements that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad garnered nearly 63 percent of the vote are being met with cries of "fraud" by supporters of his principal challenger, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. While there's still time to rationally look at the elections, I'd like to offer a few observations. The dominant view among Western commentators, as well as some progressive members of the Iranian diaspora, is that Mousavi is a "reformer" who favors loosening restrictions on civil liberties within Iran, while being more open to a less hostile relationship with the West. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is described as a "hardliner" who demagogically appeals to the poor, while making deliberately provocative statements about the United States and Israel in order to bolster his standing in the Islamic world. In my opinion, both of the above characterizations are superficial. The fundamental contradiction between the two leading candidates has to do with their respective bases of support and, more importantly, their different approaches to the economy. Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people? Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them? Myself, I'm a worker, and a former union organizer. When I watched the videos and viewed the photos of the pro-Mousavi rallies in Tehran and other cities, I didn't feel elated - I felt a chill. To me, this didn't look like a liberal reform movement, it felt like a movement whose real target is a government that exercises a "preferential option for the poor," to use the words of Christian liberation theology. How about the economy? A big issue in Iran - virtually never discussed in the US media - is how to interpret Article 44 of the country's constitution. That article states that the economy must consist of three sectors: state-owned, cooperative and private, and that "all large-scale and mother industries" are to be entirely owned by the state. This includes the oil and gas industries, which provide the government with the majority of its revenue. This is what enables the government, in partnership with the large charity foundations, to fund the vast social safety net that allows the country's poor to live much better lives than they did under the US-installed Shah. In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow for some privatization. Just how much and how swiftly that process should proceed is a fundamental dividing line in Iranian politics. Mousavi has promised to speed up the privatization process. And when he first announced he would run for the presidency, he called for moving away from an "alms-based " economy (PressTV, 4/13/09), an obvious reference to Ahmadinejad's policies of providing services and benefits to the poor. In addition to their different class bases and approaches to the economy, Ahmadinejad presents an uncompromising front against the West, and especially against the US government. This is a source of great national pride and has produced some positive results. For example, President Obama has now actually admitted, at least in part, that it was the US that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. The whole idea that tossing Ahmadinejad out of office would make it easier to change US policy toward Iran is, in my opinion, very naive. Was Dr. Mossadegh a crazy demagogue? No, but he did lead the movement to nationalize Iran's oil industry. If Mousavi, as president, were to strongly state that he would refuse to consider any surrender of Iran's sovereign right to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, that he would continue to support the resistance organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, that he would continue to try and increase Iran's political role in the Middle East and that he would defend state ownership of the oil and gas industries, would the Western media portray him as a reasonable man? Further, there's the nature of Mousavi's election campaign. Obama called it a "robust" debate, which it certainly was, and a good refutation of the lie that Iran has no democracy. But it is also a political movement, one capable of drawing large crowds out into the streets, ready to engage in street battles with the president's supporters and now the police. Is it possible that the US government, its military and its 16 intelligence agencies are piously standing on the sidelines of this developing conflict, respecting Iran's right to work out its internal differences on its own? Could we expect that approach from the same government that still maintains its own 30-year sanctions against Iran, is responsible for three sets of UN-imposed sanctions, annually spends $70 to 90 million to fund "dissident" organizations within Iran and, according to the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, actually has US military personnel on the ground within Iran, supporting terrorist organizations like the Jundallah and trying to foment armed rebellions against the government? The point has been made that US neocons were hoping for an Ahmadinejad victory, on the theory that he makes a convenient target for Iran-bashers. But the neocons are no longer in power in Washington. They got voted out of office and are back to writing position papers for right-wing think tanks. We now have a "pragmatic" administration, one that would like to first dialog with the countries it seeks to control. I think what is important to realize is that Washington wasn't just hoping for a "reform" candidate to win the election - it's been hoping for an anti-government movement that looks to the West for its political and economic inspiration. Mousavi backer and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a free-market advocate and businessman whom Forbes magazine includes in its list of the world's richest people. Does Rafsanjani identify with or seek to speak for the poor? Does Mousavi? What kind of Iran are the Mousavi forces really hoping to create? And why is Washington - whose preference for "democracy" is trumped every time by its insatiable appetite for raw materials, cheap labor, new markets and endless profits - so sympathetic to the "reform" movements in Iran and in every other country whose people have nationalized its own resources? Would Iran be better off with a president who, instead of qualifying everything he says about the Holocaust, just came out directly and said, "Look, there's no question that millions of Jewish people were murdered in a campaign of genocide, but how does that justify creating a Jewish state on land that is the ancestral home of the Palestinians?" That would certainly make the job of anti-war activists much easier - and if you look hard enough, you can find something close to those words in Ahmadinejad's statements. But it wouldn't be enough. The US government and its complementary news media would just find another hook on which to hang their demonization of Iran and its government. The days ahead promise to be challenging ones for all those who oppose war, sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As we pursue that work, it would be good not to get caught up in what is sure to be a tsunami of criticism of a government trying to resolve a crisis that in all likelihood is not entirely homegrown. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Are you sure Mousavi (or Bush) won the election? by Michael Munk Fri, Jun 19, 2009

Some Observations on the Iranian Presidential Election and Its Aftermath 19 June 2009 by: Phil Wilayto, t r u t h o u t | Perspective http://www.truthout.org/061909R?n Phil Wilayto is a writer and Black history activist in Richmond. His Virginia Defenders website is http://defendersfje.tripod.com/id58.html and his latest book is "In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic." He can be reached at philwilayto@earthlink.net Phil Wilayto is the editor of The Virginia Defender newspaper and author of "In Defense of Iran: Notes from a US Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic." He can be reached at: DefendersFJE@hotmail.com. As the world watches, massive demonstrations in Iran - some say the largest since the 1979 Revolution - are denouncing the results of the June 12 presidential election. Official announcements that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad garnered nearly 63 percent of the vote are being met with cries of "fraud" by supporters of his principal challenger, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. While there's still time to rationally look at the elections, I'd like to offer a few observations. The dominant view among Western commentators, as well as some progressive members of the Iranian diaspora, is that Mousavi is a "reformer" who favors loosening restrictions on civil liberties within Iran, while being more open to a less hostile relationship with the West. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is described as a "hardliner" who demagogically appeals to the poor, while making deliberately provocative statements about the United States and Israel in order to bolster his standing in the Islamic world. In my opinion, both of the above characterizations are superficial. The fundamental contradiction between the two leading candidates has to do with their respective bases of support and, more importantly, their different approaches to the economy. Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people? Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them? Myself, I'm a worker, and a former union organizer. When I watched the videos and viewed the photos of the pro-Mousavi rallies in Tehran and other cities, I didn't feel elated - I felt a chill. To me, this didn't look like a liberal reform movement, it felt like a movement whose real target is a government that exercises a "preferential option for the poor," to use the words of Christian liberation theology. How about the economy? A big issue in Iran - virtually never discussed in the US media - is how to interpret Article 44 of the country's constitution. That article states that the economy must consist of three sectors: state-owned, cooperative and private, and that "all large-scale and mother industries" are to be entirely owned by the state. This includes the oil and gas industries, which provide the government with the majority of its revenue. This is what enables the government, in partnership with the large charity foundations, to fund the vast social safety net that allows the country's poor to live much better lives than they did under the US-installed Shah. In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow for some privatization. Just how much and how swiftly that process should proceed is a fundamental dividing line in Iranian politics. Mousavi has promised to speed up the privatization process. And when he first announced he would run for the presidency, he called for moving away from an "alms-based " economy (PressTV, 4/13/09), an obvious reference to Ahmadinejad's policies of providing services and benefits to the poor. In addition to their different class bases and approaches to the economy, Ahmadinejad presents an uncompromising front against the West, and especially against the US government. This is a source of great national pride and has produced some positive results. For example, President Obama has now actually admitted, at least in part, that it was the US that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. The whole idea that tossing Ahmadinejad out of office would make it easier to change US policy toward Iran is, in my opinion, very naive. Was Dr. Mossadegh a crazy demagogue? No, but he did lead the movement to nationalize Iran's oil industry. If Mousavi, as president, were to strongly state that he would refuse to consider any surrender of Iran's sovereign right to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, that he would continue to support the resistance organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, that he would continue to try and increase Iran's political role in the Middle East and that he would defend state ownership of the oil and gas industries, would the Western media portray him as a reasonable man? Further, there's the nature of Mousavi's election campaign. Obama called it a "robust" debate, which it certainly was, and a good refutation of the lie that Iran has no democracy. But it is also a political movement, one capable of drawing large crowds out into the streets, ready to engage in street battles with the president's supporters and now the police. Is it possible that the US government, its military and its 16 intelligence agencies are piously standing on the sidelines of this developing conflict, respecting Iran's right to work out its internal differences on its own? Could we expect that approach from the same government that still maintains its own 30-year sanctions against Iran, is responsible for three sets of UN-imposed sanctions, annually spends $70 to 90 million to fund "dissident" organizations within Iran and, according to the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, actually has US military personnel on the ground within Iran, supporting terrorist organizations like the Jundallah and trying to foment armed rebellions against the government? The point has been made that US neocons were hoping for an Ahmadinejad victory, on the theory that he makes a convenient target for Iran-bashers. But the neocons are no longer in power in Washington. They got voted out of office and are back to writing position papers for right-wing think tanks. We now have a "pragmatic" administration, one that would like to first dialog with the countries it seeks to control. I think what is important to realize is that Washington wasn't just hoping for a "reform" candidate to win the election - it's been hoping for an anti-government movement that looks to the West for its political and economic inspiration. Mousavi backer and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a free-market advocate and businessman whom Forbes magazine includes in its list of the world's richest people. Does Rafsanjani identify with or seek to speak for the poor? Does Mousavi? What kind of Iran are the Mousavi forces really hoping to create? And why is Washington - whose preference for "democracy" is trumped every time by its insatiable appetite for raw materials, cheap labor, new markets and endless profits - so sympathetic to the "reform" movements in Iran and in every other country whose people have nationalized its own resources? Would Iran be better off with a president who, instead of qualifying everything he says about the Holocaust, just came out directly and said, "Look, there's no question that millions of Jewish people were murdered in a campaign of genocide, but how does that justify creating a Jewish state on land that is the ancestral home of the Palestinians?" That would certainly make the job of anti-war activists much easier - and if you look hard enough, you can find something close to those words in Ahmadinejad's statements. But it wouldn't be enough. The US government and its complementary news media would just find another hook on which to hang their demonization of Iran and its government. The days ahead promise to be challenging ones for all those who oppose war, sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As we pursue that work, it would be good not to get caught up in what is sure to be a tsunami of criticism of a government trying to resolve a crisis that in all likelihood is not entirely homegrown. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Pathetic Dems rationaize their prowar vote by Michael Munk Fri, Jun 19, 2009

So-Called Members of the 'Responsible Left' Try to Justify Their $100 = Billion Pro-War Vote By Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports Posted on June 18, 2009, Printed on June 19, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://rebelreports.com//140754/ Over the past few days, we reported on how the White House and = Democratic Congressional Leadership waged a dirty campaign to scare up = votes to support another $106 billion in funds for their wars in Iraq, = Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now, several of the so-called anti-war = Democrats who left their principles at the House coat check on their way = in to vote Tuesday are trying to explain away their hypocritical votes.=20 New York Democrat Anthony Weiner, who voted against the war funding in = May -- when it didn't matter -- only to vote Tuesday with the pro-war = Dems, sounded like an imbecile when he made this statement after the = vote: "We are in the process of wrapping up the wars. The president = needed our support." What planet is Weiner living on? "Wrapping up the = wars?" Last time I checked, there are 21,000 more U.S. troops heading to = Afghanistan alongside a surge in contractors there, including a 29% = increase in armed contractors. Does Weiner think the $106 billion in war = funding he voted for is going to pay for one way tickets home for the = troops? What he voted for was certainly not the "Demolition of the 80 = Football-field-size U.S. Embassy in Baghdad Act of 2009." To cap off = this idiocy, Weiner basically admitted he is a fraud when he said the = bill he voted in favor of "still sucks." Jan Schakowsky, who has done some incredibly important work on = Blackwater and the privatized war machine, also voted against the = supplemental in May, but switched her vote on Tuesday. "I do believe my = president is a peacemaker," Schakowsky said. "I'm going to give him what = he wants." A peacemaker who is expanding war? Moreover, what happened to = the system of "checks and balances?" If Congressmembers, especially = anti-war ones like Schakowsky, start just giving the president "what he = wants," then where is the peoples' voice? How are these people sleeping at night? Obviously these folks are partisans or else they wouldn't be Democrats, = but this "Dear Leader knows best" mentality is cultish. Republican Rep. = Ron Paul, who, whatever one thinks of him, has been consistently opposed = to these wars, put it best when he rose on the floor Tuesday to speak = against the war funding: "I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues = who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. = I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed = every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It = seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the = war now that the White House has changed hands."=20 One anonymous Massachusetts lawmaker told Politico that those Democrats = who voted for the war funding and IMF credits are "what we call the = responsible left." Barney Frank, another flip-flopper on war funding, = compared the anti-war left to the Rush Limbaugh right-wing, saying, = "They have no sense of reality." Perhaps Rep. Frank should ask the Iraq = and Afghanistan veterans who lobbied intensely against the war funding = he supported if they have "no sense of reality." As previously discussed, this vote was a crucial test -- because the = White House and pro-war Democrats actually needed to get some 'anti-war' = legislators to vote with them or the bill would have failed -- in = determining which Democrats have a spine when it comes to standing up to = the war and which are just party operatives with their principles and = votes up for political bidding. While the White House reportedly told some Democrats who voted against = the war, "you'll never hear from us again," Obama has made it a point = this week to intervene to defend those hypocritical "anti-war" = legislators who voted with him. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn was one of the = 51 Democrats who voted against the funding in May and then consciously = misplaced his principles Tuesday. Cohen was targeted for his hypocrisy = by activists, spurring President Obama to issue a statement to local = media in his district praising Cohen: The White House Press Office called the Washington bureau of The = Commercial Appeal late Wednesday afternoon offering the statement after = anti-war liberals across the country derided Cohen as a "fraud" and one = who deserved a place in the "Hall of Shame." "Congressman Cohen is a leader in the United States Congress and a = strong voice for the people of Tennessee," Obama's statement declared, = adding that Cohen's vote will "ensure our men and women in uniform have = the resources they need to protect our country."=20 What is particularly telling is how Cohen doesn't even pretend his vote = had anything to do with principle or representing his constituents. It = was simple partisanship. "Maybe [Obama] just wanted to respond to people = who helped him," Cohen said. "Yes, I was surprised but I've been in the = president's corner on several occasions and it's good to have him in my = corner." All of this sounds, frankly, corrupt. Instead of using cold hard cash, = the White House threatens to pull the rug from under dissenting = legislators and offers its support to those who cede their conscience to = the president's agenda. So much for change. This spending bill is likely to sail through the Senate where there is = no group even vaguely resembling the ever-shrinking anti-war crowd in = the House. Once again, here are the Democrats who turned their backs on = their pledges to vote against this war funding: Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, = Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, = Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James = Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia = Vel=E1zquez, and Anthony Weiner. Jeremy Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most = Powerful Mercenary Army.=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Anti war party votes for war by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 18, 2009

The five senators voting against almost $90B for Obama's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were three reactionaries --Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC) and Enzi (R-WY)-- and only two progressives Feingold (D-WI) and Sanders (I-VT). Not voting were two sick senators, Byrd (D-WV) and Kennedy (D-MA) and one just disgraced one-- Ensign (R-NV). A sad commentary on the party who got antiwar votes . Only 32 opposed in the House, two in the Senate. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama pressures progressives by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 18, 2009

Obama and Anti-War Democrats 18 June 2009 by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective Days ago, a warning shot from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue landed with a thud on Capitol Hill near some recent arrivals in the House. The political salvo was carefully aimed and expertly fired. But in the long run, it could boomerang. As a close vote neared on a supplemental funding bill for more war in Iraq and Afghanistan, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that "the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no." In effect, it was so important to President Obama to get the war funds that he was willing to paint a political target on the backs of some of the gutsiest new progressives in Congress. But why would a president choose to single out fellow Democrats in their first Congressional term? Because, according to conventional wisdom, they're the most politically vulnerable and the easiest to intimidate. Well, a number of House Democrats in their first full terms were not intimidated. Despite the presidential threat, they stuck to principle. Donna Edwards of Maryland voted no on the war funding when it really counted. So did Alan Grayson of Florida, Eric Massa of New York, Chellie Pingree of Maine, Jared Polis of Colorado and Jackie Speier of California. Now what? Well, for one thing, progressives across the country should plan on giving special support to Edwards, Grayson, Massa, Pingree, Polis and Speier in 2010. If we take the White House at its word, they may find themselves running for re-election while President Obama withholds his support - in retaliation for their anti-war votes. But it's not enough to just play defense. We also need to be supporting - or initiating - grassroots campaigns to unseat pro-war members of Congress. In the Los Angeles area, the military-crazed and ultra-corporate Congresswoman Jane Harman will face the progressive dynamo Marcy Winograd in the Democratic primary next year. Harman's vote for the latest war funding was predictable. But dozens of Democrats with longtime anti-war reputations also voted yes. Among the most notable examples were Oregon's Peter DeFazio and Washington's Jim McDermott, who apparently found their anti-war constituencies in Eugene and Seattle to be less persuasive than the White House chief of staff. "White House aides worked the halls during the hours before the vote, and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called some lawmakers personally," McClatchy news service reports. "DeFazio, who was undecided and wound up voting yes, said he talked to Emanuel by phone for about five minutes as Obama's top aide explained the administration's strategy in the war on terror." This is a crucial time for anti-war activists and other progressive advocates to get more serious about Congressional politics. It's not enough to lobby for or against specific bills - and it's not enough to just get involved at election time. Officeholders must learn that there will be campaign consequences. When progressives challenge a Democratic incumbent in a primary race, some party loyalists claim that such an intra-party contest is too divisive. But desperately needed change won't come to this country until a lot of progressive candidates replace mainline Democrats in office. On behalf of his war agenda, the president has signaled that he's willing to undermine the political futures of some anti-war Democrats in Congress. We should do all we can to support those Democrats - and defeat pro-war incumbents on behalf of an anti-war agenda. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Twenty Dems capitulate, vite for wars by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 16, 2009

Obama hiding behind Single Payer supporters by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 16, 2009

U.S. commander sees fewer foreign fighters in Iraq ! by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 15, 2009

Is this a joke? Obama has committed more than 20,000 more foreign fighters! U.S. commander sees fewer foreign fighters in Iraq Mon Jun 15, 10:11 am ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090615/wl_nm/us_iraq_violence_foreigners BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq has seen a significant fall in the number of foreign fighters arriving to battle ... visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

UN Hits Obama for killing Afghans by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 14, 2009

Obama distorts significance of D-Day by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 13, 2009

TRUE AND FALSE IN OBAMA'S D-DAY SPEECH By Richard Becker (June 7, Party for Socialism and Liberation) http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/ "So when the ships landed here at Omaha [Beach], an unimaginable hell rained down on the men inside," President Barack Obama said as he spoke in Normandy on June 6, the 65th anniversary of "D-Day." This was certainly true. On that day in 1944, U.S., British and Canadian forces landed on the coast of France, opening the western front against Nazi Germany and its Axis allies in World War II. From the cliffs overlooking the beach, dug-in German troops and artillery, as well as airpower, pounded the soldiers coming ashore, many of whom never made it out of the landing craft. So intense and devastating was the fire, whether or not the Allied troops would be able to hold a beachhead was in doubt throughout the day. An estimated 9,000 soldiers of the 175,000 Allied invasion force, and 3,000 out of 250,000 Axis troops in Normandy, were killed on D-Day. Despite taking very heavy casualties, an Allied foothold was secured on the French mainland and was quickly expanded eastward. But much of the rest of Obama's speech was nothing more than resurrected Cold War propaganda, in which he characterized D-Day as not only the decisive turning point of World War II, but of the entire 20th century: "Had the Allies failed here, Hitler's occupation of this continent might have continued indefinitely. Instead, victory here secured a foothold in France. It opened a path to Berlin. It made possible the achievements that followed the liberation of Europe: the Marshall Plan, the NATO alliance, the shared prosperity and security that flowed from each. "It was unknowable then, but so much of the progress that would define the 20th century, on both sides of the Atlantic, came down to the battle for a slice of beach only six miles long and two miles wide." In reality, the decisive battles of World War II were fought not on the Western Front, in North Africa or the Pacific; they were fought inside the Soviet Union. Destruction of the Soviet Union was the number one objective of Hitler and the Nazi war machine. Through most of the war, 80% of Nazi divisions were deployed inside the USSR. The Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-1943 was the single most decisive battle of the war. Not only was the Nazi army's advance stopped, but their Sixth Army was surrounded and totally destroyed. Stalingrad was also the bloodiest battle in world history, with more than 1.5 million casualties-800,000 on the German side and 700,000 on the Soviet side. The battle raged for months, most of the time in sub-zero temperatures. A few months later, in July-August 1943, the largest tank and artillery battle in history saw the Soviet forces inflict another devastating defeat on the Nazi military. At Kursk, 900,000 German troops, with 3,000 tanks and 2,110 aircraft attacked 1.3 million Soviet forces with 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery guns and 2,800 aircraft. The Soviets lost over 500,000 soldiers at Kursk-more than the combined U.S. military deaths in both the European and Pacific fronts. In the summer of 1944, the Soviet Red Army destroyed two major Nazi army groups made up of 2 million soldiers. By fall, the Red Army was beginning operations that would liberate Eastern Europe from the fascists. The war in Europe would continue until May 1945, with much heavy fighting and millions more - soldiers and civilians - killed and wounded. Obama's assertion that "Hitler's occupation of this continent might have continued indefinitely" if Allied forces had not succeeded on D-Day lacks all credibility. By June 6, 1944, Germany's eventual defeat was assured thanks to the massive defeats it had suffered on the eastern front. Many scenarios for how the war might end still existed, but continued Nazi occupation of Europe was not one of them. While they had received some supplies from the United States, the Soviets had to bear the full force of Nazi terror virtually alone. Since 1942, Soviet Premier Josef Stalin had been pressing U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to open the western front. And since 1942, Roosevelt and Churchill had promised to do so - and then stalled. Meanwhile, the USSR's losses mounted by the millions, and then tens of millions. At war's end, the number of Soviet citizens killed exceeded an appalling 27 million, roughly half military and half civilian casualties. U.S. deaths in war were 400,000. What finally made the June 6, 1944, Allied landing urgently needed, from Washington and London's point of view, was the prospect that the Soviet Union might very well defeat and destroy Nazism and liberate all of Europe by itself. In a world where anti-fascist revolutionary currents were rising across Europe and Asia, this was viewed as a grave threat to capitalism's future existence. Obama's D-Day speech honors a long tradition among leaders of the Western capitalist powers of rewriting history to their own ends. But for those interested in an objective appraisal of history, the tremendous sacrifices of the Soviet people in the struggle against fascism will be remembered as nothing short of heroic. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Those Viennese leaks on Iranian nukes by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 13, 2009

What is it about North Teheran by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 13, 2009

Excerpt from Al-Jazeera report on the Iranian election http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009613172130303995.html Mehran Kamrava, the director of the centre for international and regional studies, at Georgetown University's campus in Qatar, said that protests in northern Tehran were not necessarily an indication of a rigged ballot. "The western media has been talking to people in north Tehran, who tend to vote overwhelmingly against Ahmadinejad," he told Al Jazeera. "But let's not forget that many of the urban Iranians have priorities and proclivities that are not necessarily reflected in other areas of the main cities, and those people could easily have voted for Ahmadinejad. "Iranian politics have proved themselves to be notoriously unpredictable and this could be one of those instances of unpredictability." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Who will vote against Obama's wars? by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 13, 2009

Why Vote "Yes" for the War and the IMF? 12 June 2009 by: John Nichols | Visit article original @ The Nation http://www.truthout.org/061309F The Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are aggressively whipping House Democrats to support the 2009 war supplemental bill that seeks to steer another $10o billion in US tax dollars into the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time squandering at least $5 billion on the failed economic schemes of the International Monetary Fund. But the more than 51 Democrats who opposed an earlier version of the supplemental are giving her a hard time and that's making the project a hard sell for Pelosi. And rightly so. This is a very bad bill. Californian Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, leading critics of the Iraq War, pointed out in a letter to their colleagues that "the primary intent of this legislation is to continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." That, they point out, is not what President Obama or Democrats in Congress were elected to do. "Continued funding of war operations in Iraq ensures a continued occupation thereby undermining the stated U.S. goal for withdrawal by the end of 2010," argue Woolsey and Kucinich. "Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all of our troops and contractors home immediately." Masschusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, another anti-war Democrat, expressing concerns about the administration's push to increase the troop presence in Afghanistan, says, "As much as I love President Obama, I believe that this administration needs to come up with some benchmarks and an exit strategy." Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur told Congressional Quarterly about personal lobbying of members by Pelosi: Earlier this week, the Speaker approached Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio progressive who sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and asked Kaptur to reconsider her "no" vote. Rather than making a case based on the policy, Kaptur said, the Speaker asserted that Obama and congressional Democrats needed to clear the decks of "the last old business" left over from the Bush administration. Kaptur was unmoved. "I don't agree with her analysis that we're cleaning up for Bush," said Kaptur, who worries that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly and that the administration lacks a plan for success in Afghanistan. "This is Obama's first chance. This is his first wave." The questioning of the war is appropriate and necessary. But it is also right to question the money for the IMF, which Kucinich and California Congressman Bob Filner, another Democrat, worry could be part of a broader scheme to "bail out private European banks with U.S. taxpayer money." Even if the money goes straight into IMF coffers for its loan programs, that's a problem, as the IMF continues to pressure countries around the world to cut social services and undermine infrastructure as part of wrongheaded "structural adjustment" initiatives. As of now, the word is that the conference report on the war supplemental will reach the floor early next week. That means that lobbying of members this weekend could be crucial. As Kucinich says, "From what I can see, [members who so far have refused to bow to pressure from the administration and Pelosi] are concerned about going home and having to explain why they voted for the war when their constituents are opposed to it..." Opponents of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of unsound economic strategies, should feed those concerns by telling their representatives to vote "No" to war and the IMF. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Torture lawyer Yoo can be sued by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 13, 2009

Judge: Ex-Bush lawyer can be sued over torture San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 2009 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/12/MND5186KL8.DTL VIA http://www.legitgov.org/ By Bob Egelko, Staff Writer A prisoner who says he was tortured while being held for nearly four years as a suspected terrorist can sue former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo for coming up with the legal theories that justified his alleged treatment, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White's decision marks the first time a government lawyer has been held potentially responsible for the abuse of detainees. "Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct," White said in refusing to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit against Yoo. If Padilla, now serving a 17-year prison sentence on terrorism charges, can prove his allegations, he can show that Yoo "set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla's constitutional rights," White said. White, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, noted that Padilla's lawsuit accuses Yoo of helping to design administration policy on detention and torture, and then crafting legal opinions to justify it - stepping outside the usual role of a lawyer. Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor, was an attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003 and wrote a series of memos on interrogation, detention and presidential powers. The best-known memo, written to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales in 2002, said rough treatment of captives amounted to torture only if it caused the same level of pain as "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." The memo also said the president may have the constitutional power to authorize torture of enemy combatants. A 2001 Yoo memo, made public by the Obama administration, said U.S. military forces could use "any means necessary" to seize and hold terror suspects in the United States. Yoo could not be reached at his Berkeley office Friday. A spokesman for the Justice Department, which is representing him and has argued for dismissal of the suit, was unavailable for comment. Padilla's lawyers issued a statement saying they are "pleased that our client will get his day in court and the right to challenge the unconstitutional conduct to which he was subjected." John Eastman, law school dean at Chapman University in Orange County, where Yoo taught for the past year, said the ruling is unique - the first to hold any administration official potentially liable for alleged mistreatment of terrorist suspects. Eastman predicted that the Justice Department will file an immediate appeal, going to the Supreme Court if necessary. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and accused by the Bush administration of plotting with al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb." Declared an enemy combatant, Padilla was held in a Navy brig for three years and eight months and was denied all contact with the outside world for the first half of that period, his suit said. He was then taken out of the brig and charged with taking part in an unrelated conspiracy to provide money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. He was convicted and has appealed. His suit against Yoo covers his time in the brig. He says he was detained illegally, held for lengthy periods in darkness and blinding light, subjected to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation, confined in painful stress positions, and threatened with death to himself, harm to his family and transfer to a nation where he would be tortured. The suit said Yoo - who has acknowledged being a member of an administration planning group known as the "war council" - personally reviewed and approved Padilla's detention in the brig and provided the legal cover for his treatment. At a hearing in March, Justice Department lawyer Mary Mason told White that courts had no power to scrutinize high-level government decision-making, especially in wartime. But White said Friday that Padilla had a right to sue "the alleged architect of the government policy" on enemy combatants. He said an examination of Yoo's publicly disclosed writings would not damage national security, and an inquiry into "allegations of unconstitutional treatment of an American citizen on American soil" would not affect foreign relations. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

House antiwar Dems capitulate? by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 11, 2009

25 More Dems needed against wars by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 10, 2009

The 23 Dem loan shark senators by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 9, 2009

Oregon troops sue KBR by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 8, 2009

Oregon soldiers sue KBR for exposure to cancer-causing chemical in Iraq by Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian June 08, 2009 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/oregon_soldiers_sue_kbr_for_ex.html Five current and former Oregon Army National Guard soldiers filed suit Monday against a war contractor that they say knowingly exposed them to a cancer-causing chemical in Iraq. The suit alleges that managers from Kellogg, Brown & Root, or KBR, of Houston knew before the Oregon Guard arrived at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in May 2003 that the site was contaminated by hexavalent chromium, a highly toxic and long-identified carcinogen. The plaintiffs allege the company either failed to do the required testing a month before the Guard arrived or destroyed the records to conceal the contamination. KBR also discounted soldiers' and civilians' bloody noses and other symptoms of exposure as sand allergies. The Oregon Guard had been assigned to protect civilian employees working at the treatment plant, a key component of Iraqi oil production. In a written statement Monday, KBR director of communications Heather L. Browne said the company appropriately notified the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversaw the contractor's work. "KBR has provided the results of environmental testing and assessments to the U.S. Military and will continue to fully cooperate with the government on this issue," she wrote. "KBR did not knowingly harm troops." According to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, KBR's health safety manager in southern Iraq knew in May 2003 the plant was contaminated with sodium dichromate, a corrosion fighter that is almost pure hexavalent chromium. (The military believes Saddam loyalists opened and scattered bags of it as they fled the plant.) Plaintiffs allege that KBR managers repeatedly told U.S. and British soldiers there was no danger, even after blood tests on civilian workers later confirmed elevated chromium levels. The suit says the five plaintiffs developed symptoms of hexavalent chromium poisoning and continue to suffer breathing problems, stomach and esophageal ulcers and headaches, and face a greater risk of cancer and impact on their offspring. The Oregon troops served with the 1st Battalion, 162nd Infantry Division that rotated through duties guarding civilians at Qarmat Ali from April to June 2003. Four of the plaintiffs -- Larry Roberta, of Aumsville, Scott Ashby of Lake Oswego. Rocky Bixby of Hillsboro and Matthew Hadley of Aloha -- completed their Guard obligation and are civilians. Capt. Charles Ellis of Junction City remains with the Guard and is deploying to Iraq with the 41st Infantry Brigade in July. Last month, Roberta and Ashby testified before the Oregon Legislature, which is considering a bill to set up a small fund to help exposed soldiers who develop cancer. Attorneys for the soldiers, David Sugerman of Portland and Michael Doyle of Houston, said they expect several West Virginia National Guard members who served at the Iraqi water plant to file a similar suit. Last year, 16 Indiana National Guard members who replaced the Oregon troops at Qarmat Ali and 10 civilian contractors who worked at the facility also sued KBR. Under federal rules, civilians working on military bases are limited in their ability to sue employers, and that case has been in a confidential arbitration. Since news coverage by The Oregonian in January, more than two dozen Oregon veterans have asked to be placed on a registry and more than a dozen have reported health issues to the National Guard or VA, mostly breathing problems. The Oregon Army National Guard is still asking soldiers who may have served with the 1-162 to contact the Guard at 503-584-2285 or the Portland Veterans Administration at 800-949-1004, ext. 52852, for more information on registering their exposure. -- Julie Sullivan; juliesullivan@news.oregonian.com visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dems use Bush tactics for Obama's wars by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 8, 2009

40 House Progressives Can End the Wars by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 8, 2009

How to pay for health care reform by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 7, 2009

The Sunday NYTimes editorial agonizes over how to pay for Obama's health care reforms and come up with hodgepodge of "savings" taxes and mandatory mainly for profit insurance premiums for all. My response to the editor: RE: "Paying for Universal Health Coverage," Editorial June 7) . The most efficient, popular and life preserving way to pay for health care reform is to take the money from the Pentagon budget and close down the Iraq and Afghan occupations. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Afghan womens rights: code for occupation by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 4, 2009

Some womens' groups have supported the war in Afghanistan because they accepted Bush's (and Obama's) claim that the US occupation will encourage womens' rights Now other women have challenged that: 'Democracy' in Afghanistan - Code for Occupation June 2, 2009 MADRE, Feminist Majority Foundation, CODEPINK: Women for Peace, OneWorld US, New America Media, Afghan Watch, Reuters, Washington Post WASHINGTON, Jun 2 (OneWorld.net) - A long-standing member of an Afghan women's association fighting for justice and rights calls for U.S. troops to withdraw, saying they are occupying her country under the misused slogans of liberation and democracy. Read the rest at http://us.oneworld.net/article/363950-us-policy-and-women%E2%80%99s-rights-in-afghanistan visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Withdrawal fundamentalist rants by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 1, 2009

Mike Tahibi writes "[The Democrats] campaign against the war in Iraq, promise to get us out, and say they were against it all along -- and then once they get in power, they start using words like eventually and in 4-6 years and once the situation stabilizes. Later it turns out that what they meant by being against the war all along was their conviction that we should have invaded on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday, or some such bullshit." That is, if they were the minority of Democrats who didn't support the bi-partisan war all along... Obama has already backed away from his original signup to Bush's phony "Security Agreement" with the Iraqi regime under US occupation. Withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30? No problem-- city limits are imaginatively defined so US bases are outside them. Combat troops out? Just call them "trainers" and they can stay. The occupied regime wants to try US troops for murdering civilians? Sorry-the Bush/Obama "agreement" exempts any GI "on duty" and, happily, all US troops in Iraq turn out to be "on duty" 24/7. Remember "permanent bases", "enduring camps" and the almost billion dollar Embassy in the Green Zone foreign concession? Juan Cole, who insists Obama will (kinda, sorta, sometime, probably) actually end the occupation, calls those of us who are skeptical, "withdrawal fundamentalists." Make the mnost of it! visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama protects Saudis, allows suit against Cubans by Michael Munk Mon, Jun 1, 2009

The Obama administration supports immunity for the Saudi royal family from suits by 9/11 victims who allege the royals gave money to the terrorists. On the same day, it offered no objection to a Miami ruling against the Cuban government by a Gusano who claimed his father committed suicide because his GM distributorship in Havana would be nationalized after the revolution. The two stories are below. Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/politics/30families.html?scp=3&sq=Saudi%20royals&st=cse Miami man awarded more than $1B in suit against Fidel Castro, Che Guevara Photos Villoldo wins $1 billion suit against Castro BY LUISA YANEZ lyanez@MiamiHerald.com In what is considered the largest civil judgment against the Cuban government, a Miami-Dade judge on Friday awarded more than $1 billion to a Miami man who blamed Fidel Castro and his Cuban revolutionary sidekick Che Guevara for his father's suicide in 1959. ''What they did was torture this family and tear it apart,'' Miami-Dade Judge Peter Adrien said in siding with Gustavo Villoldo, a former CIA operative who had tracked down Guevara in the jungles of Bolivia. Said Villoldo: ``You have brought closure to us after 50 years. Justice has prevailed.'' Jeremy Alters, Villoldo's attorney, said he and his client will now attempt to get the money from the frozen assets of the Cuban government. Those assets are in financial institutions throughout the world. The funds may be almost impossible to obtain -- at least in the United States. Most of those assets identified by the Treasury Department in a Cuban bank account in New York were paid out in the Brothers to the Rescue case and in two other Miami cases. Villoldo's suit against Castro and Guevara was rooted in the Cuban government's actions against a business owned by Gustavo Villoldo's father, also named Gustavo. Back in 1959, Guevara was named head of Cuba's Banco Nacional and immediately began dismantling all traces of capitalism. A main target: a General Motors distributorship owned by Villoldo's father. Guevara told Villoldo that his father's company would be seized. It left the family ruined financially. Three weeks later, Villoldo's heartbroken father ended his life by swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills. Villoldo later fled the island, headed for Miami and quickly joined Brigade 2506, taking part in the failed CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion. He became an officer in the U.S. Army by direct commission of President John F. Kennedy and later was recruited to work with the agency. The Bolivian government later hired Villoldo to track down Guevara for the CIA. The last major civil case brought against the Cuban government involved the family of Rafael del Pino Siero, who had broken with Castro over suspicions that he was a communist and was among the first Cubans to be jailed after the revolution. Del Pino Siero was captured while trying to help a Cuban escape to Miami in July 1959. He died in his prison cell 18 years later at age 51, leaving behind in Miami two youngsters: Rafael del Pino Jr. and his sister, Milagros Suárez. Miami-Dade County jurors in April 2008 gave the del Pino children almost $253 million, which was the biggest award to date in a wrongful death claim against the Cuban government. That amount eclipsed the $187.6 million awarded by a federal judge to the relatives of three victims in the 1996 shootdown of two Brothers to the Rescue planes by a Cuban MiG. Family members in that case collected about half the award from frozen Cuban assets in New York. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why is Obama trying to buy the Lebanese election? by Michael Munk Fri, May 29, 2009

Why Is the U.S. Continuing to Tell the Lebanese How to Vote? By Stephen Zunes, AlterNet. Posted May 26, 2009. http://www.alternet.org/world/140248/why_is_the_u.s._continuing_to_tell_the_lebanese_how_to_vote/?page=entire Threats by top Obama administration officials have not been well-received by the Lebanese. In recent visits to Lebanon, both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear that the United States would react negatively if the March 8th Alliance -- a broad coalition of Islamist, Maronite, leftist, nationalist, and pan-Arabist parties -- won the upcoming parliamentary elections. These not-so-subtle threats have led to charges of U.S. interference in Lebanon's domestic affairs. What prompts U.S. concerns is that the largest member of this coalition is Hezbollah, the populist Shiite party which the United States considers to be a terrorist organization. As senators, both Biden and Clinton insisted that this diverse coalition was somehow controlled by Iran and/or Syria. In reality, there is little evidence to suggest that Syrian and Iranian influence on the populist Shia party and its allies is any greater than U.S. influence on some of Lebanon's other political factions. While the Iranians played a key role in the early development of Hezbollah's militia back in the early 1980s when it was fighting the Israeli occupation of the southern part of their country, the party has subsequently emerged as an independent and popular -- albeit in many respects fundamentalist and reactionary -- force and the only major party not tied to the elite families which have dominated Lebanese politics for generations. Such interference by top Obama administration officials has not been well-received by the Lebanese. Both Biden and Clinton were outspoken supporters of Israel's devastating 2006 military offensive in Lebanon, which took the lives of up to 800 civilians and caused billions of dollars of damage to the country's civilian infrastructure. Much of Israel's massive bombardments struck areas many miles from any Hezbollah military activities and ended up strengthening popular support for this extremist group beyond its base in the Shia community. Despite exhaustive empirical studies by Human Rights Watch and other groups which found no evidence that any of the civilian deaths were caused by Hezbollah using civilians as "human shields," both Clinton and Biden - without providing any contradictory evidence - have insisted that they did and have refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing by the Israeli government. Even moderate and secular Lebanese, who strongly opposed Hezbollah's provocative actions (used by the Israelis and their American supporters to launch the offensive), still harbor enormous resentment towards the Bush administration and those in Congress who supported this devastating war against their country. There is particular anger at Biden over his support for Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which led to the deaths of up to 17,000 civilians, as well as his defense of the Israeli occupation of the southern part of that country and the shelling of nearby Lebanese towns and cities, which lasted until May of 2000. Many Lebanese - including some of Hezbollah's bitterest opponents - wonder why those like Clinton and Biden, who have defended foreign forces wreaking such death and destruction on their country, have any right to tell them how to vote. In addition, the United States has had a rather fickle history in its support of various factions in Lebanon's notoriously fratricidal politics. Indeed, the United States has a history of switching sides in terms of who it views as the bad guys and the good guys. For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, the United States backed right-wing, predominantly Maronite militias such as the Phalangists against the predominantly Druze Progressive Socialist Party. During the 1982-84 U.S. intervention in Lebanon, U.S. forces fought the Socialists directly, including launching heavy air and sea bombardments against Druze villages in the Shouf Mountains. Now, however, the U.S. supports the Socialists, who currently ally themselves with the pro-Western May 14th Alliance. Similarly, the United States supported the Shia Amal militia in 1985-86 when it was fighting armed Palestinian groups as well as in 1988 when Amal was fighting Hezbollah forces. Today, however, the United States is strongly opposed to Amal, now part of the March 8th alliance, acting as if they are one with Hezbollah. The United States supported Syria's initial military intervention in Lebanon back in 1976 as a means of suppressing leftist forces and their Palestinian allies. Similarly, the U.S. supported the bloody Syrian-instigated coup in late 1990 that consolidated Syria's political control of the country. Subsequently, however, the United States became a leading critic of Syria's domineering role of the country's government, which continued until a popular nonviolent uprising during the spring of 2005 forced a Syrian withdrawal from the country. In a more recent example, as part of a U.S. policy to support hard-line Sunni fundamentalist groups as a counter-weight to the growth of radical Shia movements in Iraq and Lebanon, the U.S. encouraged Lebanese parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri to provide amnesty for radical Salafi militants, who were released from jail. As such militants began causing problems in the northern city of Tripoli in 2006 from a base in a Palestinian refugee camp, however, the U.S. then backed a bloody Lebanese army crackdown. One of the most bizarre switches in U.S. allegiances involves former Lebanese Army General Michel Aoun, a Maronite, and his Free Patriotic Movement, the most popular Christian-led political group in the country. As an ally to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 1990, the United States gave a green light to the Syrians to have Aoun overthrown as interim Lebanese prime minister in a violent coup. Not long afterward, however, the United States then switched sides to support Aoun and oppose the Syrians and their supporters. As recently as 2003, Aoun was feted by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies - a neo-conservative group with close ties with the Bush administration, which includes among its leaders Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey, Jack Kemp, and Richard Perle, as well as Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Joseph Lieberman. The group declared him a champion of freedom and democracy. Aoun won similar praise from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress when he testified that year before the House International Relations Committee. Soon after his return to Lebanon from exile, however, Aoun became one of the most outspoken opponents of the U.S.-backed political leaders and parties which dominate the current Lebanese government and he and his movement are now allied with Hezbollah in the March 8th Alliance. Not surprisingly, he is now considered once again to be one of the bad guys. If history has proven anything, the United States has little to gain and much to potentially lose in taking sides in Lebanon. It would behoove President Barack Obama to keep hawks like Clinton and Biden on a short leash and allow the Lebanese people to determine their own destiny. -------------------------------------------------- Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama believer MoveOn silent on his wars by Michael Munk Wed, May 27, 2009

Hayden Criticizes MoveOn for being Silent on Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; MoveOn Responds MoveOns "response" is too pathetic to copy but read it at http://www.alternet.org/world/140264/moveon_remains_silent_on_wars_in_iraq%2C_afghanistan_and_pakistan/?page=entire By Tom Hayden, AlterNet. May 27, 2009. Peace activist Tom Hayden argues that most powerful grassroots peace movement isn't pushing Obama on U.S. conflicts--Update: MoveOn sends a response. Tools Editor's note: MoveOn has sent a response to Tom Hayden, which is published below his article. The most powerful grassroots organization of the peace movement, MoveOn, remains silent as the American wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan simmer or escalate. The executive director of MoveOn, Justin Ruben, met with President Obama in February, told the president it was "the moment to go big," then indicated that MoveOn would not be opposing the $94 billion war supplemental request, nor the 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, nor the increased civilian casualties from the mounting number of Predator attacks. [See Ari Melber, The Nation, Feb. 27, 2009] What was MoveOn's explanation for abandoning the peace movement in a meeting with a president the peace movement was key to electing? According to Ruben and MoveOn, it was the preference of its millions of members, as ascertained by house meetings and polls. The evidence, however, is otherwise. Last December 17, 48.3 percent of MoveOn members listed "end the war in Iraq" as a 2009 goal, after health care [64.9%], economic recovery and job creation [62.1%], and building a green economy/stop climate change [49.6%, only 1.5% ahove Iraq.] This was at a moment when most Americans believed the Iraq War was ending. Afghanistan and Pakistan were not listed among top goals which members could vote on. Then on May 22 MoveOn surveyed its members once again, listing ten possible campaigns for the organization. "Keep up the pressure to the end the war in Iraq" was listed ninth among the options. Again, Afghanistan and Pakistan were not on the MoveOn list of options. Nor was Guantanamo nor the administration's torture policies. "Investigate the Bush Administration" was the first option. MoveOn is supposed to be an Internet version of participatory democracy, but the organization's decision-making structure apparently assures that the membership is voiceless on the question of these long wars. What if they included an option like "demanding a diplomatic settlement and opposing a quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan?" Or "shifting from a priority on military spending to civilian spending on food, medicine and schools?" This is no small matter. MoveOn has collected a privately-held list of five million names, most of them strong peace advocates. The organization's membership contributed an unprecedented $180 million for the federal election cycle in 2004-2006. Those resources, now squelched or sequestered, mean that the most vital organization in the American peace movement is missing in action. What to do? There is no point raving and ranting against MoveOn. The only path is in organizing a dialogue with the membership, over the Internet, and having faith that their voices will turn the organization to oppose these escalating occupations. The same approach is necessary towards other vital organs of the peace movement including rank-and-file Democrat activists and the post-election Obama organization [Organizing for America], through a persistent bottom-up campaign to renew the peace movement as a powerful force in civil society. This is not a simple matter of an organizational oligarchy manipulating its membership, although the avoidance by MoveOn's leadership is a troubling sign. There is genuine confusion over Afghanistan and Pakistan among the rank-and-file. The economic crisis has averted attention away from the battlefront. Many who voted for Obama understandably will give him the benefit of the doubt, for now. Silence sends a message. The de facto MoveOn support for the $94 billion war supplemental reverberates up the ladder of power. Feeling no pressure, the Congressional leadership has abdicated its critical oversight function over the expanding wars, not even allowing members to vote for a Decmber report on possible exit strategies. In the end, a gutsy sixty voted against HR 2346 on May 14, but many defected to vote for the war spending, including Neil Abercrombie, Jerry Nadler, Obey, Xavier Becerra, Lois Capps, Maurice Hinchey, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Patrick Kennedy, Charles Rangel, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Loretta Sanchez, Rosa De Lauro, Bennie Thompson, Jerry McNerney, Robert Wexler, and Henry Waxman. [Bill Delahunt, Linda Sanchez and Pete Stark were not recorded]. If there were significant pressures from networks like MoveOn in their Congressional districts, the opposition vote might have approached 85. Appropriations chair David Obey in essence granted Obama a one-year pass to show results in Afghanistan. If the war appears to be a quagmire by then, he claimed, the Democrats will become more critical. Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the same message; according to the Washington Examiner on May 6: "There won't be any more war supplementals, so my message to my members is, this is it." Pelosi's words were carefully parsed, saying that the White House would not be allowed another supplemental form of appropriation, which is different from an actual pledge to oppose war funding. This one-year pass means that the grass-roots peace movement has a few months to light a fire and re-awaken pressure from below on the Congress and president. In the meantime, here are some predictions for the coming year: IRAQ: Will Obama keep his pledge to withdraw combat forces from Iraq on a 16-month timetable, and all forces by 2011? At this point, the pace is slowing, and the deadline being somewhat extended, under pressure from US commanders on the ground. Sunnis are threatening to resume their insurgency if the al-Maliki regime fails to incorporate them into the political and security structures. The President insists however, that he is only making adjustments to a timetable that is on track. Prognosis: precarious. AFGHANISTAN: Will the Obama troop escalation deepen the quagmire or be a successful surge against the Taliban by next year? Another 21,000 troops and advisers are on their way to the battlefield. Civilian casualties are mounting, causing the besieged Karzai government to complain. Preventive detention of Afghans will only expand. US deaths, now over 600, are sure to increase this summer. Taliban may hold out and redeploy in order to stretch US forces thin. Prognosis: escalation into quagmire. PAKISTAN: US policies have driven al Qaeda from Afganistan into Pakistan's tribal areas, where US is attacking with Predators and turning Pakistan's US-funded armed forces towards counterinsurgency. Public opinion is being inflamed against the US intervention. Prognosis: an expanding American war in Pakistan with greater threats to American security. IRAN: With or without US complicity, Israel may attack Iran early next year, with unforeseeable consequences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prognosis: crisis will intensify. GLOBAL: US will fail to attract more combat troops to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan from Europe or elsewhere, causing pressure to increase for a non-military negotiated solution. Prognosis: Obama still popular, US still isolated. BUDGET PRIORITIES: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will deeply threaten the administration's ability to succeed on the domestic front with stimulus spending, health care, education and alternative energy. Prognosis: false hope for "guns and butter" all over again. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

When the US occupation imprisons journalists by Michael Munk Wed, May 27, 2009

Pakistanis protest doing Obama's work by Michael Munk Sun, May 24, 2009

Pakistanis protest Swat offensive Al-Jazeera, May 24, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/2009524141212281322.html Hundreds of supporters of Pakistan's opposition Jamaat-i-Islami party have demonstrated in what is believed to be the first major protest against the military's offensive against the Taliban in North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The demonstration in the capital, Islamabad, on Sunday took place as the army fought bloody street-to-street battles in Mingora, the main city in the Swat valley. "To this point there has been absolutely total political support for the ongoing operation in Swat valley," Al Jazeera's Mike Hanna, reporting from Islamabad, said. "But now there is the first sign that there are sectors in society who are opposed to what is going on." Public discontent Many of the protesters were carrying banners carrying slogans condemning the role of the United States in Pakistan. "This is a great point of contention for many Pakistanis, not just the supporters of the political party gathered here," Hanna said. "The speakers are basing part of their criticism on their belief that Pakistan is doing ... the work of the United States in its so-called 'war on terror'." Washington has declared its support for the military operation in the NWFP, after criticising a peace deal signed by Islamanbad and pro-Taliban groups in the region in February. The US sees the area as vital to its efforts to combat a resurgent Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. Qazi Hussein Ahmed, the leader Jamaat-e-Islami, told Al Jazeera that the military offensive was directed at the "innocent people of Malakand division". "They have targeted the population by bombardment from the air and use of artillery .. they will hit the population, their villages, their towns and a fear has been created among the people," he said. Ahmed said that the military's actions would lead to an increase in pro-Taliban violence. "[The government] should consult the people of the area, they have traditional ways of containing the militancy, they have got traditional ways of consulting each other. These people can contain all the people who are creating chaos within their society." Another protest was reported in Karachi, the capital of southern Sindh province. Street battles Pakistani security forces said they had seized several key areas in Mingora inside the Swat valley on Sunday. Military officials said troops were in control of several main intersections and three main squares after heavy urban clashes, the military said. Scenes from the conflict zone Pakistani troops entered the town a day earlier, engaging in street battles with the Taliban and killing at least 17 fighters, Major-General Athar Abbas, a military spokesman, said. "We have blocked all the entries and exits," he told Al Jazeera. "Now the forces that were already present inside have linked up with the outside forces, and with this increased ratio they are moving from one end to the other. "It will take more time." Mingora, the administrative and business hub of Swat in the NWFP, has been under the effective control of Taliban fighters for weeks. Many of the 300,000 people who live in Mingora are believed to have fled since the military began its offensive in Swat, Lower Dir and Buner districts of the NWFP several weeks ago. However, the military says that between 10,000 and 20,000 civilians remain trapped in Mingora, with dwindling supplies of food and no access to medical care. Orakzai attack The military also sent helicopter gunships and ground troops to launch an attack in the nearby tribal area of Orakzai on Sunday. "Troops backed by attack helicopters retaliated, killing eight militants," a security official told the AFP news agency. Mohammad Yasin, a local government official, told The Associated Press news agency that the military had targeted strongholds of Hakeemullah Mehsud, a Pakistani Taliban leader. Hundreds of people have fled the area amid the fighting, he said. The military has said that about 1,100 suspected Taliban fighters have died so far in the offensive, but is still to give a total of civilian casualties. Residents fleeing the region have reported dozens of ordinary Pakistanis killed in the fighting. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Nailed: What's wrong with Obama's Iran policy by Michael Munk Sun, May 24, 2009

$100 off your next legal visit to Cuba by Michael Munk Thu, May 21, 2009

Orbitz Launches Open Cuba Travel Petition Website May 11, 2009 = http://travel-industry.uptake.com/blog/2009/05/11/orbitz-open-cuba-websit= e/ Chicago based Orbitz has launched a website (www.opencuba.org/) to give = Americans the opportunity to petition the U.S. Government to open up = travel to Cuba. =20 OpenCuba.org, from Orbitz Visitors to Orbitz are urged to visit the Open Cuba website and sign a = petition calling for an end to the travel ban. The website also lets = visitors write personal letters to President Obama, VP Joe Biden, = Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of Congress, urging them = to ease the travel restrictions and sanctions against Cuba. And to give their campaign some added heft, Orbitz also released the = findings of a new Orbitz-Ipsos Poll. The poll shows that 67% of of all = Americans favor ending the U.S. Government's 50-year ban on travel to = Cuba. In a press statement, Barney Harford, president and CEO of Orbitz = Worldwide, said that "President Obama recently took a bold step in = easing travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans. The OpenCuba.org = campaign calls on the President and Congress to take action to end the = travel ban to Cuba, giving all Americans the freedom to visit what once = was a premier tourist destination for U.S. citizens." Orbitz executives will formally present the aforementioned petition to = U.S. officials in Washington, DC, later this year. Every person who = signs the petition will receive a $100 coupon redeemable on Orbitz = against a vacation to Cuba valid if and when the U.S. Government removes = the ban on travel to Cuba, and as soon as Orbitz is able to offer such = travel on its website. And this is where Orbitz is mixing good business with politics. If the = Obama Administration opens up Cuba, Orbitz can take credit for a = successful lobbying campaign, and enjoy the rush of travelers booking = packages to Cuba in order to redeem the $100 coupons. If it doesn't work (which seems more likely at this point), no harm = done. Either way, by being at the forefront of this campaign, they get = all the media publicity that is sure to follow in the next few days now = and again when the petition is handed over to officials in Washington = DC. Win-win situation for Orbitz. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Afghan occupation burns bibles by Michael Munk Wed, May 20, 2009

US burns bibles in Afghanistan row Al-Jazeera, May 20, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/05/200952017377106909.htmlThe US army in Afghanistan has burned bibles printed in local languages, aUS colonel in Afghanistan has said, amid concerns they could have been usedto try to convert Afghans."My understanding is that the [military] leadership confiscated these biblesso that they could not be distributed around Afghanistan, Colonel GregJulian told Al Jazeera on Wednesday."It was their best judgement at the time, that the best way to deal with it,was to destroy them and I understand that they were burnt."Al Jazeera broadcast footage earlier this month showing troops apparentlydiscussing how best to convert Afghans to their faith.Some of the soldiers who appeared in the video have been reprimanded, USgovernment and military officials told Al Jazeera correspondent James Bays.The video, shot about a year ago, appeared to show military chaplainsstationed in the US air base at Bagram discussing how to distribute copiesof the Bible printed in the country's main Pashto and Dari languages.In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the USmilitary chaplains in Afghanistan, tells soldiers that, as followers ofJesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him"."The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things asChristians, we hunt people for Jesus ... we hunt them down," he said."Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That'swhat we do, that's our business."Questioned about the footage earlier in the month, Julian told Al Jazeera:"Most of this is taken out of context ... this is irresponsible andinappropriate journalism."This footage was taken a year ago ... the Bibles were taken into custodyand not distributed."There is no effort to go out and proselytize to Afghans."The military said a soldier at Bagram received the Bibles and did notrealise he was not allowed to hand them out."It's not a preference but, under the circumstances, the leadership made thebest decision that they could to ensure that they weren't distrubted amongthe Afghan population."So, unfortunately, this is the route that we went," he said.Regulations by the US military's central command expressly forbid"proselytizing of any religion, faith or practice".But in the footage chaplains appear to understand their actions were inbreach of regulations"Do we know what it means to proselytize?" Captain Emmit Furner, a militarychaplain, said to the gathering."It is General Order Number One," an unidentified soldier replied. "Youcan't proselytize, but you can give gifts", another said.visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US occupation of Iraqi cities won't end June 30 by Michael Munk Tue, May 19, 2009

To Meet June Deadline, US and Iraqis Redraw City Borders 19 May 2009 http://www.truthout.org/051909C?n by: Jane Arraf | Visit article original @ The Christian Science Monitor Baghdad - On a map of Baghdad, the US Army's Forward Operating Base Falcon is clearly within city limits. Except that Iraqi and American military officials have decided it's not. As the June 30 deadline for US soldiers to be out of Iraqi cities approaches, there are no plans to relocate the roughly 3,000 American troops who help maintain security in south Baghdad along what were the fault lines in the sectarian war. "We and the Iraqis decided it wasn't in the city," says a US military official. The base on the southern outskirts of Baghdad's Rasheed district is an example of the fluidity of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) agreed to late last year, which orders all US combat forces out of Iraqi cities, towns, and villages by June 30. "We consider the security agreement a living document," says a senior US commander. With six weeks to go, US and Iraqi commanders are sitting down in joint security committees to determine how they can comply with the decree that all US combat forces withdraw from populated areas by the end of June and still maintain the requirement to assist Iraq in fighting the insurgency and maintaining security and stability. "[The Iraqis are] clear in their intention, less clear in their implementation," says the senior military official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the subject. Complexity of Operating Under SOFA The security agreement, which took effect five months ago and charts the US-Iraqi relationship for years to come, is also being tested in murkier waters, such as the US right to self-defense. A US-led raid in the southern Iraqi city of Kut last month, in which an Iraqi woman was killed in the crossfire, prompted protests in the streets. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the operation a crime and demanded that the American soldiers involved be turned over to Iraqi courts, saying the raid violated the terms of the security agreement. US officials say they had valid warrants for the operation targeting suspected members of Iranian-funded Shiite militias involved in weapons smuggling. One suspect was killed in the raid and six others detained before Iraqi authorities ordered their release. One US military official said that although Iraqi authorities had been notified of the raid in advance, those authorities maintained they had not approved it. He said the US side believed it was exercising its right to self-defense under the agreement when the raid turned violent. The US military offered condolences and was believed to have paid compensation to the family of the woman killed. "Kut shone a brighter light on the complexity of what we are facing," says the senior US commander. US Extension in Volatile Areas? A major question ahead of the June 30 deadline - whether US troops will be asked to stay in the volatile cities of Mosul and those in Diyala Province - is still unanswered. Senior Iraqi military officials are expected to recommend to Mr. Maliki that US combat forces remain in those areas to help fight an ongoing insurgency. Maliki publicly has said he will not extend the deadline but privately is believed to be willing to consider it. As commander in chief of the Iraqi Security Forces, Maliki has the final decision on whether to ask US forces to stay. Some US and Iraqi officials suspect that his hard-line rhetoric is almost purely for political purposes in a country where people are widely opposed to the continued presence of US forces. The Iraqi parliament voted to approve the SOFA late last year only after linking it to a referendum this summer which would allow Iraqis to vote on whether US troops should leave sooner than the end of 2011. With Maliki's public insistence that there will be no extension for US forces, plans for the promised referendum appear to have quietly disappeared. "We promise a lot of things we don't deliver," says one Iraqi member of parliament when asked about the poll. Apart from the issue of designating US bases as inside or outside cities, Iraqi authorities are also approving the existence of combat troops within select joint security stations in and around Baghdad to be able to maintain security in places that have been key to the reduction in violence, a US military official says. Although the mission for most brigades and battalions is not expected to substantially change after June 30, US military officials have stopped using the term forward operating base in favor of the more benign-sounding contingency operating site. The SOFA and a wider strategic framework agreement set out a relationship between the US and Iraq very different from that of the military occupation of the past six years. "We have acknowledged that the government of Iraq leads the nation. We are their guests," says the senior US commander. "We've never known how to be guests," says a US military official in the field. US-Iraqi Partnership: "A Delicate Choreography" One of the challenges of that new relationship is how the US can continue to wield influence on key decisions without being seen to do so. "For so long we have been one of the driving forces here ... it is such a hard habit to break," says a senior US State Department official. "I think we need to do everything we can not to make ourselves an issue." As well as security, he says, the United States still has a role to play in promoting Sunni-Shiite reconciliation, tamping down Arab-Kurdish tensions, and fostering effective governance and economic growth - all of which have an impact on security. "It has to be seen here as doing it quietly ... so that you are not doing things for the Iraqis, the Iraqis are doing things for themselves but with your help and we remain in the shadows.... It's a very delicate choreography," adds the State Department official. US Concern: Political Turmoil After 2010 Elections All of that is being worked out against the backdrop of two crucial deadlines: August 2010 for all combat troops to be out of Iraq and the end of 2011 for US forces to withdraw completely. In between, there are key Iraqi events that will likely lead to increased tensions, including national elections planned for January. "We are planning against a finite end and a finite timeline from a US perspective," says the senior commander, saying that a potential security vacuum amid the political turmoil of a new Iraqi government next year is one of the coalition's biggest concerns. Despite Maliki's hard-line statements rejecting a continued US troop presence here, many US and Iraqi officials say they continue to believe the two sides will come up with a new arrangement after the current agreement expires. "If our long-term goal is strategic partnership in Iraq, I would suspect beyond 2011 we would have some kind of long-term presence here," says the senior US commander. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iraq's health care envied before US embargo and invasion by Michael Munk Tue, May 19, 2009

Iraq's Once-Envied Health Care System Lost to War, Corruption 18 May 2009 http://www.truthout.org/051809E?n by: Corinne Reilly | Visit article original @ McClatchy Newspapers Baghdad - Dr. Zinah Jawad leaned over her patient and peered into his glazed eyes. It doesn't look good, she said, shaking her head. The man had arrived at Baghdad Teaching Hospital's emergency department a few hours earlier with a high fever and dizziness. Now he lies shaking, sweat soaking his dirty clothes. The Teaching Hospital's emergency room is cleaner than most in Baghdad. In fact, it's widely considered the best in the Iraqi capital. Still, flies buzz overhead, and on busy days there aren't enough beds or oxygen tanks. Across the room, a crude sign made with binder paper and tape marks the department's two-bed cardiac unit, which lacks a reliable defibrillator. Jawad, a second-year medical resident, turns to the sick man's wife, who's perched anxiously on a ripped chair at his bedside. "We suspect meningitis," she says. If Jawad is correct, the man probably will die long before she can confirm her diagnosis. Her chances of getting antibiotics to treat him are even slimmer. The hospital can't perform the lab test she needs. Its stock of drugs and basic supplies is so unreliable that doctors routinely dispatch patients' relatives to fetch medicines, IV fluids and syringes from private merchants or the black market. Jawad can't explain the shortages. Her department is always careful in placing its orders with the national health ministry, which supplies all of Iraq's public hospitals. Often, though, the medicines never show up. "No one can tell us why," Jawad said. "It is as if they just disappear somewhere." Stories of missing drugs, of desperately ill-equipped doctors and of patients left to suffer the consequences are everywhere in Iraq's public health care system. Some hospitals are filthy and infested with bugs. Others are practically falling down. More and more, the blame is being placed on Iraq's U.S.-backed government, which by many accounts is infested with corruption and incompetence. There's no doubt that years of economic sanctions, followed by years of war, have taken a heavy toll on all public services in Iraq. However, with violence down and some tentative sense of normalcy returning, improvements in health care should be coming far faster than they are, according to doctors, patients, aid organizations and some public officials. They fault widespread problems at all levels of Iraq's government, and the examples they cite are troubling. Health ministry workers routinely siphon drugs from hospital orders to make extra cash on the black market. Bribery is rampant. Millions of dollars meant for clinics and equipment have gone missing. Millions more have been wasted on government contracts to buy expired medicines. The health ministry's inspector general openly admits the problems. Even so, the culprits are rarely punished. Corruption and ineptitude aren't limited to health care, of course; they're endemic in most Iraqi public institutions. When it comes to public health, however, the repercussions are devastating, and they bring into sharp focus the failures that are threatening Iraq's American-financed effort to rebuild itself as a democracy at peace with itself and with its neighbors. "It costs lives every day," said a fourth-year resident at Baghdad Teaching Hospital who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation by his superiors. "The security situation is better now. The government has money. So you tell me why I can't get basic medicines at the best ER in Baghdad." No one keeps statistics on how many deaths might be avoided if equipment and medicine were more available, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the numbers are significant. Pediatrician Ali Alwan said the situation isn't so dire at Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital, where he now works. But he said that children die of diarrhea and other highly treatable conditions every day at the small hospital he left four months ago in Jalawla, northeast of Baghdad. "A lot more would survive if we had more medicines," Alwan said. "I try not to think about how many." Ali Mohammad Abed, a student teacher from Baghdad's Bayaa neighborhood, said he thinks his 2-month-old nephew died because the public children's hospital where he was taken last month didn't have the tools to diagnose him. "We noticed a strange color around his lips," Abed said. "They couldn't do the tests they needed to figure out what was wrong. He died the next day." Dhiya Francis, who works at a hotel in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood, thinks his brother would still be alive if doctors had been able to perform the operation he needed to clear a blood vessel in his heart. Francis said his family found a private hospital to do the surgery, but they couldn't afford it. "The government hospital said they didn't have the equipment," he said, crying. "If the private hospitals can do it, why can't the government?" Before the 1990s, Iraq had perhaps the best health care system in the Middle East. Nearly two decades of international sanctions and war have changed that. For nearly two years in 2006 and 2007, when Iraq's sectarian violence was at its worst, the national health ministry was controlled almost completely by Shiite Muslim militias. In many neighborhoods, Sunnis avoided hospitals for fear of being killed in them. Today, for the most part, Iraqis feel safe enough to go where they want, including to doctors. Hospitals are no longer overwhelmed by victims of the violence. Progress beyond that has been minimal, however. Government health care is free in Iraq, but patients who can afford to do so usually seek private care, because the public facilities are so ill equipped. In rural areas and far-flung villages, the situation is dramatically worse. The shortages of drugs, equipment and basic supplies are among the biggest problems, doctors said. Even at Baghdad Teaching Hospital, the emergency department's shelves often run dry of antibiotics, painkillers and life-saving drugs for heart attack victims. "Much of the time we don't have IV fluid, so the family will go out to buy it and bring it to us," second-year resident Jawad said. "The pharmacies know they are desperate, so they charge them three or four times the normal price." The department also lacks most basic diagnostic machines. Its lone defibrillator breaks regularly. Patient samples often must be sent out for testing because the lab can't handle them. "We must be careful to only use the dependable labs," Jawad said. "There are many that give incorrect results, or they leave the samples to expire." At the Hospital of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine, a dirty, rundown cancer treatment center in Iraq's capital, administrators said the hospital rarely runs out of chemotherapy drugs. Patients and low-level workers told a different story, however. They said the cancer patients often must bring their own medicines. Excluding the semi-autonomous northern region of Kurdistan, Iraq has four radiation machines for treating cancer patients, said Dr. Ahmed Abdulqadir, the hospital's deputy director. Three are at the Hospital of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine; the fourth is in Mosul, in northern Iraq. "If you need a new machine, there's no real process to get it," lamented a fourth-year resident, who didn't want his name published so he could speak candidly. "You're told to ask so many different administrators, and then none of them does anything about it. It's a mess." At Yarmouk Hospital, a 600-bed facility where entire wings are blocked off for fear they'll fall down, nurses complain of constant shortages. One said the hospital regularly uses water as a substitute for ultrasound gel. "One day we will have a lot, and the next day it will all be gone," she said. Huda Fadhil, sitting at her ailing mother's bedside, said doctors at Yarmouk had sent her out several times to fetch supplies the hospital lacked. "I just got back from buying this," she said, holding up a plastic syringe. " With all the fortunes this country has, the hospitals don't have syringes? It's crazy." The shortages are so endemic that some hospitals refuse to treat noncritical patients if they come without friends or relatives to act as runners on their behalf. At Baghdad Teaching Hospital, an old man who came alone to have fluid drained from his abdomen said that doctors told him they couldn't perform the procedure until he brought a helper. "I keep telling them I have no one," he said, rubbing his bloated belly. Patients said bribery is so widespread that the sick now accept it as part of the process of getting treatment from hospital and clinic workers. Those who're able sometimes use payoffs or personal connections at the health ministry to avoid long waits for surgeries or hard-to-get tests such as MRIs. "My case is a simple one, so I haven't paid any bribes," said Widad Jalal, who was admitted to Yarmouk for a lung infection. "But many times you do. This is not hidden. It's common." Doctors and pharmacists said that drugs and other supplies are routinely stolen from the public health care system and sold to private merchants who jack up the prices. All drugs that enter Iraq by way of government contracts are marked with health ministry stamps. They're never meant to end up at private drug stores, but they often do, said Husham Hussein, who works mornings stocking shelves at a public hospital and runs his own pharmacy in the afternoons. He said that sometimes health ministry administrators skim off the top of ministry orders. Other times, he said, workers steal supplies off the hospital shelves. Hussein described one common scheme, in which clinic employees falsify paperwork for nonexistent patients, then walk off with drugs and other supplies. "The leak of materials from the hospitals to the private pharmacies is well known," Hussein said. " But no one really tries to stop it. That's why so many people do it." By many accounts, health ministry buyers routinely take bribes from manufacturers to purchase unnecessary equipment or medicines of such low quality that doctors refuse to use them. Bassim Shareef Nuseyif, a member of the Iraqi parliament's health committee, said he's aware of at least one case in which the health ministry bought millions of dollars worth of expired drugs. "I can't tell you if this was corruption or negligence," Nuseyif said. "But either way, it is very bad." Nuseyif told of an instance in 2007 in which provincial officials took roughly $9 million in central government funding to buy new equipment for hospitals and clinics in the southern province of Wasit. The equipment still hasn't shown up, Nuseyif said. "We know this is happening other places," he said. Iraq's public health care system has seen some improvements in the past year or so, and there's no doubt that some problems aren't easily solved, foremost among them a shortage of doctors. As many as 15,000 are estimated to have fled because of the war, and few of them have come home. Foreign companies and investors, which Iraq desperately needs, also have been hesitant to return. The health ministry budget is now roughly $3.5 billion, up from $16 million in 2002, but health ministry officials said their share of the national budget, about 3 percent, is far from adequate, and many lawmakers agree. Now, moreover, lower oil prices have forced the government to cut spending by billions. Last year, the government spent about $800 million buying medicines, officials said, but while health spending has increased from $62 per capita in 2007 to $100 in 2008, doctors said they haven't seen improvements to match. Corruption may be a big reason why. There are no approximations specific to the health ministry, but the U.S. has estimated that 10 percent of the central government's money is lost to corruption. One Iraqi official, Radhi Hamza al Radhi, told U.S. lawmakers in late 2007 that the Iraqi government's Public Integrity Commission had uncovered losses of about $18 billion across all ministries. Jobs often go to people with the right connections, regardless of their qualifications. "This ensures that the corruption can continue," said Saif Abdul Rahman, a senior adviser to Iraqi Vice President Tariq Hashimi. "Until we institutionalize hiring, I don't expect that to change." Nuseyif, the parliamentarian, said that problems such as Iraq's shortage of doctors probably would be far less severe if not for the bribery and theft. "These things tend to push out the honest and the efficient professionals," he said. Graft also appears to be delaying badly needed renovations at Iraqi health care facilities. Roughly 40 percent of Iraq's 210 public hospitals are awaiting major repairs, according to the government's own figures. At Yarmouk, entire wings are too decrepit to use. Gaping holes pock the ceilings and big brown bugs scurry through the hallways. The elevators haven't worked in years. Relatives must carry the sickest patients up and down the stairs. Nuseyif said he's visited hospitals where large sums supposedly were spent on renovations, but he could see no evidence of improvements. "When you go to look at these hospitals, it is clear the money didn't go where it was meant to," he said. " There is no accounting or monitoring, and the people stealing the money know this." Mustafa al Hiti, another health committee member, said ministry administrators and provincial officials sign contracts for renovations and equipment at costs far below what was allocated, and then pocket the difference. "Things end up breaking down quickly, or they are useless," he said. "The contracts are not made with reputable companies in Europe or the West." Last year, the health ministry forwarded about 150 corruption cases to the Public Integrity Commission, but authorities said such efforts rarely amount to much. The commission is supposed to be the government's most powerful anti-corruption body, but it's widely considered weak and ineffective. Its officials have said that less than 3 percent of cases they investigate end with convictions, and they've complained of corruption even among the commission's own ranks. The health ministry's inspector general, who's charged with improving the department and rooting out corruption, acknowledged there are problems but downplayed their severity. Adel Mohsin Abdullah, who's held his position since 2003, said his office conducts audits on health ministry spending but that the findings aren't public. "We've uncovered some problems, mostly with the contracts," he said. "We're working to fix them." Abdullah named "human resources issues" among ministry administrators as the biggest obstacle to better health care in Iraq. "The problem is half corruption and half a lack of ability," Abdullah said. "When we have a better department, you will see the improvements in our hospitals." He declined to discuss specific examples. "Please don't embarrass me with these kinds of questions," he said, adding that the situation inside public hospitals isn't as bad as many doctors describe. Asked what the ministry has done to get rid of unqualified employees, Abdullah said the health department is still developing procedures to evaluate the performance of its 170,000 workers. "We are still in the stage of determining who should be replaced," he said. "These things take time." -------- Reilly reports for the Merced Sun-Star. McClatchy special correspondents Jenan Hussein, Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim contributed to this article. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Social scientists on Pentagon payroll by Michael Munk Sat, May 16, 2009

Engineering "Trust of the Indigenous Population": How Some Anthropologists Have Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Loving the Army 16 May 2009 http://www.truthout.org/051609Z?n by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Perspective Anthropologist Audrey Roberts works for Human Terrain System (HTS), a Pentagon program. Referring to the information produced by HTS scholars, she says, "If it's going to inform how targeting is done - whether that targeting is bad guys, development or governance - how our information is used is how it's going to be used. All I'm concerned about is pushing our information to as many soldiers as possible. The reality is there are people out there who are looking for bad guys to kill. I'd rather they did not operate in a vacuum." In a recent article on this site I have described HTS as comprising American scholars, primarily in the field of anthropology, along with sociologists and social psychologists, embedding themselves with the US military in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their brief is to enable the military to make better decisions by helping it to understand the social mores and customs of the cultures it is occupying. As a program that is likely to have a long tenure, it deserves further examining. The US military would like the US public to believe it is a benevolent program, but it does not require a crystal ball to recognize the insidious reality. HTS teams actively engage in targeting the "enemy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Team members often wear military uniforms and body armor, and even carry weapons. Like Ms. Roberts, they are not overly concerned about the fact that the "intelligence" they produce is instrumental in capturing and killing people. The social scientists who choose to employ themselves within HTS clearly are not having a moral struggle with the fact that they are allowing their knowledge to be used as a weapon of war. The military's benign description specifies that HTS will "improve the military's ability to understand the highly complex local social-cultural environment in the areas where they are deployed." Proponents of the program go as far as to claim that its goal is to help the military save lives. Those who know better, like US Army Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, will tell you, "Don't fool yourself, these Human Terrain Teams, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, in a generalized and subtle way, do at some point contribute to the collective knowledge of a commander, which allows him to target and kill the enemy in the Civil War in Iraq." The two highest ethical principles of anthropology are protection of the interests of studied populations, and their safety. All anthropological studies consequently are premised on the consent of the subject society. Clearly, the HTS anthropologists have thrown these ethical guidelines out the window. They are to anthropology what state stenographers like Judith Miller and John Burns are to journalism. I consulted David Price, author of "Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War" and a contributor to the Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual, a forthcoming work of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, of which he is a member. According to Price, "HTS presents real ethical problems for anthropologists, because the demands of the military in situations of occupation put anthropologists in positions undermining their fundamental ethical loyalties to those they study. Moreover, it presents political problems that link anthropology to a disciplinary past where anthropologists were complicit in assisting in colonial conquests. Those selling HTS to the military have misrepresented what culture is and have downplayed the difficulties of using culture to bring about change, much less conquest. There is a certain dishonesty in pretending that anthropologists possess some sort of magic beans of culture, and that if only occupiers had better cultural knowledge, or made the right pay-offs, then occupied people would fall in line and stop resisting foreign invaders. Culture is being presented as if it were a variable in a linear equation, and if only HTS teams could collect the right data variables and present troops with the right information conquest could be entered in the equation. Life and culture doesn't work that way; occupied people know they are occupied, and while cultural knowledge can ease an occupation, historically it has almost never led to conquest - but even if it could, anthropology would irreparably damage itself if it became nothing more than a tool of occupations and conquest." The Handbook for the HTS offers the Human Terrain "toolkit" for the US military to understand subjects living in militarily occupied areas. It states: "HTTs will use the Map-HT Toolkit of developmental hardware and software to capture, consolidate, tag, and ingest human terrain data. HTTs use this human terrain information gathered to assist commanders in understanding the operational relevance of the information as it applies to the unit's planning processes. The expectation is that the resulting courses of actions developed by the staff and selected by the commander will consistently be more culturally harmonized with the local population, which in Counter-Insurgency Operations should lead to greater success. It is the trust of the indigenous population that is at the heart of the struggle between coalition forces and the insurgents." (Emphasis added.) The mission of the Human Terrain social scientists gains legitimacy and credibility when expressed in terms of engineering the "trust of the indigenous population." It is obvious that for the neo-colonialist, the HTS is a form of "soft power." In addition to dropping 2,000-pound bombs in civilian areas, occupation forces now see fit to use HTS to get into the minds of the people of the occupied country. Price avers, "The problem with anthropology being used in counterinsurgency isn't just that anthropologists are helping the military to wear different cultural skins; the problem is that it finds anthropologists using bio power and basic infrastructure as bargaining chips to force occupied cultures to surrender." Although he says it is too soon to gauge [a] possible increase in HTS operations since Obama took office, Price is convinced that the president is falling for the claim that a smart counterinsurgency can lead not just to easier occupations, but to victory. For the military to find regionally competent anthropologists to work for them is unlikely. Price is convinced that, "most (American) anthropologists understand the obvious ethical problems in working for HTS. The real risk lies in the likelihood that anthropologists will be seduced by arguments to support soft-power projects tied to occupation and counterinsurgency - especially when these projects are increasingly being presented as "helping" the occupied. "Those favoring soft-power forms of counterinsurgency are going to need anthropologists and other social scientists," Price said, "Narratives of aid and assistance, of building hospitals and schools will replace the strategic narratives of soft-power counterinsurgency manipulation of occupied people by occupiers. When you add to this the grim job prospects many anthropologists face in this economy, you can see how easy it is for the US administration to sell these soft-power programs." As the new administration adopts less-violent manipulations of the environments and peoples in Iraq and Afghanistan, Price is concerned that anthropologists will fail to see the distinction between military coercion of occupied peoples and publicized acts of "humanitarianism." As in most matters related to the occupation, the corporate media are squarely responsible for selling the HTS program to the American public. Price has written, "... the media has become a key supportive enabler of HTS. In the last two years I have probably spent twenty to thirty hours speaking with journalists from NPR, Elle, USA Today, Newsweek, Time, AP, New York Times, Wired, Harpers, Washington Post, etc. patiently explaining what the critical issues for anthropologists are when a program like Human Terrain Systems embeds anthropologists with troops engaged in counterinsurgency operations in occupied battle settings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes portions of these critiques show up along the way in the final stories, but in most cases, the arguments and critiques against the efficacy, ethical, neocolonial politics as well as the practical impossibility of HTS working as advertised are ignored, or worse yet, they are presented as absurd caricatures." Corporate media coverage of the program conveniently does not indicate that HTS ignores basic anthropological principles of ethics, such as voluntary informed consent, issues of secrecy, and doing no harm, among others. Most anthropologists concur with Price that HTS is also part of a domestic propaganda project, "that tells the Americans that wars for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan can be won. History argues against any such outcome, but HTS becomes part of a lie to the American people that helps keep us fighting these already lost causes. It is so poorly designed that HTS has no hope of actually working as advertised, yet both the Bush and Obama administrations have sold us a false hope that such counterinsurgency programs can lead to an eventual victory." As Price wrote recently, the media stance does not bode well for the future, or for President Obama. "The real bad news for American foreign policy is that given President Obama's commitment to "soft power" and his open endorsements of counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, we can expect more of this uncritical coverage on HTS as a crucial tool needed for America's occupations in foreign lands. I am left to wonder how anthropologist Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, would have reacted to her son's reliance on such clearly unethical anthropological means to achieve political ends so aligned with neocolonialist goals of occupation and subjugation?" visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Only 60 votes against Obama's wars by Michael Munk Thu, May 14, 2009

It was 368-60 -5 to pay almost $100B for the wars. Look up where your Rep stood (or sat) at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll265.xml US House backs $96.7 bln bill for Iraq, Afghan wars May 14, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWAT01146720090514 WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved a $96.7 billion measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30 as well as rush critical economic and security aid to Pakistan. The biggest chunk is $47.7 billion to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30. Obama had originally requested in total $84.3 billion. It also includes $1 billion for Pakistan as it tries to fight militant Taliban insurgents spilling over the border from Pakistan. It also has $3.1 billion for eight Boeing Co (BA.N) C-17s and 11 Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) C-130 transport planes. The Senate is working on its own version of the bill and differences, which will have to be resolved, including money for the International Monetary Fund and how to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that houses terrorism suspects. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama reneges on torture photos by Michael Munk Wed, May 13, 2009

Obama defends abuse photos U-turn BBC News May 13, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8048774.stm US President Barack Obama has said the release of more photos of prisoner abuse by US soldiers is "of no benefit" and may inflame opinion against the US. The pictures were not "sensational" and every case of abuse had been dealt with by the military, with action taken where appropriate, he said. The White House previously said it would not fight a court ruling ordering the release of the pictures. The pictures were due to be released by 28 May, according to the court order. The order was issued by an appeals court in September 2008, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 'Disappointed' The US defence department had been preparing to release the images, reportedly taken in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dispute could now end up before the US Supreme Court. Speaking outside the White House, Mr Obama said he would not tolerate the abuse of prisoners. However, he had, he said, directed his legal team to fight the court-ordered release of the photos because he was concerned they might "inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger". The Pentagon had not sought to conceal anything, he added, and appropriate action had been taken against individuals involved in abuses. The president had been advised against publication by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Centcom commander Gen David Petraeus and the commander of US forces in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, a Pentagon official said. The ACLU said it was "surprised and disappointed" by Mr Obama's decision and that it would continue to fight for the photographs' release. The BBC's Richard Lister in Washington says that although President Obama has insisted on the need for open government, it appears that on this issue he has been persuaded that - for now at least - such transparency risks doing more harm than good. US MEDIA REACTIONS TO OBAMA'S DECISION Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to prosecute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully co-opt his successor. The Atlantic Monthly's Andrew Sullivan, an Obama supporter during the election, is disappointed by the actions of the president he backed. The photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib did aid our enemies and put the lives of US soldiers at risk. We can assume that another round of photos would have had the same effect. That is, the only salutary effect of such a move would have been to soothe the consciences of American liberals who suspect American troops to be war criminals and desperately want the pictures to prove it... There are elements on the left that would expose the president to political danger, and the troops to mortal danger, only to see the last administration implicated in any kind of abuse. The president should be praised for resisting those elements. Neo-conservative Michael Goldfarb, who worked for John McCain during the presidential election, hails his former opponent in the Weekly Standard. I'm speculating, but the White House and Pentagon must not have cherished the idea of having their new start in Afghanistan undermined by the release of pictures that would further inflame the Muslim world. That's not a defense of the decision. I think it's a bad one. But it's an ominous decision for reasons that go beyond upholding the spirit of FOIA. David Kurtz, at Talking Points Memo, thinks that the decision means there is a "long slog ahead" for the US in Afghanistan. It isn't the photos; it is the acts themselves that put US troops in danger. The abuse is widely known among Iraqis, and those inclined to act don't need photographic evidence as justification. So, argues FireDogLake's Gregg Levine, why not publish the photographs? visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

torture pyschologist: says science is science by Michael Munk Mon, May 11, 2009

No sovergnity under US occupation by Michael Munk Sun, May 10, 2009

Obama believers silent about... by Michael Munk Sun, May 10, 2009

Deja vu? Obama on Af-Pak; Bush on Iraq by Michael Munk Sat, May 9, 2009

Tomgram: Everyday is Doomsday in Washington http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175069/everyday_is_doomsday_in_washington Secretary Doomsday and the Empathy Gap The Everyday Extremism of Washington By Tom Engelhardt A front-page New York Times headline last week put the matter politely indeed: "In Pakistan, U.S. Courts Leader of Opposition." And nobody thought it was strange at all. In fact, it's the sort of thing you can read just about any time when it comes to American policy in Pakistan or, for that matter, Afghanistan. It's just the norm on a planet on which it's assumed that American civilian and military leaders can issue pronunciamentos about what other countries must do; publicly demand various actions of ruling groups; opt for specific leaders, and then, when they disappoint, attempt to replace them; and use what was once called "foreign aid," now taxpayer dollars largely funneled through the Pentagon, to bribe those who are hard to convince. Last week as well, in a prime-time news conference, President Obama said of Pakistan: "We want to respect their sovereignty, but we also recognize that we have huge strategic interests, huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don't end up having a nuclear-armed militant state." To the extent that this statement was commented on, it was praised here for its restraint and good sense. Yet, thought about a moment, what the president actually said went something like this: When it comes to U.S. respect for Pakistan's sovereignty, this country has more important fish to fry. A look at the historical record indicates that Washington has, in fact, been frying those "fish" for at least the last four decades without particular regard for Pakistani sensibilities. In a week in which the presidents of both Pakistan and Afghanistan have, like two satraps, dutifully trekked to the U.S. capital to be called on the carpet by Obama and his national security team, Washington officials have been issuing one shrill statement after another about what U.S. media reports regularly term the "dire situation" in Pakistan. Of course, to put this in perspective, we now live in a thoroughly ramped-up atmosphere in which "American national security" -- defined to include just about anything unsettling that occurs anywhere on Earth -- is the eternal preoccupation of a vast national security bureaucracy. Its bread and butter increasingly seems to be worst-case scenarios (perfect for our 24/7 media to pounce on) in which something truly catastrophic is always about to happen to us, and every "situation" is a "crisis." In the hothouse atmosphere of Washington, the result can be a feeding frenzy in which doomsday scenarios pour out. Though we don't recognize it as such, this is a kind of everyday extremism. Being Hysterical in Washington As the recent release of more Justice Department torture memos (which were also, in effect, torture manuals) reminds us, we've just passed through eight years of such obvious extremism that the present everyday extremity of Washington and its national security mindset seems almost a relief. We naturally grasp the extremity of the Taliban -- those floggings, beheadings, school burnings, bans on music, the medieval attitude toward women's role in the world -- but our own extremity is in no way evident to us. So Obama's statement on Pakistani sovereignty is reported as the height of sobriety, even when what lies behind it is an expanding "covert" air war and assassination campaign by unmanned aerial drones over the Pakistani tribal lands, which has reportedly killed hundreds of bystanders and helped unsettle the region. Let's stop here and consider another bit of news that few of us seem to find strange. Mark Lander and Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times offered this tidbit out of an overheated Washington last week: "President Obama and his top advisers have been meeting almost daily to discuss options for helping the Pakistani government and military repel the [Taliban] offensive." Imagine that. Almost daily. It's this kind of atmosphere that naturally produces the bureaucratic equivalent of mass hysteria. In fact, other reports indicate that Obama's national security team has been convening regular "crisis" meetings and having "nearly nonstop discussions" at the White House, not to mention issuing alarming and alarmist statements of all sorts about the devolving situation in Pakistan, the dangers to Islamabad, our fears for the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, and so on. In fact, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landy of McClatchy news service quote "a senior U.S. intelligence official" (from among the legion of anonymous officials who populate our nation's capital) saying: "The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse, and no one has any idea about how to reverse it. I don't think 'panic' is too strong a word to describe the mood here." Now, if it were the economic meltdown, the Chrysler bankruptcy, the bank stress tests, the potential flu pandemic, or any number of close-to-home issues pressing in on the administration, perhaps this would make some sense. But everyday discussions of Pakistan? You know, that offensive in the Lower Dir Valley. That's near the Buner District. You remember, right next to the Swat Valley and, in case you're still not completely keyed in, geographically speaking, close to the Malakand Division. I mean, if the Pakistani government were in crisis over the deteriorating situation in Fargo, North Dakota, we would consider it material for late night jokesters. And yet, in the strange American world we inhabit, nobody finds these practically Cuban-Missile-Crisis-style, round-the-clock meetings the least bit strange, not after eight years of post-9/11 national security fears, not after living with worst-case scenarios in which jihadi atomic bombs regularly are imagined going off in American cities. Keep in mind a certain irony here: We essentially know what those crisis meetings will result in. After all, the U.S. government has been embroiled with Pakistan for at least 40 years and for just that long, its top officials have regularly come to the same policy conclusions -- to support Pakistani military dictatorships or, in periods when civilian rule returns, pour yet more money (and support) into the Pakistani military. That military has long been a power unto itself in the country, a state within a state. And in moments like this, part of our weird extremism is that, having spent decades undermining Pakistani democracy, we bemoan its "fragility" in the face of threats and proceed to put even more of our hopes and dollars into its military. (As Strobel and Landy report, "Some U.S. officials say Pakistan's only hope, and Washington's, too, at this stage may be the country's army. That, another senior official acknowledged Wednesday, 'means another coup.'") In the Bush years, this support added up to at least $10 billion, with next to no idea what the military was doing with it. Another $100 million went into making that country's nuclear-weapons program, about which there is now such panic, safer from theft or other intrusion, again with next to no idea of what was actually done with those dollars. And now the Obama administration is rushing to create a new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund that will be controlled by General David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command. If Congress agrees -- and in this panic atmosphere, how could it not? -- there will be an initial rushed down payment of $400 million to train the Pakistani military, probably outside that country, in counterinsurgency warfare. ("The fund would be similar to those used to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and police, Petraeus said.") Doomsday Scenarios Oh, and speaking of extremism, the ur-extreme statement of the last few weeks came from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was treated like the most ho-hum news here. In congressional testimony, she insisted that the situation in Pakistan -- that Taliban thrust into Swat and the lower Dir Valley -- "poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world." Umm... Okay, the situation is unnerving -- certainly for the Pakistanis, the large majority of whom have not the slightest love for the Taliban, have opted for democracy and against military dictatorship with a passion, and yet strongly oppose the destabilizing American air war in their borderlands. It could even result in the fall of the elected government or of democracy itself -- not exactly a rare event in the annals of recent Pakistani history. It's undoubtedly unnerving as well for the American military, intent on fighting a war in Afghanistan that has spilled disastrously across the open border. (As Pakistan expert Anatol Lieven wrote recently: "The danger to Pakistan is not of a Taliban revolution, but rather of creeping destabilization and terrorism, making any Pakistani help to the U.S. against the Afghan Taliban even less likely than it is at present.") In other words, it's not a pretty picture. If you happen to live in the tribal borderlands, or Swat, or the Dir Valley, squeezed between the Taliban, the Pakistani Army, whose attacks cause great civilian harm, and those drones cruising overhead, you may be in trouble, if not in flight -- or you may simply support the Taliban, as most of the rest of Pakistan does not. If you happen to live in India, you might start working up a sweat over what the future holds on the other side of the border. But all of this is unlikely to be a "mortal threat" even to Islamabad, the Pakistani military, or that nuclear arsenal American national security managers spend so much time fretting about. It is certainly not a "mortal threat to the security and safety of our country." So here's a little common sense. If Pakistan poses a mortal threat to you in New York, Toledo, or El Paso, well then, get in line. Believe me, it will be a long one and you'll be toward the back. Despite constant reports that lightly armed Taliban militants are only 60 miles from the "doorstep" of Islamabad, Pakistan's national capital, and increasing inside-the-Beltway invocations of Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 revolution in Iran, you're unlikely to see a Taliban government in Islamabad anytime soon, or probably ever. As one unnamed expert commented recently in the insider Washington newsletter, the Nelson Report, "I find it troubling that we are hyping the 'security situation' in Pakistan. Pakistan is not being taken over, the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] is. This has been happening since 2004." Mind you, when Vice President Joe Biden said something extreme about flu precautions -- don't take the subway! -- the media didn't hesitate to laugh him off stage. When Hillary Clinton said what should be considered the equivalent about Pakistan, everyone treated it as part of a sober national-security conversation. Of course, when it comes to hysteria, nothing helps like a nuclear arsenal, and in recent weeks nuclear doomsday scenarios have broken out like a swine flu pandemic, even though a victorious Taliban regime in Islamabad with a nuclear arsenal would undoubtedly still find the difficulties of planting and detonating such devices in American cities close to insurmountable. By the way, for all our kindly talk about how the poor Pakistanis just can't get it together democracy-wise, the U.S. has a terrible record when it comes not just to promoting democracy in that country, but to really giving much of a damn about its people. In fact, not to put too kindly a point on things, Washington has, over the past decades, done few favors for ordinary Pakistanis. Having played our version of the imperial Great Game first vis-à-vis the Soviets and, more recently, a bunch of jihadist warriors, we are now waging a most unpopular and destabilizing air war without mercy in parts of that country, and another deeply unpopular war just across its mountainous, porous border. And this brings us to perhaps the most extreme aspect of the mentality of our national security managers -- what might be called their empathy gap. They are, it seems, incapable of seeing the situations they deal through the eyes of those being dealt with. They lack, that is, all empathy, which means, in the end, that they lack understanding. They take it for granted that America's destiny is to "engineer" the fates of peoples half a world away and are incapable of imagining that the United States could, in almost any situation, be part of the problem, not a major part of its solution. This is surely folly of the first order and, year after year, has only made the "situation" in Pakistan worse. Closing the Empathy Gap? To complete our picture of this over-the-top moment, we have to leave the heated confines of Washington and head for California's China Lake. That's where the U.S. military tests some of its advanced weapons. On April 20th, Peter Pae of the Los Angeles Times reported the following: "A 5-pound missile the size of a loaf of French bread is being quietly tested in the Mojave Desert north of Los Angeles as the military searches for more deadly and far more precise robotic weapons for modern warfare." This tiny missile called the Spike will someday replace the 100-pound Hellfire missiles mounted on our Predator and more advanced Reaper unmanned aerial drones flying those assassination missions over the tribal lands of Pakistan. New weaponry like this is invariably promoted as being more "precise," and so capable of causing less "collateral damage," than whatever we've been using; that is, as an advance for humanity. But in this case, up to 12 of these powerful micro-weapons will someday replace the two Hellfires now capable of being mounted on a Predator, which means a future drone will have to come home far less often as it cruises the badlands of the planet looking for targets. According to Pae, this new development is considered a "milestone" in weaponizing robot planes. Chillingly, he quotes Steven Zaloga, a military analyst with the Teal Group Corporation as saying, "We're sort of at the same stage as we were in 1914 when we began to arm airplanes." Not only that but the Spike may someday soon be mounted on a new generation of more deadly drones, one of which, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' Avenger or Predator C, is already being tested. It will be able to fly 50% faster than the Reaper and at up to 60,000 feet for 20 hours before returning to base. In other words, the decisions to be made in future panicky "crisis" meetings in Washington, when "American security" once again faces a "mortal threat," are already being predetermined in the Mojave desert and elsewhere. In the Pentagon's eternal arms race of one, a major vote is being cast at China Lake for future Terminator wars. In a crisis mood of desperation, we tend to fall back on what we know. This, too, plays into Washington's national-security extremism. By now it should be obvious enough that the military approaches to Afghanistan and Pakistan (or the newly merged Af-Pak battlefield) have been in the process of failing for years. Take just our drone wars: they are not only killing significant numbers of civilians, but also destabilizing Pakistan's tribal lands -- military and civilian officials there have long begged us to ground them -- and so creating an anti-American atmosphere throughout that country. Recently, former advisor to Gen. David Petraeus and counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen told Congress: "We need to call off the drones... Since 2006, we've killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we've killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area. The drone strikes are highly unpopular. They are deeply aggravating to the population. And they've given rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism... The current path that we are on is leading us to loss of Pakistani government control over its own population." Sage advice. If President Obama temporarily suspended the Bush-era drone war, which his administration has recently escalated, it would represent a start down a different path, one not already strewn with the skeletons of failed policies. And while he's at it -- and here's a little touch of extremism by American standards -- why not declare a six-month moratorium on all drone research of any sort, a brief period to reconsider whether we really want to pursue such "solutions" ad infinitum? Why not, in fact, call for a six-month moratorium on all weapons research? A long Pentagon holiday. Militarily, the U.S. is in no danger of losing significant military ground globally by shutting down its R&D machine for a time, while reconsidering whether it actually wants to lead the planet into a future filled with Spikes and Avengers. If, however, nothing else was done, at least the president should order his national security team to calm down, skip those crisis meetings on Pakistan, tamp down the doomsday scenarios, and try to take a few minutes to imagine what the world looks like if you're not in Washington or the skies over our planet. Are there really no solutions anywhere that don't need to be engineered first in our national capital? Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years. [Note: You could easily drown in the tsunami of recent semi-hysterical pieces about the Pakistan or Af-Pak situation. Fortunately, I have Juan Cole's Informed Comment, Paul Woodward's The War in Context, and Antiwar.com to depend on to help me sort through the crucial reportage of this moment. What would I do without them? Let me thank as well Christopher Holmes, TomDispatch Tokyo bureau chief, whose keen eye keeps these posts relatively free of goofs. Note as well the appearance of the first TD author photo in this piece. Site photographer Tam Turse took it. We'll probably be phasing in more of her author photos over the coming months.] Copyright 2009 Tom Engelhardt visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's permanent base in Afghnistan by Michael Munk Thu, May 7, 2009

Huge U.S. camp arises in Afghan Desert of Death By Andrew Gray May 7, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090507/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_usa_camp;_ylt=AtMLFj1RY1Bsrlx_38T3Xdxm.3QA CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A huge U.S. military camp is taking shape in the baking heat of southern Afghanistan for thousands of extra U.S. troops charged with defeating a resurgent Taliban. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Camp Leatherneck, with concrete blast walls and semi-cylinder sand-colored tents, on Thursday as he surveyed preparations for what will be the biggest wave yet in a year that is seeing U.S. troop numbers doubled. The camp is being constructed in Helmand province next to a British base, Camp Bastion, as Marines and other forces dramatically expand their presence in the most violent area of Afghanistan and heartland of the Taliban movement. Construction workers clambered on the wooden frame of a new headquarters building as Gates spoke at the camp, where the majority of more than 8,000 marines now flowing into southern Afghanistan are expected be based. "This place was desert at the end of January. I mean: nothing, said Navy Captain Jeff Borowy," the top U.S. military engineer in southern Afghanistan. "Now you've got a 443-acre secure facility," he told reporters traveling with Gates. ATLANTIC WAY Miles of sand walls topped with coils of barbed wire line the roads at the camp, linked to its British neighbor by a street nicknamed Atlantic Way. If placed end to end in the United States, the sand walls at Leatherneck and eight other sites being built for the troop influx in southern Afghanistan would stretch for a distance of 175 km (110 miles). The marines at Camp Leatherneck are also building a giant parking area for helicopters and airplanes by laying down a mat of metal alloy on the desert floor. With a length of 4,860 feet a width of 318 feet, the mat will be the second largest of its kind in the world and the biggest in a combat zone, said Marine Lieutenant Colonel David Jones, commander of the Marine Wing Support Squadron 371, based in Yuma, Arizona. The new bases are a tangible sign of the increased resources devoted to Afghanistan by U.S. President Barack Obama, who accused his predecessor George W. Bush of neglecting the war in Afghanistan to focus on the conflict in Iraq, which Obama opposed. Even before he completed a review of Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, Obama ordered 17,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan, including the 12,000 Marines. "We are now resourcing our counterinsurgency appropriately," said U.S. Army Brigadier General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in southern Afghanistan. "Our allies have done the heavy lifting for us in the southern region for a long time," he added. "The Brits, the Canadians, the Dutch have taken a lot of casualties." Getting supplies to the remote desert -- named the Desert of Death by local tribesmen because of its extreme summer heat and desolation -- and building the camps in time for the influx of troops has posed challenges, Borowy said. In one innovative attempt to deal with the conditions, marines bagged up recycled water from camp showers and kitchens and used it to prepare sand for the aircraft parking area. "We're in the middle of the desert so getting water's pretty interesting," Borowy said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama bombing more Afghans than Iraqis by Michael Munk Thu, May 7, 2009

Record Bombs Dropped in Afghanistan in April ///////////////////////////////// by Bruce Rolfsen Navy Times VIA http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_april_airstrike_050409w/ May 4, 2009 Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan during April, Air Forces Central figures show. In the past month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever. April also marked the fourth consecutive month that the number of bombs dropped rose, after a decline starting last July. The munitions were released during 2,110 close-air support sorties. The actual number of airstrikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don't include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don't include strafing runs or launches of small missiles. Over Iraq, 26 bombs were released during 767 strike sorties. Transport crews airdropped 1.8 million pounds of supplies, mostly in Afghanistan, and tankers off loaded 85 million pounds of fuel. Reconnaissance aircraft flew 1,402 missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. *** visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama: I'm protecting for-profit health insurance by Michael Munk Thu, May 7, 2009

A late May Day greeting by Michael Munk Wed, May 6, 2009

Stanford alums protest Rice's return by Michael Munk Tue, May 5, 2009

The Hoover Institute at Stanford --a notorious sinecure for discredited war criminals-- also gave Rumsfeld in September 2007 a one-year appointment as a fellow. Group Demands Stanford Cut Ties With Condi http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Group-Demands-Stanford-Cut-Ties-With-Rice.htmlBy JESSICA GREENE May 4, 2009 A group of Stanford alumni who took a stand against the Vietnam War 40years ago met up at their Alma Mater over the weekend and in true style,protested.Members of the April 3rd Movement marked their anniversary at StanfordUniversity Sunday by calling for the school to sever its ties withCondoleezza Rice.The upset group nailed a petition to the door of the president's officedemanding that the former Bush administration Secretary of State andNational Security Advisor be held accountable for what they say are seriousviolations of the law, including the approval of torture and misleading thecountry by going into the Iraq war.National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn and leader of the April 3rdMovement was at the demonstration."To have a professor as a tenured professor in the political sciencedepartment of Stanford University who told lies to get us into an illegalwar and who authorized torture, which is a war crime and violates our law,"Cohn said, "she has no place in the political science department atStanford."Pictures on the IndyBay Web site show the Raging Grannies at thedemonstration and a person wearing an orange jumpsuit and a black hood,reminiscent of the images from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.Last week, Rice's appearance at the university made international headlinesbecause of a confrontation between her and an intern for a political journalwho challenged the Rice over the Bush's administration of enhancedinterrogation.The video, shot by Stanford student Reyna Garcia, was posted on YouTube andhas been viewed more than 100,000 times.In the 6-minute exchange, Rice tells the student that waterboarding waslegal because it was authorized by the president.From 1993-1999, Rice was Stanford's provost. She is also a tenured professorof political science at the university. She is returning to the university'sHoover Institution as a senior fellow on public policy.visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Shock at US troops trying to convert Afghans by Michael Munk Mon, May 4, 2009

Note that the US base at Bagram is also the site of a prison holding = more captives than GITMO.=20 =20 US army 'does not promote religion'=20 Al-Jazeera, May 4, 2009 = http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/2009542250178146.html=20 =20 =20 Bagram air base has a thriving evangelical=20 Christian community=20 =20 The US's highest ranking military officer has said it is not the = US military's position to promote any specific religion, after Al = Jazeera revealed footage of troops apparently preparing to convert = Afghans to their Christian faith. "From the United States' military's perspective, it is not our = position to ever push any specific kind of religion, period," said = Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on = Monday. The US military has also confiscated Bibles that Christian US = soldiers in Afghanistan had apparently intended to give to local = Muslims, a military spokesman told Al Jazeera. In addition, some of the soldiers who appeared in the video have = also been reprimanded, US government and military officials told Al = Jazeera's James Bays. The video, shot about a year ago, appeared to show military = chaplains stationed in the US air base at Bagram discussing how to = distribute copies of the Bible printed in the country's main Pashto and = Dari languages. IN VIDEO=20 =20 US troops urged to 'witness for Jesus' in Afghanistan=20 =20 More videos ... =20 In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief = of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, tells soldiers that, as = followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be = witnesses for him". "The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same = things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them = down," he says. "Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the = kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business." Questioned about the footage, Greg Julian, a US colonel in = Afghanistan, told Al Jazeera: "Most of this is taken out of context ... = this is irresponsible and inappropriate journalism. "This footage was taken a year ago ... the Bibles were taken into = custody and not distributed. "There is no effort to go out and proselytise to Afghans." 'Very damaging' Under the US military code of conduct, armed forces on active duty = are prohibited from trying to convert a person's faith. Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai, a former Afghan prime minister, told Al = Jazeera from Kabul on Monday: "This is a complete deviation from what = they [the US military] are supposed to be doing. "I don't think even the US constitution would allow what they are = doing ... it is completely against all regulations. "This is very damaging for diplomatic relations between the two = counties ... everyone knows people are very conservative here, very = faithful to Islam. They will never accept any other religion.=20 "Someone who leaves Islam is sentenced very severely - the death = penalty [is imposed]. "There must be a serious investigation now that it has come out = into the public and [into the] press," he said. Sayed Aalam Uddin Asser of the Islamic Front for Peace and = Understanding in Kabul told Al Jazeera: "It's a national security issue = ... our constitution says nothing can take place in Afghanistan against = Islam. =20 "If people come and propagate other religions which have no = followers in Afghanistan [then] it creates problems for the people, for = peace, for stability. Local language Bibles The footage shot by Brian Hughes, a documentary maker and former = member of the US military who spent several days in Bagram near Kabul, = was obtained by Al Jazeera's Bays, who has covered Afghanistan = extensively. =20 It is not clear if the local language Bibles were distributed to Afghans=20 In other footage captured at Bagram, Sergeant Jon Watt, a soldier = set to become a military chaplain, said during a Bible study class: "I = also want to praise God because my church collected some money to get = bibles for Afghanistan. They came and sent the money out." It is not clear whether the Bibles were distributed to Afghans, = but Hughes said that none of the people he recorded in a series of = sermons and Bible study classes appeared to able to speak Pashto or = Dari. Hughes said: "The only reason they would have these documents = there was to distribute them to the Afghan people and I knew it was = wrong, and I knew that filming it . documenting it would be important." Guidelines Regulations by the US military's Central Command expressly forbid = "proselytising of any religion, faith or practice". But in another piece of footage, the chaplains appear to = understand their actions were in breach of a regulation known as General = Order Number One. "Do we know what it means to proselytise?" Captain Emmit Furner, a = military chaplain, says to the gathering. "It is General Order Number One," an unidentified soldier replies. But Watt says "you can't proselytise, but you can give gifts". The footage also suggests US soldiers gave out Bibles in Iraq. In an address at Bagram, Watt is recorded as saying: "I bought a = carpet and then I gave the guy a Bible after I conducted my business. "... the expressions that I got from the people in Iraq [were] = just phenomenal, they were hungry for the word." The video has surfaced as Barack Obama, the US president, prepares = to host Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, at a summit on Tuesday = and Wednesday focusing on how to tackle the al-Qaeda and Taliban along = the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. =20 =20

Obama greets Seeger on his 90th by Michael Munk Mon, May 4, 2009

Pete Seeger's 90th Birthday Concert and President Obama By M.J. Rosenberg - TPM May 3, 2009 http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/03/pete_seegers_90_birthday_concert_and_president_oba/ On Sunday night Pete Seeger's 90th birthday was celebrated with a concert at Madison Square Garden. It was great. Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, Ben Harper, Richie Havens, Joan Baez, Billy Bragg, Rufus Wainwright, Arlo Guthrie, and a dozen or two other headliners performed. And Pete Seeger, of course. But here's the amazing thing. In my life, I have never been to a concert (let alone a lefty concert) at which the name of the President of the United States was cheered. At previous concerts I've been to over the decades, the names of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter or Clinton were no more likely to be cheered than those of Reagan or Bush. I mean, who cheers Presidents at concerts? Traditionally, names of Presidents go unmentioned. Or they are booed. Springsteen said that he never saw Seeger more happy than at Obama's inauguration, noting that Seeger saw Obama's ascendancy as proof that he, Seeger, had "outlived the bastards." One more thing. The 30,000 people in the audience wildly cheered a letter from Obama saluting Seeger. Two incredible things there. One, a President salutes a life-long radical (and also has him perform at his inauguration). Two, an audience of aging hippies and 20-somethings goes nuts every time the President is mentioned. I can't believe I've lived to see the day. Happy Birthday, Pete Seeger. The America of your music may be in the process of being born. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US occupation hunts Afghans for Jesus by Michael Munk Mon, May 4, 2009

'Witness for Jesus' in Afghanistan Al-Jazeera, May 3, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/200953201315854832.html US soldiers have been encouraged to spread the message of their Christian faith among Afghanistan's predominantly Muslim population, video footage obtained by Al Jazeera appears to show. Military chaplains stationed in the US air base at Bagram were also filmed with bibles printed in the country's main Pashto and Dari languages. In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, is seen telling soldiers that as followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him". "The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down," he says. "Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business." The footage, shot about a year ago by Brian Hughes, a documentary maker and former member of the US military who spent several days in Bagram, was obtained by Al Jazeera's James Bays, who has covered Afghanistan extensively. Bays also obtained from Hughes a Pashto-language copy of one of the books he picked up during a Bible study lesson he recorded at Bagram. A Pashto speaker confirmed to Bays that it was a Bible. In other footage captured at Bagram, Sergeant Jon Watt, a soldier who is set to become a military chaplain, is seen giving thanks for the work that his church in the US did in getting Bibles printed and sent to Afghanistan. "I also want to praise God because my church collected some money to get Bibles for Afghanistan. They came and sent the money out," he is heard saying during a Bible study class. It is not clear that the Bibles were distributed to Afghans, but Hughes said that none of the people he recorded in a series of sermons and Bible study classes appeared to able to speak Pashto or Dari. "They weren't talking about learning how to speak Dari or Pashto, by reading the Bible and using that as the tool for language lessons," Hughes said. "The only reason they would have these documents there was to distribute them to the Afghan people. And I knew it was wrong, and I knew that filming it . documenting it would be important." Pentagon officials have so far not responded to a copy of the footage provided to them, but the distribution of Bibles in a place as politically sensitive as Afghanistan is bound to cause deep concern in Washington, our correspondent says. It is not clear if the presence of the Bibles and exhortations for soldiers to be "witnesses" for Jesus continues, but they were filmed a year ago despite regulations by the US military's Central Command that expressly forbid "proselytising of any religion, faith or practice". It is not clear any of the local language Bibles were distributed to Afghans But in another piece of footage taken by Hughes, the chaplains appear to have found a way around the regulation known as General Order Number One. "Do we know what it means to proselytise?" Captain Emmit Furner, a military chaplain, says to the gathering. "It is General Order Number One," an unidentified soldier replies. But Watt says "you can't proselytise but you can give gifts". The footage also suggests US soldiers gave out Bibles in Iraq. In his address to a Bible study group at Bagram, Afghanistan, Watt is recorded as saying: "I bought a carpet and then I gave the guy a Bible after I conducted my business. "The Bible wasn't to be 'hey, I'll give you this and I'll give you a better deal because that would be wrong', [but] the expressions that I got from the people in Iraq [were] just phenomenal, they were hungry for the word." The footage has surfaced as Barack Obama, the US president, prepares to host Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, at a summit focusing on how to tackle al-Qaeda and Taliban bases dotted along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president, will also take part in the talks in Washington, scheduled for May 5 and 6. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

real healthcare struggle against for-profit insurance by Michael Munk Mon, May 4, 2009

The 75 current co-sponsors are listed below =20 =20 PDA Continues the Fight for=20 HR 676 Single-payer Healthcare Dear Michael, After many long years of informing, and fighting for = national single-payer healthcare, our opportunity to pass HR 676 is upon = us. But certain high-powered Democrats have taken it "off the table" and = minority Republicans are happy to go along.=20 We need you to take effective action in support of HR 676 = starting with the May 13 National Lobby Day and Rally in D.C. If you can't make it, save the date to send an email to your = member of Congress in support of HR 676. If your representative has = signed on as a co-sponsor, offer your thanks and ask them to stand firm = for the single-payer solution. If your representative is not a = co-sponsor, ask him to support what the majority of Americans and = doctors want--single-payer healthcare. Find co-sponsors here. Some organizations seeking healthcare reform have = compromised the single-payer solution by promoting a = private/public-option mix. Tweaking our current system will neither = produce the savings and sustainability of single-payer healthcare, nor = provide businesses with better ability to compete globally. It will, = however, further enrich wealthy healthcare corporations with a = government mandated give-away of our hard-earned dollars. Ask Democracy = for America and MoveOn why they do not support the single-payer = solution; click here. In alliance with the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed = Healthcare, PDA is working hard to put it back on the table by = heightening the pressure on Congress to seriously debate the = single-payer solution. It falls to us to motivate our friends and neighbors to take = action for the single-payer solution. Polls indicate majority = support--we need that majority to contact their members of Congress. = Please pass this on! Yours in the struggle, Tim Carpenter PDA National Director P.S. Don't forget to order your professionally printed = "Healthcare NOT Warfare" flyers, here. Yours for just the cost of = shipping! Progressive Democrats of America is a grassroots PAC that = works both inside the Democratic Party and outside in movements for = peace and justice. Our goal in 2009: Work with and increase the = progressive majority in Congress as we build on our 2008 electoral = successes. PDA's advisory board includes seven members of Congress and = activist leaders such as Tom Hayden, Medea Benjamin, Thom Hartmann, Jim = Hightower, and Rev. Lennox Yearwood.=20 =20 =20 Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/11/2009 Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] = - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 3/17/2009 Rep Berman, Howard L. = [CA-28] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 2/23/2009 Rep Brady, Robert = A. [PA-1] - 2/11/2009=20 Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 3/3/2009 Rep Capuano, Michael E. = [MA-8] - 2/23/2009=20 Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 4/21/2009 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. = [NY-11] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/26/2009 Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] = - 2/23/2009=20 Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 1/26/2009 Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] = - 2/3/2009=20 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 2/23/2009 Rep Davis, Danny K. = [IL-7] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 1/26/2009 Rep Doyle, Michael F. = [PA-14] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 1/26/2009 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] = - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 1/26/2009 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - = 1/26/2009=20 Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 2/11/2009 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - = 2/11/2009=20 Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 1/28/2009 Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - = 2/23/2009=20 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 1/26/2009 Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. = [IL-4] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 2/23/2009 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. = [NY-22] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 2/23/2009 Rep Honda, Michael M. = [CA-15] - 2/11/2009=20 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 3/5/2009 Rep Jackson-Lee, = Sheila [TX-18] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 2/3/2009 Rep Kaptur, = Marcy [OH-9] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 2/23/2009 Rep Kildee, Dale E. = [MI-5] - 2/23/2009=20 Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 1/26/2009 Rep Kucinich, = Dennis J. [OH-10] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 1/26/2009 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - = 3/17/2009=20 Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 3/24/2009 Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] - = 3/24/2009=20 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 2/23/2009 Rep Massa, Eric J. J. = [NY-29] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/26/2009 Rep McGovern, James P. = [MA-3] - 3/3/2009=20 Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 3/24/2009 Rep Meeks, Gregory W. = [NY-6] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 3/19/2009 Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - = 2/11/2009=20 Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 1/26/2009 Rep Napolitano, Grace F. = [CA-38] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 1/26/2009 Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - = 3/19/2009=20 Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 3/3/2009 Rep Pingree, Chellie = [ME-1] - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 1/28/2009 Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille = [CA-34] - 3/30/2009=20 Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 2/23/2009 Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - = 3/5/2009=20 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 2/23/2009 Rep Scott, Robert C. = "Bobby" [VA-3] - 2/23/2009=20 Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 2/23/2009 Rep Tierney, John F. = [MA-6] - 1/28/2009=20 Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] - 1/26/2009 Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] = - 3/31/2009=20 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/23/2009 Rep Waters, Maxine = [CA-35] - 3/19/2009=20 Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 1/26/2009 Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - = 2/23/2009=20 Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 2/11/2009 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] = - 1/26/2009=20 Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 2/23/2009=20 THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov =20 =20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama holds out against world's May Day by Michael Munk Sat, May 2, 2009

Obama Recognizes Anti-Communist Forebears By Justin Elliott - May 1, 2009, 2:14PM Happy Law Day and Loyalty Day everyone! http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/obama-recognizes-anti-communist-forebears.php?ref=fp4 That's right, it's May Day or Labor Day in most of the world today, and President Obama has issued a pair of proclamations recognizing the homegrown American institutions of Law Day and Loyalty Day. Law Day, established amid the anti-Communist fervor of the late 1950s by Dwight Eisenhower (the same president who gave us "under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance a few years earlier), is designed, naturally, to celebrate the rule of law. As Eisenhower put it: "In a very real sense, the world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law." Loyalty Day, on the other hand -- which apparently began as 'Americanization Day' -- was established amid the anti-Communist fervor of the early 1920s in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Congress made it official, and President Eisenhower signed it into law the same year he created Law Day. Unfortunately, though, May 1 was getting a little crowded, and he felt obligated to bump Child Health Day to make room. Today, Obama said, "I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama caves on AIPAC spy case by Michael Munk Sat, May 2, 2009

There was more to this story: The indictment alleged that in early 2002 David Satterfield (former deputy chief of the United States Mission in Baghdad and lead US negotiator on the phoney US-Iraq security treaty that Bush (and now Obama) hope would legitimate permanent US bases in Iraq) discussed secret national security matters in two meetings with the two AIPAC lobyists. The meetings, on January 18, 2002, and March 12, 2002, were confirmed by classified documents. The Times reported on August 18, 2005 that "Their meetings are listed as overt acts in a conspiracy to illegally communicate national defense secrets to a foreign government. After Mr. Rosen's first meeting with USGO-2 [Satterfield] on Jan. 18, 2002, the indictment said, a memorandum containing the information that Mr. Rosen had obtained was sent to other Aipac employees. The indictment did not indicate who wrote the memorandum, but said that it "contained classified information provided by [Satterfield]."The two men met again on March 12, the indictment said. At their second meeting, they talked about Al Qaeda, the indictment said, without saying what aspect of the terror network was discussed. On March 14, Mr. Rosen disclosed to an unidentified foreign official, [an Israeli diplomat] "FO-2," the information that he had heard from USGO-2, the indictment said. see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/politics/18inquire.html?pagewanted=2&sq=AIPAC%20spy%20trial&st=cse&scp=5 Obama's decision protects Bush's secretary of state and national secuirty advisor from testifying in the case. U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists By NEIL A. LEWIS and DAVID JOHNSTON New York Times, May 2, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html?_r=1 WASHINGTON - A case that began four years ago with the tantalizing and volatile premise that officials of a major pro-Israel lobbying organization were illegally trafficking in sensitive national security information collapsed on Friday as prosecutors asked that all charges be withdrawn. From the beginning, the case against the lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was highly unusual. The two, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, were charged under the World War I-era Espionage Act, accused of improperly providing to their colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats sensitive information they had acquired by speaking with American policy makers. Some lawyers at the Justice Department had always had significant reservations about the case, some current and former officials said. They believed that Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman had acted imprudently, but doubted that either man should be criminally prosecuted. Nevertheless, F.B.I. agents poured substantial resources into the case, and the decision to seek a dismissal infuriated many within the law enforcement agency. But several current and former officials said the decision to abandon the case was no surprise. With adverse judicial rulings making the prosecution increasingly risky, lawyers in the United States Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Va., and at Justice Department headquarters met on several occasions in recent weeks, agonizing over whether to go forward with the trial, which was scheduled to begin June 2. Last week, officials from the F.B.I.'s Washington office who investigated the case made their final pleas to keep the case alive, arguing that there was enough evidence to persuade a jury to find the two men guilty. But prosecutors - including some who had worked on the case for years - disagreed. Joseph Persichini Jr., the top official at the F.B.I.'s Washington office, praised the work of the F.B.I. agents on the case, and said he was "disappointed" in the decision to drop the charges. The case had raised delicate political issues about the role played by American Jewish supporters of Israel and their close, behind-the-scenes relationships with top government officials. Advocates of civil liberties and of open government asserted that the defendants were being singled out for activities that were part of the accepted and routine way that American policy on Israel and the Middle East had been formulated for years, with people exchanging information. The decision to drop the case comes just days before Aipac is scheduled to begin its annual policy conference in Washington, which has often served as an advertisement of its influence. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is scheduled to address the event via satellite. Lawyers for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman said in a statement that while they were pleased at the decision, the government had erred in bringing the case in the first place and had caused great damage to their clients. Aipac dismissed the men early in 2004 after prosecutors presented some of their evidence to an Aipac lawyer. The group later agreed to subsidize their legal costs. The Justice Department said that the decision to drop the case had been made solely by career prosecutors in Alexandria, and that senior officials of the Obama administration had acted only to approve the recommendation. Several other officials said, however, that while senior political appointees at the Justice Department did not direct subordinates to drop the case, they were heavily involved in the deliberations. These officials said David S. Kris, the newly appointed chief of the department's national security division, and Dana J. Boente, the interim United States attorney in Alexandria, had conferred regularly with prosecutors and ultimately decided to accept the recommendation to abandon the case. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was informed and raised no objections. The case would have been the first prosecution under the espionage law in which no documents were involved and in which the defendants were not officials who provided the information, but the private citizens who received it from them in conversations. While Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman trafficked in facts, ideas and rumor, they had done so with the full awareness of officials in the United States and Israel, who found they often helped lubricate the wheels of decision-making between two close, but sometimes quarrelsome, friends. The move by the government to end the case came in a motion filed with the Federal Court in Alexandria. In pretrial maneuvering, the prosecution suffered several setbacks in rulings from the trial judge, T. S. Ellis III, that were upheld by a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. Judge Ellis rejected several government efforts to conceal classified information if the case went to trial. Moreover, he ruled that the government could prevail only if it met a high standard; he said prosecutors would have to demonstrate that Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman knew that their distribution of the information would harm United States national security. The investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman also surfaced recently in news reports that Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat long involved in intelligence matters, was overheard on a government wiretap discussing the case. As reported by Congressional Quarterly, which covers Capitol Hill, and The New York Times, Ms. Harman was overheard agreeing with an Israeli intelligence operative to try to intercede with Bush administration officials to obtain leniency for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman in exchange for help in persuading Democratic leaders to make her chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harman has denied interceding for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, and has expressed anger that she was wiretapped. She is to be among the featured speakers at the Aipac conference next week. Over government objections, Judge Ellis had also ruled that the defense could call as witnesses several senior Bush administration foreign policy officials to demonstrate that what occurred was part of the continuing process of information trading and did not involve anything nefarious. The defense lawyers were planning to call as witnesses former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Stephen J. Hadley, the former national security adviser; and several others. Government policy makers indicated they were clearly uncomfortable with senior officials' testifying in open court over policy deliberations. The government's motion to dismiss said the government was obliged take a final review of the case to consider "the likelihood that classified information will be revealed at trial, any damage to the national security that might result from a disclosure of classified information and the likelihood the government would prevail at trial." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

CIA psychologists responsible for torture methods by Michael Munk Fri, May 1, 2009

ABC is better late than never with this story since Mitchell-Jensen Associates of Spokane was outed several years ago. Worth noting that Joseph Dominic Matarazzo, an 81-year-old former psychology professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, a past President of the American Psychological Association, was on its board in 2007. Report: Two Psychologists Responsible for Devising CIA Interrogation Methods ABC News reports that former military officers Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell were paid by the CIA to oversee the waterboarding techniques used against high-profile detainees to extract information in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. FOXNews.com VIA http://www.legitgov.org/ Thursday, April 30, 2009 Two psychologists are responsible for designing the CIA's program of waterboarding suspected terrorists and for assuring the government the program was safe, according to an ABC News report. Former military officers Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell had an "important role in developing what became the CIA's torture program," Jameel Jaffer, an attorney with the ACLU, told ABC News. Jessen and Mitchell were previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to resist brutal tactics if captured -- but Col. Steven Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator, told ABC News that the two never had experience conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them. "They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience," Col. Kleinman told ABC News. Associates say Jessen and Mitchell were paid up to $1,000 a day by the CIA to oversee the techniques used against high-profile detainees to extract information in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. The revelation comes as Congressional Democrats turn up the pressure on the Obama administration to appoint a special counsel to start a criminal investigation into harsh interrogations of terror suspects and who authorized them. The debate was sparked by the Obama administration this month releasing four Bush-era memos outlining legal guidelines for the CIA's interrogation methods. Obama has said it would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" should be prosecuted. The methods, described in the Bush-era memos, included slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to simulated drowning, known as waterboarding. The president said he would not seek to punish CIA officers and others who carried out interrogations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expert has stake in cryptic local firm Consultants tied to CIA interrogations Bill Morlin, Spokane Statesman-Review August 12, 2007 The former president of the American Psychological Association is a partner in a Spokane-based firm linked to the CIA's reported use of harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists at secret detention centers around the world. Joseph Dominic Matarazzo, an 81-year-old former psychology professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said in a statement Friday that he serves on the board of Mitchell Jessen & Associates and owns 1 percent of the firm. According to public records, Matarazzo is one of five "governing people" in the Mitchell Jessen firm, which does secret interrogation consulting work for the CIA. For the rest of this story: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=204358 Also see: Report: Spokane psychologist key in expanding torture By Karen Dorn Steele, Spokane Statesman-Review December 12, 2008 http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=18203 ---------------------------------------------- visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregon Doc defies Cuban trvael ban by Michael Munk Fri, May 1, 2009

Dr. Grossman intends his "illegal" trip to draw attention to pending = legislation in Congress. The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act (S. 428) is = co-sponsored by 25 Senators, and the companion version House (HR 874) is = co-sponsored by 132 Representatives. Cuba or Bust For This 94-Year-Old Doc http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/05/01/cuba-or-bust-for-this-94-year-old-= doc/ Willamette Week (Portland), May 1st, 2009=20 by Megan Brescini=20 On April 13, President Obama lifted a U.S. ban that had made it illegal = for Americans to visit family in Cuba or send them money. While a big step, it's not enough for Charles Grossman, a 94-year-old = retired doc (and all around nice guy) who held a press conference today = in advance of his law-challenging trip to Cuba. He wants the United States to allow tourism and trade that could set the = stage for international diplomacy with Cuba - and strengthen both = countries' economies. Dr. Grossman also sees improved relations with Cuba as an opportunity to = study the pluses and minuses of a single-payer healthcare system. The 94-year-old firebrand is taking action to make it happen by leaving = today for Cuba. While he could very likely get approved for travel as a = researcher, or doctor, he's not doing that. He's going illegally to challenge what he sees as insufficient action by = Obama in lifting the ban. Will he be arrested when he returns or fined? = Stay tuned. We'll be following this story.

Occupation pulls rank onr Iraq puppet by Michael Munk Fri, May 1, 2009

When Bush's "security pact" was implemented , we dismissed its provision that US occupation troops could be tried in Iraqi courts as phoney since it allowed the occupation to decide any request from the Iraqis. This proves we were correct. ----- U.S. says troops will not face trial over Iraq raid May Day, 2009 (Reuters) BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers will not appear in Iraqi courts to answer any charges relating to a raid this week that killed two people in Iraq and triggered condemnation from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the U.S. military has said. In a video-conference interview with Reuters TV Washington late on Thursday, Brigadier-General Peter Bayer, chief of staff for the U.S. military's day to day operations in Iraq, said the raid in the southern city of Kut was "lawful and legal." Responding to a question whether American soldiers would appear in Iraqi courts, he replied: "No. Absolutely not." "(The raid) was a sanctioned and authorized combat operation in accordance with ... the security agreement. The target of the raid was a named subject in an arrest warrant issued by an Iraqi judge. And the raid was coordinated with the Iraqi government." Under the U.S.-Iraqi security pact that came into force this year, the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq can no longer conduct military operations without Iraqi approval. The fallout from the operation early on Sunday, which Maliki labeled a "crime," poses the first major test to the pact, which allows U.S. troops to stay in Iraq until the end of 2011. The prime minister said they violated it. Maliki, an increasingly assertive leader as his popularity grows at home and U.S. influence in Iraq diminishes, also said those responsible for the raid should be sent to court -- the first such demand since the pact took effect in January. The agreement says U.S. soldiers are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts unless they are suspected of grave crimes committed while off duty outside their bases. In all other cases, suspected crimes would be tried by U.S. military justice. "Unfortunately ... it was a combat operation, and two people were killed but it was a lawful and legal operation, conducted in the spirit of the security agreement," Bayer said. The Iraqi government has asked General Ray Odierno, the U.S. commander in Iraq, for an official apology for the raid. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Cole on withdrawal fundamentalists by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 28, 2009

Sad to send you Juan Cole's position against ending the US occupation of Iraq by calling those of us who favor it "fundamentalists" He frequently seemed to me to be "soft" on withdrawal but now he is out with the same "chaos" prediction that proved so absurd when used to oppose withdrawal from Vietnam. Those of us who always argued that the real strategic purpose of teh invasion and occupation was to establish permament military bases in the oil patch are still waiting to be proved wrong. Withdrawal "realist" Cole writes: "Many US observers, who are withdrawal fundamentalists, do not understand that the advances made by the Iraqi army depend heavily on US logistical and air support, and that a precipitous withdrawal might well leave the country in chaos. They also don't understand that an Iraq in chaos would be unacceptable to the US and its regional allies, and would draw American troops right back in. Obama's measured withdrawal, which has the support of the Iraqi government, is a good compromise and has a 50/50 chance of success. The heavy-casualty bombings of recent weeks in Baghdad and Mosul are a security, not a military challege, and probably will not affect the timeline." See http://www.juancole.com/ for his full take on Obama's mid east policy All this just when the US commander predicts US troops will remain in Iraqi cities after the June deadline using what is actually the "chaos" argument visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Yoo relieved to escape from the PR of Berkeley by Michael Munk Sat, Apr 25, 2009

=20 =20 Email Picture Robert Lachman / Los Angeles Times Protesters dressed as prisoners stand outside Chapman University, where = during a spirited forum John C. Yoo strongly defended Bush = administration policies. Different approaches for two men at center of 'torture memo' controversy Robert Lachman / Los Angeles Times Protesters dressed as prisoners stand outside Chapman University, where = during a spirited forum John C. Yoo strongly defended Bush = administration policies. While John Yoo fiercely defends his legal justification for harsh = interrogation tactics before a skeptical crowd in Orange County, federal = appeals court Judge Jay Bybee maintains a low profile. By Carol J. Williams=20 April 22, 2009=20 As demands mounted Tuesday for sanctions against Bush administration = lawyers who wrote so-called torture memos, one fiercely defended his = legal justification for harsh interrogation tactics while another stuck = to a carefully honed policy of silence. Law professor John C. Yoo confronted the allegations that he bent the = law to condone violations of international treaties against torture. By = contrast, his former boss at the Justice Department's Office of Legal = Counsel, Jay S. Bybee, remained in his chambers at the Las Vegas = courthouse where he holds a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals = court judge. a.. Jay Bybeea.. John YooBybee was an assistant attorney general in = the frantic months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Since = President Bush appointed him to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals = six years ago, he has maintained a low profile, declining to talk about = his role in shaping the administration's treatment of terror suspects. Bybee's approach contrasts sharply with that of Yoo, his former deputy, = who is now a tenured law professor at UC Berkeley and a strong defender = of the Bush administration's tactics. Of the four lengthy legal memos released by the White House last week, = the one written by Bybee, 55, was the most controversial. Some critics of the Bush administration say Yoo has taken a = disproportionate share of the public condemnation over the memos. "It's = important not to focus too much on scapegoating professor Yoo. He was a = subordinate of Judge Bybee," said Katherine Darmer, a professor at = Chapman University School of Law, where Yoo is a visiting professor this = semester. "Jay Bybee has not been held accountable for his central role = in these memoranda." 'Was it worth it?' At a spirited forum Tuesday at the Orange County school, Yoo, who was = the author of much of the legal rationale for using waterboarding and = other severe interrogation techniques, defended his legal guidance as = correct and necessary to protect the nation. "Three thousand of our fellow citizens had been killed in a deliberate = attack by a foreign enemy," Yoo, unruffled by shouts that he is a war = criminal and should be in jail, told a packed auditorium on the Orange = County campus. "That forced us in the government to have to consider = measures to gain information using presidential constitutional = provisions to protect the country from further attack." In a war with a non-state enemy that doesn't follow international law, = getting information from captured combatants is vital, Yoo said, = contending that 50% of U.S. intelligence about Al Qaeda was gleaned from = interrogations. "Was it worth it?" he asked, brushing off the reproachful reaction. "We = haven't had an attack in more than seven years." Yoo's confident appearance at the forum, where protesters hoisted = placards demanding his prosecution, coincided with demands from some = legal scholars and human rights advocates that Bybee resign from the = federal bench and both men be called before an investigative tribunal. Independent inquiry Yoo's defense of the legal advice given Bush -- that U.S. commitment to = laws and treaties banning torture didn't apply to terror suspects -- was = bolstered by John C. Eastman, the Chapman law school dean. President = Obama's suggestion of convening an independent inquiry -- where immunity = from prosecution would be exchanged for truthful testimony under oath -- = was rejected by Eastman as unnecessary and likely to evolve into a = partisan witch hunt. Other legal scholars on both sides of the political spectrum, though, = supported the notion of a nonjudgmental inquiry to shed light on the = policies the Bush administration adopted and the legal advice it = received. Impeachment of Bybee, which some of his critics have called for, would = be "ugly and distracting," said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University = law professor who was head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the = administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush. "Better to impanel a thoughtful body of citizens to do a Nuremberg-style = inquiry, but without any predetermined bias in favor of either removal = from office or criminal prosecution," Kmiec said. Yoo, 41, alluded to his own uncomfortable situation at the liberal = university where he has tenure, thanking the Chapman administration for = giving him the opportunity to escape "the jurisdiction of the People's = Republic of Berkeley." Yoo dismissed the legal arguments put forward by two fellow law = professors at Chapman, Darmer and Lawrence Rosenthal, saying "they would = rule out any form of coercive interrogation no matter who we had -- = including and up to Osama bin Laden." Darmer pointed out that the U.S. government defined waterboarding -- a = practice that simulates drowning -- as torture and prosecuted those who = conducted it until the Bush administration revised the legal framework. "There's an enormous difference between the use of executive power to = free slaves and the use of it to condone torture," said Darmer, = pointedly putting distance between herself and her "temporary = colleague." Rosenthal said the legal advice Yoo and Bybee provided was so flawed and = unsustainable that the Bush administration itself eventually renounced = it. A Bybee successor in the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven G. = Bradbury, said in January -- five days before Obama's inauguration -- = that he disagreed with his predecessors' views that the president wasn't = bound by laws constraining the treatment of prisoners. Dissecting language Bybee's controversial memo was a dissection of treaty and statutory = language prohibiting torture and cruel or inhumane treatment. "We conclude that for an act to constitute torture, it must inflict pain = that is difficult to endure," Bybee wrote in the Aug. 1, 2002, guidance = for CIA interrogators. "Physical pain amounting to torture must be = equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical = injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even = death." Bybee, an Oakland native and former University of Nevada Las Vegas law = professor, did not return calls from The Times about the growing storm = of protest against him. Common Cause, the American Society of Law Teachers and a coalition of = human rights advocates led by the Center for Constitutional Rights = called on Bybee to resign, proclaiming him unfit to decide questions of = law. carol.williams@latimes.com visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Impeach torture judge Bybee by Michael Munk Mon, Apr 20, 2009

Nadler And NYT: Impeach Bybee For Torture Memo By Zachary Roth - TPM April 20, 2009 http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/nadler_and_nyt_impeach_bybee_for_torture_memo.php?ref=fp1 More fallout from last week's release of the Bush DOJ's torture memos... Both Congressman Jerry Nadler and the New York Times are calling for Jay Bybee, the author of one of the memos, who's now a federal judge, to be impeached. Nadler, who chairs the Judiciary committee's Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties subcommittee, told the Huffington Post that Bybee "ought to be impeached." Nadler continued: "It was not an honest legal memo. It was an instruction manual on how to break the law." And a Times editorial declared that the memos were written in "the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history." Later, it added: "These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him." In 2003, Bybee was appointed by President Bush to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Both Nadler and the Times also called for investigations into whether Bush officials broke the law in ordering and justifying torture, citing John Yoo as a potential target. The Times added that Steven Bradbury, who wrote the three other memos, should also be a target. Neither Bybee nor Bradbury has spoken publicly since the release of the memos last week. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

WSJ pressures Obama on torture memos by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 15, 2009

This article from the rightwing WSJ is actually an effort to pressure Obama to withhold the crucial information. Seems to be written from interviews with the CIA's worst torturers Obama Tilts to CIA on Memos Top Officials at Odds Over Whether to Withhold Some Details on Interrogation Tactics Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123975168816518691-lMyQjAxMDI5MzE5NDcxNTQxWj.html By EVAN PEREZ and SIOBHAN GORMAN WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is leaning toward keeping secret some graphic details of tactics allowed in Central Intelligence Agency interrogations, despite a push by some top officials to make the information public, according to people familiar with the discussions. These people cautioned that President Barack Obama is still reviewing internal arguments over the release of Justice Department memorandums related to CIA interrogations, and how much information will be made public is in flux. Among the details in the still-classified memos is approval for a technique in which a prisoner's head could be struck against a wall as long as the head was being held and the force of the blow was controlled by the interrogator, according to people familiar with the memos. Another approved tactic was waterboarding, or simulated drowning. A decision to keep secret key parts of the three 2005 memos outlining legal guidance on CIA interrogations would anger some Obama supporters who have pushed him to unveil now-abandoned Bush-era tactics. It would also go against the views of Attorney General Eric Holder and White House Counsel Greg Craig, people familiar with the matter said. Top CIA officials have spoken out strongly against a full release, saying it would undermine the agency's credibility with foreign intelligence services and hurt the agency's work force, people involved in the discussions said. However, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair favors releasing the information, current and former senior administration officials said. Human-rights groups and many in the administration have called the techniques torture. People familiar with the matter said some senior intelligence advisers to the president raised fears that releasing the two most sensitive memos could cause the Obama administration to be alienated from the CIA's rank and file, as happened during the Bush administration when Porter Goss, who was unpopular among CIA officers, headed the agency. View Full Image Getty Images Attorney General Eric Holder The government faces a court deadline Thursday in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the release of three 2005 memos issued by Steven Bradbury, then acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under former President George W. Bush. "We want to maximize the amount of information available to the American people," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, adding that such a policy has to be balanced so it "does not damage national security interests." Under one option, the outlines of which were described by current and former government officials close to the discussions, the administration would ask a judge to keep secret large parts of the Bradbury memos. Two of the memos contain particularly explicit details of methods and describe combinations of tactics that were deemed to fall within the bounds of the Geneva Convention on torture, according to people who have read them. Two or three proposals that would reveal varying degrees of detail contained in the memos about the CIA program are before the president, another senior administration official said. Regardless of what Mr. Obama decides, said the senior administration official, "the administration will release a lot more than has ever been released before" because at a minimum, previously undisclosed legal justifications for the CIA interrogation program will be made public. Advisers describe the memos decision as a pivotal moment for the administration and its relationship with the powerful intelligence apparatus. They say the debate has been heated on both sides. It reached a climax on Mr. Obama's trip to Europe for the G-20 summit two weeks ago. The president was given competing memos from the Justice Department and the CIA arguing for and against release of the 2005 documents, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Holder and Justice lawyers, along with Mr. Craig, have argued aggressively for releasing operational details. Justice Department lawyers argue that the agency shouldn't be in a position of defending practices the new administration has disavowed. They say releasing the documents would help fulfill the president's promise of greater transparency. Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, declined to comment. But top CIA officials and some in the White House argue that disclosing such secrets will undermine the agency's credibility with foreign intelligence services. They also say revealing operational details will embroil officers in probes of activities that were cleared by Justice Department lawyers at the time. In the middle is deputy national-security adviser John Brennan, a former CIA official, who has generally sided with the CIA, the senior administration official said. Intelligence officials also believe that making the techniques public would give al Qaeda a propaganda tool just as the administration is stepping up its fight against the terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some former administration officials have also argued that releasing all the memos could help terrorists train to endure the most extreme interrogation techniques. The 2005 Bradbury memos represent an effort by the Bush administration to keep the CIA program of "enhanced" interrogations of certain detainees on a legal footing after the Bush administration in late 2004 withdrew earlier Justice Department memos on interrogation. Leon Panetta, the CIA director, has been described by some officials as initially favoring release, then later pulling back from that view. Other officials say Mr. Panetta always favored releasing only legal outlines. Making those details public, one official said, would make CIA officials disinclined to take any risks in the future. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

reactions to support for socialism rising by Michael Munk Sat, Apr 11, 2009

The NYTimes has a roundup of blogger comments on the rtecent Rasmussan poll http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/weekend-opinionator-a-different-sort-of-red-america/ visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Memo to Gates re $83 B for Obama's wars by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 10, 2009

A few Dems oppose $83B for Obama's wars by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 10, 2009

Under Obama Progressive Reps Still Opposed To War Spending By Brian Beutler - TPM April 9, 2009 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/under-obama-progressive-reps-still-opposed-to-war-spending.php?ref=fp3 In 2007 and 2008, when George Bush was still President, Democrats took a lot of heat from their supporters for their inability or unwillingness to end the war in Iraq. To the extent that they tried, though, the challenge within the party fell to leaders to convince their right flank to sign on to the efforts. Now that a Democrat is president and the war in Iraq is (or at least seems to be) coming to an end, the situation's somewhat flipped. Obama wants to ramp up U.S. efforts in a different war and--with most Democrats in support, but without an exit strategy--the new challenge may lie in convincing their left flank to play along. The Wall Street Journal reports that some high profile members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are demurring at, or downright rejecting, calls from party leaders to sign on to war spending. Mr. Obama is expected to seek congressional approval of $75.5 billion for the wars, perhaps as soon as Thursday. The issue is already raising tensions on Capitol Hill, especially among liberals who are sympathetic to the president's broader agenda but voice concerns about his timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his plans to beef up forces in Afghanistan. Among the protestors are CPC chair Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)--"I don't think we should be going there"--Jim McGovern (D-MA)--"I just have this sinking feeling that we're getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end"--and John Conyers (D-MI), who had the harshest words for the President of all. He called the strategy, such as it is, in Afghanistan "embarrassingly naive," saying that though Obama may be "the smartest man in American politics today...he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances." Supplemental war spending will almost certainly win plenty of Republican support, and the members of the CPC (though numerous) don't always march in lockstep--so there's little reason to believe Obama won't get the $75.5 billion he's looking for. But we'll keep our eye on this rift, which could widen and deepen over weeks and months...and even years. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Poll: only 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism. by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 10, 2009

Obama: Give me another $83B for my wars by Michael Munk Thu, Apr 9, 2009

Obama to seek $83.4 billion for Iraq, Afghan wars By ANDREW TAYLOR, April 9, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is seeking $83.4 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for a war supplemental spending bill like the ones he sometimes opposed when he was senator and George W. Bush was president. Obama's request, including money to increase U.S. troops in Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall. Budget office spokesman Tom Gavin said the White House would send an official request to Congress Thursday afternoon. Congressional aides who had been briefed on the request revealed its overall cost in advance. Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed two infusions of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure. But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president. The upcoming request will include $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, would receive $1.8 billion in aid. The measure would also pay for Obama's recently announced plan to boost troop levels in Afghanistan. The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide. Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable. His new request would push the war money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iraqis to Obama: OUT NOW! by Michael Munk Thu, Apr 9, 2009

Six years on, huge protest marks Baghdad's fall By Mohammed Abbas and Aseel Kami Apr 9, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090409/wl_nm/us_iraq_anniversary_protest;_ylt=AkG.7mbEoxfZhstgnJ5FUelm.3QA BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of followers of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr thronged Baghdad on Thursday to mark the sixth anniversary of the city's fall to U.S. troops, and to demand they leave immediately. "Down, down USA," the demonstrators chanted as a Ali al-Marwani, a Sadrist official, denounced the U.S. occupation of Iraq that began with the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Firdos Square. The crowds of Sadr supporters stretched from the giant Sadr City slum in northeast Baghdad to the square around 5 km (3 miles) away. Protesters burned an effigy featuring the face of former U.S. President George W. Bush, who ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and also the face of Saddam. Shi'ites were brutally persecuted under Saddam, who was executed to chants of Sadr's name in 2006. "God, unite us, return our riches, free the prisoners from the prisons, return sovereignty to our country ... make our country free from the occupier, and prevent the occupier from stealing our oil," Sadr said in a message read by a Sadr movement aide Asaad al-Nassiri. "God, make us the liberators of our land," the message said, drawing roars of approval from the crowd, many clutching or wearing Iraqi flags, and some wearing Iraqi national team tracksuits in a show of nationalist sentiment. Hammering home the nationalist message, Nassiri exhorted the demonstrators to shake hands with each other and Iraqi police and soldiers overseeing the march. Long queues formed to kiss the police and troops on the cheeks and shake their hands. U.S. NOT TRUSTED U.S. President Barack Obama, who flew into Baghdad on an unannounced visit on Tuesday, has ordered U.S. combat troops to depart Iraq by the end of August 2010, leaving a residual force of up to 50,000 trainers, advisers and logistics personnel. Under a bilateral security agreement signed with Bush, all U.S. troops must withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. Many at the demonstration did not trust the United States to live up to the commitment to withdraw. "Iraq has experience of occupation ... No country has emerged from it through politics and transparency. It will only end through the sword," said demonstrator Khalid al-Ibadi, referring to uprisings against British and Ottoman rule of Iraq. Sadr, scion of one of Iraq's great Shi'ite religious dynasties, is believed to be in Iran studying religious law. His Mehdi Army fighters fought pitched battles against U.S. forces during the bloody aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion, but have since frozen armed operations after Sadr called on them to turn themselves into a social welfare organization. The Sadr movement suffered a setback when Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered U.S.-backed Iraqi troops to crack down on its militia fighters in the southern oil hub of Basra and in Baghdad last year. Analysts point to pressure on the Mehdi Army to return to arms, and have speculated splinter groups may already have. "There's still a noble uprising, there's no freeze," said demonstrator Abu Hijran Qassim, wearing an Iraqi flag as a shirt. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why Obama's keeping torture memos secrets (so far) by Michael Munk Thu, Apr 9, 2009

Republicans in Desperation Over Obama Releasing More Bush Torture Memos By Scott Horton, The Daily Beast. Posted April 9, 2009. http://www.alternet.org/rights/135582/republicans_in_desperation_over_obama_releasing_more_bush_torture_memos_/?page=entire If the president releases more Bush torture memos, Republicans are promising to "go nuclear" and filibuster his legal appointments. Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to "go nuclear" over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration's abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration's darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward. Barack Obama entered Washington with a promise of transparency. One of his first acts was a presidential directive requiring that the Freedom of Information Act, a near dead letter during the Bush years, was to be enforced according to its terms. He specifically criticized the Bush administration's practice of preparing secret memos that determined legal policy and promised to review and publish them after taking office. But in the past week, questions about Obama's commitment to transparency have mounted. On April 2, the Justice Department was expected to make public a set of four memoranda prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, long sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy organizations in a pending FOIA litigation. The memos, authored by then-administration officials and now University of California law professor John Yoo, federal appellate judge Jay Bybee and former Justice Department lawyer Stephen Bradbury, apparently grant authority for the brutal treatment of prisoners, including waterboarding, isolated confinement in coffin-like containers, and "head smacking." The stakes over release of the papers are increasingly high. Yoo and Bybee are both targets of a criminal investigation in a Spanish court probing the torture of five Spanish citizens formerly held in Guantánamo; also named in the Spanish case are former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and three other Bush lawyers. Legal observers in Spain consider the Bush administration lawyers at serious risk of indictment, and the memos, once released, could be entered as evidence in connection with their prosecution. Unlike the torture memos that are already public, these memos directly approve specific torture techniques and therefore present a far graver problem for their authors. The release of the memos that the Senate Republicans want to suppress was cleared by Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counsel Greg Craig, and then was stopped when "all hell broke loose" inside the Obama administration, according to an article by Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff. Newsweek attributes internal opposition to disclosure of the Bush-era torture memos to White House counterterrorism adviser and former CIA official John O. Brennan, who has raised arguments that exposure of the memoranda would run afoul of policies protecting the secrecy of agency techniques and has also argued that the memos would embarrass nations like Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt, which have cooperated closely with the CIA in its extraordinary renditions program. Few informed independent observers, however, find much to credit in the Brennan objections because the techniques are now well-known, as is the role of the cooperating foreign intelligence services-any references to which would in any event likely be redacted before the memoranda are released. Moreover, the argument that the confidence of those engaged in torture-serious criminal conduct under international and domestic law-should be kept because they would be "embarrassed" if it were to come out borders on comic. The Justice Department source confirms to me that Brennan has consistently opposed making public the torture memos-and any other details about the operations of the extraordinary renditions program-but this source suggests that concern about the G.O.P.'s roadblock in the confirmation process is the principle reason that the memos were not released. Republican senators have expressed strong reservations about their promised exposure, expressing alarm that a critique of the memos by Justice's ethics office (Office of Professional Responsibility) will also be released. "There was no 'direct' threat," said the source, "but the message was communicated clearly-if the OLC and OPR memoranda are released to the public, there will be war." This is understood as a threat to filibuster the nominations of Johnsen and Koh. Not only are they among the most prominent academic critics of the torture memoranda, but are also viewed as the strongest advocates for release of the torture memos on Obama's legal policy team. A Republican Senate staffer further has confirmed to me that the Johnsen nomination was discussed at the last G.O.P. caucus meeting. Not a single Republican indicated an intention to vote for Dawn Johnsen, while Senator John Cornyn of Texas was described as "gunning for her," specifically noting publication of the torture memos. No decision was taken at that Republican caucus meeting whether to filibuster or not, though Cornyn was generally believed to support filibustering Johnsen and potentially other nominees. Johnsen has met recently with moderate Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both of whom are being lobbied heavily by colleagues and religious right groups to oppose her nomination. Both Koh and Johnsen are targets of sustained attacks coming from right-wing lobbying groups. The Daily Beast previously reviewed the attacks on Johnsen, while Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has catalogued the recent attacks on Koh. Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson recently endorsed the Koh nomination, calling the Yale dean "a man of great integrity." But connecting the Obama nominations to the Bush torture memos escalates the conflict toward a thermonuclear level. Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national-security affairs for Harper's magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Liberals split over Obama's war on Afghanistan by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 8, 2009

Antiwar activists split over Obama's Afghanistan policy By Gail Russell Chaddock Christian Science Monitor April 4, 2009 http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0404/p99s07-usgn.html VIA David McReynolds Lawmakers and others who were against the Iraq war generally support the president. But they worry about another 'quagmire.' Washington - The anti-war movement that helped elect Candidate Obama is in the early throes of a debate over whether to ramp up again ? this time, over President Obama's plans to step up US engagement in Afghanistan. For many activists ? on and off Capitol Hill ? it's a tough call. It's early in a new administration, they say. Even opponents of the troop buildup in Afghanistan say that they like and still trust this president. They want to give him time. They also like much of what they're hearing from the Obama White House. Instead of the go-it-alone, "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, Obama pushes concepts like "shared responsibility" and "civilian effort," they say. But Obama's decision to send another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan to help stabilize "the most dangerous place in the world," as he calls it, is shifting some anti- war activists into (reluctant) opposition. It's also forcing some members of Congress to explain to voters why they opposed a troop buildup in Iraq but now support one in Afghanistan. "This could be a one-way ticket to a quagmire," says former US Rep. Tom Andrews (D) of Maine, national director of the Win Without War coalition. "Sometimes less is more. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the deployment of US troops can be a source of instability, not stability," he says. "These are very real concerns that we have, and we want to articulate them in a respectful way." Since President Obama's announcement of a new strategy in Afghanistan last month, Win Without War and other groups have been trying to revive a dialogue on the war. They're especially urging members of Congress and the news media to get back to the business of vigorous criticism and oversight. The anti-war movement shifted into low gear after Obama's election. Funding and staffing for most groups dropped, in some cases precipitously. Code Pink activists ? a highly visible presence at war hearings and protests in the Bush years ? have shifted their target from war to Wall Street. Some elements of the anti-Iraq War coalition think that the buildup in Afghanistan is warranted, even essential. "Americans have more business in Afghanistan than they ever did in Iraq, Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia, Panama, or Grenada," says Jon Soltz, chairman and cofounder of VoteVets.org, which rallied veterans against the war in Iraq in the Bush years. The reason the US is in Afghanistan is that we were attacked, he adds. "As someone who fought in Iraq, I don't think people are as ready to give up on President Obama as they were on George Bush. I'm biased to think that we give this president a chance." On Capitol Hill, the once-robust Out of Iraq Caucus has also been largely silent on the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Members say they're still working to find common ground. "We're not there yet," says Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D) of California, a cofounder together with Reps. Barbara Lee (D) and Maxine Waters (D), both of California. Meanwhile, the Out of Iraq Caucus will be sponsoring forums to help educate members. "History makes it clear that the Afghan people do not look kindly on foreign armies," Rep. Woolsey said in a floor speech on March 30. "I am also concerned about the cost of sending more troops, the cost in both lives and treasure. It will require a 60 percent increase in military spending at a time when our economy right here at home is suffering so badly," she said. "Now is the time to pause to consider whether there are other alternatives to sending our troops to Afghanistan." United in opposition to the war in Iraq, liberal Democrats ? many of whom have yet to state publicly their view on the buildup ? are breaking out more nuanced positions on the war in Afghanistan. Some favor it; some oppose it. All want the president to be successful, and they say it's too early for a confrontation on the policy. "He's moving away from a military-only protocol that was the hallmark of the Bush years ? to the degree that Bush and Cheney were interested in Afghanistan at all ? in favor of a community-based, civilian-based, civil society-based policy," says Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D) of Hawaii, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus. "Whether or not that succeeds obviously is something that is still open, but it won't be from lack of effort on the president's part," he says. Another caucus member, Rep. Jim McDermott (D) of Washington, who opposes the buildup, worries that the president may yet be drawn into a mainly military approach to the conflict. "Those of us who lived through Vietnam are very upset with what's going on [in Afghanistan]," he says. "All of us want him to succeed, desperately want him to succeed. But we worry that as John Kennedy got wrapped up by those guys that sent him to the Bay of Pigs, he'll listen to the guys who say: 'Mr. President, you want to look good, don't you? You don't want to look like a quitter or a loser or weak?'" But even before they confront the president, Democrats are confronting concerns at home about the new direction of the war in Afghanistan. Rep. Paul Hodes (D) of New Hampshire, who campaigned against the war in Iraq, saw the first anti-war protests of the Obama administration last month in his hometown of Concord. Even though the protests are small, he says he needs to explain his stance to voters, and the situation is "difficult and complex." "I opposed the war in Iraq because it was not merely a diversion from the effort that we need to make to battle terrorism, not merely because it was sold on false premises, but because it made us less safe and secure as a country and a world," he says. "I have long believed that our efforts needed to be directed to Pakistan and Afghanistan in a coherent way with a comprehensive strategy that does not rely on military force alone," he adds. New Hampshire peace activists planning vigils in Nashua, Concord, and Durham next week to protest the buildup in Afghanistan say they expect to meet with their congressional delegation on the issue. "We're very concerned that the president announced the increase in troops even before having a coherent plan in place," says Anne Miller, executive director of Peace Action of New Hampshire, which claims some 3,000 members statewide. "We're still not clear what this plan will accomplish, what benchmarks are, what a win would look like," she adds. "We have colleagues that just got back from Kabul and not one Afghani they spoke to thought that having more troops there would make a difference." For the most part, Americans aren't focused on the war in Afghanistan, pollsters say. Wall Street and the economy are much bigger concerns, but that's beginning to shift, too. "There's polling data showing a higher percentage of those saying that the war in Afghanistan has not been worth it," says pollster John Zogby of Zogby International. "Americans like their wars to be won and short. But President Obama is still getting some slack, as far as the public is concerned," he adds. As candidate, Obama clearly signaled his intent as president to withdraw US forces from Iraq to refocus energies on the war in Afghanistan. That clarity helps give credibility to the steps he's taking now, say Congress watchers. "You've got a lot of antiwar liberals who said he didn't really mean that ? that he's just talking that way to look tough. What we're learning is that, like many things he's doing on the domestic front, he's doing what he said," says Norman Ornstein a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "He's got a year ? and the protests will start before that," he adds. "If it looks like we're bogged down and lot of Americans are dying, we're in a different situation."

Zunes: 10 years after Clinton's war on Yugoslavia by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 8, 2009

A reminder of when liberals (now back in power) went to war for regime change http://www.truthout.org/040809O visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Only US Marxist geographer on G-20 by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 8, 2009

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/2/marxist_geographer_david_harvey_on_the visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Reactionary Canadian govt feared Galloway visit by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 7, 2009

PM feared Galloway's message The Star (Toronto) Apr 07, 2009 Opinion by Linda McQuaig lmcquaig@sympatico.ca VIA http://www.legitgov.org/ Anyone who has ever seen George Galloway in action knows why he had to be stopped at the border. He definitely poses a threat - although not the security one alleged by the Harper government. Rather, Galloway, a five-times elected member of the British Parliament, poses a threat to Stephen Harper's ability to sell Canadians on our involvement in the Afghan war and on Ottawa's support for Israel in its battle against the Palestinians. Galloway is a fierce, effective critic on both fronts. With the mental toughness of Noam Chomsky and the showmanship of Mick Jagger, Galloway slices through the pro-war apologetics of political leaders like a knife through warm butter. So it's not surprising Harper wasn't keen about Galloway coming to Canada. Even without the controversy of the ban, Galloway promised to attract huge audiences and stir up the kind of anti-war feeling that brought thousands onto Canadian streets last January to protest Israel's bombing of Gaza, and Ottawa's refusal to condemn it. Media commentators have missed the point by treating the ban as purely a free-speech issue, and suggesting Galloway should be heard, despite his odious views. Galloway's views aren't odious. In fact, they're in sync with millions of Canadians. In a recent Angus Reid poll, 48 per cent of Canadians wanted our troops brought home from Afghanistan before the scheduled 2011 withdrawal. A BBC poll showed Canadians have more negative than positive views of Israel - even before the Gaza bombing, which UN human rights investigator Richard Falk said last month "would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude." It was fear of Galloway galvanizing anti-war sentiment in peace-oriented Canadians that prompted Ottawa to brand him a terrorist supporter - for providing urgently needed cash and medical supplies to Hamas, the democratically elected government in Gaza. As a result, Galloway only appeared in Canada via videolink from the United States, where he was allowed to move about freely and address packed houses, apparently without threatening U.S. national security. The Galloway episode highlights how Harper has abandoned any pretense of even-handedness in the Middle East. (Last month, Canada was the only country to vote against a UN resolution opposing the expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.) Indeed, it seems likely Israel had a hand in the decision to ban Galloway from Canada. In March 2008, the Harper government signed a broad-ranging security pact with Israel. The pact, which has received scant attention in Canada's Parliament or media, established close Canada-Israeli co-operation in "border management and security," under a management committee comprised of Canada's deputy minister of public safety and Israel's director general of public security. So was the decision to ban Galloway not only absurd and anti-democratic, but also influenced by a foreign government? Canadian government spokesperson Alykhan Velshi denied this yesterday. But what exactly does this secretive management committee do, and how might it affect Canada's Muslim and Arab populations? Clearly, we need a thorough public review of the Canada-Israel security pact - a task made all the more urgent now that the Israeli cabinet includes the extremist Avigdor Lieberman, who once mused publicly about drowning Palestinian prisoners. Peace groups have been pushing Harper to establish a department of peace. But he prefers to suppress the case against war, only permitting us to hear it most fully articulated via videolink from free sites outside our borders. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iraq shoe hero to be free soon by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 7, 2009

Iraqi shoe-thrower's jail term cut April 7, 2009, Al-Jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200947154417851423.html An Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush, the former US president, has had his sentence reduced from three years to one, a court spokesman has said. The news came as a surprise to Muntadhar al-Zeidi's family, who called it "a victory for the Iraqi people" on Tuesday. The decision was made as al-Zeidi had no prior criminal record, an official said. The defence appealed against the original ruling to the Federal Appeals Court citing an Iraqi law stipulating a maximum sentence of only two years for publicly insulting a visiting foreign leader. A-Zeidi, 30, has become a folk hero across the Arab world since the attack, where Bush is reviled over the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. The shoes narrowly missed Bush, who was addressing a news conference with Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, during the incident last December. Expression of freedom Lawyers have long argued that al-Zeidi's act was an expression of freedom and not a crime. "We think al-Zeidi does not deserve to be imprisoned even for one day," al-Zeidi's chief defence attorney, Diaa al-Saadi, told the Associated Press news agency. "What he has done falls in the category of freedom of expression and he was trying to express his anti-occupation feelings," Yahya al-Ittabi, another lawyer for al-Zeidi, said, welcoming the court's decision. He said the fact that the court did not bow to government pressure to uphold the existing sentence, reflected the "independence and the integrity of the Iraqi judiciary system". Al-Zeidi has been in Iraqi custody since the attack and though he is scheduled to be released in December 2009, his lawyer said he could be free within five months with credit for good behaviour. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama voters (like me) : Listen Up! by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 7, 2009

Democrats and War Escalation April 7, 2009 by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective http://www.truthout.org/040709D Top Democrats and many prominent supporters - with vocal agreement, tactical quibbles or total silence - are assisting the escalation of the US war effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The predictable results will include much more killing and destruction. Back home, on the political front, the escalation will drive deep wedges into the Democratic Party. The party has a large antiwar base, and that base will grow wider and stronger among voters as the realities of the Obama war program become more evident. The current backing or acceptance of the escalation from liberal think tanks and some online activist groups will not be able to prevent the growth of opposition among key voting blocs. In their eagerness to help the Obama presidency, many of its prominent liberal supporters - whatever their private views on the escalation - are willing to function as enablers of the expanded warfare. Many assume that opposition would undermine the administration and play into the hands of Republicans. But in the long run, going along with the escalation is not helping Obama; by putting off the days of reckoning, the acceptance of the escalation may actually help Obama destroy his own presidency. Ideally, in 2009, Democratic lawmakers would see as role models the senators who opposed the Vietnam War - first Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, and then (years later) others including Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. Earlier and stronger opposition from elected officials could have saved countless lives. The dreams of the Great Society might not have been crushed. And Richard Nixon might never have become president. Now, everyone has the potential to help challenge the escalation of the Afghanistan-Pakistan war - on a collision course with heightened disaster. Over the weekend, the Sunday Times of London reported that US drone attacks along the Afghan-Pakistani border on Saturday killed "foreign militants" and "women and children" - while Pakistani officials asserted that "American drone attacks on the border ... are causing a massive humanitarian emergency." The newspaper says that "as many as 1 million people have fled their homes in the Tribal Areas to escape attacks by the unmanned spy planes as well as bombings by the Pakistani army." This is standard catastrophic impact of a counterinsurgency war. In short, as former Kennedy administration official William Polk spells out in his recent book, "Violent Politics," the key elements are in place for the US war in Afghanistan to fail on its own terms while heightening the death and misery on a large scale. Citing UN poverty data, a recent essay by Tom Hayden points out that in Afghanistan and Pakistan "the levels of suffering are among the most extreme in the world, and from suffering, from having nothing to live for, comes the will to die for a cause." While the Washington spin machine touts development aid, the humanitarian effort adds up to a few pennies for each dollar going to the US war effort. A report from the Carnegie Endowment began this year with the stark conclusion that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." Hayden made the same point when he wrote that "military occupation, particularly a surge of US troops into the Pashtun region in southern Afghanistan and Pakistan, is the surest way to inflame nationalist resistance and greater support for the Taliban." Over the weekend, in his pitch for more NATO support, President Obama tried to make the US war goals seem circumscribed: "I want everybody to understand that our focus is to defeat al-Qaeda." But there's no evidence that al-Qaeda has a significant foothold in Afghanistan. That group long since decamped to Pakistan. In any event, the claim that a massive war is necessary to fight terrorism is hardly new. Lest we forget: After George W. Bush could no longer cling to his claims about WMDs in Iraq, he settled on the anti-terrorist rationale for continuing the Iraq occupation. Even among allies, the anti-terrorism rationale is not flying for a troop buildup in Afghanistan. After Obama's latest appeal to the leaders of NATO countries, as The New York Times reported Sunday, "his calls for a more lasting European troop increase for Afghanistan were politely brushed aside." Europe will provide no more than 5,000 new troops, and most of them just for the Afghan pre-election period till late summer. In the words of the Times: "Mr. Obama is raising the number of American troops this year to about 68,000 from the current 38,000, which will significantly Americanize the war." For those already concerned about Obama's re-election prospects, such war realities may seem faraway and relatively abstract. But escalation will fracture his base inside the Democratic Party. If the president insists on leading a party of war, then activists will educate, agitate and organize to transform it into a party for peace. The mirage of wise counterinsurgency has been re-conjured by the Obama White House, echoing the "best and brightest" from Democratic administrations of the 1960s. But the party affiliation of the US president will make no difference to people far away who mourn the loss of loved ones. And, whether in Afghanistan, Pakistan or the United States, the president will be held to the astute standard that Barack Obama laid out as he addressed unfriendly foreign leaders in his inaugural speech: "People will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Red Cross denounces CIA medical torturers by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 7, 2009

Report Outlines Medical Workers' Role in Torture By SCOTT SHANE New York Times: April 6, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/world/07detain.html?_r=1&hp WASHINGTON - Medical personnel were deeply involved in the abusive interrogation of terrorist suspects held overseas by the Central Intelligence Agency, including torture, and their participation was a "gross breach of medical ethics," a long-secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded. Based on statements by 14 prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda and were moved to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in late 2006, Red Cross investigators concluded that medical professionals working for the C.I.A. monitored prisoners undergoing waterboarding, apparently to make sure they did not drown. Medical workers were also present when guards confined prisoners in small boxes, shackled their arms to the ceiling, kept them in frigid cells and slammed them repeatedly into walls, the report said. Facilitating such practices, which the Red Cross described as torture, was a violation of medical ethics even if the medical workers' intentions had been to prevent death or permanent injury, the report said. But it found that the medical professionals' role was primarily to support the interrogators, not to protect the prisoners, and that the professionals had "condoned and participated in ill treatment." At times, according to the detainees' accounts, medical workers "gave instructions to interrogators to continue, to adjust or to stop particular methods." The Red Cross report was completed in 2007. It was obtained by Mark Danner, a journalist who has written extensively about torture, and posted Monday night with an article by Mr. Danner on the Web site of The New York Review of Books. Much of its contents were revealed in a March article by Mr. Danner and in a 2008 book, "The Dark Side," by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, but the reporting of the Red Cross investigators' conclusions on medical ethics and other issues are new. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, told investigators that when he was waterboarded, his pulse and oxygen level were monitored, and that a medical attendant stopped the procedure on several occasions. Another prisoner, Walid bin Attash, who had previously had a leg amputated, said that when he was forced for days to stand with his arms shackled above his head, a health worker periodically measured the swelling in his intact leg and eventually ordered that he be allowed to sit. The report does not indicate whether the medical workers at the C.I.A. sites were physicians, other professionals or both. Other sources have said that psychologists helped design and run the C.I.A. interrogation program, that physicians' assistants and former military paramedics worked regularly in it, and that physicians were involved at times. By policy, the Red Cross, the chief independent monitor of detention conditions around the world, keeps its reports to governments confidential to encourage officials to grant access to prisoners. Bernard Barrett, a spokesman for the organization in Washington, declined on Monday to comment on the report, adding, "We deplore that confidential material attributed to the I.C.R.C. was made public." Mark Mansfield, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that because of the Red Cross's confidentiality policy, he would not comment on the report. He said that President Obama had prohibited all government interrogators from using techniques apart from the noncoercive methods in the Army Field Manual, and that the new C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, "has taken decisive steps to ensure that the C.I.A. abides by the president's executive orders." Mr. Mansfield added, however, that Mr. Panetta "has stated repeatedly that no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished." The C.I.A.'s interrogation methods were declared legal by the Justice Department under President George W. Bush. In its 40-page report, the Red Cross roundly condemned the C.I.A. detention program not only for using torture and other cruel treatment, but also for holding prisoners without notice to governments or families. "The totality of the circumstances in which the 14 were held effectively amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance, in contravention of international law," said the report, which was provided to the C.I.A. acting general counsel, John Rizzo, in February 2007. Shortly after taking office in January, Mr. Obama ordered the C.I.A. secret detention program closed and directed that the Red Cross be promptly informed of every person detained by the C.I.A. or any other agency. The report also provided new details of the Bush administration's failure to cooperate for several years with the Red Cross's inquiries and investigations of American detention programs. Repeated inquiries and reports from the organization beginning in 2002 received no response from American officials, the report said, though the United States sent a diplomatic message addressing some inquiries in 2005. M. Gregg Bloche, a Georgetown University law professor, who also trained as a psychiatrist and is now a visiting professor at the University of Chicago law school, called the report's findings "a disturbing confirmation of our worst fears about medical professionals' involvement in directing and modulating cruel treatment and torture." Another critic of medical involvement in harsh interrogation, Dr. Steven H. Miles, a physician at the Center for Bioethics of the University of Minnesota, said he had counted about 70 cases worldwide after World War II in which physicians were punished for participating in torture or related crimes. Most were in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, he said. None have been in the United States. Dr. Miles said that in recent decades, torture had almost always involved medical professionals, and that to deter future misconduct, the medical role in the C.I.A. program should be fully disclosed. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Socialists: Out and Proud. by Michael Munk Mon, Apr 6, 2009

Kristoff objects to NYT Darfur book review by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 3, 2009

JKK ordered CIA overthrow of Guyana Marxist leaders by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 1, 2009

Janet Jagan, Chicago Native Who Led Guyana, Dies at 88 By SIMON ROMERO New York Times: March 29, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/world/americas/30jagan.html?scp=1&sq=Jagan&st=cse Janet Jagan, a daughter of a middle-class family from Chicago who became enmeshed in anticolonial politics in Guyana and rose to become the first woman to be president of that South American nation, died Saturday in Georgetown, the Guyanese capital. She was 88. Mrs. Jagan died at a government hospital after suffering an abdominal aneurysm, Guyana's health minister, Leslie Ramsammy, told Reuters. Born Janet Rosenberg in 1920, she was a student nurse at Cook County Hospital in Chicago when she met Cheddi Jagan, a dentistry student at Northwestern University and the eldest of 11 children of an Indo-Guyanese family of sugar cane workers. His grandparents had arrived in British Guiana from India as indentured laborers. They married, despite the fierce opposition of her parents, who were Jewish, and in 1943 they moved to British Guiana, where he established a dental practice and they both became involved in radical politics. In 1950, they founded the People's Progressive Party, and in 1953, in elections under a new Constitution providing greater home rule, Dr. Jagan became chief minister. But the Jagans' Marxist ideas aroused the suspicions of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who sent warships and troops to topple the new government. The Jagans were jailed. Even after the Jagans' release, colonial police watched their every move. "I remember taking Cheddi Jr. to school one morning while a policeman was trailing me," Mrs. Jagan once told The Stabroek News, a newspaper in Georgetown. "When I bade him goodbye, walked up the street and looked back, I saw him looking through the school window, watching the policeman trailing me." A deepening racial rift between Afro-Guyanese, many of them descendants of African slaves, and Indo-Guyanese followed Churchill's intervention. Dr. Jagan returned to power in 1957, and Mrs. Jagan became labor minister. Again, their politics, along with their admiration for Fidel Castro's revolution in Cuba, caused alarm in a foreign capital - this time, Washington. According to long-classified documents, President John F. Kennedy ordered the Central Intelligence Agency in 1961 to destabilize the Jagan government. The C.I.A. covertly financed a campaign of labor unrest, false information and sabotage that led to race riots and, eventually, the ascension of Forbes Burnham, a black, London-educated lawyer and a leader of the People's Progressive Party who had become a rival of the Jagans. He became president and prime minister in 1966. After Guyana achieved independence that year, Mrs. Jagan remained active in public life as a member of Parliament and editor of the newspaper The Mirror. Mr. Burnham veered far to the left, nationalizing companies, banning imports including basic foods, and declaring Guyana a "cooperative republic" in 1970. By the end of Mr. Burnham's rule, with his death in 1985, Guyana had become one of the Western Hemisphere's poorest nations. In 1992, Dr. Jagan was elected president. During his time in office, Mrs. Jagan served briefly as ambassador to the United Nations. After her husband died in 1997, she ran for president and won. At campaign rallies, her followers respectfully called her "bhowji," a Hindi term meaning "elder brother's wife." But her government was plagued by street protests and tension with the opposition People's National Congress. After a mild heart attack in 1999, Mrs. Jagan stepped down, opening the way for her Moscow-educated finance minister, Bharrat Jagdeo, to become president, a position he still holds. This weekend, Mr. Jagdeo cut short a visit to the Middle East to return for a state funeral for Mrs. Jagan, according to news reports. Mrs. Jagan is survived by her son, Dr. Cheddi Jagan Jr., a daughter, Nadira Jagan-Brancier, and five grandchildren. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Darfur more complex than MSM's picture by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 30, 2009

Read this before Nick Kristoff's next column Books of The Times The Darfur the West Isn't Recognizing as It Moralizes About the Region By HOWARD W. FRENCH New York Times: March 29, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/books/30fren.html?hpw For many who survey an African landscape strewn with political wreckage, nowadays merely to raise the subject of European colonialism, which formally ended across most of the continent five decades ago, is to ring alarm bells of excuse making. SAVIORS AND SURVIVORS Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror By Mahmood Mamdani 398 pages. Pantheon Books. $26.95. Clearly, the African disaster most in view today is Sudan, or more specifically the dirty war that has raged since 2003 in that country's western region, Darfur. Rare among African conflicts, it exerts a strong claim on our conscience. By instructive contrast, more than five million people have died as a result of war in Congo since 1998, the rough equivalent at its height of a 2004 Asian tsunami striking every six months, without stirring our diplomats to urgency or generating much civic response. Mahmood Mamdani, a Ugandan-born scholar at Columbia University and the author of "When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and Genocide in Rwanda," is one of the most penetrating analysts of African affairs. In "Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror," he has written a learned book that reintroduces history into the discussion of the Darfur crisis and questions the logic and even the good faith of those who seek to place it at the pinnacle of Africa's recent troubles. It is a brief, he writes, "against those who substitute moral certainty for knowledge, and who feel virtuous even when acting on the basis of total ignorance." Mr. Mamdani does not dismiss a record of atrocities in Darfur, where 300,000 have been killed and 2.5 million been made refugees, yet he opposes the label of genocide as a subjective judgment wielded for political reasons against a Sudanese government that is out of favor because of its history of Islamism and its suspected involvement in terror. At his most provocative Mr. Mamdani questions the distinction between what is often labeled counterinsurgency and genocide, saying the former, even when it kills more people, is deemed "normal violence" while the latter is considered "amoral, evil," and typically it is the West that does the labeling. Although he uses the United States war in Iraq as an example, with the International Criminal Court recently issuing an arrest warrant for Sudan's leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, Mr. Mamdani's most compelling example is the treatment of a crisis in neighboring Uganda. In Uganda, long one of Washington's closest African friends, Mr. Mamdani traces the history of ethnically targeted "civilian massacres and other atrocities" against the brutal insurgency known as the Lord's Resistance Army. In 1996, under President Yoweri Museveni, a second phase of that war began "with a new policy designed to intern practically the entire rural population of the three Acholi districts in northern Uganda," Mr. Mamdani writes. "It took a government-directed campaign of murder, intimidation, bombing and burning of whole villages to drive the rural population into I.D.P. (internally displaced persons) camps." In 2005 Olara Otunnu, a former Ugandan ambassador to the United Nations, denounced the government's tactics, saying, "An entire society is being systematically destroyed - physically, culturally, socially and economically - in full view of the international community." But as elsewhere in Africa, Mr. Mamdani says, the International Criminal Court has brought a case against only the enemy of Washington's friend, the Lord's Resistance Army, remaining mute about large-scale atrocities that may have been committed by the Ugandan government. In this pattern the author sees the hand of politics more than any real attachment to justice. Many argue that what makes Darfur different from other African crises is race, with the conflict there pitting Arabs against people often called "black Africans," but here again Mr. Mamdani takes on conventional wisdom. "At no point," he states flatly, "has this been a war between 'Africans' and 'Arabs.' " Much foreign commentary about Sudan speaks of its Arabs as settlers, with the inference that they are somehow less African than people assumed to be of pure black stock. If whites in Kenya and Zimbabwe, not to mention South Africa, vociferously maintain their African-ness, what then to make of the Arab presence in Sudan, whose slow penetration and widespread intermarriage, Mr. Mamdani writes, "commenced in the early decades of Islam" and "reached a climax" from the 8th to the 15th century, "when the Arab tribes overran much of the country"? More interestingly, the author maintains that much of what we see today as a racial divide in Sudan has its roots in colonial history, when Britain "broke up native society into different ethnicities, and 'tribalized' each ethnicity by bringing it under the absolute authority of one or more British-sanctioned 'native authorities,' " balancing "the whole by playing one off against the others." Mr. Mamdani calls this British tactic of administratively reinforcing distinctions among colonial subjects "re-identify and rule" and says that it was copied by European powers across the continent, with deadly consequences - as in Rwanda, where Belgium's intervention hardened distinctions between Hutu and Tutsi. In Sudan the result was to create a durable sense of land rights rooted in tribal identity that favored the sedentary at the expense of the nomad, or, in the crude shorthand of today, African and Arab. Other roots of the Darfur crisis lie in catastrophic desertification in the Sahel region, where the cold war left the area awash in cheap weapons at the very moment that pastoralists could no longer survive in their traditional homelands, obliging many to push southward into areas controlled by sedentary farmers. He also blames regional strife, the violent legacy of proxy warfare by France, Libya and the United States and, most recently, the global extension of the war on terror. This important book reveals much on all of these themes, yet still may be judged by some as not saying enough about recent violence in Darfur. Mr. Mamdani's constant refrain is that the virtuous indignation he thinks he detects in those who shout loudest about Darfur is no substitute for greater understanding, without which outsiders have little hope of achieving real good in Africa's shattered lands visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

McGovern on O's Stupid War by Michael Munk Sat, Mar 28, 2009

Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President by Ray McGovern Consortium News http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/032809a.html VIA Cord Macguire March 28, 2009 I was wrong. I had been saying that it would be naïve to take too seriously presidential candidate Barack Obama’s rhetoric regarding the need to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I kept thinking to myself that when he got briefed on the history of Afghanistan and the oft-proven ability of Afghan “militants” to drive out foreign invaders — from Alexander the Great, to the Persians, the Mongolians, Indians, British, Russians — he would be sure to understand why they call mountainous Afghanistan the “graveyard of empires.” And surely he would be fully briefed on the stupidity and deceit that left 58,000 U.S. troops — not to mention 2 million to 3 million Vietnamese — dead in Vietnam. John Kennedy became President the year Obama was born. One cannot expect toddler-to-teenager Barack to remember much about the war in Vietnam, and it was probably too early for that searing, controversial experience to have found its way into the history texts as he was growing up. But he was certainly old enough to absorb the fecklessness and brutality of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. And his instincts at that time were good enough to see through the Bush administration’s duplicity. And, with him now in the White House, surely some of his advisers would be able to brief him on both Vietnam and Iraq, and prevent him from making similar mistakes — this time in Afghanistan. Or so I thought. Deflecting an off-the-topic question at his March 24 press conference, Obama said, “I think that the last 64 days has been dominated by me trying to figure out how we’re going to fix the economy. … Right now the American people are judging me exactly the way I should be judged, and that is, are we taking the steps to improve liquidity in the financial markets, create jobs, get businesses to reopen, keep America safe?” Okay, it is understandable that President Obama has been totally absorbed with the financial crisis. But surely, unlike predecessors supposedly unable to do two things at the same time, our resourceful new President certainly could find enough time to solicit advice from a wide circle, get a better grip on the huge stakes in Afghanistan, and arrive at sensible decisions. Or so I thought. It proved to be a bit awkward Friday morning waiting for the President to appear…. a half-hour late for his own presentation. Was he for some reason reluctant? Perhaps he had a sense of being railroaded by his advisers. Perhaps he paused on learning that just a few hours earlier a soldier of the Afghan army shot dead two U.S. troops and wounded a third before killing himself, and that Taliban fighters had stormed an Afghan police post and killed 10 police earlier that morning. Should he weave that somehow into his speech? Or maybe it was learning of the Taliban ambush of a police convoy which wounded seven other policemen; or the suicide bomber in the Afghan border area of Pakistan who demolished a mosque packed with hundreds of worshippers attending Friday prayers, killing some 50 and injuring scores more, according to preliminary reports. Or, more simply, perhaps Obama’s instincts told him he was about to do something he will regret. Maybe that’s why he was embarrassingly late in coming to the podium. One look at the national security advisers arrayed behind the President was enough to see wooden-headedness. In her classic book, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, historian Barbara Tuchman described this mindset: “Wooden-headedness assesses a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions, while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs … acting according to the wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts.” Tuchman pointed to 16th Century Philip II of Spain as a kind of Nobel laureate of wooden-headedness. Comparisons can be invidious, but the thing about Philip was that he drained state revenues by failed adventures overseas, leading to Spain’s decline. It is wooden-headedness, in my view, that permeates the “comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” that the President announced on Friday. Author Tuchman points succinctly to what flows from wooden-headedness: “Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it. … Adjustment is painful. For the ruler it is easier, once he has entered the policy box, to stay inside. For the lesser official it is better not to make waves, not to press evidence that the chief will find painful to accept. Psychologists call the process of screening out discordant information ‘cognitive dissonance,’ an academic disguise for ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts.’” It seems only right and fitting that Barbara Tuchman’s daughter, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, president of the Carnegie Foundation, has shown herself to be inoculated against “cognitive dissonance.” A January 2009 Carnegie report on Afghanistan concluded, "The only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." In any case, Obama explained his decision on more robust military intervention in Afghanistan as a result of a “careful policy review” by military commanders and diplomats, the Afghani and Pakistani governments, NATO allies, and international organizations. Know why he did not mention a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing the likely effects of this slow surge in troops and trainers? Because there is none. Guess why. The reason is the same one accounting for the lack of a completed NIE before the “surge” in troop strength in Iraq in early 2007. Apparently, Obama’s advisers did not wish to take the risk that honest analysts — ones who had been around a while, and maybe even knew something of Vietnam and Iraq, as well as Afghanistan — might also be immune to “cognitive dissonance,” and ask hard questions regarding the basis of the new strategy. Indeed, they might reach the same judgment they did in the April 2006 NIE on global terrorism. The authors of that estimate had few cognitive problems and simply declared their judgment that invasions and occupations (in 2006 the target then was Iraq) do not make us safer but lead instead to an upsurge in terrorism. The prevailing attitude this time fits the modus operandi of Gen. David Petraeus, who late last year took the lead by default with the following approach: We know best, and can run our own policy review, thank you very much. Which he did, without requesting the formal NIE that typically precedes and informs key policy decisions. It is highly regrettable that President Obama was deprived of the chance to benefit from a formal estimate. Recent NIEs have been relatively bereft of wooden-headedess. Obama might have made a more sensible decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan. As one might imagine, NIEs can, and should, play a key role in such circumstances, with a premium on objectivity and courage in speaking truth to power. That is precisely why Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair appointed Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council, the body that prepares NIEs — and why the Likud Lobby got him ousted. As one of the intelligence analysts watching Vietnam in the Sixties and Seventies, I worked on several of the NIEs produced before and during the war. Sensitive ones bore this unclassified title: “Probable Reactions to Various Courses of Action With Respect to North Vietnam.” Typical of the kinds of question the President and his advisers wanted addressed were: Can we seal off the Ho Chi Minh Trail by bombing? If the U.S. were to introduce X thousand additional troops into South Vietnam, will Hanoi quit? Okay, how about XX thousand? Our answers regularly earned us brickbats from the White House for not being “good team players.” But in those days we labored under a strong ethos dictating that we give it to policymakers straight, without fear or favor. We had career protection for doing that. Our judgments (the unwelcome ones, anyway) were often pooh-poohed as negativism. Policymakers, of course, were in no way obliged to take them into account, and often didn’t. The point is that they continued to be sought. Not even Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon would decide on a significant escalation without seeking our best estimate as to how U.S. adversaries would likely react to this or that escalatory step. So, hats off, I suppose, to you, Gen. Petraeus and those who helped you elbow the substantive intelligence analysts off to the sidelines. What might intelligence analysts have said on the key point of training the Afghan army and police? We will never know, but it is a safe bet those analysts who know something about Afghanistan (or about Vietnam) would roll their eyes and wish Petraeus luck. As for Iraq, what remains to be seen is against whom the various sectarian factions target their weapons and put their training into practice. In his Afghanistan policy speech on Friday, Obama mentioned training 11 times. To those of us with some gray in our hair, this was all too reminiscent of the prevailing rhetoric at the start of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In February 1964, with John Kennedy dead and President Lyndon Johnson improvising on Vietnam, then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara prepared a major policy speech on defense, leaving out Vietnam, and sent it to the President to review. The Johnson tapes show the President finding fault: LBJ: “I wonder if you shouldn’t find two minutes to devote to Vietnam.” McN: “The problem is what to say about it.” LBJ: “I would say that we have a commitment to Vietnamese freedom. … Our purpose is to train the [South Vietnamese] people, and our training’s going good.” But our training was not going good then. And specialists who know Afghanistan, its various tribes and demographics tell me that training is not likely to go good there either. Ditto for training in Pakistan. Obama’s alliterative rhetoric aside, it is going to be no easier to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat” al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan with more combat forces and training than it was to defeat the Viet Cong with these same tools in Vietnam. Obama seemed to be protesting a bit too much: “Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course.” No sir. There will be “metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable!” Yes, sir! And he will enlist wide international support from countries like Russia, India and China that, according to President Obama, “should have a stake in the security of the region.” Right. “The road ahead will be long,” said Obama in conclusion. He has that right. The strategy adopted virtually guarantees that. That is why Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan publicly contradicted his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, late last year when Gates, protesting the widespread pessimism on Afghanistan, started talking up the prospect of a “surge” of troops in Afghanistan. McKiernan insisted publicly that no Iraqi-style “surge” of forces would end the conflict in Afghanistan. “The word I don’t use for Afghanistan is ‘surge,’” McKiernan stated, adding that what is required is a “sustained commitment” that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution. McKiernan has that right. But his boss Mr. Gates did not seem to get it. Bob Gates at the Gate Late last year, as he maneuvered to stay on as Defense Secretary in the new administration, Gates hotly disputed the notion that things were getting out of control in Afghanistan. The argument that Gates used to support his professed optimism, however, made us veteran intelligence officers gag — at least those who remember the U.S. in Vietnam in the 1960s, the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and other failed counterinsurgencies. “The Taliban holds no land in Afghanistan, and loses every time it comes into contact with coalition forces,” Gates explained. Our Secretary of Defense seemed to be insisting that U.S. troops have not lost one pitched battle with the Taliban or al-Qaeda. (Engagements like the one on July 13, 2008, in which “insurgents” attacked an outpost in Konar province, killing nine U.S. soldiers and wounding 15 others, apparently do not qualify as “contact.”) Gates ought to read up on Vietnam, for his words evoke a similarly benighted comment by U.S. Army Col. Harry Summers after that war had been lost. In 1974, Summers was sent to Hanoi to try to resolve the status of Americans still listed as missing. To his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, Summers made the mistake of bragging, “You know, you never beat us on the battlefield.” Colonel Tu responded, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.” I don't fault the senior military. Cancel that, I DO fault them. They resemble all too closely the gutless general officers who never looked down at what was really happening in Vietnam. The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the time have been called, not without reason, “a sewer of deceit." The current crew is in better odor. And one may be tempted to make excuses for them, noting for example that if admirals/generals are the hammer, small wonder that to them everything looks like a nail. No, that does not excuse them. The ones standing in back of Obama on Friday have smarts enough to have said, NO; IT’S A BAD IDEA, Mr. President. That should not be too much to expect. Gallons of blood are likely to be poured unnecessarily in the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan — probably over the next decade or longer. But not their blood. General officers seldom rise to the occasion. Exceptions are so few that they immediately spring to mind: French war hero Gen. Philippe LeClerc, for example, was sent to Indochina right after World War II with orders to report back on how many troops it would take to recapture Indochina. His report: "It would require 500,000 men; and even with 500,000 France could not win." Equally relevant to Obama’s fateful decision, Gen. Douglas MacArthur told another young President in April 1961: "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined." When JFK's top military advisers, critical of the President’s reluctance to go against that advice, virtually called him a traitor — for pursuing a negotiated solution to the fighting in Laos, for example — Kennedy would tell them to convince Gen. MacArthur first, and then come back to him. (Alas, there seems to be no comparable Gen. MacArthur today.) Kennedy recognized Vietnam as a potential quagmire, and was determined not to get sucked in — despite the misguided, ideologically-salted advice given him by Ivy League patricians like McGeorge Bundy. Kennedy's military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor said later that MacArthur's statement made a "hell of an impression on the President." MacArthur made another comment about the situation that President Kennedy had inherited in Indochina. This one struck the young President so much that he dictated it into a memorandum of conversation: Kennedy quoted MacArthur as saying to him, "The chickens are coming home to roost from the Eisenhower years, and you live in the chicken coop." Well, the chickens are coming home to roost after eight years of Cheney and Bush, but there is no sign that President Obama is listening to anyone capable of fresh thinking on Afghanistan. Obama has apparently decided to stay in the chicken coop. And that can be called, well, chicken. Can't say I actually KNEW Jack Kennedy, but it was he who got so many of us down here to Washington to explore what we might do for our country. Kennedy resisted the kind of pressures to which President Obama has now succumbed. (There are even some, like Jim Douglass in his book "JFK and the Unspeakable," who conclude that this is what got President Kennedy killed.) Mr. Obama, you need to find some advisers who are not still wet behind the ears and who are not brown noses — preferably some who have lived Vietnam and Iraq and have an established record of responsible, fact-based analysis. You would also do well to read Douglass's book, and to page through the "Pentagon Papers," instead of trying to emulate the Lincoln portrayed in Team of Rivals. I, too, am a big fan of Doris Kearns Goodwin, but Daniel Ellsberg is an author far more relevant and nourishing for this point in time. Read his Secrets, and recognize the signs of the times. There is still time to put the brakes on this disastrous policy. One key lesson of Vietnam is that an army trained and supplied by foreign occupiers can almost always be readily outmatched and out-waited in a guerrilla war, no matter how many billions of dollars are pumped in. Professor Martin van Creveld of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the only non-American military historian on the U.S. Army’s list of required reading for officers, has accused former President George W. Bush of “launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them.” Please do not feel you have to compete with your predecessor for such laurels. *** Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. In the Sixties he served as an infantry/intelligence officer and then became a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Leftist ex-Guyana President dies by Michael Munk Sat, Mar 28, 2009

The US tried several times to overthrow the Jagans Former Guyana President Janet Jagan dies at 88 March 28, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090328/wl_nm/us_guyana_jagan;_ylt=Aq2r2pp98YetdzitQNyZ1Ypm.3QA GEORGETOWN (Reuters) - Former Guyana President Janet Jagan, a major political force in this small South American nation, died on Saturday at age 88, officials said. She became Guyana's first white and first female president in 1997 after the death of her husband, former President Cheddi Jagan. Health Minister Leslie Ramsammy said she died of an abdominal aneurysm after being admitted to a hospital in the capital, Georgetown. "Her life story and her work will inspire generations of Guyanese for a long time," Ramsammy said. Born Janet Rosenberg in Chicago in 1920, she married Jagan and moved to Guyana in 1943. The former journalist was an advocate for the rights of women and workers throughout the Caribbean and in Guyana, an ex-British colony. She was sworn in as prime minister in March 1997 after her husband died. Later that year she won the presidential election in a country long divided between Guyanese of ethnic African and Indian descent. She resigned at age 79 in 1999 due to poor health. "As a principal figure in Guyana's successful struggle for independence, she embodied the fight for the right of people to choose their own destiny," the U.S. Embassy in Guyana said in a statement. Officials said she would be cremated on Tuesday at a site in eastern Guyana where her husband was cremated in March 1997. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Only Serbia remembers Clinton kililed 2500 civilians by Michael Munk Tue, Mar 24, 2009

Serbia marks Nato raid anniversary Hundreds of civilians died during the Nato bombing campaign March 24, 2009, Al-Jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/03/200932463532546974.html Serbians have sounded air-raid sirens and rung church bells in remembrance of people killed in Nato's bombing against Serbia 10 years ago. The military alliance ordered the 11-week bombing on March 24 1999 after Slobodan Milosevic, the then Serbian president, refused to sign an internationally-brokered peace plan for Kosovo. Nato's forces sought to force Serbia out of the province of Kosovo, where Serbians were being accused of persecuting the Albanian majority. Boris Tadic, Serbia's president, in a speech on the eve of the anniversary before the UN Security Council in New York, described Nato's intervention as a "tragic military campaign". "The lesson for Serbia is that it must not get into a situation in which its citizens are punished and killed ever again," he said. "Some 2,500 civilians were killed, among them 89 children, while 12,500 were injured," said Tadic, whose governing Democratic Party opposes Kosovo's independence. Human Rights Watch, a Washington-based human rights group, put the civilian death toll from the bombing campaign, which lasted 78 days, at about 500. Serbia estimates that the campaign cost $30bn from direct damage alone. Kosovo Albanians widely believe that the bombing of the forces helped them realise their independence. At least 15,000 Nato-led peacekeepers remain in Kosovo, which 56 nations recognise after its ethnic Albanian-dominated parliament declared unilateral independence from Serbia in February 2008. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

MoveOn Moves Out by Michael Munk Tue, Mar 24, 2009

Moved on From the Struggle by Anthony Arnove ZNet http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20923 VIA Cord Macguire March 20, 2009 On MARCH 2, the liberal organization MoveOn.org--known for mobilizing opposition to the Bush administration through the Internet--sent an e-mail to its membership that declared the U.S. war on Iraq effectively over: Dear MoveOn member, I'm sure you've heard about President Obama's plan to finally bring an end to the disastrous war in Iraq. It will bring most of our troops home by August of next year--and by the end of 2011 there won't be any more troops left in Iraq. This is a major turning point in the fight to end the war. We wanted to take a moment to reflect on the work that you've done over the last six, dark years...to thank you, sincerely, for all you have done... This war is coming to an end in part because of the work you did. While the letter acknowledges that "our troops aren't home yet. Hundreds of thousands of them are still in harm's way, and will continue to be for longer than any of us would like," it says the bottom line is that "now there's a date certain for them to come home." Reading this, I was reminded of the final line of Ernest Hemingway's novel The Sun Also Rises: "Isn't it pretty to think so?" But MoveOn is not alone. Much of the antiwar movement has folded its tents. The Iraq war has more or less dropped out of popular consciousness altogether. And the media report less and less about the ongoing problems there. So it's no surprise that the fine print of President Barack Obama's plan in Iraq has gone largely unexamined. Rather than pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months, as most Obama voters understood his campaign pledge, the redeployment of forces from Iraq will proceed over a 19-month period and will be back-loaded to take place after December 2009. As the New York Times reported: The plan would maintain relatively high troop levels through Iraq's parliamentary elections, to be held in December, before beginning in earnest to meet the August 2010 target for removing combat forces, the officials said. Even after August 2010, as many as 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq would remain, including some combat units reassigned as "Advisory Training Brigades" or "Advisory Assistance Brigades," the administration and Pentagon officials said. Obama's plan says nothing about the private contractors and mercenaries that are an essential part of the occupation of Iraq, and whose numbers may even be increased to cover functions previously provided by active-duty troops. And it will leave in place the world's largest foreign embassy, as well as the largest CIA foreign station, in Baghdad. Obama calls the troops who will stay in Iraq through the end of 2011 "residual forces" and non-combat troops, but this is just doublespeak. Combat troops are simply being renamed non-combat troops through a verbal sleight of hand, but will certainly be able to use lethal force and will find themselves in combat situations. And in accepting the logic of the Bush administration for not withdrawing the troops immediately--that they are needed to fight al-Qaeda, engage in "counter-insurgency operations," and continue the "war on terror"--Obama has opened the door to keeping them in Iraq beyond 2011. Indeed, in his speech about the Iraq "withdrawal" plan at the end of February, Obama retroactively endorsed the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq in the first place, as the Wall Street Journal gleefully noted. We know that Iraq will remain under occupation until at least the end of 2011, but there is very good reason to believe that between now and then, the Iraqi government, which owes its survival to Washington, will cut a deal to allow U.S. forces to remain longer. Such an agreement would also likely give the U.S. long-term access to military bases and access to Iraqi air space. The fact remains that Iraq is a fulcrum of geopolitics and a vital front for U.S. military strategy in the Middle East. Washington's goals for Iraq and the region may be less ambitious than when the Bush administration launched its 2003 invasion, but no one is reversing the fundamental policies driving U.S. policy: the goal of controlling the region's vast energy resources and being the hegemonic foreign power there. MoveOn should be letting its members know this--and urging far more than to "keep watching Washington" to be sure they do bring the troops home. But to do this, the group would have to take on the Obama administration more forcefully on Iraq--and on the occupation of Afghanistan, which is intimately related. Obama has said all along that he sees Afghanistan as the "central front" in the "war on terror," and that he would commit more troops to the war there. But Justin Ruben, MoveOn's new executive director, told Nation correspondent Ari Melber that the organization did not intend to oppose Obama's plan to send more troops to Afghanistan. The message being sent to the antiwar movement is: It's over. We can "move on." Leave it to the generals to wind it down. But if we do that, we will find ourselves without the forces we need to challenge Obama and Congress. The year 2011 is already too late to end the occupation of Iraq, which should never have started in the first place. And shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is not ending the war. Without an antiwar movement that is loud, active, in the streets and raising its own independent demands beyond the limits set by the Democratic Party, U.S. troops will not be coming home. The empire has not folded up its tent, and neither should we. Visit my website www.michaelmunk.com ***

What CPD boycotted by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 23, 2009

Protesters Mark Milestone 22 March 2009 by: Donna St. George | Visit article original @ The Washington Post http://www.truthout.org/032309O Thousands of demonstrators marked the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq with an impassioned protest of the nation's military policies yesterday, demanding that President Obama bring U.S. troops home. The demonstration was the first in Washington of the Obama presidency, replete with many of the same messages of protests during the Bush era. Placards read "War Is Not the Answer," "Troops Out Now" and "We Need Jobs and Schools, Not War." As marchers made their way from the Mall toward the Pentagon and a hub of defense contractors in Crystal City, they chanted: "Hey, Obama, yes, we can. Troops out of Afghanistan." Activist Dave Cahill, 25, of New Jersey proclaimed from a megaphone, "Obama wants to continue the war." Some protesters hoisted mock coffins draped with flags - about 100 in all - to represent casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries where U.S. actions have claimed lives in the war on terror. "I came from Pittsburgh today because I think the war in Iraq was a disastrous mistake, and I really hope this administration doesn't make a similar mistake in Afghanistan," said Robin Alexander, 55, who works for a labor union. "He's really on the wrong track with not getting out of Iraq more quickly and escalating in Afghanistan," said Pennsylvanian Al Hart, 58. "I think this is going to be his Vietnam if he doesn't change course." Many activists said they had volunteered with or supported the Obama presidential campaign. Organizers estimated yesterday's crowd at 10,000, but Arlington County police said the crowd was between 2,500 and 3,000. "I do support him, but I'm also critical, and I think the escalation in Afghanistan is a mistake," said Alice Sturm Sutter, 61, a nurse practitioner who campaigned for Obama and took a bus from the Washington Heights area of New York. After six years in Iraq, she said, "we need to pressure the government to work for peace and bring all the troops home." A particular point of contention was Obama's speech late last month to Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in which he announced a timetable that would leave about a third of the current U.S. force of 142,000 in Iraq until the end of 2011. And his wording left open the possibility of a longer military presence, protest leaders said. "He's basically guaranteeing that it will go on for three more years," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of ANSWER, or Act Now to Stop War & Racism, which sponsored the day's events. "Obama won, Bush is gone, but the occupation of Iraq continues," Becker said. "The movement is finding its feet again, recognizing that the solution was not through the electoral arena." Protesters marched past the Pentagon, streaming into Crystal City and standing at the steps of defense contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and KBR, leaving the mock coffins near each location. The message for all, Becker said, was that "they're not just making airplanes, they're making coffins. They are a company that benefits directly from war and occupation." Organizers said that later there was a tense standoff with police, near General Dynamics, but no one was arrested. Cynthia Benjamin, 56, a registered nurse from Upstate New York and a Code Pink activist, said the march seemed smaller than others she had been part of in Washington. She wondered whether tough economic times kept some people away and whether "a lot of them are thinking, Barack in, problem solved." Benjamin sees it differently. "It's not over until every last soldier is home from foreign soil." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

My comment about CPD and Obama by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 23, 2009

Forget the bonuses, here's the big scam on taxpayers by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 22, 2009

On "news dump" Friday, Goldman Sachs CFO provided a revealing justification for why it received $12.9 B of AIG's taypaper bailout money. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/business/21goldman.html?scp=3&sq=Goldman%20Sachs&st=cse and sold toxic assets to the government at a price it had declared needed marking down. Under intense pressure from lawmakers, A.I.G. was forced to reveal what the Bush and Obama administrations wanted to keep secret: which "counterparties"got its bailout money. Goldman turned out to be among the largest and since Hank Paulson was its former CEO as well as the chief author of the government bailout, many saw a corrupt insider deal. Already in 2007, Goldman tried to mark down the value of the "funny money" supersenior collateralized debt obligations that were underlying credit-default swap agreements with A.I.G. , but A.I.G. did not agree with Goldman's effort and refused to put up additional collateral to reflect the new degree of risk. In fact, AIG asked Goldman to accept less than full value for some of the contracts, but Goldman refused. By the time of the A.I.G. bailout in mid-September the next year, Goldman held $7.5 billion in collateral from A.I.G. and had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion of its $10 billion net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. Goldman's CFO told reporters its overall position with A.I.G., or the "notional" value of the contracts, was about $20 billion. After the taxpayer bailout of AIG ,Goldman got another $2.6 B. Then in mid November, 2008, even though it had already tried to mark down the securities, Goldman sold $5.6 billion in securities related to the swaps at full value to a government-backed vehicle that had been created to help unwind A.I.G.'s ill-fated trades. Why? The CFO claimed it had a contract and pleaded Goldman was "not in a position to take a loss" because of its "duty to its stockholders" and-- because Goldman took taxpapyers' money under the TARP--its duty to taypayers! The CFO rejected the suggestion that his company might feel guilty about its demands."All we did is call for the collateral that was due to us under the contracts," he said. "So I don't think there's any guilt whatsoever." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Protests erupt against Obama's wars, respectables absent by Michael Munk Sat, Mar 21, 2009

So where are the "respectable" anti war groups (Peace & Democracy, MoveOn, Working Families, etc)? They claimed their support for Obama would mean clout after his election. Still afraid to join ANSWER? Protests in Washington, Calif. call for war's end By NAFEESA SYEED, AP March 21, 2009 http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090321/Iraq.War.Protests/ WASHINGTON - Before war protesters ended their demonstration Saturday afternoon, several placed cardboard coffins in front of the offices of northern Virginia defense contractors such as KBR Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp. as riot police stood by. "Lockheed Martin you can't hide, we charge you with genocide!" they chanted as part of a demonstration that began in Washington to mark the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Arlington County, Va., authorities estimated there were 2,500 to 3,000 protesters. Organizers from the ANSWER Coalition said more than 1,000 groups sponsored the protest to call for an end to the Iraq war. Carrying signs saying "We need jobs and schools, not war" and "Indict Bush," demonstrators beat drums and played trumpets as they marched from near the Lincoln Memorial past the Pentagon into Virginia. Meanwhile, at a similar protest in San Francisco, tension grew after four or five dozen activists surrounded a group of riot-equipped police, throwing sticks and water bottles. Police responded by regrouping in riot formation and physically detaining several protesters who pushed and shoved with officers. Protest leaders shouted from the stage, urging police to leave. Barriers were quickly erected between police and protesters as an organizer urged calm and the activists started to disperse. In Washington, protesters demanded that President Barack Obama immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, saying thousands of Iraqis have died and thousands of American troops have been wounded or killed. "We think it's especially important for this new administration to feel the pressure from people that we don't want more war," said Obama supporter Pat Halle, 59, of Baltimore. Anti-war activists said even though former President George W. Bush is out of power, they are disappointed with what they see as stalled action from Obama. "Obama seems to be led somewhat by the bureaucracies. I want him to follow up on his promise to end the war," said 66-year-old Perry Parks of Rockingham, N.C., who said he served in the Army for nearly 30 years, including in Vietnam. Obama has said he plans to withdraw roughly 100,000 troops by summer 2010. He promises to pull the last of the U.S. troops by the end of 2011, in accordance with a deal Iraqis signed with Bush. There were about 138,000 troops in Iraq as of March 13. In southern California, hundreds of protesters gathered in Hollywood. Among them were peace advocate Cindy Sheehan - whose son was killed in Iraq - Oscar-winning screenwriter Paul Haggis and Ron Kovic, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran whose story was chronicled in the book and film "Born on the Fourth of July." Protesters in Los Angeles were expected to follow a rally with a march and then a symbolic "die in" where they would lie down in a major Hollywood Boulevard intersection to symbolize the soldiers who have died in the war. Protesters waved signs and sold bumper stickers and T-shirts commemorating the event. Denise Clendenning, 51, an environmental scientist from Chino Hills, Calif., said she hopes Obama will rethink his strategy to withdraw most of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and call all of them back instead. "We all have a lot of confidence in him," she said, holding two signs that read "Out of Iraq" and "End the War." In Washington, U.S. Park Police said no arrests were made. However, there sometimes was commotion among activists. At one point during the demonstration in Virginia, some taunted police while others urged their fellow protesters not to bother authorities. Some protesters then began arguing among themselves. This year, the protest in Washington was held on a weekend - a few days after the March 19 anniversary of the war, which began in 2003. Last year's weekday protest was marked by lower turnout than in previous years. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Das Kapital opera and Pete's 90th birthday by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 20, 2009

If you can't wait for the "Das Kapital" opera in Shanghai next spring, celebrate with Pete and his crew at Madison Square Garden May 3. Arts, Briefly Marx Gets His Night at the Opera Compiled by DAVE ITZKOFF New York Times: March 20, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/arts/music/20arts-MARXGETSHISN_BRF.html?scp=2&sq=Karl%20Marx&st=cse Workers of the world, unite and sing! A Chinese director is preparing an operatic adaptation of "Das Kapital," Karl Marx's treatise on economics, capitalism and the alienation of labor, The Telegraph reported. The production will borrow elements from Broadway and Las Vegas musicals, and will add a plot to Marx's text, first published in 1867, about a business whose workers discover that they are being exploited. After embracing the theories of Marx, above, some of the workers rebel against their employer, while others turn to collective bargaining. According to The Telegraph, the opera's director, He Nian, told the Chinese newspaper Wen Hui Bao, "The particular performance style we choose is not important, but Marx's theories cannot be distorted." The opera is planned to open in Shanghai next year. A 90th Birthday Concert for Pete Seeger New York Times: March 19, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/arts/music/19arts-A90THBIRTHDA_BRF.html?scp=28&sq=arts%20briefly&st=cse The summer music season continues to offer options for hippies of all ages. The concert promoter Live Nation announced that it would produce a show to celebrate the 90th birthday of Pete Seeger, right, on May 3 at Madison Square Garden. Live Nation said the show would be a benefit for Mr. Seeger's Hudson River Sloop Clearwater organization, which promotes conservation of the Hudson River, and would feature more than 40 artists, including Bruce Springsteen, Joan Baez, Dave Matthews, Ani DiFranco, Eddie Vedder and Emmylou Harris. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

What Obama knows about Iran by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 20, 2009

President Obama's friendly Persian New Year greetings to the Iranian people and their leaders were welcomed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press adviser Ali Akbar Javanfekr with these words:"We welcome the wish of the president of the United States to put away past differences. But the way to do that," he urged, "is not by forgetting the previous hostile and aggressive attitude of the United States. The American administration has to recognise its past mistakes and repair them." Javanfekr went on to remind Obama and the world about the long history of US aggression against Iran resulting from the need top control its oil. He began with the CIA's 1953 coup that replaced Iran's elected prime minister Mossadeq with the US favorite, the bloodthirsty tyrant Shah Palavi whoquickly returned access to nationalized oil to foreign companies. The Shah was finally deposed by an outraged people in 1979. He also cited US suppoprt for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, during which it imposed trade sanctions against Iran and gave military support to the the People's Mujahedeen, an Iranian terrorist group still protected by the US in its Iraqi camps. Another outrage was the murder of 290 civilians in 1988 by the US warshipVincennes when it shot down Iran Air flight 655. Finally, Javanfekr noted that the "bllind US support" for Israel was also a cause of friction. Actually, Obama is aware of all this. In his autobiography he refers to an incident with a Iranian student who demands to know why Americans are so passive about their reactionary government. Obama reminded him that Iranian students were pretty quiet for a long time against the Shah's Savak (political police). A MSM spun version of this story appears at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090320/wl_mideast_afp/usirandiplomacyobama_20090320204956 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Canada rejects Galloway but welcomes war criminal Bush by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 20, 2009

Canada's right wing government is also in the tank to its own Israeli Lobby Canada denies entry to fiery MP George Galloway March 20, 2009 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090320/tpl-uk-britain-galloway-ed79be6.html Canada has barred firebrand MP George Galloway entry into the country on the grounds that he is a threat to national security, a government spokesman said on Friday. Alykhan Velshi, spokesman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said the decision was originally made by Canadian bureaucrats, but that Kenney would not overrule it in light of Galloway's backing for the Palestinian group Hamas. "The minister will not give a special exemption from Canada's security laws to Mr. Galloway, nor will he provide special treatment to a man who brags about giving financial support to Hamas, a banned terrorist organisation in Canada, or who offers sympathy for Canada's enemies in Afghanistan," Velshi said. "I'm sure Mr. Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won't be one of them." The Canadian Jewish Congress said Galloway was clearly a risk to Canadians for his "moral and, in some cases, financial support for internationally recognized terrorist organizations". Canada's left-leaning New Democratic Party attacked the government decision as a restraint on free speech. Galloway was formerly a Labour MP, but was expelled from the party for urging soldiers not to fight in Iraq. He subsequently formed his own party, Respect, and was re-elected. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US deports Serb fascist to Austria by Michael Munk Thu, Mar 19, 2009

U.S. deports former Nazi guard to Austria By James Vicini James March 19, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090319/wl_nm/us_usa_holocaust_kumpf;_ylt=Au_SiCNEHUutSFyFMRjbihZm.3QA WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has deported to Austria a former Nazi concentration camp guard who admitted he participated in the 1943 massacre of 8,000 Jews, the Justice Department said on Thursday. It said Josias Kumpf, 83, who was living in Racine, Wisconsin, served as a guard at the Nazi-run Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Germany and at the Trawniki labor camp in Poland. At Trawniki, he participated in a mass shooting in which about 8,000 Jewish men, women and children were killed in pits on November 3, 1943, department officials said. Kumpf said his assignment was to watch for victims who were still "halfway alive" or "convulsing" and prevent their escape, according to the department. "Josias Kumpf, by his own admission, stood guard with orders to shoot any surviving prisoners who attempted to escape an SS massacre that left thousands of Jews dead," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita Glavin. Kumpf also served at slave labor sites in Nazi-occupied France where prisoners built launching platforms for Germany's V-1 and V-2 rockets that were used in attacks on Britain, department officials said. They said Kumpf, who was born in Serbia, joined the SS Death's Head guard forces at Sachsenhausen in 1942 and served there for about one year before transferring to Trawniki. He immigrated to the United States from Austria in 1956 and became a U.S. citizen in 1964. In 2003, the Justice Department sued to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. U.S. courts then revoked his citizenship and later upheld an order to deport him. In another Holocaust-related case, German prosecutors issued an arrest warrant on March 11 for 88-year-old Ohio resident John Demjanjuk on suspicion he helped in the murders of at least 29,000 Jews as a Nazi death camp guard. The United States is considering whether to send Demjanjuk to Germany to face the charges. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Albright a Judith Miller clone on Iran nukes by Michael Munk Wed, Mar 18, 2009

A New Judith Miller for Iran Hawks? /////////////////////////// by Muhammad Sahimi Anti-War.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=14420 VIA Cord Macguire" March 18, 2009 When the Bush administration was preparing the public in 2001-2003 for the invasion of Iraq by selling it lies and exaggerations, it was supported by articles discredited former New York Times reporter Judith Miller published on the front page of the Times. Beginning in 1998, Miller spread propaganda for Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, claiming that Iraq had active programs for producing weapons of mass destruction. Miller's sources were almost exclusively Chalabi and the neocons. A particularly glaring example of the lies Miller was propagating can be found in an article she and Michael Gordon published in September 2002 claiming that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase aluminum tubes for use in Iraq's uranium enrichment program. The "evidence" was quickly challenged and turned out later to have been supplied by the neocons. Dick Cheney used the article as evidence of a "smoking gun." It was not that Judith Miller was gullible and could be fooled easily. She was sympathetic to the neocons' cause. Now, lies, exaggerations, and speculations are also rampant about Iran's nuclear program. The last round of propaganda began after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on Iran on Feb. 19, which reaffirmed that (1) Iran has not diverted its nuclear materials to non-peaceful uses; (2) there is no evidence of a secret nuclear weapon program or facility; (3) all of Iran's nuclear facilities are monitored by the IAEA, and its nuclear materials are safeguarded; and (4) Iran has not significantly increased the number of its centrifuges that are producing low-enriched uranium (LEU). But the usual anti-Iran crowd cared only about the IAEA reporting that, as of Jan. 31, Iran had produced 1010 kg of LEU with an enrichment level of 3.49 percent. Suddenly, there were deafening screams about how Iran could enrich its LEU to the 90-percent level suitable for a single nuclear bomb. Even if Iran could miraculously build a nuclear bomb, it would have to explode it in a test, hence finishing off its entire stockpile. Moreover, there is no evidence that Iran has such a capability. Regardless, the War Party made Iran's one ton of LEU the analogue of Iraq's aluminum tubes. That the War Party and the Israel Lobby started the latest round of propaganda is not a surprise. What is a surprise is the emergence of a whole new source of speculation and skewed interpretations of what the IAEA actually reports. This source is none other than David Albright and his Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). Although Albright is considered an expert on nuclear issues, he and the ISIS have been increasingly distancing themselves from an impartial posture and becoming a tool in the hands of the anti-Iran crowd. The ISIS monitors, among other nations, the nuclear programs of India, Pakistan, and Iran. Unlike Iran, the first two have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and they have developed nuclear arsenals. Pakistan, with political instability and Islamic fundamentalists in its military and intelligence services, is one of the most dangerous nuclear nations on Earth, yet the main focus of the ISIS is on Iran. The ISIS does not analyze the nuclear program of Brazil, whose navy controls its uranium enrichment program and has restricted IAEA access to uranium enrichment facilities, in violation of its NPT and Safeguards Agreement obligations. Just imagine what would happen if the IAEA declared that Iran's military controlled its uranium enrichment program. Nor does the ISIS analyze Israel's program. This is a nation that has at least 200 nuclear warheads; has three nuclear submarines, one of which is usually in Iran's vicinity; kidnapped its own citizen, Mordechai Vanunu, in Italy and jailed him for 18 years because he revealed Israel's nuclear weapon program; and has been threatening for a long time to attack Iran. On its Web site, the ISIS claims that it "works to create world safe from the dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons to irresponsible governments" (emphasis mine). Yet, despite its 41 years of occupying Palestinian lands in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, despite the unimaginable destruction it has caused there and in Lebanon, Israel is a "responsible" government, while Iran, a nation that has not attacked any country for at least 270 years but has been the victim of numerous invasions and foreign-sponsored coups, is not. The ISIS lists a small staff. It uses satellite imagery provided by DigitalGlobe, a private vendor based in Colorado. On its Web site, the ISIS states that "the vast bulk of our funding comes from public and private foundations." I could not find the names of its benefactors. In an e-mail to the ISIS office, I asked about the sources of their funding, but I received no response. One must also consider the ISIS' information sources. When Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director general, submits his reports to the IAEA's Board of Governors, their distribution is usually restricted. Yet, the ISIS posts the reports on its site immediately after they are submitted. Often, even before the submission of the reports, the ISIS seems to know their contents, and at numerous times it has posted them at the same time that they are submitted. That brings us to David Albright himself. I am not going to repeat Scott Ritter's criticisms of him. (See also the response by Frank von Hippel of Princeton University defending Albright.) Leading an extensive research program in physics and engineering for the past 25 years has given me a degree of objectivity. Thus, I believe that Albright has made many valuable contributions to the debates on nuclear arms, nuclear materials, and so forth. However, Albright relies too heavily on speculation and, quite often, baseless guessing. Moreover, he has been silent on important issues that any experienced expert should be able to comment on while publishing analyses that seem to serve one and only one purpose: adding dangerous fuel to the hysteria over Iran's nuclear program. Given that the War Party and Israel are looking for any excuse to provoke and justify military attacks on Iran, anything other than scientific analysis, backed by legitimate documents and credible sources, is extremely dangerous. An analyst of Iran's nuclear program and the president of a supposedly scientific institution cannot consort with AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobby in the United States and the prime force behind practically all the anti-Iran rhetoric, and, at the same time, present himself as an objective and impartial analyst. But on March 5, 2006, Albright spoke to AIPAC, making a presentation entitled, "Nuclear Countdown: What Can Be Done to Stop Iran?" When talking about Iran's nuclear program, Albright usually tells half the story. For example, when he is asked how much yellowcake (the uranium oxide that is converted to uranium hexafluoride for enrichment) Iran has, he typically responds that it is enough to make dozens of bombs, but he does not say that going from yellowcake to a bomb is a long, tortuous process, fraught with technological difficulties and requiring advanced technologies, many of which Iran does not currently have (at least there is no evidence that it does). When he is asked about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, he responds that it is enough to make one nuclear bomb, but he does not usually say that what Iran has is LEU, not the highly enriched uranium (HEU) needed for a bomb, and that so long as Iran's enrichment facilities and stockpile are safeguarded by the IAEA, there is no way that Iran can obtain the HEU, even if it wanted to (there is no evidence that it does) and had the facility for producing it (it does not). In effect, Albright uses facts to insinuate predetermined and unrelated conclusions. In a recent interview, Albright was asked about Iran's progress in its nuclear program, to which he responded: "Iran continues to move forward on developing its nuclear capabilities, and it is close to having what we would call a 'nuclear breakout capability.' That's a problem because once Iran reaches that state then it could make a decision to get nuclear weapons pretty rapidly. In as quickly as a few months, Iran would be able to have enough weapons-grade uranium for nuclear weapons. And if a breakout occurred, they would not likely do so at the well-known Natanz enrichment plant. Rather, the Iranians would most likely take low-enriched uranium that's produced at that plant and then divert it at a secret facility that we wouldn't know anything about. And at this secret facility, the Iranians would produce this weapons-grade uranium. … They don't need that much more low-enriched uranium before they reach the first level of breakout capability, namely enough low-enriched uranium to make one nuclear weapon." To the untrained eyes of a layman, the above paragraph seems very "innocent" and, at the same time, very "authoritative." It is neither. Albright's statement about breakout capability is misleading. A nation has that capability when it has enough LEU for conversion to HEU and has conversion facilities. But, as I discussed above, the process of converting LEU to HEU is long and tortuous. Even if Iran has everything in place, and everything works without any glitches or outside intervention, the breakout time – the time to convert the LEU stockpile to HEU – is six to nine months, ample time for the international community to negotiate with Iran. Albright says with seeming certainty that the process of converting LEU to HEU will take place in a secret facility. That is, he seems to be sure that such a facility already exists. But the IAEA has certified time and again that there is no evidence of the existence of a parallel enrichment program in Iran. Albright does not mention that Iran's stockpile of LEU is safeguarded by the IAEA. So the only way for Iran to produce HEU from LEU is to leave the NPT and expel the IAEA inspectors from Iran, then take the LEU to its alleged secret facility so quickly that all the satellites hovering over Iran, watching its every move, miss such a monumental event! All Albright talks about is one nuclear bomb. Assuming that Iran could fool the entire world and , with tremendous luck, produce one nuclear bomb (and there is no evidence that Iran has the capability to do so), it would have to explode it for testing. That would be the end of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. The ISIS recently posted an analysis in which it claimed that Iran was running out of yellowcake. When Albright was asked in the aforementioned interview about this issue, he responded, "Iran has never really had the uranium resources to support an indigenous nuclear electricity program. So they are dependent on importing the fuel. If you consider the Bushehr reactor, that's what they did. They bought the reactor from Russia, and they also bought the fuel for at least 10 years" (emphasis mine). Assuming that the first part of Albright's response is correct (which it is not), the second (emphasized) part is totally misleading. Iran bought the fuel for the Bushehr reactor for 10 years because when it signed the agreement with Russia, it had no enrichment plant and it would take 10 years (at the current pace) to set up an industrial-scale enrichment plant with 50,000 centrifuges. Albright continued, "From our point of view, the best thing they can do is work out a solution with the international community so they can proceed with the nuclear electricity program and import the low-enriched uranium fuel that they need for those reactors" (emphasis mine). In addition to suggesting that Iran should give up its rights under Article IV of the NPT, Albright makes one wonder whom he's talking about when he says "our point of view." If he is talking about himself and the ISIS, that is all right. But if he considers himself part of the U.S. government, then he should stop all pretense of leading a scientific, impartial institution. Albright and the ISIS continually publish analyses in which they insinuate preordained conclusions based on totally unrelated facts. An example is a recent piece [.pdf] by Albright, Paul Brannan, and Andrea Scheel in which they described a network of companies that allegedly purchases items that cannot be exported to Iran. There is not a single item in the analysis that has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. Even the authors do not make such a claim. In another article [.pdf] Albright et al. claimed Iran was "illicitly" procuring vacuum pumps for its uranium enrichment program. No shred of evidence, no matter how flimsy or indirect, was presented for the claim. Even a cursory check of Wikipedia indicates that there are at least 16 very different uses for such pumps (Wikipedia does not list centrifuges as one of them), yet Albright and company declared that the purchase must have been for Iran's nuclear program. Any reasonable expert would object to such analyses as utterly unscientific and based on sheer speculation. One of the most contentious issues between Iran and the IAEA is a laptop that was supposedly stolen in Iran and given to the U.S. and which allegedly contains incriminating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has repeatedly called on the U.S. to allow it to give Iran copies of the laptop's documents. The U.S. has refused. The laptop has never been analyzed for its digital chain of custody to reveal the dates at which the documents were stored in it. These are two crucial issues that go to the heart of the subject. This brings us to last piece of the puzzle, namely, Albright's source at the IAEA. Albright's contact at the IAEA, with whom he is "extremely tight" (in the words of several sources), is Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's deputy director for safeguards, who is in charge of the current inspections in Iran. Heinonen, whose Finnish nationality may lead people to believe that he is impartial, is leading a crusade against Iran. He constantly acts outside the IAEA's protocol by leaking sensitive information to the press and spreading unproven allegations about Iran's nuclear program. A February 2008 report by ElBaradei to the Board of Governors of the IAEA declared that Iran's six minor breaches of its Safeguards Agreement had been addressed to the IAEA's satisfaction and that the IAEA had a better understanding of the history of Iran's nuclear program. Heinonen immediately made a presentation to the Board of Governors that was entirely based on the laptop, four years after the IAEA had obtained it, calling its contents "alarming." He expects the Iranian government to explain a document it has never seen. The solution is straightforward: present copies of the documents to Iran and analyze the laptop's digital chain of custody. But Albright has been silent about this issue. Albright most likely knows that at least some of the documents were fabricated and inserted in the laptop and an analysis of the laptop's digital chain of custody would easily reveal that. Albright certainly knows that, given the assassinations of Iranian scientists by hostile countries, Iranian experts would not carelessly reveal the names of important personnel in a memo the laptop supposedly contains. But Albright has kept silent, because if he says anything about the issue that Heinonen does not like, he may lose his source. Heinonen is "tight" with Albright because he realizes that leaking information to a former weapons inspector and his "scientific institution" to present it to the public gives it a veneer of legitimacy. There might be yet another factor in play. Many times in the past, Albright claimed that Iran could not reach certain milestones because it lacked the scientific capabilities. Time and again he was proven wrong. In fact, Western experts just have a hard time accepting that Iran, a nation that has been under the most severe sanctions by the U.S. for over two decades, has succeeded in setting up a complete indigenous cycle for producing nuclear fuel. As I told William Broad and David Sanger of the New York Times in an article that was published March 5, 2006, "[W]e've made mistakes in underestimating the strength of science in Iran and the ingenuity they show in working with whatever crude design they get their hands on." Is David Albright not developing uncanny similarities to Judith Miller? It would be a pity if he is, because he can contribute much to the debate on Iran's nuclear program, provided that he does not sacrifice objectivity for the sake of having a source at the IAEA – and a discredited one at that. *** Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering and materials science and the NIOC professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, has published extensively on Iran's nuclear program and its political developments.

China matches US escalation in its economic zone by Michael Munk Tue, Mar 17, 2009

Beijing raises stakes with tit-for-tat deployment in South China Sea Jane Macartney in Beijing The Times(UK) March 16, 2009 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5912597.ece Beijing has increased tension in a disputed part of the South China Sea by sending a patrol ship to protect fishing boats after the United States deployed a destroyer in the area. The American move was in response to alleged Chinese harassment of one of its surveillance vessels. The Yuzheng 311, a converted naval rescue vessel, is the largest and most modern patrol ship in the Chinese Navy, the Beijing News said. It was due to arrive in the Paracel Islands yesterday to patrol China's exclusive economic zone and to "strengthen fishery administration" in the South China Sea. It will patrol the waters around the Paracels and the Spratly Islands, protecting Chinese fishing boats and transport vessels. The remote reefs and atolls that comprise the Spratly islands are claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Taiwan. The islands lie on major shipping routes for oil tankers travelling between the Middle East and Japan, South Korea and China. They may also be above undersea oil reserves. Beijing was enraged by a law passed last week by the Philippines laying claim to the disputed islands, describing the action as illegal. The timing of the deployment of the patrol vessel appeared to be a response to a build-up of American might in the region. The United States dispatched a destroyer armed with torpedoes and missiles to escort its surveillance ships after harassment earlier this month by the Chinese Navy. Five Chinese ships engaged in what the Pentagon described as aggressive and co-ordinated manoeuvres around the unarmed surveillance ship Impeccable, forcing it to respond by dousing the Chinese ships with fire hoses. Chinese naval officers said that the US ship was on a spying mission. It said it had made repeated representations to the US to stop sailing so close to Chinese waters and within its exclusive economic zone. Washington says that the confrontation took place in international waters, but Beijing claims nearly all of the South China Sea as its own. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

A more balanced report on Tibet than the NYT by Michael Munk Tue, Mar 17, 2009

Modernization poses new challenges for Tibetans By Ben Blanchard Mar 16, 2009, Reuters TONGREN, China (Reuters) - Steeped in centuries-old, devoutly Buddhist traditions, Tibetans today face harsh choices as they fight to hold on to their unique identity without getting left behind in China's headlong rush toward modernity. The decisions range from painful ones about whether children should focus on their native Tibetan or the national language Mandarin at school, to rather more mundane ones such as what clothes to wear, music to listen to and books to read. At stake is the creation of a modern Tibetan culture that is more than just an imitation of their Han Chinese neighbors, or reaction to China's religious and political pressure. This year is the 50th anniversary of the flight into exile of Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, after a failed uprising against Chinese rule. With the likelihood of his returning getting ever smaller, some Tibetans are trying to be practical. "You have to learn Chinese as without it you can't achieve anything and you'll have no future," said Tendun, 23, a monk in a heavily Tibetan corner of the remote far western province of Qinghai, who spoke very passable, if heavily accented, Mandarin. "You can't even go to the shops these days if you only speak Tibetan," added the young initiate, who says he taught himself in a monastery perched above a valley dotted with villages and bright white stupas, prayer flags fluttering in the light breeze. Tibetan is the main language of instruction in schools in his hometown of Tongren, where most signs are bilingual in Chinese and the Sanskrit-based Tibetan script. Many Tibetans there speak only limited Mandarin or none at all. Job and education prospects are limited for those without the national language. Tibetans that don't speak Mandarin are condemned to marginalization in a country where affirmative action is largely unheard of. "When it comes to exams, the Tibetans and Chinese take them together, but the Tibetans always fail as their Chinese is not as good. So the Chinese get all the best jobs around here," said a Tibetan teacher from southern Qinghai, who asked not to be named, fearing punishment for speaking to a foreign reporter. "Families face a difficult choice about whether to educate their children in Tibetan or get them speaking better Chinese. But our language is our mother. How can you abandon your mother?" Han Chinese very rarely learn Tibetan. ROASTED BARLEY OR FRIED RICE? The challenges are broader than language. "People send their children to boarding school, where they learn to like rice and stir-fried food," said Luorong Zhandui, an ethnic Tibetan from Sichuan province and a professor at the government-run China Tibetology Research Center. "They come home, and they don't want tsampa, which makes parents worry they are losing their identity," he added, referring to a traditional Tibetan flour made of roasted barely. While many Tibetans do still prefer to wear their padded gowns with long sleeves, the young are often as fashionably dressed in jeans and trainers as Chinese counterparts in larger, more cosmopolitan cities on the country's eastern seaboard. "You can't go to work in those clothes. They're fine for festivals, but not if you want to get ahead in your life," said Rodun, a Tongren tour guide. "Look at him. You can tell he comes from the mountains," he added dismissively of an old man wearing a long, dirt-encrusted gown with a small dagger dangling from his belt as he made an offering of milk and barley at a temple. Down the road in a Tongren village, a group of young Tibetans, dressed in jeans and western-style jackets, laughed when asked why they were not in traditional clothing. "We don't wear that," one said in Mandarin, before turning back to his friends to chat in their Amdo dialect of Tibetan. BEYOND CHINESE If traditional food and clothing are losing out, other aspects of Tibetan culture such as literature and music are enjoying a renaissance, flourishing despite, or perhaps because of, a government clampdown after violent riots in Lhasa last March. Surprisingly this seems to have been driven by the new generation of elite who have picked up fluent Mandarin studying in the region's sinicized cities, or at boarding schools in the Chinese heartland. "Tibetans are becoming much more assertive and confident than they have been in the past," said Tsering Shakya, a Tibet expert and research chair at the University of British Columbia. "There is a growing number of young Tibetans who speak fluent Chinese, are well-educated and don't see themselves as a backward minority and they want the same treatment as the rest of China." Tibetan literature is flourishing, along with a Tibetan language blogging community. Tibetan women are asking feminist questions about traditional society and there are Tibetan rock-bands in Lhasa. For some activists it is directly linked to the rising pressure from China to conform to the version of Tibetan identity laid down by Beijing after the Lhasa riots sparked a wave of protest across ethnic Tibetan areas that lasted months. "We have witnessed a strengthening of Tibetan cultural identity over the last year ... real pride in their Tibetan identity infuses these blogs and writings," said Kate Saunders, of the International Campaign for Tibet. But for some Tibetans there are also lessons to be learned from China about building a modern society, whether it is inside the borders of the People's Republic of China or not. Not all are happy with China's rule, but few want to return to the Tibet of their grandparents either. A trip to booming southern China only reaffirmed monk Tendun's belief that today's Tibetans cannot rely any more merely on their religious faith and pride in their past. "I'd never seen such tall buildings. I had no idea of anything beyond the village before," he said. "I had no idea what the rest of China looked like, and how fast it was developing." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How Iraqis regard the US occupation by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 15, 2009

Sort of sexist but reveals the MSM's secret about how Iraqis regard the US occupation To Make Female Hearts Flutter in Iraq, Throw a Shoe By ABEER MOHAMMED and ALISSA J. RUBIN New York Times: March 13, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast BAGHDAD - What does it take for an Iraqi woman to fall in love with a man? In parks and dress shops, in university halls and on picnics, Iraqi women are still smitten - three months and one new American president later - by the shoe thrower, Muntader al-Zaidi. His conviction and sentencing for three years on Thursday, only burnished his image as someone who lives out the dream of the common man and in doing so becomes gallant and desirable. Zainab Mahdi, a 19-year-old student sporting a red baseball cap, swung on a swing set in a riverside park on Friday as she spoke admiringly of Mr. Zaidi. "Every Iraqi wanted to beat Bush," she said. "Muntader made our wishes comes true." Her sister, Hanan Mahdi, 22, who was standing next to the swing set, spoke with passion in her voice. "Muntader make us proud of ourselves as Iraqis," she said. "We were in Syria when he hurled his shoes at Bush, and we noticed the change in the way Syrian people treated us," she said. "They treated us in a better way." Mr. Zaidi, whom Iraqi girls call informally by his first name, captured nearly everyone's imagination here when he threw his shoes at President George W. Bush during a Dec. 14 news conference with the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. While Iraqi men have been divided over Mr. Zaidi's gesture, it was hard to find a woman who wholeheartedly disapproved of him. In conversations with 20 women over the last several days, most expressed strikingly positive sentiments about him and much anger about the three years he must serve behind bars. "Zaidi restored Iraqi women's dignity, which was stolen" since the 2003 American invasion, said Um Baneen, 31, a homemaker who said it was President Bush, not Mr. Zaidi, who deserved three years in prison. "No one dared to face Bush in the whole world, only Muntader al-Zaidi." Atiyaf Mahmoud, 19, a student in her first year of medical school said, "I love Zaidi. I saw him in my dreams twice, the last one was after the trial, he was released and I went to congratulate him and shake his hand." "I was so excited in that sweet dream," she said. "I wish to have that dream again." Not so for Zahra Fadhil, 29, also a homemaker, who said no model man would abuse democracy the way she said Mr. Zaidi did. "The three-year sentence is a lesson to all Iraqis who are willing to do shameful acts and pretend that it's democracy," she said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Truman, JFK, LBJ, Bush and--Obama? by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 15, 2009

This fudges JFK's responsibility for the Vietnam debacle but should still expose Obama's evident commitment to follow Truman into Korea, LBJ into Vietnam, and Bush into Iraq and Afghanistan. New York Times Blog: 100 Days March 12, 2009 How Not to End Another President's War (L.B.J. Edition) By Robert Dallek On Nov. 24, 1963, two days after John F. Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson met with his principal national security advisers to consider the most volatile issue he had inherited: Vietnam. A coup at the beginning of November - approved by the Kennedy administration - had toppled Ngo Dinh Diem's government and taken his life. Concerns about the ability of his untested successors to withstand Vietcong insurgents backed by Ho Chi Minh's North Vietnamese Communist regime gave Johnson a sense of urgency about an issue that could threaten United States interests abroad and undermine his standing at home. Johnson's first concern was to assure that he was acting in concert with Kennedy's plans. But no one could provide authoritative advice on J.F.K.'s intentions. By increasing the number of military advisers in Vietnam from 685 to 16,700, Kennedy had indicated his determination to preserve Saigon's autonomy. His agreement to a change of government in hopes of finding a leader who could command greater popular support than Ngo Dinh Diem seemed to confirm Kennedy's commitment to preventing a Communist victory. Lyndon Johnson tried to give his nation guns and butter. In the end, he provided neither. At the same time, however, Kennedy had signaled his intentions to reduce America's military role in Vietnam by directing that 1,000 of the advisers be brought home by the end of 1963. He had also rejected requests from his military chiefs for the use of American ground forces in the fighting. In addition, he had told several advisers that he intended to withdraw American military personnel from Vietnam after the 1964 election. Since Kennedy had left no clear indication of what he would do in response to worsening conditions in Vietnam, Johnson was free to put his own stamp on American policy. And he did not hesitate to say what he planned. He chose to interpret Kennedy's past actions as a commitment not to allow a Communist conquest. When his ambassador to Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge, told Johnson that Vietnam "would go under any day if we don't do something," Johnson answered: "I am not going to lose Vietnam. I am not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went." At the Nov. 24 meeting, he urged everyone "to devote every effort" to the war. "Don't go to bed at night until you have asked yourself, 'Have I done everything I could to further the American effort to assist South Vietnam,' " he urged. Johnson also said that South Vietnam's generals should be told that he would stand behind them, but he told his staff that he wanted something for his support. "I want 'em to get . . . out in those jungles and whip hell out of some Communists," he said. "And then I want them to leave me alone, because I got some bigger things to do right here at home." Johnson's eagerness for quick success in Vietnam rested on a number of fears. First, he worried that if Vietnam went down it would provoke another round of McCarthyism: critics would attack him for weakness in fighting the Communists and blame him for losing Vietnam the way they had blamed Truman for losing China. That could cripple his ability to be an effective foreign policy leader. He also feared that a Communist victory in Vietnam would embolden the Russians and the Chinese to new acts of aggression in Europe and Asia and increase the risks of a nuclear war. Last, but certainly not least, he worried that his hope of becoming a great reform president, who changed the domestic life of the nation, would fall victim to a foreign policy debate over Vietnam. As Johnson soon learned, despite his protests to the contrary, he could not have guns and butter. And though, as Lady Bird Johnson said, Vietnam "wasn't the war he wanted. The one he wanted was on poverty and ignorance and disease . ", once he committed himself to winning the war with a broad bombing campaign and 545,000 combat troops, he lost the freedom to build a Great Society. Protests against the loss of American and Vietnamese lives and the commitment of billions of dollars to fight the war drained away the country's energy for large-scale domestic improvements. Now that President Obama has inherited not one war but two, does he face a similar hurdle? With the country's economy in such poor shape and his eagerness to enact bold health insurance, education and environmental reforms, he will need to recall that wars are the enemy of far reaching change. World War I stopped Progressivism; in the 1940's "Dr. Win the War replaced Dr. New Deal," as Franklin D. Roosevelt said; the Korean War sidetracked Harry Truman's Fair Deal; and Vietnam frustrated Johnson's hopes of additional Great Society measures. Mr. Obama's commitment to maintain perhaps 50,000 troops in Iraq after the drawdown of combat forces over the next 19 months, combined with his decision to send an additional 17,000 troops (for starters) to Afghanistan, could be the beginning of an unwanted debate about commitments abroad. If the country begins to see mounting costs in lives and money from the administration's war policies, it risks distractions from the more urgent designs the president described in his campaign and recent messages to the Congress and the country. History is never a precise guide for current political actions. But the consistent negative impact of earlier foreign conflicts on grand projects at home is a cautionary tale that should command President Obama's close attention. Guns and butter rarely mix. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How Israeli Lobby intimidated Obama by Michael Munk Wed, Mar 11, 2009

AIPAC spy on trial led campaign against Freeman by Michael Munk Wed, Mar 11, 2009

Charles "Chas" Freeman, Obama's pick to head the National Intelligence Council, has withdrawn from contention for the job. The Daily Beast's Max Blumenthal reported that the leader of the campaign against Freeman was Steven Rosen, a former director of AIPAC awaiting trial on espionage charges, who has a long history of attacking and undermining anybody he deems hostile to Israel. The assault on Charles "Chas" Freeman Jr., a former ambassador tapped to lead the National Intelligence Council, is the first blow in a battle over the Obama administration's Middle East policy. Steven Rosen, a former director of the American Israel Political Affairs Committee due to stand trial this April for espionage for Israel, is the leader of the campaign against Freeman's appointment. In his wake, a host of critics from the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg to the New Republic's Marty Peretz have emerged to assail Freeman's comments on Israeli policies and demand that Obama rescind the diplomat's appointment. The campaign against Freeman spread to Congress, where a handful of representatives including the top recipient of AIPAC donations, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), called for an investigation of Freeman's business ties to China and Saudi Arabia. Read Blumenthal's full expose of the Israeli's lobby's role at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-10/obamarsquos-mideast-policy-smackdown/full/ visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

China's legal claim in So China Sea by Michael Munk Tue, Mar 10, 2009

The controversy over the US spy ship's alleged trespassing in China's declared Exclusive Economic Zone (EZZ) south of Hainan Island is over the following provision of the UN's 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea: That provision allows coastal states to establish sovereignty over Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles from their coasts. China has declared such an EZZ in waters on the South China Sea where the US spy ship admits it was towing underwater sonar gear. China repeatedly protested such trespassing until it finally confronted the US ship yesterday. China has signed and ratified the UNCLOS but the US has refused to rartify it--as it has also refused to observe other UN conventions that have the force of international law such as the criminal court and air pollution. Its president has infamously even claimed immunity from the Geneva Conventions on War even though the US has signed and ratified it. Check it out at http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5291JZ20090310 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Capitalism Kills by Michael Munk Tue, Mar 10, 2009

A NYTimes report http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/nyregion/09painting.html?_r=1 on this year's Armory art show found "lower energy," "thinner crowds" and prices "up to 30% off" But one "decidedly pleased exhibitor was Vladimir Ovcharenko of the Regina Gallery in Moscow. On Saturday, he sold a neon sign by a French artist, Claire Fontaine, for $20,000. It read: "Capitalism Kills." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

SF's Bloody Thursday landmark threatened by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 8, 2009

Iraq vets' Agent Orange by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 8, 2009

Oregon veteran disabled by Iraq's 'Agent Orange' by Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian=20 March 8, 2009 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/oregon_veteran_disabled_= by_ira.html Rob Finch, The OregonianLarry Roberta, who served in the National Guard = in the Middle East, takes so many daily medications to manage shortness = of breath and other problems, he needs a plastic tote box to keep them = organized. "That's not the man I sent," says his wife, Michelle. The soldiers worried about Saddam Hussein loyalists, not the dust.=20 Dust coated the Oregon Army National Guardsmen's combat boots and caked = their skin as they protected Halliburton KBR contractors restoring oil = flow in Iraq in 2003. Dust poofed from the soldiers' uniforms as they = crowded into vans at the end of the day and shared tents at night. When the dust blew onto Spc. Larry Roberta's ready-to-eat meal, he = rinsed the chicken patty with his canteen water and ate it.=20 Six months later, doctors discovered the flap into Roberta's stomach had = disintegrated. Six years later, the Marine and former police officer can = no longer walk to the mailbox or work.=20 Another Oregon soldier, Sgt. Nicholas Thomas, died of complications of = leukemia at age 21. Three others have reported lung problems to = headquarters. Five more told The Oregonian they suffer chronic coughs, = rashes and immune system disorders.=20 The same Oregon Guard soldiers who went into Iraq without adequate body = armor or up-armored Humvees face another dubious first: exposure to = hexavalent chromium, which greatly increases their risk of cancer and = other diseases. It was in the orange and yellow dust spread over half = the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant by fleeing Saddam supporters.=20 Scientists call the carcinogen a Trojan horse because the damage may not = be immediately obvious. Over time, people can develop different cancers, = breathing problems, stomach ulcers or damage to the digestive tract.=20 "This is our Agent Orange," says Scott Ashby, who served in the Oregon = Guard.=20 Guard tries to notify soldiers Ninety-three Oregon soldiers may still not know that they have been = exposed to hexavalent chromium. The Oregon Guard sent registered letters = notifying them Friday, six years after their deployment.=20 Rob Finch, The OregonianLarry Roberta stands outside his home with his = wife, Michelle, and Norman, a green wing macaw they rescued. Roberta = cares for dozens of rescued birds. He resocialized the once-vicious = Norman by playing a ukulele and singing to him. "We think Norman was = abused and angry. Together they figured out how not to be angry," = Michelle Roberta says.=20 Officials say they didn't learn of the problem themselves until = November, when the Army, spurred by lawsuits in Indiana and Texas and a = subsequent Senate investigation, alerted the Oregon Guard. The suits = claim KBR ignored both a United Nations report and its own employees' = warnings about the danger.=20 The Oregon Guard has sent 286 letters to soldiers of the 1st Battalion, = 162nd Infantry Division, about possible exposure. Fewer than 20 have = responded to the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Guard.=20 The 1-162 was broken up in an Army reorganization in 2006. And fewer = than half of the soldiers who were deployed are still in the Guard. = Forty letters have been returned unopened. The Portland VA's chief = environmental-agent doctor has seen only four soldiers.=20 Larry and Michelle Roberta of Aumsville received the Guard's letter Feb. = 26 notifying them of his possible exposure. They set the letter aside. = Roberta has known since July 2003 when an Army medic recorded exposure = to hexavalent chromium at the water plant.=20 "We knew he was exposed since the very beginning," says Michelle = Roberta, 38. "I sent a very healthy man over there. He did not come = back."=20 "Restore Iraqi Oil" The 1-162 arrived at its base of operations in Kuwait on April 18, 2003, = and within weeks, the soldiers from Gresham and McMinnville were = assigned to escort and protect KBR contractors on a mission called = "Restore Iraqi Oil." Soldiers also came from combined units from = Hillsboro and St. Helens.=20 Houston-based Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, then a subsidiary of = Halliburton, won the contract to get the oil flowing in Iraq. Repairing = the water treatment plant, which maintained pressure in nearby oil = wells, was a top priority.=20 Soldiers, officers and the undersecretary of the Army's manager for the = project say that Oregon platoons rotated from Kuwait into Iraq in three = to four day intervals from April 2003 until June 2003. Oregon soldiers = met KBR workers at a rest stop on the main highway into Iraq, then = accompanied them in the contractors' SUVs to pipelines, oil fields or = the water treatment plant.=20 Courtesy of Larry RobertaSpc. Larry Roberta poses in the Basra oil = fields near a water treatment plant in Iraq in 2003. He began wearing = the scarf for the dust while patrolling at the plant. "He doesn't feel = his service was in vain," says his wife, Michelle. "The Iraqis needed = help. He did his job."=20 Just weeks after the Indiana Guard replaced the Oregonians, a new KBR = safety officer arrived at the water treatment plant at Qarmat Ali. Ed = Blacke was shocked by the widespread orange and yellow dust piled feet = deep in places. The powder, he learned, was a corrosion fighter that = contained hexavalent chromium. Soon he had sinus, throat and breathing = problems, and found that 60 percent of the soldiers and staff at Qarmat = Ali had identical symptoms. KBR managers told him it was "a nonissue."=20 Blacke described the sequence of events to a Senate committee in June = 2008.=20 According to a subsequent Senate query, KBR did not test the site until = August 2003 or notify the Army until September 2003. The Indiana Guard = learned of the contamination when KBR managers showed up in protective = suits. KBR closed the plant shortly after.=20 In October 2003, the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive = Medicine evaluated 137 soldiers and others at the site. They reported = abnormalities including eye, nose and lung irritation that "could also = be due to dehydration, diet supplements, previous conditions or heavy = workouts." The Army also concluded that the low levels of exposure that = were found meant soldiers were not expected to suffer long-term health = consequences.=20 Finally, the Army concluded, KBR had fulfilled its contract. It paved = over the contamination, then completed the water-treatment center = repairs in 2006. The oil was flowing.=20 Health issues persist In March 2008, nine KBR employees, including whistle-blower Blacke, sued = KBR for damages. Under federal law, the case went to arbitration last = week. In December, 16 Indiana Guardsmen filed their own lawsuit, = contending KBR "disregarded and downplayed the extreme danger." The = Indiana commander is dying of a rare lung cancer that the VA has ruled = is related to being at the water treatment plant.=20 Hexavalent chromium=20 . Exposure to 40 micrograms of hexavalent chromium per cubic meter -- = about the size of a grain of salt in about a cubic yard -- has shown a = high increase in not only lung cancer, but also leukemia and stomach, = brain, renal, bladder and bone cancers.=20 . Erin Brockovich constructed the famous California case against PG&E = because of contamination by hexavalent chromium.=20 . The chemical is the toxic component of the corrosion fighter sodium = dichromate.=20 . Hexavalent chromium is part of the contamination problem at most = Superfund sites. KBR has denied any assertion that it harmed employees or soldiers.=20 Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., have challenged the = Army's handling of the issue, even after an independent panel backed the = Army. The senators also want to know why some Guard members -- including = some from Oregon -- still haven't been notified.=20 Col. William Farthing, the Army's project manager, says officials are = trying. "We still have soldiers exposed to a carcinogen, and if they = develop any health issues related to that we want to make sure they get = help." He urges the Oregon Guard to adopt Indiana's model in = coordinating with the VA.=20 But the Oregon Guard is busy. The medical command is readying half the = state's soldiers -- about 3,000 -- to return to Iraq this summer. And = they are still determining who served at the water treatment plant. = Because in the chaos of the early days of the war in 2003, no one kept = an archive of names of who served where, or day-by-day events.=20 Brig. Gen. Mike Caldwell says the first Oregon Guardsmen sent into = combat in 50 years paid a price.=20 "This was the low point of the Army's care of reservists, no doubt about = it," says Caldwell, commander of the Oregon State Defense Forces.=20 "The strategy was driven by former Secretary of Defense (Donald) = Rumsfeld and (Deputy Defense Secretary) Paul Wolfowitz, and the = responsibility goes right back to them. They thought we were going into = Panama and we'd all be home in a week."=20 From fit to frail When Larry Roberta finally did come home, Michelle barely recognized = him.=20 For Larry Roberta, the military had always been a way out. As a foster = child, he joined the National Guard for rent money. He served three = years in the Marine Corps, then went to work as a security officer and = then a police officer. Detective and forensic classes persuaded him to = pursue computer forensics. He rejoined the Guard in 2001 so he could = afford college. And he kept working as a technician at Xerox in = Wilsonville.=20 At 38, he scored at the top of every physical category in the Guard's = exam. His only medications: ibuprofen and Tums. He left for Iraq tan, = fit and in his prime.=20 Within weeks of arriving and patrolling the water treatment plant, = Roberta had severe chest pains, sore throats, coughing attacks and = wheezing, according to his medical records. Although KBR and the Army = did not move to close the plant or alert the soldiers and civilians = until weeks later, as early as July 18, 2003, an Army medic wrote in = Larry Roberta's chart: "Possible irritation of lung from = reflux/inhalation air toxicity (sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali WTP.)"=20 Roberta's commanders also were concerned, hounding him to get medical = care. When the Army began investigating exposure two months later, his = first sergeant thrust him at doctors: "This is the soldier you have to = see."=20 In December 2003, Roberta was evacuated to Madigan Army Hospital to = repair the disintegrated stomach opening. They also diagnosed reactive = airway disorder, upper chest pain and nasal polyps, noting his exposure = to hexavalent chromium.=20 Then he came home. Michelle Roberta noticed other changes. He erupted at = local boys on bicycles. The former policeman who despised domestic = violence, grabbed her by the throat. She hit him with a Dirt Devil and = went to the phone book for a therapist. After he climbed over the = cubicle at work angry at a colleague, he called his wife: "I need help." = With the help of an Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs counselor, he = was rated 100 percent disabled by lung disorders, tinnitus and = post-traumatic stress disorder. He needs two inhalers to breathe and = swallows eight kinds of pills a day for upper chest pain, migraines, = high blood pressure, mood swings and a mystifying low level of = testosterone.=20 "The worst part was, I couldn't figure out what was going on," he says. = At one point, he plotted to kill himself -- "right down to the noose."=20 Michelle Roberta intervened. "I have ESP about these things."=20 Rob Finch, The OregonianNorman, a rescued green wing macaw sits on Larry = Roberta's shoulder after a visit to S&D Exotic Bird Rescue in Keizer.=20 With their son Larry, 20, living at home, Michelle, a dialysis = technician, has held the family together, working full time and meeting = with the landlord and creditors to cover bills. She uses their pugs Jimi = and Frank, who respond when a mood is coming.=20 And she introduced her husband to Donna Burleigh of S&D Exotic Bird = Rescue in Keizer. Larry Roberta began working with abandoned birds and = the couple have since moved 23 cockatoos, macaws and others into their = home in a dizzying array of squawks and color.=20 Larry Roberta has begun visiting schools with his birds. He is trying, = he says, to find purpose in his new life. Many of the birds are so = traumatized they have plucked their own feathers and are unadoptable. = They perch, beneath gorgeous heads, like whole chickens ready for the = pot.=20 "They're misfits," he says, "like I am."=20 -- Julie Sullivan; juliesullivan@news.oregonian.com=20 Send To A Friend | Print this | Permalink=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama defending torture lawyer Yoo! by Michael Munk Sat, Mar 7, 2009

Judge Weighs Dismissing Case Involving Torture Memorandums By JOHN SCHWARTZ New York Times: March 6, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/us/07yoo.html?ref=us SAN FRANCISCO - Lawyers for the Obama administration struggled on Friday to persuade a federal judge here to throw out an unusual civil lawsuit against John C. Yoo, the former government lawyer whose memorandums on torture were used by the Bush administration to justify sweeping policies on detention and interrogation. The judge, Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court, explored the arguments of Mr. Padilla's lawyers thoroughly, but he appeared to be skeptical of elements of the government's argument. In fact, Judge White, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, even told the government's lawyers that Mr. Yoo's 2001 memorandum stating that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures can be overridden was "a pretty scary position." The case, of course, could go in any direction, and predictions of judges' rulings are often proved wrong. Nonetheless, the lawyers for Mr. Padilla left the courtroom smiling. "We were very encouraged by the court's questions," said Hope Metcalf, a lawyer with the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School. Mr. Yoo, [UC Berkeley law prof and just now]a visiting faculty member at Chapman University Law School in Orange, Calif., did not attend the hearing. Mr. Padilla was convicted in 2007 on terrorism-related conspiracy charges. With his mother, he sued Mr. Yoo, claiming that the torture memorandums were directly responsible for his detention, interrogation and torture. Mr. Padilla seeks monetary damages of just $1. His real goal, in this case and a number of others against other current and former United States officials, is a declaration from the government that his incarceration and harsh treatment were wrong. "Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights," the complaint stated, "and ensure that neither Mr. Padilla nor any other person is treated this way in the future." President Obama has shown little interest in prosecuting officials of the previous administration, and it is not clear whether there will be a government-sponsored investigation of Bush administration polices. But Mr. Padilla and his lawyers seem to be hoping that the civil courts may provide a kind of alternate truth commission, through the process of legal discovery. And the case has already borne fruit: the latest batch of Bush administration memorandums from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, released Monday and showing that the administration believed it had vast domestic authority in combating terrorism, were a response to the Padilla v. Yoo lawsuit. Mr. Padilla is not the only prisoner using the civil courts in this way. In another case, Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, current and former prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are suing a Boeing subsidiary that arranged the flights that took them to other nations, where they claim to have been tortured. Mr. Padilla's lawyers are relying largely on a 1971 Supreme Court case, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, that allows some people whose rights have been violated by federal agents to sue the government. But the government lawyers said the theory of that case could not be appropriately applied to this one. During the 90-minute hearing, Judge White asked whether the Obama administration had changed the legal position of the previous administration. A lawyer for Mr. Yoo, Mary Hampton Mason, replied that all such cases were under review, and that the torture memorandums were largely discarded by the end of the Bush administration. Ms. Mason and her colleague at the hearing, Glenn S. Greene, suggested that Mr. Padilla's lawyers were pursuing a case that was more about politics than law, and were trying to create a new legal theory to tie a lawyer to the results of his memorandums. "He had no supervisory role over Padilla or his detention," Ms. Mason said, referring to Mr. Yoo. Ms. Metcalf argued on Mr. Padilla's behalf that the memorandums had had a direct effect on her client's case and treatment, and that Mr. Yoo had also served on the "war council" that set policies for the treatment of prisoners. She said his memorandums had tried to shield administration officials from blame or liability. "Defendant Yoo," she said, "must not take refuge in the legal no man's land that he helped to create." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Kristof: Indict Sudanese president but not Bush by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 6, 2009

Kristof: 'Saving' Darfuris by Killing Them 03/06/2009 by Julie Hollar http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/06/saving-darfur-by-killing-it/ Just last week (2/26/09), Nicholas Kristof, who has written often about the situation in Darfur, was rooting for the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Sudan's president, as a step towards "help[ing] end the long slaughter and instability in Sudan": Next Wednesday, the International Criminal Court is expected to issue an arrest warrant for Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity in Darfur. That would be historic--the first time the court has called for the arrest of a sitting head of state. It would be the clearest assertion that in the 21st century, mass murder is no longer a ruler's prerogative. There has been concern that Mr. Bashir will lash out by expelling aid workers or that Sudan's fragile north/south peace agreement will become unglued if Mr. Bashir is ousted. Those fears are overblown. Time and again, Mr. Bashir has responded to pressure and scrutiny by improving his behavior and increasing his cooperation with the United Nations and Western countries. Got it: Bashir would never expel aid workers in retaliation for the international community trying to arrest him, even though he keeps saying he will, and a lot of experts think he'll follow through. Let's check in with Kristof again this week, now that the ICC did what he wanted: One of Mr. Bashir's first actions after the arrest warrant was to undertake yet another crime against humanity: He expelled major international aid groups, including the International Rescue Committee and the Dutch section of Doctors Without Borders. In effect, he is now preparing to massacre the Darfuri people in still another way, for Darfuris are living in camps and depend on aid workers for food, water and healthcare--even as deadly meningitis has broken out in one of the camps. "The consequences are going to be dire," notes George Rupp, the president of the International Rescue Committee, on which 1.75 million Sudanese depend for water, sanitation, education and healthcare. "If Sudan persists in this decision, it's difficult to see how the outcome will be anything other than serious suffering and death for hundreds of thousands of people." So the political move Kristof pushed for is now most likely going to result in serious suffering and death for hundreds of thousands of people the columnist is trying to "save." Yet Kristof doesn't acknowledge his error and continues to dispense advice: Obama should "insist" that Bashir reverse his decision. And what sort of leverage does Obama have for that, now that the ICC card has been played? It would appear to come in Kristof's step two: "Destroy one of Mr. Bashir's military planes with a warning that if he takes his genocide to a new level by depriving Darfuris of food and medical care, he will lose the rest of his air force." Alex de Waal, who has much more expertise on the Darfur situation than Kristof, thinks the ICC warrant was a pretty bad political decision: The ICC is a terribly bad instrument of pressure, because (a) the pressure can never be removed and (b) pressure only works if the end point to which the pressure is applied can be accepted by the party being pressured. The ICC indictment meets neither of these criteria. Independent journalist Julie Flint agrees: The immediate future for Darfurians is a sharp decline in the remarkable humanitarian work that has reduced mortality rates to near-normal levels in the aftermath of the massacre years of 2003-04. Where's the justice in that? Unfortunately, astute observers like de Waal and Flint don't have the same media platform as interventionists like Kristof. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Econ depts still captives of capitalism by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 6, 2009

Ivory Tower Unswayed by Crashing Economy By PATRICIA COHEN New York Times: March 4, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/books/05deba.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=patricia%20cohen&st=cse&scp=2 For years economists who have challenged free market theory have been the Rodney Dangerfields of the profession. Often ignored or belittled because they questioned the orthodoxy, they say, they have been shut out of many economics departments and the most prestigious economics journals. They got no respect. That was before last fall's crash took the economics establishment by surprise. Since then the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has admitted that he was shocked to discover a flaw in the free market model and has even begun talking about temporarily nationalizing some banks. A Newsweek cover last month declared, "We Are All Socialists Now." And at the latest annual meeting of the American Economic Association, Janet Yellen, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said, "The new enthusiasm for fiscal stimulus, and particularly government spending, represents a huge evolution in mainstream thinking." Yet prominent economics professors say their academic discipline isn't shifting nearly as much as some people might think. Free market theory, mathematical models and hostility to government regulation still reign in most economics departments at colleges and universities around the country. True, some new approaches have been explored in recent years, particularly by behavioral economists who argue that human psychology is a crucial element in economic decision making. But the belief that people make rational economic decisions and the market automatically adjusts to respond to them still prevails. The financial crash happened very quickly while "things in academia change very, very slowly," said David Card, a leading labor economist at the University of California, Berkeley. During the 1960s, he recalled, nearly all economists believed in what was known as the Phillips curve, which posited that unemployment and inflation were like the two ends of a seesaw: as one went up, the other went down. Then in the 1970s stagflation - high unemployment and high inflation - hit. But it took 10 years before academia let go of the Phillips curve. James K. Galbraith, an economist at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, who has frequently been at odds with free marketers, said, "I don't detect any change at all." Academic economists are "like an ostrich with its head in the sand." "It's business as usual," he said. "I'm not conscious that there is a fundamental re-examination going on in journals." Unquestioning loyalty to a particular idea is what Robert J. Shiller, an economist at Yale, says is the reason the profession failed to foresee the financial collapse. He blames "groupthink," the tendency to agree with the consensus. People don't deviate from the conventional wisdom for fear they won't be taken seriously, Mr. Shiller maintains. Wander too far and you find yourself on the fringe. The pattern is self-replicating. Graduate students who stray too far from the dominant theory and methods seriously reduce their chances of getting an academic job. "I fear that there will not be much change in basic paradigms," Mr. Shiller wrote in an e-mail message. "The rational expectations models will be tweaked to account for the current crisis. The basic curriculum will not change." "I hope I am wrong," he added. The political undercurrent undoubtedly makes change more difficult. There is a Crayola box full of differently named economic schools that are critical of mainstream free-market theory, but these heterodox - as opposed to orthodox - economists generally tend to fall into the liberal camp. Given the short time span since the crisis began, no one expects large curriculum changes yet. But in addition to Berkeley and the University of Texas, professors at a number of departments including those at the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale and Stanford, say they are unaware of any plans to reassess their curriculums and reading lists, or to rethink the way introductory courses are organized. John B. Taylor, an economist at Stanford and one of President George W. Bush's advisers, whose forthcoming book is titled "Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis," said he was planning to update his introductory textbook, "Principles of Macroeconomics," because of the crash. But while the revision will include information about the financial crisis, he said, explanations of fundamental principles won't change. To Philip J. Reny, chairman of the economics department at the University of Chicago - Milton Friedman's intellectual home and free market headquarters - such caution is a good thing. "Academia typically moves slowly and carefully and thoughtfully," he said. "There is a lot of speculation in the press" as to why the financial system collapsed, he added, but a lot of "work needs to be done to figure out what really happened, which dominoes are in front and caused others to fall." Outside of the classroom, debates about the crash are taking place in several public lectures and faculty workshops on the subject. But "before we're certain of what the answer is, we're unlikely to think in terms of changing the curriculum," Mr. Reny added. "That's very serious. The responsible thing to do is wait until we have some understanding of what went on here." There are a handful of departments that have welcomed alternative theorists, like the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; the University of Massachusetts, Boston; the University of Utah; and the University of Missouri, Kansas City (where the Heterodox Economics Newsletter is published). To Mr. Galbraith and L. Randall Wray, an economist at Missouri, the two thinkers whose work is most relevant today are John Maynard Keynes, who argued that the government should spend its way out of the Great Depression, and Hyman Minsky, who maintained that financial institutions could prompt ruinous crashes by taking on too much risk. Neither, Mr. Galbraith said, is part of the core curriculum in most economics graduate programs. When asked why graduate students don't study Keynes or Minksy, Mr. Reny replied that graduate students work on subjects - like real models of business cycles - that are at the frontier of the field; by contrast Keynes and Minsky are not on the frontier anymore. Mr. Wray prefers to call such mathematical modeling "the frontier of nonsense." For more than a decade Mr. Wray has asserted that both the theory and the models used by risk-rating agencies are wrong. He has been invited to speak at the University of Chicago, he said, but by social science graduate students, not by the economics department. When it comes to the financial crisis Dani Rodrick, an economist at Harvard, said, "The problem wasn't with the economics but with the economists." Theories and models are tools, but "we have fixated on one of the possible hundreds of models and elevated that above the others," he said, referring to free market theory. "We form a narrative of the moment, which fits the zeitgeist." For many the narrative that seemed to best explain the experiences of the 1970s, '80s and '90s, when the Soviet economy collapsed, and India and China became more market oriented was told by free market theorists. A real shift among economists will come only if there is a wholesale collapse, Mr. Wray and Mr. Card agreed. If unemployment is still high three years from now, then you might start to see a paradigm shift, Mr. Card said; economists will "have to say that the market isn't supposed to work this way." But if the economy bounces back in a year, then they will be able to dismiss the financial crash as an anomaly that is unimportant to the larger theory, he added. A field shifts, Mr. Card and Mr. Wray said, not so much because the wise elders change their minds, (they are too invested in the way things are), but rather because a new generation of scholars comes along and pushes into new areas of research. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Once I built a bank... by Michael Munk Wed, Mar 4, 2009

Obama defies court on state secrets by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 2, 2009

What Obama's DOJ gives (releasing the secrets of the Bush's torture, wiretap memoes) it takes away here! Obama DOJ Defies Federal Judge Despite Ninth Circuit Decision, Lawyers Refuse to Release Document in Wiretapping Case By Daphne Eviatar 3/2/09 12:37 AM http://washingtonindependent.com/31944/obama-doj-defies-federal-judge?ref=fp8 A heated confrontation is brewing between the Obama administration and the federal judiciary. Late on Friday, the Justice Department's lawyers filed a brief with a federal district court in California challenging the court's power to carry out its own order. The government lawyers insisted that the court has no right to make available to the opposing lawyers in the case a classified document regarding the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, even though the document is critical to the lawsuit, the lawyers can obtain the necessary top-secret security clearances, and the document would not be released publicly. As TWI reported on Friday, the case of Al-Haramain v. Obama presents one of the first direct challenges by a victim of the Bush National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program against government officials. But the government has argued vigorously to have the case dismissed, invoking the so-called "state secrets privilege" to refuse to turn over information about the program, and has refused to provide the organization's lawyers use of a document that reportedly reveals that Al Haramain was one of the program's victims. Although U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has repeatedly rejected the Justice Department's argument, DOJ lawyers filed an emergency appeal; on Friday afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected it. So on Friday, in a move that Al-Haramain's lawyer called "mind-boggling", the Obama administration told the federal court, once again, that it did not have the authority to order the government to make the critical document in the case available to the organization's lawyers. The decision to reveal the document, wrote the government, "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review." Not only does that defy the court once again, but there's a catch: the court already has the document, which was filed months ago under seal. What's more, the lawyers for Al-Haramain have already seen it; it was inadvertently turned over to them back in 2004, when the government was busy trying to prove that Al-Haramain was funnelling money to terrorists. Weeks later, the government, realizing its mistake, sent FBI agents to the lawyers' offices to retrieve the document. But the cat was out of the bag: the lawyers had seen evidence that the foundation, and two of its lawyers, had been wiretapped. And that same document has already been filed, along with several other classified, sealed and secret filings, with the U.S. district court. Realizing this, the Justice Department lawyers on Friday wrote: "If the Court intends to itself grant access to classified information directly to the plaintiffs' counsel, the Government requests that the Court again provide advance notice of any such order, as well as an ex parte, in camera description of the information it intends to disclose, to enable the Government to either make its own determination about whether counsel has a need to know, or to withdraw that information from submission to the Court and use in this case. If the Court rejects either action by the Government, the Government again requests that the Court stay proceedings while the Government considers whether to appeal any such order." In other words, the government lawyers threatened to physically remove the document from the court files if the Judge insists that he has the right - as he already ruled he has - to allow Al-Haramain's lawyers to see it. "It's a not-so-thinly veiled threat to send executive branch authorities (the FBI? the Army?) to Judge Walker's chambers to seize the classified material from his files!" wrote Jon Eisenberg, Al-Haramain's lawyer, in an e-mail on Saturday. "In my view, that would be an unprecedented violation of the constitutional separation of powers. I doubt anything like it has happened in the history of this country." The stand-off centers on who has the power to decide whether classified information must be made available to someone outside of the government. The Justice Department insists that only the director of the relevant executive agency has that power; and in this case, the Director of the National Security Agency has decided that Al-Haramain and its lawyers should not be allowed to see the classified document, because they don't have a "need to know" the information it contains. In fact, it's clear that in order for Al-Haramain to pursue its case against the government, its lawyers need at the very least the sealed document that indicates they were wiretapped. Indeed, it's the only known evidence that indicates that the Islamic charity was wiretapped without a warrant; without it, the organization and its lawyers don't have standing to sue the government. That's not a concern of the Justice Department, however, which insisted on Friday: "the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The Obama administration "seems to be provoking a separation-of-powers confrontation with Judge Walker," said Eisenberg. The government's latest move is just another in an increasingly aggressive set of tactics it's been using to defend broad executive power to conceal evidence of illegal activity by the Bush administration. In both this case and another case I wrote about earlier, Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, the Obama administration has invoked the "state secrets" privilege to argue that the subject matter of the lawsuits are themselves state secrets, and therefore that the cases must be dismissed. Civil liberties advocates had hoped that the Obama administration would be more open about the workings of government - and particularly about the illegal activity that occurred in the name of fighting terrorism under the Bush administration. But they've been sorely disappointed. In national security cases, the Obama administration has aggressively used the "state secrets privilege" to insist that it can withhold classified evidence even if that's contrary to Congressional law. "In the Bush administration, the state secrets doctrine was used to buttress the power of the president and make it difficult if not impossible to contest such issues as presidential authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping in the United States," Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University said last week. "We would think that when such disagreements occur, it's properly before the judiciary to resolve them. But the Bush administration asserted the state secrets doctrine for the purpose of making it effectively impossible for courts to review the matter," Rotenberg said. The significance of the Al Haramain case is "the apparent willingness of the Obama administration''s justice department to carry further that same argument in federal court. It is of great concern." Another interesting piece of the government's filing on Friday - actually, its second filing, at 1:00 AM Eastern time - is that the government, which was supposed to report to the judge about which documents it will declassify, says that it won't declassify anything. While that's not a big surprise, the declassification report also says that its previous classified submission to the court contained an error - though it can't say what that error was, because it's classified. And, to support all this, the government filed four secret declarations by government officials - which no one but the judge is allowed to see. "We've always suspected that the previous secret filings contained inaccuracies and maybe even outright lies, which is why we have been fighting so hard to see them," said Eisenberg. "Now it seems we might have been right. Maybe, now that Judge Walker may be about to let us see them, the Government is worried that we'll spot the lie, so they're trying to 'take it back.' This is extremely weird." Contacted over the weekend, the Department of Justice declined to comment, saying the court filings speak for themselves. But David Golove, a professor at New York University School of Law and expert on executive power who's not involved in the case (and had not seen the latest court filings), said the Obama administration's latest brief may reflect simply the executive's usual reluctance to turn over classified information until it absolutely has to. If the government keeps appealing every action by the district court, he speculated, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may finally give in and rule on whether the government has to comply with FISA, or whether it can continue to conceal evidence by invoking the state secrets privilege. Although Judge Walker ruled in al-Haramain's favor, no court of appeals has ever addressed the issue. "When a court of appeals tells them they have to hand over the information, will they comply, or will they go to endless ends to prevent it from happening? I don't think we've reached that yet," said Golove. "It might be fair to view this as just a consquence of fact that they find themselves in the funny position of having to reveal classified information to people they don't want to before getting a higher court ruling on it," he added. Then again, he added: "That's at least one interpretation. We have good reason to be suspicious." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Afghans to Obama: send scholars, not troops by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 2, 2009

Many in Afghanistan oppose Obama's troop buildup plans Frustration and fear is sparking opposition to plans that would nearly double the size of US forces there. By Anand Gopal | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor March 2, 2009 http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0302/p01s01-wosc.html?page=1 Kabul, Afghanistan - Parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai says she has an innovative amendment to Washington's planned injection of up to 30,000 new troops here. "Send us 30,000 scholars instead. Or 30,000 engineers. But don't send more troops - it will just bring more violence." Ms. Barakzai is among the growing number of Afghans - especially in the Pashtun south - who oppose a troop increase here, posing what could be the biggest challenge to the Obama administration's stabilization strategy. "At least half the country is deeply suspicious of the new troops," says Kabul-based political analyst Waheed Muzjda. "The US will have to wage an intense hearts-and-minds campaign to turn this situation around." The lack of public support could provide fertile recruiting ground for the Taliban and hinder US operations, Mr. Muzjda says. After a year that saw the highest number of civilian and troop casualties since the war began in 2001, officials in Washington recently pledged to send 17,000 soldiers to stem the growing violence. The move has broad support among the American public - a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 64 percent back the new deployments. Much of the Afghan opposition comes from provinces dominated by the Pashtun ethnic group, which include areas that have seen the most fighting and where the new troops will be deployed. A group of 50 mostly Pashtun members of parliament recently formed a working group aimed at blocking the arrival of new troops and pushing for a bilateral military agreement between Kabul and Washington, which currently does not exist. Pashtun support is crucial Although any proposed legislation or motion condemning the troop increase would be purely symbolic - the Afghan government does not have direct say over the operations of Western forces - observers say that the development is an important gauge of public opinion in Pashtun areas. Dozens of interviews with tribal elders, parliamentarians who are not part of the working group, and locals in Pashtun areas have revealed similar sentiments. "I can't find a single man in the entire province who is in favor of more troops," says Awal Khan, a tribal leader from Logar province, just south of Kabul. "They don't respect our tradition, culture, or religion." "The majority of my people disagree with this increase," says Hanif Shah Hosseini, an MP from Khost province who is not part of the working group. "More troops won't bring more security, just an increase in the fighting." US supporters targeted Many cite civilian casualties and house raids as the main reason for their opposition. Recently in Logar, armed locals blocked the highway into Kabul for hours, in protest of a night raid where US forces killed one and detained three others. According to local reports, the nearly 2,000 protestors burned tires and chanted anti-US slogans. In Kandahar Province, villagers recently placed the bodies of two children who were killed by mines in front a government office, shouting anti-Western slogans. They alleged that unexploded Canadian ordnance killed the children. Many locals also fear the reprisals of the Taliban in areas where troops operate. Recently in Wardak Province, locals saw two boys practicing their fledgling English with American soldiers who were passing by. The Taliban later executed the children, accusing them of being spies. Some feel that the US should focus its efforts solely on reconstruction and the building of Afghan security forces. "The Americans spend thousands of dollars every month on a single soldier," says Khost MP Mr. Hosseini. "With this huge amount of money, they can train our soldiers more effectively." Others say that if the troops must come, they should coordinate with the Afghan government. "Without such coordination, I don't think sending more troops will change anything," says Kandahar tribal leader Agha Lalai Dastageri. He adds that if troops were under the control of the Afghan government, they would be deployed near the Pakistani border and away from populated areas, diminishing the chance of civilian casualties. Many Afghans believe that the source of insecurity partly lies in Pakistan, where the leadership of the insurgency allegedly takes refuge, and that policing the border will improve security throughout Afghanistan. American military officials say that although the goal is to eventually transfer all security responsibilities to Afghans, troops are still needed now for development and security. "Our intent is to use the troops to secure rural areas," says Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, spokeswoman for US forces in Afghanistan. "The Afghans are showing great promise, but they need us here for now." Snowmelt ups urgency The injection of forces still enjoys support outside the Pashtun belt. Other ethnic groups, such as the Tajiks and the Hezaras, who predominantly hail from the country's relatively peaceful north and west, back the notion. "We need these troops to strengthen security in the unstable provinces," says Mirwais Yassini, chair of the Afghan Parliament and a Tajik. "We also need them [to provide security] for the upcoming presidential elections." Support for more troops is higher in the non-Pashtun areas because residents there have experienced less violence, and because they may view US forces as a buffer between them and the Taliban, analysts say. The memory of the Taliban's harsh rule is still fresh in many non-Pashtun communities, who suffered greatly during that time. But winning support in the rural Pashtun villages, where the war is being fought, is crucial for the plan, analysts say. Development will be a key component to this war. Military planners intend to continue focusing on projects meant to boost economic activity, which they say will show locals the benefits of US presence in the region. "A couple of months ago Arghasan district in Kandahar was controlled by insurgents," says Kandahar provincial council member Hajji Qasim. "But ever since USAID started a road project there, the economic situation improved and the insurgency lost influence." Military officials say that such development projects can only succeed if they are accompanied by a corresponding troop increase, since insurgents often attack reconstruction teams. Officials in Washington and Pashtun villagers agree on one thing: They expect the violence to increase this summer as the new forces attempt to root out insurgent strongholds. "I know once the snows melt, things will start to get much worse," Logar resident Nasar Ahmad says. "The fighting will be intense, and a lot of us villagers are talking about fleeing to Kabul." "We are worried our families will be caught in the middle," he adds. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why is Reid afraid of a filibuster? by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 1, 2009

Make My Filibuster by David E. RePass New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02RePass.html March 1, 2009 OBAMA has decided to spend his political capital now, pushing through an ambitious agenda of health care, education and energy reform. If the Democrats in the Senate want to help him accomplish his goals, they should work to eliminate one of the greatest threats facing effective governance — the phantom filibuster. Most Americans think of the filibuster (if they think of it at all) through the lens of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” — a minority in the Senate deeply disagrees with a measure, takes to the floor and argues passionately round the clock to prevent it from passing. These filibusters are relatively rare because they take so much time and effort. To reduce deadlock, in 1917 the Senate passed Rule 22, which made it possible for a supermajority — two-thirds of the chamber — to end a filibuster by voting for cloture. The two-thirds majority was later changed to three-fifths, or 60 of the current 100 senators. In recent years, however, the Senate has become so averse to the filibuster that if fewer than 60 senators support a controversial measure, it usually won’t come up for discussion at all. The mere threat of a filibuster has become a filibuster, a phantom filibuster. Instead of needing a sufficient number of dedicated senators to hold the floor for many days and nights, all it takes to block movement on a bill is for 41 senators to raise their little fingers in opposition. Historically, the filibuster was justified as a last-ditch defense of minority rights. Under this principle, an intense opposition should be able to protect itself from the tyranny of the majority. But today, the minority does not have to be intense at all. Its members have only to disagree with a measure to kill it. Essentially, the minority has veto power. The phantom filibuster is clearly unconstitutional. The founders required a supermajority in only five situations: veto overrides and votes on treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions of impeached officials and expulsions of members of the House or Senate. The Constitution certainly does not call for a supermajority before debate on any controversial measure can begin. And fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority’s bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin. Some argue that this procedure would mire the Senate in one filibuster after another. But avoiding delay by not bringing measures to the floor makes no sense. For fear of not getting much done, almost nothing is done at all. And what does get done is so compromised and toothless to make it filibuster-proof that it fails to solve problems. Better to risk a filibuster — an event that, because of the great effort involved, would actually be rare — than to save time and accomplish little or nothing. It also happens to make a great deal of political sense for the Democrats to force the Republicans to take the Senate floor and show voters that they oppose Mr. Obama’s initiatives. If the Republicans want to publicly block a popular president who is trying to resolve major problems, let them do it. And if the Republicans feel that the basic principles they believe in are worth standing up for, let them exercise their minority rights with an actual filibuster. It is up to Mr. Reid. He can do away with the supermajority requirement for virtually all significant measures and return majority rule to the Senate. This is not to say that the Democrats should ride roughshod over the Republicans. Republicans should be included at all stages of the legislative process. However, with the daunting prospect of having to mount a real filibuster to demonstrate their opposition, Republicans may become much more willing to compromise. *** David E. RePass is an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Connecticut.

I know socialists... by Michael Munk Sat, Feb 28, 2009

I know socialists. In fact, I am one. And Obama is no socialist! 'Socialism!' Boo, Hiss, Repeat By MARK LEIBOVICH New York Times: February 28, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01leibovich.html?_r=1&hp Washington - Conservatives might be seeking a spiritual leader, organizing principle and fresh identity, but they at least seem to have settled on a favorite rhetorical ogre: socialism. As in, Democrats are intent on forcing socialism on the "U.S.S.A" (as the bumper sticker says, under the words "Comrade Obama"). It seems that "socialist" has supplanted "liberal" as the go-to slur among much of a conservative world confronting a one-two-three punch of bank bailouts, budget blowouts and stimulus bills. Right-leaning bloggers and talk radio hosts are wearing out the brickbat. Senate and House Republicans have been tripping over their podiums to invoke it. The S-bomb has become as surefire a red-meat line at conservative gatherings as "Clinton" was in the 1990s and "Pelosi" is today. "Earlier this week, we heard the world's best salesman of s