Archive: Michael Munk's 2008 National Messages:

Obama denounced Mumbai attack; silent on Gaza attack by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 31, 2008

Pro-Palestinian protesters at Obama's Hawaii house By Ross Colvin Ross Colvin - Dec 30, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081230/pl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_usa_obama_1 AP KAILUA, Hawaii (Reuters) - A small group of placard-waving pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered near U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's vacation retreat in Hawaii on Tuesday to protest against the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. Obama has made no public comment on the strikes, which Israel launched on Saturday. Aides have repeatedly said he is monitoring the situation and continues to receive intelligence briefings but that there is only one U.S. president at a time. But with outgoing Republican President George W. Bush already viewed as a lame-duck, many people, particularly in the Middle East, are looking past him to Obama, who is due to be sworn in on January 20, for leadership. Obama did speak out after the attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai in November in which gunmen killed nearly 180 people, condemning them as acts of terrorism. He has also spoken on the economic problems facing the United States. "He is talking about how many jobs he is going to create but he is refusing to speak about this," said one of the protesters, Carolyn Hadfield, 66. She was one of eight protesters standing with placards reading "No U.S. support for Israel" and "Gazans need food and medicine, not war" near Obama's rented vacation home in Kailua, an upmarket suburb on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, where he is in the second week of a vacation with his family. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Obama did not acknowledge the protesters when his motorcade drove past to take him to play basketball at his old school. He stared straight ahead sipping from a bottle of water. "The president-elect values citizen participation in our nation's foreign policy, but there is one president at a time, and we intend to respect that," said Brooke Anderson, his chief national security spokesperson. Obama has in the past called Israel one of the United States' greatest allies and has vowed to ensure the security of the Jewish state. He has also said he would make a sustained push to achieve the goal of two states -- a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state. Israel on Tuesday pressed on with air strikes in Gaza that it says are in response to rocket fire by Hamas militants deep inside the Jewish state. Medical officials put Palestinian casualties at 383 dead and more than 800 wounded. "We are very upset with what is going in Palestine. There is a very great need for change in U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and Palestine. We need to stop giving Israel a blank check," said another protester, Margaret Brown, 66. The protesters were rebuffed when they tried to hand a letter signed by dozens of U.S. activist groups to a Secret Service agent guarding the access road to Obama's beachfront compound. The Bush administration has backed Israel's actions in Gaza and demanded the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to a lasting ceasefire. In Washington, several hundred pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside the State Department, waving Palestinian flags and chanting slogans such as "free Palestine" while police looked on but took no action visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

NYTimes admits US stalls Korea nuke agreement by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 30, 2008

In an editorial remarkable for acknowledging facts unreported or distorted in its news pages, the NYTimes ("'Firm and Patient' Dec 29) admits that rightwingers (Cheney & co?) in the US government-- not North Korea-- are responsible for the current impasse in the negotiations for a nuke-free Korean penninsula. The Times of course makes all the usual noises about how "frustrating" and "erratic" NK is and speculates that it is "likely trying to hide nefarious activities" (when the US does it, it's called "military secrets"). But its critical argument is that the US and its backers Japan and South Korea have reneged on their pledge to send oil and infrastructure components in return for decommissioning their nuclear plant. Indeed, the editorial declares that if the oil shipments stop, as the US has announced, NK "would be within its rights to stop disabiling its nuclear faciltiies at Yongbyon and resume producing plutonoium for weapons." The Times notes that the US erroneously claimed that Russia and China agreed with the US to halt their oil shipments. They did not. It goes on to report that Japan had already "reneged" on its commitment and that Australia, which offered to assume it, has in turn reneged. South Korea announced it would stop shipping steel plates for NK power stations--remember that the US reneged on its original promise to supply power plants, which is why fuel oil was offered in the current negotiation. The truth, which most reports have stood on its head, is that an agreement on verification was supposed to come after fulfillment completion of the oil shipments under the "action for action" formula reached in October, 2007. The Times cites one estimate that while NK has completed 85% of its obligation to disable (remember the photos of the cooling tower demolition?), while the US has delivered only 60% of the oil that is its obligation. So why has the media been reporting that NK's refusal to agree on verification protocols proves their untrustworthness? The Times says it quite plainly: "under the deal, a verification plan was supposed to come later. The timing was pushed forward as a condition for taking North Korea off the terrorism list by hard-liners seemingly bent on sabotaging the agreement." Read the entire editorial at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29mon2.html?_r=1 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's Afghan quagmire by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 30, 2008

Rep Conyers: Tell Obama single payer health care is the answer by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 26, 2008

Harold Pinter 1930-2008 by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 25, 2008

As we wait to learn what Obama is actually to do to change the "mind set" that got us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a good time to be reminded what that mind set got us into.Unlike the mealy-mouthed US media, Pinter told it like it is: When British playwright Harold Pinter won the Nobel Prize for literature in 2005, he famously declared: "The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law, How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand?" Pinter went on to accuse the United States of supporting "every right-wing military dictatorship in the world" after World War II and reckoned that its crimes have been "systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them." He did not spare his own country from his scathing judgment, noting that the US "also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain," led by the "deluded idiot" Tony Blair. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dems giving torturers a free pass by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 23, 2008

. Groups want Obama to investigate Bush for war crimes But prosecution would be difficult http://www.freep.com/article/20081221/NEWS07/812210467 VIA http://www.legitgov.org/ BY MARISSA TAYLOR . MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS . December 21, 2008 WASHINGTON -- Emboldened by a Democratic win of the White House, civil libertarians and human-rights groups want the incoming Obama administration to investigate whether the Bush administration committed war crimes. They don't just want low-level CIA interrogators, either. They want President George W. Bush on down. In the past eight years, administration critics have demanded that top officials be held accountable for a host of expansive assertions of executive powers, from eavesdropping without warrants to detaining suspected enemy combatants indefinitely at the Guantánamo Bay military prison. A bipartisan Senate report on how Bush policies led to the abuse of detainees fueled calls for a criminal investigation. However, many of the retired military officials who were early critics of the administration's legal justification of harsh interrogations aren't on board. They argue that criminal prosecution would be too difficult legally and politically to succeed. Without wider support, the campaign to haul top administration officials before an American court is likely to stall. In the end, Bush administration critics might have more success by digging out the truth about what happened and who was responsible, rather than assigning criminal liability, and letting the court of public opinion issue the verdicts. Lawyers raise questions "It is mind boggling to say eight years later that there is not going to be some sort of criminal accountability for what happened," said David Glazier, a law of war expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a retired naval officer. "It certainly undermines our moral authority and our ability to criticize other countries for doing exactly the same thing. But given the legal issues and the political reality, I am hard-pressed to see any other outcome." Robert Turner, a former Reagan White House lawyer who supported several of the Bush administration's assertions of executive powers but not the use of harsh interrogation techniques, said that war crimes "may well have been committed," given reports by human-rights organizations that some prisoners may have been beaten to death. Turner was outraged when Bush signed an executive order in 2007 that he said permitted highly abusive treatment, so long as the purpose was to acquire intelligence to stop future terrorist attacks, rather than just to humiliate or degrade the detainee. He recalls telling senior Justice Department officials during a conference call prior to the public release of the order: "Do you people understand that you are setting up the president of the United States to be tried as a war criminal?" The conference call, he said, quickly came to an end. Don't prosecute, some say Turner, who co-founded the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law in 1981, rebuts the administration's defense that waterboarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning, isn't torture and therefore is legal. He also challenges the administration's argument that Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, prohibiting inhumane treatment of detainees, isn't binding. "The standard is not torture. It's humane treatment. That's a much higher standard," he said, noting that after World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding on American troops. Turner, nonetheless, joins a number of high-profile critics of the administration's interrogation practices who've concluded that prosecution of war crimes in American courts isn't the best course. Others include retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson and retired Air Force Judge Advocate General Scott Silliman. "From a legal point of view, it would be exceedingly difficult," Silliman said. "From a policy point of view, we would be wading into dangerous waters." Retired Navy JAG John Hutson, dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., said that Americans would be more likely to get the facts from inquiries modeled on the 9/11 commission or the post-Watergate Church Committee. "It's absolutely crucial that we have an understanding of what happened so it doesn't happen again," Hutson said. "But to some extent, making that a criminal investigation would inhibit, rather than foster, a thorough understanding because people would lawyer up." "You might get some prosecutions" of low-level officials, he added. "But you would not get absolute ground truth." Democrats may open inquiry Prosecuting interrogators without going after higher-ups would be divisive politically, even though following the orders of superiors isn't a valid defense against war crimes, military experts said. Also left unanswered is whether any top congressional Democrats consented directly or indirectly to the most controversial interrogation practices after the administration disclosed them in closed-door briefings. Americans have been reluctant to prosecute their own -- no matter how appalling the atrocities. Even after U.S. Army officer William Calley was convicted for ordering the 1968 My Lai Massacre, in which as many as 500 Vietnamese villagers were killed, many Americans continued to see him as a scapegoat. He was sentenced to three years of house arrest. No other officer, including Calley's commander, was convicted. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans think that waterboarding is torture but are divided over whether it's justified in certain circumstances, such as preventing a terrorist attack. Democrats, however, are likely to feel pressure to open some sort of broader criminal inquiry, especially given recent revelations. Earlier this year, retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo by using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other practices. This month's Senate report concluded that top officials -- including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- were responsible for the use of "abusive" interrogation techniques on detainees. The Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Michigan's Carl Levin, also dismissed the Bush administration's repeated claims that the abuses were the work of a few low-level officials. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama failure to prosecute legitimzes torture by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 20, 2008

Bush shoe model sells 300,000 pairs by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 20, 2008

Shoe Hurled at Bush Flies Off Turkish Maker's Shelves http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=auI050ptHyPg By Mark Bentley Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The shoe hurled at President George W. Bush has sent sales soaring at the Turkish maker as orders pour in from Iraq, the U.S. and Iran. The brown, thick-soled "Model 271" may soon be renamed "The Bush Shoe" or "Bye-Bye Bush," Ramazan Baydan, who owns the Istanbul-based producer Baydan Ayakkabicilik San. & Tic., said in a telephone interview today. "We've been selling these shoes for years but, thanks to Bush, orders are flying in like crazy," he said. "We've even hired an agency to look at television advertising." Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zeidi hurled a pair at Bush at a news conference in Baghdad on Dec. 14. Both shoes missed the president after he ducked. The journalist was jailed and is seeking a pardon from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Baydan has received orders for 300,000 pairs of the shoes since the attack, more than four times the number his company sold each year since the model was introduced in 1999. The company plans to employ 100 more staff to meet demand, he said. "Model 271" is exported to markets including Iraq, Iran, Syria and Egypt. Customers in Iraq ordered 120,000 pairs this week and some Iraqis offered to set up distribution companies for the shoe, Baydan said. Baydan has received a request for 4,000 pairs from a company called Davidson, based in Maryland. He declined to provide further details. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Shoe thrower offered bride by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 19, 2008

AP reports Dec 19 that "The head of a large West Bank family said it is willing to offer one of its eligible females as a bride for al-Zeidi. The leader, 75-year-old Ahmad Salim Judeh, said that the 500-member clan had raised $30,000 for al-Zeidi's legal defense." For the full report :http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/12/iraqi_judge_shoe-tossing_repor.php visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

about Obama's healthcare discussions by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 18, 2008

They are do it yourself. You sign up to lead a discussion and invite folks to participate. Details below from Obama' web site http://change.gov/pages/health_care_discussion_faq/ Note that the for profit health insurance will probably send reps to your discussion who will pretend to be just interested citizens. See the NYTimes expose http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/us/politics/17health.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Insurers%20at%20healthcare%20discussions&st=cse Support single payer HR 676 How do I sign up to host a Health Care Community Discussion? You can sign up at: http://change.gov/hcdiscussion. When will the Health Care Community Discussions take place? They will take place from December 15, 2008 through December 31, 2008. How do I sign up to attend a Health Care Community Discussion? There is no signup process on Change.gov to attend an event - just to host one. We'll provide hosts with a special moderator guide, including everything necessary to get the conversation going. But it's up to the discussion leader to invite friends and members of the community. Health care reform will come from the grassroots, and we're counting on you to take the lead in your communities. How do I receive my Moderator Guide and Participant Guide? Once you sign up, you will receive an e-mail shortly afterwards with a link to download your Moderator Guide and your Participant Guide. What if I signed up but never received an e-mail with my Moderator Guide and Participant Guide? Sometimes the e-mail from Change.gov with links to the Guides went into spam folders. You can download the Guides here: Moderator Guide: http://change.gov/moderatorguide Participant Guide: http://change.gov/participantguide This includes all the information you need to host a Health Care Community Discussion. How do I tell you about my Health Care Community Discussion? The reporting website is at: http://change.gov/page/s/hcdiscussreport Here, you can submit your Group Submission and Survey Responses and upload your photos and videos. Can I hold my Health Care Community Discussion after December 31, 2008? We are trying to schedule all of the Health Care Community Discussions between December 15 and December 31 to allow time for the Health Policy Transition Team to prepare a report for the President-elect. The feedback page will be live through the first weeks of January, so you can still submit information about your Health Care Community Discussion until then. How do I find out if Senator Daschle is attending my event? We will contact you if your Senator Daschle is going to attend your Health Care Community Discussion. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama on single payer health care by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 18, 2008

Support single payer HR 676! Has Obama Already Vetoed Single-Payer Health Care? Obama once supported a single-payer health care system. http://www.truthout.org/121808J Thursday 18 December 2008 by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective Back in 2003, an Illinois state senator named Barack Obama spoke to an AFL-CIO group and what he told them is now making headlines across the Internet. "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care plan," he said to applause. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody." As Obama understood at the time, single-payer offers enormous advantages. Everyone's in, nobody's out. Patients pick their own doctors, who remain in the private sector. The government pays the bills, while private insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) no longer act as gate-keepers, excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage and telling doctors and patients what is "medically necessary" and what is not. Equally important, the insurers and HMOs no longer burden the system with their profits, high executive salaries, marketing expenses and administrative costs, which amount to as much as 31 percent of our national health care spending. Instead, the Social Security Administration handles the payments and paperwork, as they now do with Medicare, and the overhead comes down to an estimated 3-5 percent, or probably less with a healthy dose of advanced computer technology. Who could be against such a straightforward, cost-saving system? The answer is obvious - private insurance companies, HMOs and the lawmakers they so generously support. Which, I suppose, is why Obama rather clumsily backed away in his campaign for president. "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer," he announced in January. "What I said was that if we were starting from scratch . I would probably go with a single-payer system." "A lot of people work for insurance companies; a lot of people work for HMOs," he added in August. "You've got a whole system of institutions that have been set up." "People don't have time to wait," he went on. "They need relief now. So my attitude is let's build up the system we got, let's make it more efficient, we maybe over time - as we make the system more efficient and everybody's covered - decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively." Much of his caution came from former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, an early supporter whom Obama has now named to be secretary of health and human Services and head of the White House Office of Health Care Reform. Daschle spelled out his thinking in his book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." "Most of the world's highest-ranking health-care systems employ some kind of "single-payer" strategy - that is, the government, directly or through insurers, is responsible for paying doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers," he wrote. "Supporters say single-payer is brilliantly simple, ensures equity by providing all people with the same benefits, and saves billions of dollars by creating economies of scale and streamlining administration. But pure single-payer system is politically problematic in the United States, at least right now. Even though polls show that seniors are happier with Medicare than younger people are with their private insurance, opponents of reform have demonized government-run systems as 'socialized medicine.' "I have strong views on what an 'ideal' system would look like," Daschle added. "But I'm not willing to sacrifice worthy improvements on the altar of perfection. I find it encouraging that the leading Democratic presidential contenders appear to share this attitude. The proposals that Obama, Clinton and Edwards put forward would improve our current system rather than scrapping it, using the Massachusetts reform plan as a model." The argument is classic: "Don't let the best become the enemy of the better." Or, perhaps more to the point: "Don't pick a fight we have no chance of winning." Daschle and Obama are two of America's brightest political minds, and they could well be right. But the best way to find out is to fight for single-payer and then, if we must, negotiate a compromise. If there was ever a time to go for the whole loaf, it is now, when the insurance companies are despised for their high-handed gate-keeping and their role in creating the current financial crisis. How, then, do we convince Obama, Daschle and the Democrats in Congress to give up the old politics and join us in a fight for the Change We Need? Here's what I'm doing. I went to www.change.gov, clicked on "Lead a Health Care Discussion," and arranged to host a house party for other Democrats abroad here in France. If enough of us did this in our own communities, we might well remove the veto from single-payer health care. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's health care local meetings by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 15, 2008

The Obama-Biden Transition ProjectAn opportunity to urge Obama to back = single payer HR 676 =20 =20 Dear Michael,=20 Over the coming weeks, thousands of Americans will be = leading Health Care Community Discussions -- small local gatherings in = which Americans are sharing thoughts and ideas about reforming health = care. President-elect Obama and Health and Human Services = Secretary-designate Tom Daschle are counting on Americans from every = walk of life to help identify what's broken and provide ideas for how to = fix it.=20 You can help shape that reform by leading your own Health = Care Community Discussion anytime between now and December 31st.=20 Secretary-designate Daschle recorded a short message about = these important discussions. Watch the video and sign up today to lead a = discussion in your community:=20 Secretary-designate Daschle is committed to reforming health = care from the ground up, which is why he won't just be reading the = results of these discussions -- he'll be attending a few himself.=20 When you sign up to lead a discussion, we'll provide = everything you need to make your conversation as productive as possible, = including a Moderator's Guide with helpful tips. All you have to do is = reach out to friends, family, and members of your community and ask them = to attend -- and, when it's over, tell us how it went. The Transition's = Health Policy Team will gather the results of these discussions to guide = its recommendations for the Obama-Biden administration.=20 No transition has tried something like this before, and your = participation is essential to our success.=20 Thank you,=20 John=20 John D. Podesta Co-Chair The Obama-Biden Transition Project=20 =20 =20 Tell Sen. Baucus to Put Single-Payer Healthcare on the = Table Dear Michael, As this document illustrates, polls show that most = Americans want single-payer healthcare. So why has the Senate Finance = Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus taken this option off the table? With the U.S, economy in freefall and a stimulus = package in the works, why would Baucus dismiss single-payer healthcare = when it is clearly part of the solution? Tell Sen. Baucus you want single-payer healthcare on = the table. Click here. Additional actions you can take: 1. At the request of President-elect Obama, healthcare = house meetings are taking place across the country--now through the end = of December. Find a meeting near you, or host one, here. Download these documents and take some copies with = you: "Healthcare NOT Warfare" flyer Ten Reasons to Support HR 676 Quick Facts on HR 676 Groups Endorsing HR 676 Polling Is Quite Clear 2. Mark your calendars for December 22, National = Call-in Day for single-payer healthcare. Look for the details in an = upcoming email. We're pushing as hard as we can and we need your voice = to be heard--please take action today! Happy Holidays, Tim Carpenter National Director 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: work with and increase the progressive = majority in Congress as we build on our 2008 electoral successes into = 2009 and beyond.=20 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 =20

Nader group backs 676 by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 13, 2008

November5.org December 12, 2008 "November5.org" Several of us from the Nader for President 2008 campaign had decided to channel our efforts toward one big goal, but we lacked a major focus. Recently, results of a survey done by the campaign came back. Top issue? Adopt single payer health care. It's not the only issue people care about, obviously. But, to turn this country around it's clear that we need to address our own pain now. Our big goal for the next Congress will be to drive for national health insurance to cover privately-delivered healthcare for all Americans. We're far from alone in this. The array and scope of the groups and their allies supporting national health insurance is impressive. But we are not reinventing the wheel, either. As long as you want to build a lasting organization that will get Congress to focus on people's needs -- not those of big business -- November5 can be the place to do it. Here in the United States, we have excellent private health care. So why are nearly 100 million of our citizens uninsured or underinsured? You already know why: profit-driven private insurance companies. Taken together, they make the Pentagon look streamlined. Not only that, but consider over 18,000 dead and hundreds of thousands getting sicker every year specifically because their health insurance is inadequate -- or non-existent. The way to fix health care is to cut private insurance companies out of the basic health care picture, while keeping our system of private delivery. This is how Medicare came into being in the 1960s. It now covers all Americans over 65. If we succeed in creating a system of "Medicare for All," we will help businesses and other organizations, independent contractors, veterans, people with pre-existing conditions, students -- all of us. If we get this done, it will revolutionize all of our lives for the better. We'll be able to focus on everything else that we want to accomplish for our communities, and our nation. Passing national health insurance will be difficult, but it is achievable. General Plan Huge amounts of leg work have been done on this issue. H.R. 676, the legislation that supporters of national health insurance have introduced, had 93 original co-sponsors in the House. That number will probably increase as the new Congress comes into session. The first task now facing all supporters of the bill will be to make a new tally of co-sponsors and supporters in the next Congress. We will be up against alternatives to "reform" health care, such as the plan promoted by Senator Max Baucus. They simply extend the status quo -- and the damage. They would expand the profits of the private insurance companies, and therefore cannot check the spiraling inflation generated by these companies, and the broken system they inhabit. So, right away, we have to draw a sharp line between what we want, and bad compromises. Remember, to pass the House, we will need roughly another 120 votes. That means that we will have to go for a margin, to have around 140 votes in addition to the co-sponsors. Here is where our district-level organizations will have to go to work to pick up votes. We will need sponsors of the legislation in the Senate. Those do not yet exist. This is a critical early step that we hope to help other groups active on H.R. 676 to take. November5 is non-partisan. We cannot be bound by the notion that Republicans will not buy into national health insurance. It maintains private delivery of health care and will expand choice of doctor, creating conditions for greater innovation and competition -- not less. We will need to build fast. This effort will work only if it moves deeply into communities, where members of Congress get their votes. We are currently designing a structure that will allow people to begin organizing independently, district by district, around our current goal -- without having to wait for plans from above. Specific Steps Inform yourself and others by reading: H.R. 676 and these three articles: Rose Ann DeMoro, Philadelphia Inquirer, December 8, 2008 Physicians for a National Health Program, Talking Points, December 10, 2008 Statement of Dr. Marcia Angell introducing the U.S. National Health Insurance Act and by watching these excellent videos on H.R. 676. Pass them along in emails, on blogs, facebook and myspace pages. If you create videos on youtube, do one on national health care yourself: HR 676 - The Single Payer Solution, Part 1 of 4 HR 676 - The Single Payer Solution, Part 2 of 4 HR 676 - The Single Payer Solution, Part 3 of 4 HR 676 - The Single Payer Solution, Part 4 of 4 Write a letter -- not an email -- in your own words to your member of Congress stating that you'd like their commitment to vote for H.R. 676. If your member of Congress is a co-sponsor of the bill, express your support for that stand. Email a copy to us, if you would, with the words "Letter to My Congressperson" in the subject line. President-elect Obama has asked for volunteers around the country to host discussion groups on the health care issue during the last half of December. Attend a discussion in your area and make the argument for single payer. Click here for more information. Soon, we'll be raising money online to build the November5 movement. November5.org will not be a passive website, it will be a place where each Congressional district will be represented by the people of that district. You'll be able to login and see the latest on your Congressional representative, plan with others events that make sense to you for promoting H.R. 676, and organize for meeting with your member of Congress. If the model works, we'll be able to tackle other issues. For now, let's focus in, and get November5 built. The bell has rung -- and we are in a struggle that we can win, if we all dig deep. The politicians who want to nibble around the edges of the rolling disaster that is our health care system may have industry on their side, but we have the best plan. Many highly-qualified doctors, economists, and legislators have put enormous work into it, we just have to stand up, be counted and gather others with us to do the same. We look forward to the rewarding work ahead. The November5 Team visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Nuanced and perceptive Iranian views of Obama by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 12, 2008

Change or Deja vu? Obama Divides Iran ///////////////////////////// by Gareth Porter Asia Times VIA Cord MacGuire http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JL13Ak02.html December 12, 2008 TEHRAN - Iranian national security officials and political leaders have been carrying out an internal debate over how much freedom President-elect Barack Obama will have to change US policy toward Iran, and those who have argued that he will not be able to do so have gained the upper hand since Obama's announcement of his national security team, interviews with Iranian officials and their advisers reveal. The outcome of that debate, which is very sensitive to signals from Obama and his national security team, could be a key factor in how far Iran goes in indicating its own willingness to make concessions to Washington next year. Two different views of Obama and his administration's likely policy toward Iran emerged within the regime in the first weeks after his election, according to the officials interviewed in Tehran. One interpretation was that Obama's election is the result of a fundamental shift in US politics and offers an opportunity for Iran to find a way out of its decades-long conflict with the United States. The other view sees Obama as subject to the control of powerful forces - especially the pro-Israel lobby - that are inherently hostile to Iran. That interpretation implies that Iran should make no conciliatory move toward the Obama administration. Both groups appear to agree that Obama's victory reflects political demands for change in the United States, and that his administration's policy will be subject to structural constraints. The difference between them lies in the emphasis placed on the two factors in US politics and policymaking toward Iran. However, Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State has strengthened the conviction of pessimists and has raised doubts among those holding a more optimistic view, according to officials familiar with the debate. Hamid Reza Dehghani, director for the Persian Gulf and the Middle East at the Institute for Political and International Studies, a think-tank for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, described the two contrasting interpretations of Obama's election held by officials and analysts. One explanation, according to Dehghani, was that Obama won the White House "because of his good campaigning", meaning that he was chosen because he was responsive to the demands of the electorate. The other explanation, said Dehghani, is that "those behind the scenes who make presidents and make policies - the puppeteers - decided, and only changed their puppet". Dehghani suggested that each of these interpretations implies a distinct Iranian stance toward the Obama administration "If he has made himself and was really elected by the people, we should wait and see about his changes," said Dehghani, "but if he is pushed by power centers, it is already clearly decided." Ali Akbar Rezaei, the newly-appointed director general of the Ministry's Department of North and Central American Affairs, confirmed the internal debate on Obama in an interview with Inter Press Service, observing, "There is no single view of Obama." Rezaei said he believes Obama's election is the result of "a very serious demand of Americans for change". But he also acknowledged the "influence of interest groups, mainly the Zionist lobby", on US policies, calling it "a kind of systemic and structural influence on US policy through institutionalized channels". Rezaei said he believes it would be premature to make a final judgment on Obama, in line with the "wait and see" orientation of the more hopeful interpretation. He made it clear, however, that Obama's national security team - and especially the choice of Clinton - has "disappointed" those who have held out hope for change in US policies. Rezaei portrayed the optimists as beginning to tilt toward the more pessimistic view of Obama. The Clinton nomination suggests that the "lobbies are proving to be more powerful than Obama had imagined". That in turn means that Obama "would not have freedom of action", he said. "One point of hope is that Obama will be the key person in foreign policy, and that [Clinton] will implement it," said Rezaei. But he added that this scenario was "very unlikely", and that in light of the appointments Obama had just announced, "We are very unlikely to see changes" in US policy toward Iran. Reports of the debate have been picked up by political analysts and political party leaders. Amir Mohebbian, who has been political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper and a supporter of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in the past, said he was aware of the split within the Iranian regime over Obama. Some think Obama's victory was a response to changes in the US electorate, he said, but after the election, such "optimistic ideas" were "dismissed". Pessimists, said Mohebbian, considered Obama as "no different from [defeated Republican candidate John] McCain" and perhaps even "worse than McCain because at least McCain was frank about his policy". Mohebbian offered his own variant of the pessimistic interpretation of Obama. "I think the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush said carrot and stick, whereas Obama says bigger stick and bigger carrot," he said. Hamidreza Taraghi, deputy director for international affairs for the Islamic Coalition party (Motalafeh), which represents interests of the merchants of Tehran's bazaar, voiced the pessimistic view of Obama in an interview with IPS. "In our view Obama is indebted to wealthy Jewish organizations in the US who financed his campaign," said Taraghi. Obama was "willing to reduce tensions", he said, but can't do so, because "Zionist lobbies would prevent it." The differences over Obama appear to coincide with a split within the Iranian regime over whether Iran should make any concessions in order to begin negotiations. The ultimate decisions on negotiations with the United States will be made by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who seeks consensus among top Iranian officials and his own advisers on matters of natural security, according to Iranian officials and analysts. There were indications of sharp disagreement among leading officials and advisers to Khamenei last summer over how Iran should respond to an initiative by EU Foreign Affairs Commissioner Javier Solana for a freeze on further sanctions by the Security Council in return for an Iranian freeze on the level of uranium enrichment. The Solana proposal was aimed at facilitating a six-week period of substantive negotiations between Iran and five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany (P5+1). One of Khamenei's closest foreign policy advisers, Ali Akbar Velyati, who was foreign minister when Khamenei was president in the early 1980s, publicly supported the Solana initiative, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki also came out publicly for entering into negotiations with the P5+1. But in the end, the decision was made not to support the proposal, evidently reflecting the views of some other senior national security officials and perhaps conservative clerics. Now the Obama administration's early signals appear to have tilted the post-election debate over negotiations in favor of those who doubt Obama's ability to deliver a change in US policy. *** Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, has just completed a 12-day visit to Tehran to find out how Iranian officials, analysts and political figures view possible negotiations between the Obama administration and Iran. This is the first article in a five-part series.

US and Lumumba's murder revisited by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 12, 2008

The death of the former CIA station chief in Congo Lawrence Devlin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/washington/12devlin.html?_r=1&ref=obituaries reminds that President Eisenhower personally ordered the CIA to murder Patrice Lumumba, the anti-imperialist Congolese primed minister, in 1960. Its poison expert, Sidney Gottlieb, passed on Ike's order to Devlin together with poison toothpaste Devlin was supposed to deliver to Lumumba. Devlin told his CIA superiors he would enthusiastically carry out the murder, but claimed he delayed delivering the poison because he was (secretly) "morally" opposed to it In any case, he delayed enough to make the poison plot mute, because Lumumba was infamously murdered by Belgian officials and their paid Congolese agents. Some evidence indicates that Frank Carlucci, then also a CIA officer in the US Embassy in Leopoldville, was present at the meeting when the Belgian assassins decided on the final plan for the murder. A provocative French/ Belgian/ German/ Haitian film "Lumemba" (2000) depicts Belgian assassins asking Carlucci for his opinion and he sarcastically mumbles that "the US government does not involve itself in the internal affairs of other countries." .Carlucci, who rose to become Deputy Director of the CIA in 1978 and held other Pentagon, White House and cabinet posts in Republican administrations, denied playing any role in the murder of Lumumba. When the film was shown on HBO, Carlucci managed to get his name bleeped in the dialogue and his name masked in the actor credits. From 1992 until 2003, he was chairman of the Carlyle Group and on the board of many corporate member of the military-industrial complex. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Auto bailout Senate roll call by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 12, 2008

The vote against the filibuster of the auto bailout was 52 for 35 against and 12 not voting. Pretty much party line with Dems for and Reps against, but a few exceptions; ( Obama has resigned his seat) Dems Against: Baucus (D-MT) Lincoln (D-AR) Reid (D-NV)--assume this was technical, to perserve a future vote Tester (D-MT) Reps for: Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Collins (R-ME) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Lugar (R-IN) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Lieberman (ID-CT) Sanders (I-VT) Not Voting - 12 Alexander (R-TN) Biden (D-DE) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Graham (R-SC) Hagel (R-NE) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Smith (R-OR) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Wyden (D-OR) visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Tell Obama to back HR 676 by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 9, 2008

Really? Only single payer reforms the sustem. Early on, Obama suggested he agreed but "the people" weren't yet ready to dump for profit health insurnace companies. Obama Team Seeks Your Input on Health Care Reform Borrowing a community organizing technique, the incoming administration is asking Americans to host meetings to come up with ideas. They'll send discussion packets to anyone who signs up. Saturday 06 December 2008 http://www.truthout.org/120808HA » by: Noam N. Levey, The Los Angeles Times Washington - Former Sen. Tom Daschle, in his first major speech since being asked to head President-elect Barack Obama's healthcare reform effort, on Friday announced a nationwide campaign this month to solicit public input on improving the nation's healthcare system. The plan - asking Americans to host meetings to talk about reform - appears designed to avoid the appearance that the new administration is developing a sweeping agenda behind closed doors. That perception is widely believed to have helped doom the Clinton administration's healthcare reform efforts in the early '90s, when then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton led a months-long task force that wrote the administration's legislation. "We want an open process," Daschle told a healthcare forum convened in Denver by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). In Washington, Democratic officials have been meeting privately for weeks to develop legislation, which senior lawmakers hope to unveil in early January, to reshape the country's healthcare system, a longtime goal of the party. Obama, Daschle and others - including Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy - envision an effort by the federal government to ensure that all Americans get health coverage, to bring down healthcare costs and to improve the quality of care. Daschle, a former majority leader whom Obama has asked to be Health and Human Services secretary, said Friday that the transition team would send discussion packets to any American willing to host a house party in the last two weeks of December. He said he would attend a meeting himself, and invited Americans to sign up for the events at the transition website, www.change.gov. Some 10,000 people, many of them already involved in grass-roots efforts to push healthcare reform, have submitted comments on the website, according to Daschle. The Obama team's maneuver builds on organizing techniques pioneered by liberal grass-roots groups like MoveOn.org and deployed by Obama during the presidential campaign. It also reinforces the message that Obama has delivered since his election, that he intends to take aggressive steps to tackle the issue despite the worsening economic situation. "President-elect Obama has made health reform one of his top priorities," Daschle said. "And I'm here to tell you that his commitment to changing the healthcare system remains strong and focused." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How to comment on transistion docs by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 6, 2008

Bush aide: Obama supports $6.4B to Taiwan military by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 4, 2008

Obama to uphold U.S. Taiwan policy, says envoy Reuters, Dec 3, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081204/pl_nm/us_taiwan_usa_1 TAIPEI (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will uphold Washington's stance on Taiwan, meaning strong informal ties with the island China claims as its own despite formal relations with Beijing, a U.S. official said on Thursday. Obama, who takes office on January 20, had voiced support for a $6.4 billion U.S. arms package approved in October and indicated he would be open to a long-sought new round of high-level trade talks, said Stephen Young, director of Washington's de facto embassy in Taipei. Some analysts predict that Obama, a Democrat, will move closer to China and pull back from Taiwan, which has traditionally drawn more support from U.S. Republicans. China has claimed sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan since 1949, when Mao Zedong's forces won the Chinese civil war and Chiang Kai-shek's KMT fled to Taiwan. Beijing has vowed to bring Taiwan under its rule, by force if necessary. The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, recognizing "one China," but is obliged by the Taiwan Relations Act to help defend the island. "On Taiwan, it's safe to say there will be a tremendous amount of continuity," Young said at an American Chamber of Commerce event. "In sum, I think our friends in Taiwan have nothing to worry about." Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou said on Wednesday he expected U.S.-Taiwan ties to improve under Obama, whom he described as someone who is seen taking a "multilateral" instead of "unilateral" approach to foreign relations. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Susan Rice: informed people knew Iraq had WMD by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 3, 2008

Obama has convinced us he has chosen people with reactionary records for his top posts; but he insists they will implement the progressive agenda he originally ran on in the primary. Soon he and his supporters will have to walk that talk. Pick Rice: Another Wrong-on-Iraq Nominee by John Nichols The Nation 12/01/2008 http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/387300?rel=hp_picks On the outside chance that anyone thought that Dr. Susan Rice might be the exception to the rule of wrong-thinking that characterizes Barack Obama's foreign-policy team, well, think again. Obama's nominee to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had this to say February, 2003, after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a wholly absurd presentation a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council regarding the supposed threat posed by those Iraqi imaginary weapons of mass destruction. "I think he [Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them," said Rice, a former Clinton administration State Department aide, "and I don't think many informed people doubted that." So said Rice in an interview with National Public Radio on February 6, 2003. For the record, that was one day after Powell made his "case" for war to the U.N. On that day, major newspapers in Europe had already debunked Powell's key arguments. "Informed people" -- i.e., those who read credible media -- knew that. And they were struggling to avert an unnecessary war. Unfortunately for the world, Susan Rice was not among them. Fortunately for Rice, the fact of her failure is not of consequence. On Barack Obama's foreign-policy team, the fact that someone was wrong on the great foreign-policy debate of one presidency does not disqualify that individual from defining the agenda of the next presidency. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

NYT shares credit with Bush on Venezuela by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 1, 2008

To the editor, New York Times After your sensible recommendation to President-elect Obama to improve relations with Cuba, your editorial "About Latin America, Nov. 28) descends to reflect your unfailingly negative news coverage of Venezuela. But you are too modest when you place blame solely on the Bush administration for the "enormous damage to American credibility throughout much of the region when it blessed what turned out to be a failed coup against Mr. Chavez." The New York Times must share the credit for that "enormous damage" for your editorial "Hugo Chávez Departs" of April 13, 2002. Your editorial page editors began their celebration of what they hoped was a successful military putsch of a democratically elected president with the words, "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." Michael Munk Editorial New York Times: April 13, 2002 With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona. But democracy has not yet been restored, and won't be until a new president is elected. That vote has been scheduled for next spring, with new Congressional elections to be held by this December. The prompt announcement of a timetable is welcome, but a year seems rather long to wait for a legitimately elected president. Washington has a strong stake in Venezuela's recovery. Caracas now provides 15 percent of American oil imports, and with sounder policies could provide more. A stable, democratic Venezuela could help anchor a troubled region where Colombia faces expanded guerrilla warfare, Peru is seeing a rebirth of terrorism and Argentina struggles with a devastating economic crisis. Wisely, Washington never publicly demonized Mr. Chávez, denying him the role of nationalist martyr. Rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair. Public faith in Venezuela's institutions began eroding well before Mr. Chávez burst on the scene with a failed 1992 coup. Corruption discredited both main parties, and a patronage-fueled bureaucracy devoured the country's abundant oil revenues, leaving many Venezuelans desperately poor. Mr. Chávez was elected president in 1998 promising change he never delivered. He courted Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein, battled the media and alienated virtually every constituency from middle-class professionals, academics and business leaders to union members and the Roman Catholic Church. This week's crisis began with a general strike against replacing professional managers at the state oil company with political cronies. It took a grave turn Thursday when armed Chávez supporters fired on peaceful strikers, killing at least 14 and injuring hundreds. Mr. Chávez's response was characteristic. He forced five private television stations off the air for showing pictures of the massacre. Early yesterday he was compelled to resign by military commanders unwilling to order their troops to fire on fellow Venezuelans to keep him in power. He is being held at a military base and may face charges in Thursday's killings. New presidential elections should be held this year, perhaps at the same time the new Congress is chosen. Some time is needed for plausible national leaders to emerge and parties to reorganize. But Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate to clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down and professionalize the bureaucracy. One encouraging development has been the strong participation of middle-class citizens in organizing opposition groups and street protests. Continued civic participation could help revitalize Venezuela's tired political parties and keep further military involvement to a minimum. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iran joins Cuba, Bolivia to offer talks with Obama by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 28, 2008

Iran says would welcome Obama talks: report Nov 27, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081128/wl_nm/us_iran_nuclear_usa;_ylt=AgUvIJnnvmVUz1t6RzU9wqVm.3QA TOKYO (Reuters) - Iran would welcome talks between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, the country's vice president said in an interview with Japan's Kyodo news agency Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie said in the interview in Tokyo that any such meeting must be held in an open manner and its contents made public, the agency said. Mashaie told Kyodo the Iranian president had said "direct diplomacy is the best way to peace," but added that Obama must distance himself from Washington's stance so far in order to implement change, Kyodo said. Iran has repeatedly refused to bow to Western pressure to halt its nuclear program, which many fear is aimed at making nuclear weapons. Obama this month called for an international effort to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb. "Mr. Obama stands at a historically significant crossroads, but there are only two paths for him -- one which leads to good results through 'change' as promised in his slogan, the other with extremely grave consequences if he continues the same policies as previous administrations," Mashaie told Kyodo. Iran said on Wednesday it was running 5,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, signaling an expansion of work it says is aimed at generating electricity. Analysts believe Iran could be as little as one or two years from stockpiling enough enriched uranium to use for a bomb. Tehran says it wants to generate electricity to enable it to export more of its oil and gas visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Somalia boots US-backed Ethopian troops by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 28, 2008

Ethiopia to withdraw troops from Somalia this year http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081128/wl_nm/us_somalia_conflict;_ylt=AoGD5afLmMEXloyZj_DJEF1m.3QA Nov 27, 2008 ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Ethiopia will withdraw its troops from Somalia by the end of this year, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Friday. Addis Ababa has sent thousands of soldiers to support the country's Western-backed interim government, which has been fighting Islamist-led insurgents for nearly two years. Ministry spokesman Wahade Belay told Reuters his government had informed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Jean Ping, chairman of the African Union (AU) Commission, of its decision by letter on Tuesday. Ethiopian troops have frequently clashed with the rebels, who control most of the south and launch near-daily attacks on government forces and AU peacekeepers in the capital Mogadishu. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Georgian leader claims US OK'd invasion by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 27, 2008

The former Saaskashvili confidant's claim that Georgia was the aggressor against Abkhazia and South Ossetia in August was not news--everyone knows that. But when Erosi Kitsmarishvili, Georgia's recent Ambassador to Russia told Georgian lawmakers that he was told Bush OK'd the five-day war when Saaskashvili visited Washington in March and that Condi Rice gave the green light" in July, he was accused of treason. After Georgia's military, supplied and trained by the US and Israel was humiliated by Russia, Saaskashvili recalled his former confidant from Moscow and fired him. Kitsmarishvili testified that Georgian "officials", who he refused to name to avoid putting their lives at risk, told him Saakashvili planned to invade Abkazia in April after getting the go-ahead from Bush, but later decided to begin in South Ossetia. But he seemed to leave open the possibility that the Georgian military planners chose to interpret a Bush "wink and nod" as an explicit US endorsement. Despite pro forma denial by Washington, Bush approved $1 billion to rebuild Georgia's military after the fiasco and sent US warship into Gerogia's Black Sea ports with supplies. McCain infamously proclaimed "We are all Georgians" (his foreign affairs advisor was a paid lobbyist for Georgia) and Obama later joined him in expressing support for the aggressor. NYT story is at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26georgia.html?ref=europe visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

IAEA defeats US hit on Syria by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 26, 2008

IAEA overrides U.S., clears Syria nuclear aid plan By Mark Heinrich Mark Heinrich - Nov 26, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081126/wl_nm/us_nuclear_iaea_syria;_ylt=AutMsAn3_v.bJXs3S2zNIRpm.3QA VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. atomic agency approved a contested Syrian bid for nuclear aid on Wednesday, overcoming U.S.-led resistance to the project while Damascus is under investigation for covert activity that could lead to atom bombs. The United States, Canada and Australia mounted last minute objections to a compromise deal on the project but finally joined a consensus in favor since they could not have won if they forced a rare vote by International Atomic Energy Agency governors, diplomats in the closed meeting said. Syria's request for technical aid in planning a nuclear power plant, a rubber-stamp matter for many IAEA member nations, caused a political tug-of-war after an agency report suggesting Damascus might have tried to build a nuclear reactor in secret. The November 19 report said a Syrian building demolished in an Israeli air raid last year bore similarities to a nuclear reactor and uranium particles, possibly remnants of pre-enriched nuclear fuel, had been found in the area. But it cautioned that the findings, based on U.S. satellite intelligence and one on-site IAEA inspection, were preliminary and more investigation, as well as Syrian documentation to prove its denials of illicit work, were essential to draw conclusions. Major Western nations wanted the project axed, saying it would be "totally inappropriate" as long as Syria was being investigated over fears it tried to build a reactor with North Korean help designed to produce plutonium for atomic bombs. Russia, China and developing states, influentially backed by IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei, countered that there was no legal basis for denying a country aid for civilian atomic energy unless proliferation accusations were proven. SPECIAL SCRUTINY The text of a compromise adopted by the IAEA board of governors said the project, to be carried out from 2009 to 2011, would be under close monitoring with extra care taken to ensure equipment provided could not be diverted to military uses. It also provided for governors to be able to reconsider the Syria study in future if the inquiry found Damascus to be in "non-compliance" with safeguard rules, as North Korea and Iran were previously, which led to cut-offs of IAEA aid. An official chairman's summary of the three-day debate noted the "strong reservations" of some states about granting Syria atomic benefits before it opened up fully to IAEA investigation. "(We) agreed to the project based on the understanding that in light of further developments, (we) have the right to revisit the issue pursuant to the (IAEA) statute," it said, meaning the project could be killed if a nuclear cover-up was confirmed. "We've made our point -- this Syrian project is now under the spotlight and will remain under the spotlight," said a senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. Other diplomats said the outcome was a victory for ElBaradei and Syria and a slap in the face of the United States, which has skirmished with ElBaradei for years over what it sees as his "soft" attitude toward suspected proliferators such as Iran. "The U.S. had to back down while ElBaradei, Syria and international law prevailed, the principle that any party is innocent until proven guilty," said one of those diplomats. The disputed $350,000 project is a "technical and economic feasibility and site selection" study for a civilian nuclear power station. Funding, as for all IAEA aid projects, would come mainly from Western member states of the IAEA. The decision by the board's technical aid committee will be ratified at a governors plenary meeting that begins on Thursday. The plenary will see a chorus of Western calls on Syria to cooperate fully with IAEA investigators and for Iran to stop stonewalling an agency probe into intelligence reports that it carried out secret design work on atom bombs. It denies this. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

IAEA: US claim discredits UN by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 26, 2008

Syrian nuclear study not a bomb risk: ElBaradei By Mark Heinrich Mark Heinrich Nov 25, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081125/wl_nm/us_nuclear_iaea_syria;_ylt=ApvCcTlSNkJb5WYpo.5J57dm.3QA VIENNA (Reuters) - A bid by Syria for aid in planning a nuclear power plant poses no proliferation risk and a Western move to block the project could discredit the U.N. nuclear watchdog, its chief said in remarks released on Tuesday. Major Western nations want the project shelved because Syria is being investigated by the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), over U.S. intelligence asserting that it tried covertly to build a nuclear reactor designed to make plutonium for atomic bombs. Their push has met resistance at an IAEA board of governors meeting from Russia, China and developing states who see no grounds for "politicizing" IAEA nuclear energy development aid without proof a country has violated non-proliferation rules. An IAEA report last week said a Syrian building demolished in an Israeli air raid last year bore similarities to a nuclear reactor and uranium particles, possibly remnants of pre-enriched nuclear fuel, had been found in the area. But it stressed that the findings were preliminary and more on-site checks, and Syrian documentation to prove its denials of covert nuclear activity, were needed to draw conclusions. IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said the intervention by Western powers against Syria had no legal basis and there was no way Syria could abuse the project -- a feasibility study for a nuclear power plant -- for military ends. Barring IAEA aid to a country on the basis of unproven allegations "is not part of our lexicon, it's not part of our statute," he told a session of the agency's 35-nation board on Monday in remarks released by his office. "INNOCUOUS" STUDY The disputed $350,000 project is a "technical and economic feasibility and site selection" study for a nuclear power station in Syria. It would run from 2009 to 2011. ElBaradei said all equipment that would be provided to Syria under IAEA auspices was "relevant to the project and...of an innocuous nature." "None of it requires any safeguards," he added, referring to IAEA oversight meant to prevent diversions into nuclear bomb-making. He warned if the Syria project were blocked over "political considerations," the IAEA would lose credibility with developing states seeking peaceful nuclear power and it would discourage cooperation by states under investigation. Diplomats said a deal was being discussed under which a U.S.-led Western group would drop objections, enabling the project to be adopted by consensus, if the IAEA pledged to stagger it to ensure no equipment was introduced until the end. "Some Western powers want ElBaradei to back down but he will not," said a senior diplomat familiar with the deliberations. "If it works, a compromise would be noting all the West's reservations in the official summary of the meeting and let the project go forward, albeit with delayed equipment purchase. It would be a face-saver," he said. The meeting recessed for much of Tuesday to allow negotiations. It was adjourned later without a result and will reconvene on Wednesday, when a decision is expected. An IAEA official said the governors could easily revisit the Syria study next year if by then the inquiry found Damascus to be in "non-compliance" with safeguards rules, as North Korea and Iran were previously, which led to cut-offs of IAEA aid. Tensions between ElBaradei and U.S. officials over their suggestions he is "soft" on alleged nuclear proliferators, something he denies, have simmered for years. "The latest clash between ElBaradei and the Bush administration goes back to his insistence on maintaining the agency's independence, following due process and preventing the IAEA from becoming a kangaroo court," said a senior IAEA official who asked for anonymity due to political sensitivities. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

liberals thwart Brennan for CIA by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008 Exceptional news: John Brennan won't be CIA Director or DNI http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/25/john_brennan/index.html This is really exceptional news on multiple levels -- the best political news I've heard since the election: Brennan out of running for top intel post John Brennan, President-elect Barack Obama's top adviser on intelligence, has taken his name out of the running for any intelligence position in the new administration. Brennan wrote in a Nov. 25 letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs who associate him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition policies. "The fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored," he wrote, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. . . Obama's advisers had grown increasingly concerned in recent days over online blogs that accused Brennan of condoning harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects, including waterboarding, which critics call torture. Brennan's self-defense here is quite disingenuous. Whether he "was involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies" is not and never was the issue. Rather, as I documented at length when I first wrote about Brennan, he was an ardent supporter of those policies, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" and rendition, both of which he said he was intimately familiar with as a result of his CIA position. As virtually everyone who opposed his nomination made clear -- Andrew Sullivan, Digby, Cenk Uygur, Big Tent Democrat and others -- that is why he was so unacceptable. I think Obama is entitled to a lot of leeway on appointments and is entitled not to be condemned -- or praised -- other than for things he actually does. And while I have found some of his appointments questionable, Brennan was the only prospective appointment that, speaking only for myself, was completely unacceptable. Advocacy of Bush's interrogation and rendition programs should exclude anyone from consideration for any important position, let alone CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence. Reports had repeatedly indicated that Brennan -- who served all year as Obama's top adviser for intelligence matters -- was the leading candidate for either of those positions, especially CIA Director. It's unclear if it was Obama or Brennan who was the catalyst for this decision, but either way, it's to be celebrated. And as Big Tent Democrat wrote today: "In case people were wondering, THIS is why you do not wait to express your 'concern' about issues and personnel." This is an important victory. It's absolutely vital that these bright lines be re-established. Brennan's being denied a top intelligence positions due to his past advocacy of these abuses is a big step towards achieving that, particularly since it was due to pressure from those who insist that these political values not be de-prioritized or ignored. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

One for our side? by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 25, 2008

Note: this is dated Nov 11, but unemployment was extended last week.The neocons have pushed hard to pass the Colombia trade deal before the new Congress arrives, and were supported by the NYTimes, Oregonian and other established institutions. So Obama seems to be holding to his earlier opposition based on Combian death squad terrorism against union organizers, it may be one of the few encouraging signs he's sent out. Rahm Emanuel Makes the Right Move on Colombia Trade Deal By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted November 11, 2008. http://www.alternet.org/election08/106426/rahm_emanuel_makes_the_right_move_on_colombia_trade_deal/#comments Obama's new chief of staff shows that he intends to carry the Obama program forward -- not his own. This column has expressed plenty of concern about the selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to serve as President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff. Emanuel, whose record and reputation are those of a rigid "New Democrat," was the pointman for the Clinton White House's free-trade agenda. And, in Congress, he has been a reasonably steady supporter of the Bush administration's trade policies. The fear with regard to Emanuel's selection was that he might try to impose his pro-Wall Street politics on an administration that has promised to serve Main Street. The hope, detailed in a column last week, has been that Emanuel would put his own ideological tendencies aside and use his considerable political skills to help Obama implement a more pro-worker, pro-environment agenda on trade policy. Perhaps fittingly, at least for this initial stage of America's Obama moment, hope has won out over fear. In an appearance Sunday on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Emanuel offered a signal that he intends to carry the Obama program forward -- as opposed to the Emanuel program. The chief-of-staff told his fellow Clinton-White House alumnus that the Obama transition team will oppose any effort by the Bush administration to attach the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to an economic stimulus package in order to get the approval of the Bush Administration. In his final debate last month with Republican John McCain, Obama made it clear that he opposes a deal with Colombia, a country with a tragic human rights and labor rights record. But, since the election, President Bush and his aides have been suggesting that their "price" for advancing a new stimulus package might be inclusion in that package of the Columbia FTA. Emanuel was blunt and specific in expressing opposition to the Bush blackmail, arguing that it was essential to avoid creating policy conflicts that might slow the work of extending unemployment insurance and providing healthcare assistance to economically-embattled states. "You don't link those essential needs to some other trade deal," explained Emanuel. "What you have to deal with is what's immediate here, and the lame duck is for immediate things that are important. That's what should be the focus, right now. There's an economic recovery package in front of the Congress. Washington should get it done." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Bush requires Iraq oil money kept in NY Fed bank by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 24, 2008

New fight between IAEA and Bush by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 24, 2008

IAEA chief, West clash over nuclear aid for Syria Nov. 24, 2008 By Mark Heinrich Mark Heinrich Reuters http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/wl_nm/us_nuclear_iaea_syria;_ylt=As4BfF46KpgCvspArZRHJctm.3QA VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief clashed with some Western nations on Monday over their bid to block aid for a planned Syrian nuclear power plant, saying U.S. intelligence pointing to secret Syrian atomic work was unproven. Diplomats at a 35-nation meeting of International Atomic Energy Agency governors said Washington, major European Union nations and other Western allies favored shelving the project while Syria was under IAEA investigation over the U.S. reports. China, Russia and developing nations rejected the Western challenge as "political interference" undermining the IAEA's program to foster civilian atomic energy development. Western nations were alarmed by an IAEA report last week saying a Syrian building demolished in an Israeli air raid last year bore similarities to a nuclear reactor and inspectors later found striking amounts of uranium particles in the area. The findings were not enough to prove a covert reactor of North Korean design meant to yield plutonium for atom bombs was there, as U.S. intelligence indicated, the report said. But further on-scene checks there and at several military sites in Syria, as well as Syrian cooperation with repeated requests for documentation to prove its denials of covert nuclear activity, were essential to draw conclusions, it said. IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei urged governors to approve the aid project, saying there was no legal basis for curbing Syria's IAEA membership rights based on unverified accusations. "There are claims against Syria, which we're looking at. There were claims against Iraq, which were proven bonkers (mad), and after, the result was a terrible war," he said in remarks to the closed gathering relayed to Reuters. U.S. assertions Saddam Hussein had a mass-destruction weapon program led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq but proved unfounded. SYRIA "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" "So we have to be very careful when we talk about an investigation," ElBaradei said. "Even people who are not a lawyer would know that people and countries are innocent until proven guilty. And we continue to act on that basis." The aid proposal stirring up the governors was a "technical and economic feasibility and site selection" study drafted by the IAEA Secretariat for a nuclear power station in Syria. It would cost $350,000 and run from 2009 to 2011. In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the IAEA report showed it would be wrong to give technical advice to Syria to build a nuclear power station. "It's wholly inappropriate.., given the fact that Syria is under investigation by the IAEA for building a nuclear reactor outside the bounds of its international legal commitments." Cuba, speaking for non-aligned developing states on the board, said IAEA nuclear aid "should not be blocked, delayed or otherwise hindered for mere suspicion or unproven allegations." The U.S. position drew support in statements from Britain, France, Canada, Australia and the European Union. But diplomats said EU states were not united over what to do if the matter came to a vote at U.S. behest later this week. And since Russia, China and the non-aligned form a majority on the board, the question arose whether Washington would force a vote it looked unlikely to win or allow approval by consensus, the traditional way decisions are made at the IAEA. In 2006, governors decided by consensus to strip Iran of an IAEA safety design study at a heavy-water reactor project over concerns the plant might be used to produce plutonium. But that decision was legally clear-cut as Iran was under U.N. sanctions over non-compliance with IAEA rules for failing to declare proliferation-sensitive uranium enrichment work and denying the IAEA full access to verify it was for peaceful ends. Iran says the sanctions are illegal and that it is refining uranium for electricity, not weapons as the West suspects. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

For supporters of Obama's Afghan escalation by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 24, 2008

Kabul 30 Years Ago & Kabul Today by Robert Fisk The Independent (UK) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/kabul-30-years-ago-and-kabul-today-have-we-learned-nothing-1029920.html November 22, 2008 VIA cord macguire I sit on the rooftop of the old Central Hotel – pharaonic-decorated elevator, unspeakable apple juice, sublime green tea, and armed Tajik guards at the front door – and look out across the smoky red of the Kabul evening. The Bala Hissar fort glows in the dusk, massive portals, the great keep to which the British army should have moved its men in 1841. Instead, they felt the king should live there and humbly built a cantonment on the undefended plain, thus leading to a "signal catastrophe". Like automated birds, the kites swoop over the rooftops. Yes, the kite-runners of Kabul, minus Hollywood. At night, the thump of American Sikorsky helicopters and the whisper of high-altitude F-18s invade my room. The United States of America is settling George Bush's scores with the "terrorists" trying to overthrow Hamid Karzai's corrupt government. Now rewind almost 29 years, and I am on the balcony of the Intercontinental Hotel on the other side of this great, cold, fuggy city. Impeccable staff, frozen Polish beer in the bar, secret policemen in the front lobby, Russian troops parked in the forecourt. The Bala Hissar fort glimmers through the smoke. The kites – green seems a favourite colour – move beyond the trees. At night, the thump of Hind choppers and the whisper of high-altitude MiGs invade my room. The Soviet Union is settling Leonid Brezhnev's scores with the "terrorists" trying to overthrow Barbrak Karmal's corrupt government. Thirty miles north, all those years ago, a Soviet general told us of the imminent victory over the "terrorists" in the mountains, imperialist "remnants" – the phrase Kabul communist radio always used – who were being supported by America and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Fast forward to 2001 – just seven years ago – and an American general told us of the imminent victory over the "terrorists" in the mountains, the all but conquered Taliban who were being supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Russian was pontificating at the big Soviet airbase at Bagram. The American general was pontificating at the big US airbase at Bagram. This is not déjà-vu. This is déjà double-vu. And it gets worse. Almost 29 years ago, the Afghan "mujahedin" began a campaign to end the mixed schooling of boys and girls in the remote mountain passes, legislation pushed through by successive communist governments. Schools were burned down. Outside Jalalabad, I found a headmaster and his headmistress wife burned to death. Today, the Afghan Taliban are campaigning to end the mixed schooling of boys and girls – indeed the very education of young women – across the great deserts of Kandahar and Helmand. Schools have been burned down. Teachers have been executed. As the Soviets began to suffer more and more casualties, their officers boasted of the increasing prowess of the Afghan National Army, the ANA. Infiltrated though they were by the "mujahedin", Moscow gave them newer tanks and helped to train new battalions to take on the guerrillas outside the capital. Fast forward to now. As the Americans and British suffer ever greater casualties, their officers boast of the increasing prowess of the ANA. Infiltrated though they are by the Taliban, America and other Nato states are providing them with newer equipment and training new battalions to take on the guerrillas outside the capital. Back in January of 1980, I could take a bus from Kabul to Kandahar. Seven years later, the broken highway was haunted by "mujahedin" fighters and bandits and the only safe way to travel to Kandahar was by air. In the immediate aftermath of America's arrival here in 2001, I could take a bus from Kabul to Kandahar. Now, seven years later, the highway – rebuilt on the express instructions of George W but already cracked and swamped with sand – is haunted by Taliban fighters and bandits and the only safe way to travel to Kandahar is by air. Throughout the 1980s, the Soviets and the ANA held the towns but lost most of the country. Today, America and its allies and the ANA hold most of the towns but have lost the southern half of the country. The Soviets secretly sent another 9,000 troops to join their 115,000-strong occupation force to fight the "mujahedin". Today, the Americans are publicly sending another 7,000 troops to join their 55,000-strong occupation force to fight the Taliban. In 1980, I would sneak down to Chicken Street to buy old books in the dust-filled shops, cheap and illegal Pakistani reprints of the memoirs of British Empire officers while my driver watched anxiously lest I be mistaken for a Russian. Last week, I sneaked down to the Shar Book shop, which is filled with the very same illicit volumes, while my driver watched anxiously lest I be mistaken for an American (or, indeed, a Brit). I find Stephen Tanner's Afghanistan: A Military History From Alexander The Great To The Fall Of The Taliban and drive back to my hotel through the streets of wood-smoked Kabul to read it in my ill-lit room. In 1840, Tanner writes, Britain's supply line from the Pakistani city of Karachi up through the Khyber Pass and Jalalabad to Kabul was being threatened by Afghan fighters, "British officers on the crucial supply line through Peshawar... insulted and attacked". I fumble through my bag for a clipping from a recent copy of Le Monde. It marks Nato's main supply route from the Pakistani city of Karachi up through the Khyber Pass and Jalalabad to Kabul, and illustrates the location of each Taliban attack on the convoys bringing fuel and food to America's allies in Afghanistan. Then I prowl through one of the Pakistani retread books I have found and discover General Roberts of Kandahar telling the British in 1880 that "we have nothing to fear from Afghanistan, and the best thing to do is to leave it as much as possible to itself... I feel sure I am right when I say that the less the Afghans see of us, the less they will dislike us". Memo to the Americans, the Brits, the Canadians and the rest of Humpty Dumpty's men. Read Roberts. Read history. ***

Obama to antiwar supporters: No change on Iraq by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 24, 2008

Obama Accused of Selling Out on Iraq //////////////////////////////// by Tim Shipman Telegraph UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3502411/Barack-Obama-accused-of-selling-out-on-Iraq-by-picking-hawks-to-run-his-foreign-policy.html November 23, 2008 VIA Cord MacGuire WASHINGTON - Mr Obama has moved quickly in the last 48 hours to get his cabinet team in place, unveiling a raft of heavyweight appointments, in addition to Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. But his preference for General James Jones, a former Nato commander who backed John McCain, as his National Security Adviser and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a supporter of the war, to run the Homeland Security department has dismayed many of his earliest supporters. The likelihood that Mr Obama will retain George W Bush's Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, has reinforced the notion that he will not aggressively pursue the radical withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq over the next 16 months and engagement with rogue states that he has pledged. Chris Bowers of the influential OpenLeft.com blog complained: "That is, over all, a centre-right foreign policy team. I feel incredibly frustrated. Progressives are being entirely left out of Obama's major appointments so far." Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos site, the in-house talking shop for the anti-war Left, warned that Democrats risk sounding "tone deaf" to the views of "the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush policies." A spokesman for the President-elect was forced to confirm that Mr Obama holds to his previous views. "His position on Iraq has not changed and will not change." But the growing disillusionment underlines the fine line Mr Obama must walk between appearing to reach out to former opponents and keeping his grassroot supporters happy. Mr Obama seems conscious of the need to move fast, to reassure a watching world that he will be ready to hit the ground running on foreign and economic policy. He will wait until Friday before formally announcing his national security team, but he will on Monday formally unveil his economic team, with New York Federal Reserve bank chairman Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary and the New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, in the Commerce portfolio. On Friday night, Mr Obama and his wife Michelle revealed that they will send their two daughters Malia and Sasha to the private Sidwell Friends school in Washington, once attended by Chelsea Clinton. That announcement ended two weeks of speculation in the capital, where excitement is growing over the arrival of the Obama family in time for the inauguration on Jan 20. City officials now expect four million people to turn out to see history made. Hotels are sold out, house rental prices for the week are rising into five figures and others are buying space for their tents on people's lawns. If every visitor descended simultaneously on the National Mall, each would have just one square foot of space. But the huge enthusiasm of Obama supporters might dissipate if they believe he is crafting a government more likely to pursue "politics as usual", rather than his often-promised "change we need". There is growing concern among a new generation of anti-war foreign policy analysts in Washington, many of whom stuck their necks out to support Mr Obama early in the White House race, that they will be frozen out of his administration. Mrs Clinton is expected to appoint her own top team at the State Department, drawn from more conservative thinkers. A Democratic foreign policy expert told one Washington website: "They were the ones courageous enough to stand up early against Iraq, which is why many supported Obama in the first place." Their fear, he added, is that they will not now secure the mid-level posts which will enable them to reach the top of the Washington career ladder in future. Suspicion of Mr Obama's moves has been compounded, for some liberals, by the revelation that Mr Obama has for several months been taking advice from Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush. His return to prominence in Washington represents a resurgence of the old school conservative realists, who were largely eclipsed during this Bush administration by the neoconservatives. They place US national interests above the quest to defend human rights or to spread democracy. Progressives and liberals see Mr Scowcroft's hand in the move to retain Mr Gates, an old friend, at the Pentagon and also in the expected elevation of Gen. Jones. Others are troubled by an announcement on Friday night that Mr Obama will retain the White House political office, an institution recently associated with George Bush's adviser Karl Rove, who has been blamed for running government as a permanent and highly partisan election campaign. During the campaign, Mr Obama pledged to end "politics as usual" and the "perpetual campaign". But a spokesman for the Transition team said: "An Obama White House will be focused on meeting the next challenge, not winning the next election." ***

Canada rejects Obama/Gates on Afghanistan by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 24, 2008

Canada reiterates plan to withdraw from Afghanistan www.chinaview.cn 2008-11-22 08:55:49 Print OTTAWA, Nov. 21 (Xinhua) -- Canada will proceed with its plan to end military mission in Afghanistan in 2011, even if United States President-elect Barack Obama appeals to it to stay, Defense Minister Peter MacKay reiterated Friday. MacKay made the remarks when defense ministers from eight NATO countries with troops stationed in southern Afghanistan gathered in eastern Canada to talk about ways to better manage the mission. Ministers of the United States, Britain, Holland, Australia, Estonia, Denmark and Romania were meeting at a training base in the village of Cornwallis in the Atlantic province of Nova Scotia. MacKay complained that some NATO countries are not pulling their weight in Afghanistan, leaving the eight countries "carrying a disproportionate share of the load". Instead of asking Canada to stay, Obama should be knocking on other military doors, he said. At the meeting, U.S. Defense Secretary Gates laid out the plan to send about 20,000 more soldiers into Afghanistan next year in a bid to make the country secure enough for elections expected there in the fall. The troop surge has already begun, Gates said, with a 1,800-strong U.S. Marine battalion having deployed this year and the first of five new American brigades scheduled to arrive in January. There are currently about 50,000 coalition soldiers stationed across Afghanistan. The officials also stressed the importance of training Afghan security forces and stemming out opium sales in the country. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Mainstream media redefining election by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 22, 2008

Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone 21 November 2008 by: David Sirota, Creators Syndicate http://www.truthout.org/112208B If you're having trouble remembering what the recent election was all about, rest easy: you're probably not going senile - you're likely experiencing the momentary effects of brainwashing. For weeks, your television, newspaper and radio have been telling you America is a "center-right nation" that elected Barack Obama to crush his fellow "socialist" hippies, discard the agenda he campaigned on, and meet the policy demands of electorally humiliated Republicans. This is the usual post-election nonsense from the Braindead Megaphone, as author George Saunders famously calls our political and media noise machine. When George W. Bush wins by 3 million votes, the megaphone blares announcements about a conservative mandate that Democrats must respect. When Obama wins by twice as much, the same megaphone roars about Democrats having no mandate to do anything other than appease conservatives. It's confusing, isn't it? We hazily recall backing Obama and his progressive platform. Yet, the megaphone's re-educative shock treatment aims to wipe away that memory and conjure eternal conservatism from our spotless minds. Luckily, we have polling to maintain our sanity. Public opinion surveys show most Obama voters knew the Illinois senator is a progressive when they cast their ballots - and those votes for him weren't just anti-Bush protests, they were ideological. According to a post-election poll by my colleagues at the Campaign for America's Future, 70 percent of Americans say they want conservatives to help this progressive president enact his decidedly progressive agenda. Sensing the enormity of these numbers, Obama seems ready to back a "big bang" of far-reaching initiatives. "We can't afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign," he said in his first radio address as president-elect. Based on advertisements, Obama identified no more important priority than guaranteeing health care for all citizens. As the Campaign Media Analysis Group reported, he devoted more than two-thirds of his total television budget to ads that included health care themes. Consequently, a Pew poll found 77 percent of Americans said health care would be a decisive concern in their presidential vote. The moral case for universal health care is obvious. In the world's richest country - in a country that builds lavish sports stadiums and showers Wall Street with trillion-dollar bailouts - 18,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. We permit this annual massacre while our wasteful system exacerbates our debt and saps our economic competitiveness by forcing us to spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation. Thatroblem would have been addressed long ago. Overcoming inertia on such a thorny issue requires budget pressure - which Obama definitely faces. While some claim the deficit should preclude bold health care legislation, it's the other way around. The Congressional Budget Office says America's fiscal gap is "driven primarily by rising health care costs," meaning a fix is an imperative. "People ask whether (Obama) has the fiscal breathing room to push health-care reform," economist Jared Bernstein told the Washington Post. "He doesn't have the fiscal breathing room not to do health-care reform." Additionally, as with everything in Washington, a political motive is needed for action - and even conservatives acknowledge Democrats have such a motive when it comes to health care. Fifteen years ago, Republican strategist William Kristol warned that the Clinton administration's universal health care proposals represented "a serious political threat to the Republican Party" because, if passed, they "will revive the reputation" of Democrats as "the generous protector of middle-class interests." As we all remember, Democrats failed to capitalize on the health care opportunity. But Kristol's prophecy was correct then, as it is now. With huge Democratic majorities in Congress come 2009, only the Braindead Megaphone is in Obama's way. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Will Obama OK 20, 000 more for Afghanistan? by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 21, 2008

U.S. eyes "surge" of over 20,000 for Afghanistan Nov. 21, 2008 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081122/tpl-uk-afghan-nato-troops-43a8d4f.html By David Morgan , Reuters The Pentagon is considering a plan to send more than 20,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next 12 to 18 months to help safeguard elections and quell rising Taliban violence, officials said on Friday. U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he and top commanders had discussed sending five brigades to Afghanistan, including four brigades of combat ground forces as well as an aviation brigade, which a defence official said would consist mainly of support troops. An Army combat brigade has about 3,500 soldiers. Gates said much of the infusion could take place before Afghanistan holds elections by next autumn. "I think it's important that we have a surge of forces before the election," said Gates, who stressed no decision on troop deployments had been taken. "We've had some very preliminary discussions," he told reporters after meeting to discuss southern Afghanistan with his counterparts from NATO countries with troops deployed in the region. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said more support troops, also known as "enablers," could also head to Afghanistan as Gates considers a request by U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of NATO and U.S. forces in the country. "The commanders are looking for well north of 20,000 forces. Gates wishes to fulfil the commanders' request," Morrell told reporters as the U.S. defence chief returned from Cornwallis. Violence in Afghanistan has surged to the highest levels since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion toppled the country's Taliban government. An Army combat brigade is already scheduled to arrive in eastern Afghanistan in January to begin training Afghan forces. Most of the remaining forces, which could begin deploying as early as next spring, would likely head to poppy-growing southern Afghanistan where commanders say the NATO force of 18,000 troops is too small to contend with an increasingly confident Taliban insurgency. There are now some 70,000 Western forces in Afghanistan, including 32,000 U.S. forces -- 14,500 under NATO command and 17,500 under a U.S. command. 'SURGE' Gates' use of the term "surge" to describe the influx drew parallels with the 2007 U.S. force build-up that placed an extra 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and contributed to a sharp decline in violence there. "The key is how do we reverse the trends of the last couple of years or so in terms of rising violence and create a better security environment in which economic and civic development can go ahead and take place," Gates said. "We are clearly going to be putting more troops in and I think that the prospects for being able to have these elections successfully are good," he said. "We all recognise the need for the Afghan government -- with our help -- to demonstrate some progress over the course of 2009," he said. Gates rejected speculation Afghanistan could be heading for a dire situation. "The notion that things are out of control in Afghanistan or that we're sliding towards a disaster I think is far too pessimistic," he said. U.S. President-elect Barack Obama says he wants to focus more on the Afghan war and plans to persuade other nations to send more soldiers. But Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Obama should look to other NATO members first, rather than turning to the other seven states that took part in the Cornwallis meeting: Canada, Denmark, Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, Estonia and Romania. "The reality is there are other NATO doors that President-elect Obama should be knocking on first," he told the news conference. Canada has long complained that the nations with troops in southern Afghanistan are bearing a disproportionate share of the military burden. "There is an enormous amount of goodwill that has been engendered by President-elect Obama that he might be willing to spend for a cause that he clearly believes in," said MacKay. Many NATO countries insist on stationing their troops in quieter parts of Afghanistan and strictly limit what kind of combat activities they can carry out. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Will Obama give in on Iraq? by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 20, 2008

Missile test fails-will Obama continue? by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 20, 2008

This Czech/Polish missile defense system walks into a bar one afternoon and orders six shots of vodka and a beer. The bartender says, "How can you afford to get drunk in the middle of a business day?" and the Czech/Polish missile defense system says, "I don't work." Indeed! Will Obama actually approve this Bush joke? Japan-U.S. missile defense test fails off Hawaii By Jim Wolf Nov 20,2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/wl_nm/us_japan_usa_missile;_ylt=ApCq_84Zdh6j9SMwXd.poGNm.3QA WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Japanese warship failed to shoot down a ballistic missile target in a joint test with U.S. forces Wednesday because of a glitch in the final stage of an interceptor made by Raytheon Co, a U.S. military official said. The kinetic warhead's infrared "seeker" lost track in the last few seconds of the $55 million test, about 100 miles above Hawaiian waters, said U.S. Rear Admiral Brad Hicks, program director of the Aegis sea-based leg of an emerging U.S. anti-missile shield. "This was a failure," he said in a teleconference with reporters. It brought the tally of Aegis intercepts to 16 in 20 tries. The problem "hopefully was related just to a single interceptor," not to a systemic issue with the Standard Missile-3 Block 1A, the same missile used in February to blow apart a crippled U.S. spy satellite, Hicks said. Military officials from both countries said in a joint statement there was no immediate explanation for the botched intercept of a medium-range missile mimicking a potential North Korean threat. The test was paid for by Japan, Hicks said. John Patterson, a spokesman at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona, said the company would not comment pending the results of an engineering analysis of what may have gone wrong. The test involved the Chokai, the second Japanese Kongo-class ship to be outfitted by the United States for missile defense, and a dummy missile fired from a range on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. North Korea's test-firing of a ballistic missile over Japan in August 1998 spurred Tokyo to become the most active U.S. ally in building a layered shield against missiles that could be tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads. A Japanese defense official said he thought Japan would continue with its missile defense plans. "I believe the system is sufficiently reliable," Japan's top military bureaucrat, Vice Minister Kohei Masuda, told reporters later. "I don't think there will be any effect on the construction schedule Japan is planning," he added. The drill off Kauai featured the ship-borne Aegis ballistic missile defense system made by Lockheed Martin Corp, which apparently worked without a hitch. The operation of the Aegis system by the Chokai's crew and the missile's "flyout" toward the target were successful even though the intercept was not achieved, said Rear Adm. Tomohisa Takei, operations and plans director for the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force, and U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. More information will be available after a thorough investigation, they said in the statement. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, which staged the drill in cooperation with Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Forces, called it a "No Notice" test, more challenging than the first of its kind for a Japanese ship in 2007. To make it more realistic, the time of the target's launch was not disclosed to any participants, the Pentagon said in a "fact sheet" before the test. Also, the target warhead separated from its booster rocket, increasing the challenge of picking out the re-entry vehicle, the Pentagon said. In addition to the Chokai, a similarly equipped U.S. Navy destroyer, the Paul Hamilton, tracked and successfully performed a simulated engagement against the ballistic missile, Hicks said. In December 2003, Japan decided to equip its four Kongo-class destroyers with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems at a cost of $246.1 million. Each installation was to be followed by a test intercept. The Kongo, the first to be upgraded, completed its flight test in December 2007. Myoko, the third ship to be upgraded, is to be ready next year and Kirishima, in 2010, according to Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

AlterNet: This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 20, 2008

Withdrawal agreement still about oil by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 19, 2008

Obama: Hands off Somalia! by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 18, 2008

Somalia Resurfaces Monday 17 November 2008 http://www.truthout.org/111807O by: Michael Shank, Foreign Policy in Focus Communications director for the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. At long last, the fragile state of Somalia seems to be slowly resurfacing from a searing bout of violence and humanitarian crisis. Interestingly, the light at the end of this decades-long tunnel is not burning at the behest of the United States or the United Nations; rather, it burns because Somali leaders, both within the government and without, have banded together. Frustrated by failed foreign interventions, they are now seeking sustainable Somali-based solutions. The key to success, going forward, is to keep it Somali-led. Further intervention from neighboring Ethiopia or the United States will be ruinous. Leaders in Addis Ababa and Washington would do well to withdraw completely, then wait and watch - returning only if summoned by the new Somalia. Recent talks between Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the latest iteration of an opposition movement, the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS), indicate the solution to the country's conflict lies in internal, decentralized negotiations. Somalia hasn't been well served by the centralized system established by the Ethiopia-friendly, non-representative TFG in 2004. By 2006, local Islamic leaders were beginning to fill the void, much to the chagrin of America's "War on Terror" camp (led by State Department Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazier). In response, rather than examining the successes of local Islamic leadership - enhanced security, increased attention to health care and education, reduced drug-trafficking - U.S. fighter planes and Ethiopian troops chose instead to pummel them. The attacks, a combination of airstrikes and aggressive ground raids, were so devastating that in 2007 the TFG's deputy prime minister accused Ethiopian troops of committing genocide. One year later, after another unsuccessful run at good governance by the Ethiopian-controlled TFG, the Islamic opposition has returned - under the guidance of moderate Sheikh Sharif Ahmed - and is busy brokering agreements with the TFG in nearby Djibouti. The talks have produced a unity government, complete with a new parliament and a new cabinet. Time will test the true mettle of the TFG on this commitment: Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein promised the new cabinet would be activated this month. Key additional components of the agreement included a cessation of hostilities, a ceasefire, and the removal of Ethiopian troops - all of which, it is worth noting, wouldn't have been possible under the watchful eye of Washington. Healing Political Wounds Who then ushered in the collaborative climate necessary for a TFG-ARS consensus, if not the United States? The tragic and enduring humanitarian crisis - triggered by violence that killed 10,000 civilians and displaced over one million in two years - certainly helped to begin the healing of political wounds. Nearly half of Somalia's population is starving and the stage is set for a famine on par with the horrific hunger that ravaged the Horn of Africa in the early 1990s. The TFG and the ARS likely recognized that the governed would soon be ungovernable due to burgeoning insecurity. Although politically undesirable, drastic measures like compromise were necessary. Eastern Africa's Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) also no doubt created the climate for compromise by leaning heavily on the TFG and the ARS. IGAD heads of state from Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and Eritrea not only helped broker the aforementioned peace deals but are now pledging, as they did in the Burundi peace process, to monitor the implementation of their decisions, meeting every six months to review progress made. Largely ineffectual as a dealmaker in previous talks, IGAD has taken a welcome initiative to try to fill the present security void in Africa. The continent's more appropriate security broker, the African Union (AU), failed Somalia almost entirely, mustering a mere half of the 8,000 troops promised, and neglecting the Horn's smoldering humanitarian crisis. Sudan's genocide, and the weak international response to it, has gutted Somalia in other ways too, as lackluster United Nations troop response in Darfur has made it more difficult to muster might for Mogadishu. If the UN, the AU, and the United States can't provide a helping hand, better then that Somalis look inward. If Somalis themselves can manage this process, the recent pirate raids for which Somalia is now infamous will also subside. The surge in ship seizures in the Gulf of Aden and elsewhere was largely due to a legacy of interminable lawlessness under the TFG, extreme poverty, and a desperate drive for resources and quick remedy. Here again, the United States and the UN must not foul this up by foisting another heavy security scheme on the seas offshore Somalia. Enhanced patrolling is fine, but let the locals sort this out. The tide is turning within the TFG and the ARS, and new sea raids by foreign forces will be feckless and ineffective. Turning the Horn around is no easy task; the TFG and the ARS know this. Much hard work lies in store for the new unity government as Somalis are famished, forlorn, and fed up. It is an unenviable task to rebuild the country but no one but the TFG and the ARS can do it, with some ongoing oversight and accountability from the IGAD. And if the UN, U.S., or AU are to be of use, then let them be at the beck and call of the new Somalia, not the other way around. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama Pentagon choices back star wars by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 17, 2008

Why Obama Will Continue Star Wars By Mark Thompson / Time Magazine Nov. 16, 2008 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859393,00.html WASHINGTON: Missile-defense skeptics yearning for a fresh look at the wisdom of pumping $10 billion annually into missile defense aren't going to get it from Barack Obama when he moves into the Oval Office. The Russians - along with the two men most likely to end up running the Pentagon for the President-elect - have already made sure of that. It's a bracing reminder of just how difficult it is to counter momentum once a big-league defense program achieves what aerodynamicists call "escape velocity" - that synergy of speed and gravity that lets a vehicle soar smoothly into the skies. President George W. Bush promised to build a "Star Wars" missile shield, and he has kept that promise - even if there is no guarantee if the shield works or that it increases security. There has indeed been much Democratic derision focused on what has mostly been seen as a Republican program, one that has been lavished with $100 billion since Ronald Reagan called for such a shield at the height of the Cold War in 1983. But even in a Democratic-run Pentagon the push for missile defense is going to continue. If Obama keeps Defense Secretary Robert Gates on, as some advisers are arguing he should, that would come as no surprise. "Russia has nothing to fear from a defensive missile shield," Gates said Thursday as he argued for extending the system to Europe. The current plan is to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a missile-tracking radar in the Czech Republic by 2014. It's strongly opposed by Russia, which views it as an unwelcome military threat in a region where it has always been pre-eminent. The other leading contender for the Pentagon post is Richard Danzig, a Clinton Navy secretary, who recently told reporters that the Obama team has "a strong view that national missile defense is a rewarding area and should be invested in." In fact, during the campaign, Obama said "I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons." While expressing concern that such a program might not work, he also has said that it makes sense to "explore the possibility of deploying missile defense systems in Europe," in light of Tehran's efforts, his aides have recently suggested he won't move ahead with the European deployment if the system's not "workable." (On Friday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Washington against deploying the shield in Europe. "Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security," he said at a press conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. "It would complicate things, and would make them move backward.") The outgoing general who heads the Pentagon's missile defense efforts declared Wednesday that the system is "absolutely" workable. Lieutenant General Henry Obering, who is leaving his post after four years of running the program, said U.S. interests would be "severely hurt" if Obama abandons the Bush Administration's plans to expand the missile shield to Europe. "What we have discovered is that a lot of the folks that have not been in [the Bush] Administration seem to be dated, in terms of the program," Obering said. "They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 time frame and we have come a hell of a long way since 2000." Beyond the endorsements of the military and possible defense secretaries, recent post-election statements from Moscow criticizing the European expansion of the missile shield make it highly likely it will happen, U.S. officials say. Obama can't be seen, early in his tenure, as bending to Russia's wishes, they say. While all that suggests the system will move full speed ahead, there was a recent ground-breaking that makes it pretty much official. Three weeks ago, the Pentagon began work on a new missile defense "Headquarters Command Center" at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, about 10 miles south of the Pentagon. The $38.5 million building will be home to 300 Missile Defense Agency workers. Its planned brick veneer will match the fort's Georgian Colonial Revival style. Once finished in late 2010, the brand new missile-defense headquarters will blend in with Fort Belvoir's pre-World War II buildings. It will seem like it has always been there. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Healthiest Americans voted for Obama; sickest for McCain by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 17, 2008

A follow up on the Huntington story reports that on the same standards, Burlington VT is the nation's "healthiest" city. Burlington itself voted almost unanimously for for Obama (83%) and the towns surrounding it by between 60-70%. I checked election returns from each of the five counties in the Huntington metro area and they all voted for McCain/Palin by margins of of 54% to 58%. I was not able to check whether they are among the mainly Appalacian counties that went more heavily for McCain than they did for Bush in 2004. W. Virginia town shrugs at poorest health ranking By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer Nov. 16,2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081116/ap_on_he_me/med_unhealthiest_city_2 HUNTINGTON, W.Va. - As a portly woman plodded ahead of him on the sidewalk, the obese mayor of America's fattest and unhealthiest city explained why health is not a big local issue. "It doesn't come up," said David Felinton, 5-foot-9 and 233 pounds, as he walked toward City Hall one recent morning. "We've got a lot of economic challenges here in Huntington. That's usually the focus." Huntington's economy has withered, its poverty rate is worse than the national average, and vagrants haunt a downtown riverfront park. But this city's financial woes are not nearly as bad as its health. Nearly half the adults in Huntington's five-county metropolitan area are obese - an astounding percentage, far bigger than the national average in a country with a well-known weight problem. Huntington leads in a half-dozen other illness measures, too, including heart disease and diabetes. It's even tops in the percentage of elderly people who have lost all their teeth (half of them have). It's a sad situation, and a potential harbinger of what will happen to other U.S. communities, said Ken Thorpe, an Emory University health policy professor who is working with West Virginia officials on health reform legislation. "They may be at the very top, but obesity and diabetes trends are very similar" in many other communities, particularly in the South, Thorpe said. The Huntington area's health problems, cited in a U.S. health report, are a terrible distinction for the city, but the locals barely talk about it. Many don't even know how poorly the city ranks. Culture and history are at least part of the problem, health officials say. This city on the Ohio River is surrounded by Appalachia's thinly populated hills. It has long been a blue-collar, white-skinned community - overwhelmingly people of English, Irish and German ancestry. For decades, Huntington thrived with the coal mines to its south, as barges, trucks and trains loaded with the black fuel continually chugged into and past the city. There were plenty of manufacturing jobs in the chemical industry and in glassworks, steel and locomotive parts. Nearly 90,000 people lived in the city in 1950. The traditional diet was heavy with fried foods, salt, gravy, sauces, and fattier meats - dense with calories burnt off through manual labor. Obesity was not a worry then. Workplace injuries were. But as the coal industry modernized and the economy changed, manufacturing jobs left. The city's population is now fewer than 50,000, and chronic diseases - many of them connected to obesity - seem much more common. Shari Wiley is a nurse at St. Mary's Regional Heart Institute in Huntington. She runs a program that identifies heavy school children and tries to teach them better eating and exercise habits. The effort began because of an alarming trend. "A lot of the patients we were seeing were getting heart attacks in their 30s. They were requiring open heart surgery in their 30s. And we were concerned because it used to be you wouldn't see heart patients come in until they were in their 50s," Wiley said. The Huntington area is essentially tied with a few other metro areas for proportion of people who don't exercise (31 percent), have heart disease (22 percent) and diabetes (13 percent). The smoking rate is pretty high, too, although not the worst. However, the region is a clear-cut leader in dental problems, with nearly half the people age 65 and older saying they have lost all their natural teeth. And no other metro area comes close to Huntington's adult obesity rate, according to the report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on data from 2006. Perhaps fittingly, hospitals are now Huntington's largest employers. Another is Marshall University, home of the "Thundering Herd" football team depicted in the 2006 film "We Are Marshall" which dominates local sports conversations. The river runs along the edge of town, but it's not a focal point. Marshall and one of the city's remaining factories sit to the east with several blocks of hotels and office buildings farther west. A new complex called Pullman Square - which includes a movie theater and a Starbucks - is trying to become a retail and dining center and illustrates a transition to a service economy. The area's unemployment rate was about 5 percent in September, actually a bit better than the 6.1 percent national average that month. But often the jobs are not high-paying. Many workers lack health insurance, and corporate wellness programs - common at large national companies - are rare. Poverty hovers, with the area rate at 19 percent, much higher than the national average. In the hilly coal fields to the South, people still live in houses or trailers with drooping, battered roofs. They stare hard at any stranger in a new car. In Huntington and its outskirts, many people think of exercise and healthy eating as luxuries. The economy needs to pick up "so people can afford to get healthy," said Ronnie Adkins, 67, a retired policeman, as he sat one recent morning on the smoking porch of the Jolly Pirate Donuts shop on U.S. 60. Doughnut shops don't help either, of course. But breakfast pastry shops aren't the most common outlets for fatty food. Pizza joints are. They are seemingly on every block in some parts of the city. The online Yellow Pages lists more pizza places (nearly 200) for the Huntington area than the entire state of West Virginia has gyms and health clubs (149). Hot dog places also abound, with the city hosting an annual hot dog festival every summer. "I've never seen so many places that are hot dog oriented. I guess it's a cultural thing. Appalachian," said Mayor Felinton, who grew up in Maryland and moved to Huntington to attend Marshall University and stayed put. Fast food has become a staple, with many residents convinced they can't afford to buy healthier foods, said Keri Kennedy, manager of the state health department's Office of Healthy Lifestyles. Kennedy said she had just seen a commercial that presented "The KFC $10 Challenge." The fried-chicken chain placed a family in a grocery store and challenged them to put together a dinner for $10 or less that was comparable to KFC's seven-piece, $9.99 value meal. "This is what we're up against," said Kennedy, noting it's an extremely persuasive ad for a low-income family that is accustomed to fried foods. "I don't know what you do to counter that." Lack of exercise is another concern. During a warm and sunny autumn week in Huntington - the kind of weather that would bring out small armies of joggers in some cities - it was unusual to see a runner or bicyclist. The exercise that does occur is mostly confined to a local YMCA, at campus recreation facilities at Marshall, or at Ritter Park in a tony neighborhood south of downtown. Some attribute the problem to crumbling sidewalks in the city and a lack of walkways along busy rural roads. Others blame it on lack of motivation, as well as a cultural attitude that never included exercise for health. There's a connection between education and lack of exercise, too, said Dr. Thomas Dannals, a Huntington family physician. "The undereducated don't know the value of it. They don't have the drive for it. There's a reason you're successful, you've got drive. The same is true for exercise," said Dannals. Dannals has been trying to change cultural attitudes. The local newspaper has called him "an exercise evangelist" for founding the city's triathlon, marathon and other projects designed to make exercise popular and fun. He's also spearheading a riverfront exercise trail project, called the Paul Ambrose Trail for Health (PATH). Ambrose was a Huntington physician who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, jet that crashed into the Pentagon. Just before he died, he had been working on a U.S. Surgeon General report on obesity, and was on the plane that morning to attend an adolescent obesity conference in Los Angeles. But the PATH project, first proposed more than a year ago, has yet to win the necessary funding. The lack of support is not surprising: Dannals can't even get a company to sponsor the Huntington marathon. Local politicians tend to be equally tepid about improving health, said Dr. Harry Tweel, director of the Cabell-Huntington Health Department. Smoking - a common sin in West Virginia - has been hard to control, Tweel said. When the health department tried to restrict smoking in local bars and restaurants, a group of local businesses fought it all the way to the state Supreme Court. (The restrictions were upheld in 2003.) Even hospitals have fought smoking restrictions in the past, Tweel said. Other communities have taken more ambitious steps to control the amount of fat in local restaurant food. In July, the Los Angeles City Council placed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an impoverished area of the city with above-average rates of obesity. In 2006, New York City became the first U.S. city to ban artificial trans fats in restaurant foods. Other cities are considering similar measures. Forget it, Tweel said. Not in Huntington. "You're mentioning areas (of the country) that are well beyond this local region in accepting that kind of change," said Tweel. "People here have an attitude of 'You're not going to tell me what I can eat.' The cultural attitude is 'My parents ate that and my grandparents ate that,'" he said. Mayor Felinton echoed Tweel. Felinton had stomach surgery last year to help him lose weight and has been walking to work about three days a week. He has shed nearly 80 pounds and became sort of a local poster boy for weight loss. But in the midst of a re-election campaign last month, he said he had no plans to plunge into a fight over fat in restaurants. "We want as much business as we can have here," said Felinton, who lost his recent re-election bid and leaves office in January. "As many restaurants as you have, it kind of enhances the livability. Maybe not the health." To be fair, most people in Huntington don't seem to be aware of how poorly their city looks in national health statistics. The latest numbers came from the CDC report, released in August, but little-publicized. It was based on survey data from 2006, comparing about 150 metropolitan areas. The Huntington area includes five counties - two in West Virginia, two in Kentucky and one in Ohio. Of the 40 Huntington-area residents interviewed for this story, many had heard something about West Virginia being one of the unhealthiest states. But only one - Tweel - knew about the latest report showing how bad Huntington compared with other metro areas. Some doctors, on hearing the statistics, noted the Huntington area is not in such bad shape by West Virginia standards. A recent state study found that health problems are significantly worse in the more rural coal counties to the south. But those places didn't show up in the CDC report, because they were too small. Still, Huntington is an unusually obese place, said Dr. John Walden, chairman of the family and community health department at Marshall University's medical school. Walden is a third generation physician in the area, but he's also traveled extensively around the world. He says it's always a little jolting coming home and realizing how obese his hometown is compared to the rest of the world. "I don't know that I've ever been in a place where I've seen so many overweight people," he said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Blue Huntington, WV has worst health by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 16, 2008

Friedman: Why I'm resigning by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 15, 2008

Tikkun to heal, repair and transform the world A note from Rabbi Michael Lerner http://www.tikkun.org/ [Editorial note: We hope the people who did this spoof on the NY Times and Tom Friedman don't get sued or go to jail, because this is some of the funniest and at the same time smartest things that have come down the pike in a long time. Send it to your friends. Apparently someone (with a lot of money--that same amount probably would have kept Tikkun funded for another few years) printed a million copies of this bogus issue trying to appear to be the NY Times and had them distributed free throughout NYC. But what is really amazing is not that fact,but what this particular article onFriedman points out--the absolutely disgraceful role that the NY Times plays in spinning the news, whether in foreign policy or domestic or culture or book reviews or the magazine, toward a subservience to the assumptions of the powerful. Or the way the Times always quotes rightwing or establishment figures in the religious world but rarely comes to us spiritual progressives for our perspective. Or the way the Times rarely quotes the views of those American Jews who know that what it means to be pro-Israel in the real world is to be for an end to the Occupation of the West Bank, but instead the Times accepts the propagandistic notion that "pro-Israel"means pro the Occupation policies that have been pursued by both Labor and Likud while strongly opposed by the Israeli peace movement. So laugh, but also learn by reading this issue of the spoof onthe Times. Start reading at: http://www.nytimes-se.com/ The End of the Experts?Why I'm resigning from being a NY Times columnist By Thomas J. Friedman Published: July 4th, 2009 The sudden outbreak of peace in Iraq has made me realize, among other things, one incontestable fact: I have no business holding a pen, at least with intent to write. I know, you're thinking I'm going too far. I haven't always been wrong about everything. I recently made some sense on global warming and what we needed to do about it, for instance. But to have been so completely and fundamentally wrong about so huge a disaster as what we have done to Iraq - and ourselves - is outrageous enough to prove that people like me have no business posing as wise men, and, more importantly, that The New York Times has no business continuing to provide me with a national platform. In any case, I have made a decision: as of today, I will no longer write in this or any other newspaper. I will immediately desist from writing any more books about how it's time for everyone to climb on board the globalization high-speed monorail to the future. I will keep my opinions to myself. (My wife suggested that I try not to even form opinions, but I think she might have another agenda.) Baffled? I don't blame you. So I'll cite some facts to support my decision - a practice, I must admit, I have too seldom followed. Let's start with the invasion itself. I was pretty much all for it. Mind you, I was not one of the pundits, reporters, or public figures who said that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. I knew better - but I said it didn't matter! Back in February of 2003, I wrote in this space: "Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice - but it's a legitimate choice." In other words, we should invade a sovereign state and replace its government in order to remake the world more to our liking. Now the simple fact is, an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state is a war crime, even when linked to grand ideas of the future of mankind. In fact, that's exactly what Hitler did, for exactly the same reasons. The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal called it the "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." What was I thinking? And more importantly, why didn't anyone stop me? But wait, it gets worse. Having expressed how acceptable it was to commit Hitler's signature crime, I then applauded the invasion of Iraq as an "audacious roll of the dice." It should have occurred to me that this gamble would be unspeakably painful for an untold number of Iraqis who had done nothing to us - in other words, any of them. Soon, when it became obvious that my pipe dreams for a peaceful and democratic subject nation were just that, I decided to say it was too soon to tell how things would turn out in Iraq, but that we would definitely know in six months to a year. I said this pretty much every six months for five years. And The Times just kept giving me more and more column-inches. I'm not trying to beat myself up here. I've done that plenty already, believe me - and my wife has done the rest! But I have one question: why are newspapers like The New York Times letting people like me make fools of themselves, mislead the American people, and, worst of all, give their wives a lifetime of ammunition? To err is human, but to print, reprint, and re-reprint error-mad humans like me is a criminally moronic editorial policy. Nor, of course, is it only me. Just consider who populates the opinion pages of America's top newspapers. Bill Kristol, who was actually hired by The Times long after being proven wrong on Iraq. Charles Krauthammer. Robert Novak. Mona Charen. Fred Barnes. The list goes on and on of officially-approved wise men (and a woman or two) who never once doubted that Iraq had vast stockpiles of W.M.D.s. And that's just in newspapers. We were all wrong again and again - and the consequences were devastating. Can anyone tell me why any of us should ever be asked, let alone paid, for our opinions ever again? Or, for that matter, why Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz should be allowed behind any sort of desk whatsoever as long as they live? Peace in Iraq will undoubtedly have many far-reaching consequences. As promised, I'm not going to speculate publicly about what they might be. Except one. As of today, I'm putting down my pen, to take up a screwdriver. I am going to retrain as an engineer and spend the rest of my life working to build non-carbon-based energy technologies. And I'm going to spend a lot of time washing my hands. 112 Comments so far ... visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

What's really going on in Somalia? by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 14, 2008

Interesting article but ignores US direction of Ethiopian invasion and US puppet "government: US warplanes have frequently killed many Somalis while supporting Ethiopian troops. Somali Islamists emboldened, set sights on capital By MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN and ELIZABETH A. KENNEDY, Associated Press Writers Nov 14, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_af/af_somalia . MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - With an assault rifle slung over his shoulder and a glass of sweet tea in his hand, 15-year-old Farah Ismail was all smiles Friday at an outdoor cafe in Mogadishu, one of the most dangerous cities on earth. A fighter for al-Shabab, a radical Islamic group at the heart of Somalia's deadly insurgency, Ismail was clearly emboldened. His comrades advanced to within miles of Somalia's capital in the last few days, seizing vast territory in recent weeks and vowing to use strict Muslim rules to bring their lawless Horn of Africa country under control. "I am happy with how things are going here," Ismail said, squinting under the dazzling sun in this once-beautiful seaside capital, which has crumbled into a scorched, bullet-pocked shantytown during Somalia's 20 years of anarchy. "I can go freely anywhere I want and I can target my enemy by sight." The steady and seemingly uncontested rise of al-Shabab, which America considers a terrorist organization, exceeds the worst-case scenarios laid out in late 2006 when Somalia's U.N.-backed government rolled into Mogadishu supported by powerful Ethiopian troops and drove out radical Islamists intent on ruling by strict Shariah law. The past two years have been a bloodbath as the Islamic fighters launched a vicious, Iraq-style insurgency that has killed thousands of civilians and sent an estimated half of Mogadishu's 2 million people fleeing from near-daily roadside bombings and remote-controlled explosions. They have seized most of southern Somalia - advancing to within 10 miles of the capital Wednesday - allowing fighters like Ismail to roam the streets unhindered. Even in the capital, where the government is still nominally in control, Shabab fighters carry out public punishments like lashings and stonings, conduct training exercises and present themselves as alternate government. Princeton Lyman, an Africa expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the recent gains by al-Shabab - which means The Youth - reflect "the almost total collapse" of the government. "The government soldiers and the Ethiopian troops are in a few military bases in the corners of the city, but they hardly move in the streets at all because of all the roadside bombs and ambushes by insurgents," said 26-year-old Mogadishu resident Abdiwali Mohamed. "We don't know who is really in control." One thing Somalia's are accustomed to, however, is chaos. After two decades of violence and uncertainty, Somalia's capital somehow carries on. Buses are packed with people, women sell vegetables by the side of the road and businessmen operate out of tumble-down storefronts. Men sporting henna-stained beards gather for hours in small cafes. When the rains of mortar shells fall - as they always do - everyone scatters for cover. Some war-weary residents say they have no interest in the Shabab's interpretation of Islam - as long as they can bring peace. Many felt the same in 2006, when the Islamists brought six months of relative peace to Somalia, but frightened people into submission with strict laws. "I do not care about their principles," said Ganey Aflanay, 24-year-old bus driver. "All I need is peace and security to earn a living for my three sons and my wife." Still, it is unlikely the Islamist fighters will try to take over the capital anytime soon, opting instead to chip away at the Somali and Ethiopian soldiers through their near-daily insurgent attacks. They also are launching what appears to be a hearts-and-minds campaign, promising to restore order. Aden Haji Macow, a 39-year-old shop owner, said government soldiers are undisciplined and steal from civilians. "They are poorly paid and they are voracious for money to buy qat," she said, referring to the popular narcotic leaf that al-Shabab has banned in its territory. "The soldiers steal our mobile phones and other valuables at gunpoint, but the Islamists do not do that," Macow said in Merka, a port city some 56 miles from the capital, which al-Shabab captured earlier this week. Still, the Ethiopian troops stationed in Mogadishu have far superior firepower, which was crucial in driving out the Islamists in 2006. Ethiopia will not say how many fighters they have there, but their numbers are in the thousands. Their supporters say the Ethiopians have a national interest in staying in Somalia - to prevent a radical Islamist regime right next door. But the Ethiopians, hemorrhaging money and troops, have already pulled back from some positions as part of a peace deal with the moderates and the regime has said it wants to withdraw. Al-Shabab appears to have a much longer timeline for capturing Mogadishu than they did in 2006, this time convincing the Ethiopians and the Somali citizenry that foreign troops cannot remain here forever. Despite their advances, however, the Islamists are suffering internal divisions. Al-Shabab, considered a terror group because of its leaders' alleged links to al-Qaida, controls the most territory. But more moderate fighters from groups including the Council of Islamic Courts have also taken towns, including Elasha, about 10 miles from the capital. "Because of these divisions, they are likely to weaken," said Dahir Mohamed Yusuf, a Somali political analyst. The United States worries that Somalia could be a terrorist breeding ground, particularly since Osama bin Laden declared his support for the Islamists. It accuses al-Shabab of harboring the al-Qaida-linked terrorists who allegedly blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing over 230 people. Somali government forces, acknowledging they are struggling, say - rather unconvincingly - that they will get all of Somalia under control, but offer no details. "The government is preparing to retake all the areas it lost," Col. Abdullahi Hassan Barise, a police spokesman, said with a heavy sigh. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's Afghan Abyss by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 14, 2008

Afghanistan Abyss Awaits Obama /////////////////////// by M K Bhadrakumar Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JK15Df02.html November 14, 2008 VIA Cord MacGuire (Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. ) The struggle for influencing Barack Obama's foreign policy agenda has begun in right earnest. The maneuvering by influential establishment figures - including Congressional voices, Obama advisors and even military officials - who are projecting incumbent Robert Gates as secretary of defense in the incoming administration highlights the pressures working on the president-elect. The focus is on the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in promoting the basic George W Bush policies promoted since the 1990s by nationalist and neo-conservative Republicans. These are policies animated by long-term ambitions for US economic and military hegemony. A Gates appointment will signal that Obama may turn his back on his campaign pledge to withdraw US troops from Iraq in 16 months. Gates, of course, disfavors any set timeline or timetable for a withdrawal plan. Equally, his accent is on fighting the war in Afghanistan more efficiently while pursuing a containment strategy toward Russia and pressing ahead with the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In his perspective, Central Command chief General David Petraeus' troop "surge" policy in Afghanistan meets the requirements. Adjusting at the margins To use the words of investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter of Inter Press Service, there is a "phalanx of determined military opposition" in the Pentagon to Obama's withdrawal plans in Iraq, which goes all the way up to Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and includes Petraeus and General Ray Odierno, the new commander in Iraq. The Washington Post newspaper reported that a "smooth and productive" equation between the military brass and the incoming president will be possible only "if Obama takes the pragmatic approach that his advisers are indicating, allowing each side to adjust at the margins". The newspaper quotes Peter D Feaver, a former National Security Council official in the Bush administration who was a strategic planner on the administration’s Iraq "surge" policy, to the effect that if Obama presses ahead with his 16-month withdrawal plan, "a civil-military crisis" might arise in Washington. According to Porter, Obama had a battle of wits with Petraeus when they met in Baghdad in July and the general argued for a "conditions-based" withdrawal rather than the presidential candidate’s 16-month deadline. Porter says Obama refused to back down and told Petraeus, "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential commander-in-chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." But Gates' appointment could change the equation. The smiling, silver-haired and earnest-looking veteran who has been through it all - the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan - proved his awesome capacity to make himself durable in the Byzantine world of Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinzki and William Casey. Gates is the very antithesis of the clean break that Obama promised. Lame duck planting mines The Russians justifiably claim Gates may have already forced Obama's hand. They see a distinct pattern. In August, cleverly using the Caucasus crisis and the unfriendly public mood in the West about Russia, Gates pressed ahead with the signing of an agreement on the deployment of elements of an American strategic missile shield - 10 interceptor missiles at Wick Morskie between the towns of Ustka and Darlowo on the Baltic coast in Poland and an X-radar in Brdy near Prague, Czech Republic. Of course, Russia has concluded that the US deployments are intended to blunt the thrust of its strategic forces in the European theater. Again, out of the blue, Washington imposed sanctions two weeks ago against Rosoboronexport, Russia's only arms exporter, for allegedly violating the Iran Proliferation Act of 2000. The sanctions have no "bite" as Rosoboronexport has no dealings with US companies and the Russian company's functioning is not in jeopardy. What the Bush administration has done is in essence create an irritant in US-Russia relations. Obama will run into resistance from the US military-industrial complex if he attempts to lift the sanctions, as Rosoboronexport is proving to be a plucky competitor in the world's arms market. According to US Congressional reports, Russia is the world's second-largest arms exporter next to the US, with a turnover of US$10.4 billion in exports in 2007, as against $8.1 billion in the previous year, accounting for 17.4% of all weapons sold in the world market. Russia is entering new markets in North Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America. The Rosoboronexport irritant can become yet another factor hindering effective, whole-hearted US-Russia cooperation over Iran, which Obama will seek. A Russian commentator wrote, "The main purpose of this demonstrative move [sanctions] ... is not so much to complicate life for Russian exporters as to saddle a new administration with new irritants between the White House and the Kremlin, irritants that will be difficult for Obama to remove. It is like anti-personnel mines planted on the path toward better relations between Moscow and Washington." Again, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's annual address to the Duma (parliament) on November 5 contained a statement that Russia might be compelled to deploy short-range missiles in Kaliningrad unless a compromise was reached on the US missile defense deployments in Central Europe. There was nothing startlingly new in the statement. The Russians have said this before. Medvedev's speech on the whole also contained positive elements regarding European security and relations with the US. Yet the US media interpreted that it was the "first serious Russian military threat against the West since the fall of the Soviet Union [in 1991]"; that it struck a "discordant note amid an otherwise welcoming global reaction to Obama's election"; that the timing and "anti-American tone of the speech were extraordinary given the widely held belief here [in Moscow] that Obama is less ideological in his approach to Moscow than his Republican rival". They aimed at generating an impression that Obama ought to rely on experienced hands - such as Gates - to deal with those bad boys in the Kremlin. And all this while the general opinion among Russian politicians and experts is one of cautious optimism that Obama is devoid of Cold War phobias and may incrementally opt out of the "containment strategy" toward Russia. To be sure, Obama will find himself under great pressure to follow Russia policies inherited from Bush, even though these are what he was elected to change or terminate. The crunch comes in December when NATO holds a crucial ministerial meeting to take a view on the membership of Ukraine and Georgia. While on a visit to Estonia on Wednesday, Gates found it irresistible to taunt Moscow: "Russia has no need to impede a sovereign country's desire to more fully integrate with the West. Doing so is not a threat to Russia’s integrity." A lame duck could have kept quiet. Hard choices of peace Meanwhile, Moscow hopes Obama will be less supportive of spending on missile defense than the Bush administration. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Obama's positions "instill hope that we shall be able to more constructively examine this theme in the upcoming period". A similar restraint is apparent in the Russian statement read out on behalf of the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the UN General Assembly debate on Afghanistan on Monday. It abandoned the recent high pitch of criticism of the US-led war. Russia seems to weigh that the war in Afghanistan presents a dilemma of a different kind to Obama and Moscow should not make things harder. Indeed, the Afghan war will be the number one foreign policy priority for the Obama administration. Here too, a struggle has commenced for influencing Obama's policy. Two Pentagon consultants - Ahmed Rashid and Barnett Rubin - did some kite-flying recently. In an article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine titled "From Great Game to Grand Bargain", they argued that the US strategy should be to seek compromise with insurgents while addressing regional rivalries and insecurities. Their recommendation was to offer "political inclusion" to the insurgents "in return for cooperation against al-Qaeda" and to launch a major diplomatic initiative addressing the "vast array of regional and global issues that have become intertwined with the crisis". Furthermore, they suggested that a "contact group" of select countries mandated by the UN Security Council must work to put an end to the "increasingly destructive dynamics of the great game in the region". They recommended that a "regional diplomatic initiative" ought to replace the international presence under NATO. Their buzzword is "regional security". Britain has also echoed it by coming up with a parallel idea of regional security, whereby regional players such as Pakistan, Iran, India, China and Russia along with the US and Britain will be brought into a structure, a consultative mechanism, as "stakeholders". The British ambassador in Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, visited Tehran a fortnight ago to sound out the Iranians. He visited Delhi over the weekend, and told the media, "Our strategy is of a politically-driven, security-led counter-insurgency strategy and more coherent, sustained international support for Afghanistan and its government. What we want to do, for good counter-insurgency reasons, is to get our troops out of direct combat operations. So it is Afghans doing the fighting, not foreign forces." The Foreign Affairs article charters a breathtaking landscape that all but ensures that Obama will lose his way and will never get anywhere near an Afghan settlement in the four years ahead of his presidency. Britain, while setting the tempo for Obama, focuses on itself as remaining a key player. But Sir Sherard's play of words apart, the ground situation is grim for Obama. On Tuesday, Germany's Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said Berlin would resist any US pressure to send troops to strife-ridden southern Afghanistan. Spain openly called for changes to the Western strategy after the killing of two Spanish soldiers in a suicide attack in the western city of Herat on Sunday. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has been quoted as saying, "The debate must not be about sending more troops, but about how to carry out a political and military strategy that will put an end to the situation of instability." Canada has reiterated its decision to pull out its troops by 2011. In Britain, according to an opinion poll released on Wednesday, 68% said British troops should be taken out of Afghanistan by 2010. The head of the British armed forces, Air marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, warned against Obama's idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan, similar to the "surge" in Iraq in 2007. He told the BBC, "Even if the situation demanded it, it cannot be just a one for one transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan, we have to reduce that tempo … I am a little nervous when people use the word 'surge' as if this were some sort of panacea." Tehran has lost little time to rubbish Sir Sherard's proposal. At an international conference on Afghanistan at Dushanbe on Tuesday, attended by a senior US State Department official, the Iranian delegate ambassador Ali Ashar Sherdoust said Western countries and mediators should leave the issue to the Afghans and let them decide their fate. He stressed that Iran opposed the continued presence of foreign forces and their interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Sherdoust ridiculed the "countries thousands of kilometers away" from Afghanistan which are insisting on running the country's affairs while "ignoring the interests" of Afghanistan's neighbors. The British game plan is partly at least to spike the parallel initiative by the SCO to hold a special conference on Afghanistan. The US and Britain have been resisting repeated attempts by the SCO and the Collective Security Organization to play a role in Afghanistan. They have so far ensured that NATO's role has remained exclusive. The ideas floated by the Foreign Affairs article as well as by Sir Sherard will more or less keep the initiative over the Afghan problem in the US-British clasp, which has been the Bush administration's bottom line and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's objective. The million dollar question is: Will Obama also play the great game in Afghanistan? Or is he capable of showing the compassion to let go that hapless country and allow it to wander towards a rediscovery of its traditional modes of life? It is obvious he has to walk through a veritable minefield and reconcile various elements. Indeed, an intra-Afghan dialogue is needed and reconciliation with the Taliban becomes a central issue in such a dialogue. For that to happen, a regional climate needs to be prepared, which primarily involves engaging Pakistan, Russia and Iran and also addressing larger concerns in their relations with the US. Fortunately, Obama possesses the immense moral stature needed to convene a regional summit on Afghanistan. Least of all, it may become necessary at some point to spell out a timeline on the troop withdrawal. Every challenge also offers an opportunity. The upcoming presidential election in Afghanistan offers an opportunity for Obama to resist the temptation to impose another US proxy in Kabul like President Hamid Karzai. Let Afghan people genuinely choose their leader. Let a new president emerge out of the complex deal-making that is part of the Afghan way of life. It is a difficult decision for Obama to take, but it needs to be taken. It will signify the beginning of a US "withdrawal". As a recent commentary in the Chinese People's Daily noted, "Since it is absolutely not easy to carry on the war, then, the 'peace' solution poses a wise option … War and peace are horns of a dilemma in Afghanistan at present, and this has once again exposed the helplessness of Western nations in a predicament." The recent Chinese commentaries seem to underscore that the Obama administration runs the real risk of a quagmire in Afghanistan unless a political solution is quickly found. *** visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The best NYTimes edition explained by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 13, 2008

It hopes to "make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do."You can read it at www.nytimes-se.com Hoax NY Times newspaper declares end of Iraq war Nov 12, 2008 By Michelle Nichols http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE4AC0GV20081113 NEW YORK (Reuters) - A group of pranksters handed out more than 1.2 million fake New York Times newspapers mainly in New York City and Los Angeles on Wednesday with a front page story declaring "Iraq War Ends." The elaborate 14-page edition, dated July 4, 2009, is said to be the work of a group called the Yes Men, whose previous hoaxes include masquerading as World Trade Organization officials announcing they were disbanding the body. "It is fake and we are looking into it," said New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis. A statement sent from a Web site set up for the fake edition, www.nytimes-se.com, said creating the newspaper took six months and that it was printed at six different presses and then given to thousands of volunteers to distribute. "We've got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do," Bertha Suttner, identified as one of the newspaper's writers, said in the statement. "After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven." President-elect Barack Obama takes office on January 20 after eight years of the Bush administration and 28 years after the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. The newspaper includes a front page story saying that "Ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reassured soldiers that the Bush administration had known well before the invasion that Saddam Hussein lacked weapons of mass destruction." The Bush administration has said it believed at the time of the March 2003 invasion that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear bomb. Other headlines declared that the "Maximum Wage Law Succeeds," "Nationalized Oil to Fund Climate Change Efforts" and "Nation Sets Its Sights On Building Sane Economy." There is also a full page fake advertisement on page three from the world's largest publicly traded oil company Exxon Mobil saying the company applauded the end of the Iraq war and that peace is "an idea the world can profit from." In a pamphlet handed out to volunteers when they picked up copies of the newspaper to distribute there was a "Frequently Asked Questions" section. In response to "who made this?" it said: "Who knows? Rumors are it's a group of writers from several mainstream dailies -- including The New York Times." The Yes Men, who were the subject of a book and documentary in 2004, have pulled off pranks including posing as Exxon Mobil and National Petroleum Council representatives to deliver a speech at a Canadian oil conference. They have also posed as federal housing officials at a New Orleans event with the city's mayor and the governor of Louisiana and promised to throw open closed public housing to thousands of poor former city residents. But they are not the first to fake The New York Times. According to the paper's "City Room" blog, the best-known spoof was during the 1978 newspaper strike and the prank included journalist Carl Bernstein, author Christopher Cerf, humorist Tony Hendra and Paris Review editor George Plimpton. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

All the news that should be fit to print by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 13, 2008

Don't Let Barack Obama Break Your Heart by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 12, 2008

Recommended to anyone who voted for Obama Tom Engelhardt | Don't Let Barack Obama Break Your Heart http://www.truthout.org/111208B

Closing GITMO an Obama priority? by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 12, 2008

Encouraging news for those hoping Obama will keep his pledges. Now what about "On my first day in offoce, I will call in the chiefs of staff and order them to draw a plan to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months?" Guantanamo Closure Called Obama Priority 12 November 2008 http://www.truthout.org/111208K by: Peter Finn, The Washington Post The Obama administration will launch a review of the classified files of the approximately 250 detainees at Guantanamo Bay immediately after taking office, as part of an intensive effort to close the U.S. prison in Cuba, according to people who advised the campaign on detainee issues. Announcing the closure of the controversial detention facility would be among the most potent signals the incoming administration could send of its sharp break with the Bush era, according to the advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak for the president-elect. They believe the move would create a global wave of diplomatic and popular goodwill that could accelerate the transfer of some detainees to other countries. But the advisers, as well as outside national security and legal experts, said the new administration will face a thicket of legal, diplomatic, political and logistical challenges to closing the prison and prosecuting the most serious offenders in the United States - an effort that could take many months or longer. Among the thorniest issues will be how to build effective cases without using evidence obtained by torture, an issue that attorneys for the detainees will almost certainly seek to exploit. Moreover, the new administration will face hard decisions regarding not just the current Guantanamo Bay detainees but also how it will handle future captures of terrorism suspects. It is unclear whether President-elect Barack Obama would consider holding some suspects without charge on national security grounds. His transition team denied reports this week that it was contemplating some form of preventive detention backed by a new civilian national security court. The idea has been a staple of legal debates over the future of Guantanamo Bay for the past year, but Obama advisers believe it would meet fierce congressional resistance. "A great deal of attention has been focused on Guantanamo, as it should be, but Guantanamo is a symptom of a much larger question: Where and how is the U.S. going to detain and interrogate terrorist suspects it continues to pick up in combating al-Qaeda?" said Matthew Waxman, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs and now a law professor at Columbia University. Although as a candidate Obama publicly expressed his desire to close the detention facility, his transition team stressed this week that the president-elect has not assembled his national security and legal team and that no decisions have been made "about where and how to try the detainees," Denis McDonough, an Obama foreign policy adviser, said in a statement issued Monday. During the campaign, Obama, while eschewing details, appeared to favor federal prosecution of terrorism suspects. "It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice," Obama said in August, after the completion of the first trial at Guantanamo Bay, which resulted in a relatively mild sentence for Osama bin Laden's driver. A campaign advisory group, which has now been disbanded, was sympathetic to a "try or release" system proposed by advocacy groups such as Human Rights First and studies by organizations such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Under this proposal, the new administration would shutter military commissions, review the files at Guantanamo Bay to send as many cases as possible to federal court for prosecution, and release the balance of detainees for prosecution or resettlement in their home country or other nations. The new administration expects that European countries and Persian Gulf states that previously resisted accepting Guantanamo Bay prisoners will be more open to resettling some who are cleared for release or who cannot be sent home because of the risk of torture. Such cooperation is likely to follow a U.S. decision to settle some small group of detainees in the United States, possibly the Chinese Uighurs whom the government has said are not enemy combatants. The incoming administration will also have to prepare military or federal prisons where it plans to hold those it intends to prosecute and must assuage state and local concerns about housing the detainees. The Obama administration is also likely to use its diplomatic leverage to seek guarantees that some transferred detainees will be closely monitored, commitments that the Bush administration has found wanting in the case of countries such as Yemen. Approximately 100 Yemeni prisoners remain at Guantanamo Bay. Human rights advocates and some advisers expect the new administration to outlaw torture and enhanced interrogation techniques, detain people seized on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan under the traditional laws of war, and insist on criminal prosecution against terrorism suspects seized elsewhere. In a report issued in May, Human Rights First noted that since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, there had been 107 successful prosecutions of international terrorism cases in the federal courts, compared with three convictions in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, including one plea bargain. "The federal criminal courts are capable of handling serious terrorist cases and capable of handling people and evidence seized overseas, without sacrificing the government's need to protect sensitive material, while protecting defendants' rights," said Deborah Colson, a senior associate at Human Rights First. And Waxman said that "criminal prosecution in federal court is a more potent counterterrorism tool today than it was in 2001," adding that "criminal statutes have been expanded to cover more types of terrorism crimes." But some experts say the United States still needs some form of preventive detention, albeit one that includes robust defendant rights and ongoing judicial review. "We need a preventative detention regime, very limited, that allows for those few tough cases - a dozen, two dozen, not a lot - of future captures," said Charles D. Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. Stimson and others cite the possibility of compelling intelligence that will not transfer to a court setting and the risk of exposing operational secrets, including cooperation with countries that do not want to be seen assisting the United States. Moreover, they said, the cases against some detainees already in custody have been so compromised by torture or coercive interrogations that federal prosecutors might refuse to go forward or, if they did, might open the cases to the real risk of dismissal or acquittal. "There will be a sobering moment for enthusiasts of a 'try and release' regime when people start looking at the contents of those detainee files," said Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institution fellow and the author of "Law and the Long War," which advocates preventive detention backed by a national security court. Wittes noted that of the 250 people at Guantanamo Bay, 60 or so have been cleared for release or transfer, and he added that the military at its most optimistic believes only 80 can be put on trial. Currently, 18 detainees are charged before military commissions. He noted that among those not currently charged is Mohammed al-Qahtani, who is suspected of planning to be one of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Qahtani's case, however, has been allegedly tainted by torture. Wittes argues that Qahtani exemplifies a special category of detainees and future captures: those who are too dangerous to release, but difficult or impossible to prosecute. J. Wells Dixon, a staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Qahtani, disagreed. "What a national security court is designed for is to hide the use of torture and allow the consideration of evidence that is not reliable," he said. Some Obama advisers believe the damage to U.S. interests and image because of the Bush administration's policies is too great to countenance any form of preventive detention. They acknowledge that they do not know how the issue of torture would play out in federal court, even if prosecutors ignore evidence produced by coerced confessions. "There is always a risk of acquittal, and there is a risk some people who are released will return to the battlefield," said one Obama adviser. "There is no risk-free option." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Will Obama lose himself in an Afghan quaqmire> by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 12, 2008

Will Ahmed No-Pack Rain on Obama's Parade? 11 November 2008 by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective http://www.truthout.org/111108J If state officials across the country ever count all the absentee and provisional ballots, Obama's popular vote might equal his landslide victory in the Electoral College, adding weight to his overwhelming mandate to fix the economy, end our dependence on foreign oil, create green jobs, provide health care and mend our broken schools. But how much will all our votes count if, at a time of reduced resources, the Obama administration allows foreign conflicts to sink his promises on the home front? Warfare or health care - this could become the defining choice for the new president, far more decisive than whether he will govern from the left or the center. Will Obama keep America's military commitments and military spending in check? Or will he see his best hopes for America lost in an ever-deepening quagmire in Afghanistan, an unnecessary war with Iran and an absurd arms race with the Russians? Afghanistan and the frontier areas of Pakistan could prove Obama's biggest test. During his presidential campaign, he strongly advocated sending in more troops, arguing that we had to finish the war against al-Qaeda that George W. Bush had abandoned in his rush to war against Iraq. This allowed Obama to defend withdrawing troops from Iraq without sounding like a dove, especially when he added that he would attack Osama bin Laden in Pakistani even if the Pakistanis refused to give us permission. Now, the crunch has come. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban are showing new strength and the small escalation that Obama wanted looks like only a down payment on a major, ongoing commitment of blood and money. Worse, no one who knows anything about Afghanistan believes that a foreign military occupation has any chance of success. To the contrary, the more troops and inevitable killing of civilians, the more the country's Pashtun majority will turn to the Taliban as their national saviors. So, why play out a losing hand? Obama's answer is that we need to finish off Osama bin Laden and deny al-Qaeda a sanctuary from which to plan future terrorist attacks? Think that through. Making a martyr of Osama will hardly reduce the very real threat of Islamist terrorism, while our current effort could easily drive a nuclear Pakistan into chaos. In any case, those who attacked us on 9/11 did most of their planning in Hamburg, Germany, throwing into question whether remote sanctuaries are the key to the terrorist problem. For Obama and the rest of us, a better strategy might be to stop thinking like would-be warriors, relying instead on our security services to stop the terrorists while greatly reducing our military footprint in Muslim lands. Add to that an unstinting effort to forge a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Osama bin Ladens of this world will find dwindling support for their blood-thirsty jihad. Iran poses a different kind of problem, and one that Obama handled at his first press conference with less than his normal aplomb. Asked how he would respond to Iranian president Ahmadinejad's congratulatory message, he stiffly parroted the current policy that an Iranian nuclear weapon and their support of terrorist groups were "unacceptable." So they are. But Obama would have done much better to smile broadly and say that he had received many nice messages from foreign leaders and would reply to them all in due course. The catch here is that Tel Aviv, the American Israel Political Action Committee and the neocons are trying to force Obama into a corner from which they can push him into a military strike on Iran. His response only encouraged them in their effort while sending Ahmadinejad into another useless tirade. Neither helps deter a disaster in the making. On one last threat, Obama did much better. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev repeated last week his threat to place nuclear missiles on the border with Poland if the United States insisted on placing anti-missile missiles in that country. Here were the seeds of a costly new nuclear arms race that would benefit neither Russia nor the United States. Obama responded with a simple statement from an adviser that the president-elect had made "no commitment" to plans for a missile defense program in Eastern Europe. Obama and his team clearly understood the importance of reducing tensions with Russia without needlessly brandishing our military might. Hopefully, they will similarly come to see that "keeping all options on the table" militarily threatens Iran and encourages those Iranians who think they need nuclear weapons to defend their country. That sending more troops into Afghanistan will only fuel a nationalistic resistance. That sending rockets into Pakistan's frontier lands will turn Ahmed No-Pack against his own government. And that all these foreign conflicts will take resources away from the domestic changes Obama has promised American voters. Not being an isolationist or pacifist, I understand the need for overseas military action in some situations. But having learned from the war in Vietnam, I also understand the limits of military force against people who do not want to be ruled by a foreign power. That's a lesson of the 1960s that Obama would do well to remember, especially at a time when we can no longer afford both guns and butter. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

IAEA hits US leaks on Syria nukes by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 11, 2008

IAEA irked at "premature" Syria nuclear disclosures By Mark Heinrich Mark Heinrich - Nov 11, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081111/wl_nm/us_nuclear_iaea_syria;_ylt=AktvDp7WXDLRPAiOPuuwQg1m.3QA VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog criticized on Tuesday diplomatic disclosures that it had found uranium traces at a Syrian site under investigation, saying this was an effort to prejudge the agency's conclusions. It was a rare open expression of irritation within the agency about news leaks, which some say risk putting a political spin on its technical findings in probes of nations suspected in the West to be illicit nuclear proliferators. Several diplomats tracking the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Monday that particles of processed uranium turned up in some test samples IAEA inspectors took at the site. These were not enough to draw conclusions about any undeclared nuclear activity but warranted further investigation, they told Reuters. IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming confirmed the agency was drafting a report on Syria and had put it on the agenda of the agency's November 27-28 governors meeting -- both firsts, in what diplomats said hinted inspectors had found something serious. But she said the IAEA's evaluation of findings from a June visit to the site, which Washington says was a secret nuclear reactor almost built before it was bombed by Israel in 2007, was not finished and a public verdict was unwarranted until then. "We regret that people are trying to prejudge the IAEA's technical assessment. We are, however, accustomed to these kinds of efforts to hype and undermine the process before every meeting of the IAEA board (of governors)," Fleming said. The IAEA did not challenge the substance of Monday's revelations about the uranium traces. A diplomat close to the agency said its concern was that the leaks could not reflect the full picture and that circulating highly confidential information before an official report could discourage Syrian cooperation with the IAEA. SYRIA MUM Syria's ambassador to the IAEA did not return messages asking for comment. There was also no comment from Damascus. It has dismissed U.S. intelligence pointing to a nascent plutonium-making reactor at the site as fabricated. Diplomats said the question was the provenance of the contamination, since intelligence from Washington and other nations contained nothing to suggest nuclear fuel was stored at the site. The particles retrieved from some environmental swipe samples were of processed uranium -- which could include the enriched version that in large quantities would fuel power plants or bombs, not of raw uranium ore, they said. Such traces, they said, could have been carried to the site inadvertently on scientists or workers or on equipment trucked in. Syria has one declared atomic site, a research reactor. A remote source could resemble a finding made in a long IAEA investigation of Iran's secretive nuclear program. Bomb-grade uranium particles found by IAEA sleuths there were assessed to have come with used equipment obtained from Pakistan, not from any undeclared domestic production facility. Iran says its expanding uranium enrichment program is for electricity only, but is under IAEA scrutiny and U.N. sanctions for refusing to suspend the work and curbing IAEA access meant to verify there is no parallel military nuclear activity there. Iran and Syria have balked at granting IAEA investigators' access to military sites. Both are adversaries of the United States and Israel and do not want to reveal possible targets. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Bush's SOFA: US will protect Iraq's oil by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 11, 2008

In Final Days, Bush Pushes for Iraq's Oil 11 November 2008 http://www.truthout.org/111108A by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report As the Bush administration rumbles to an end, it is pushing with increasing urgency for a commitment to a long-term US presence in Iraq. Though the military aspect of this "commitment" has garnered substantial publicity, the administration is equally invested in the economic aspect: securing US control over Iraqi oil before Bush leaves office, according to experts in the field. A leaked version of the US-Iraq status-of-forces agreement (SOFA), supplied and translated for Truthout by American Friends Service Committee Iraq consultant Raed Jarrar, states that the US will indefinitely "continue to protect Iraq's natural resources of gas and oil and protect Iraq's foreign financial and economic assets." According to Jarrar, the Bush administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are in basic agreement on the SOFA, probably because an American presence in Iraq would keep Maliki in power. However, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people oppose the pact and reject US control over Iraq's resources. In October, just as the Bush and Maliki administrations were attempting to finalize the SOFA's terms - under the wary gaze of Parliament - the Iraqi cabinet dropped another big one in Parliament's lap: the Iraq oil law. The law would set the rules for foreign investment in Iraq's oil industry, and determine how oil revenues are shared within Iraq. Many in Parliament say both the SOFA and the oil law would prolong the US occupation, allowing American control over both its people and its resources. Parliament will debate the oil law this week. Cleric Hashim al-Ta'i, of the Iraqi Islamic Party, captured the sentiments of many in a late October sermon on the Baghdad Satellite Channel, saying, "There is a unanimous Iraqi voice which says: No to an agreement that consolidates the occupation and prolongs its life; no to an agreement that consolidates sectarianism and racism and fragments the country into groups and cantons; no to an agreement that mortgages the country and its resources for many decades." However, that unified voice clashes with another, very powerful voice in Iraq: American and British oil companies, which share the interests of the Bush team, according to Antonia Juhasz, a fellow with both the Institute for Policy Studies and Oil Change International. "US and British oil companies and the Bush administration have been circling their wagons in Iraq over the last few months to bring both the SOFA and the Iraq oil law to a conclusion before Bush's term in office officially comes to a close," Juhasz told Truthout. "The Bush administration, US oil companies and the al-Maliki government are all on the same timeline for trying to lock in the continued presence of the US military in Iraq, which is the al-Maliki government's only hope of holding on to power - and US oil corporations' only hope of securing their long-sought control over Iraqi oil." The large oil companies seek long-term contracts that would give them control over much of Iraq's oil and oil production, according to Juhasz. Although Kurdistan has entered into several contracts with foreign oil companies, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani declared that any contract signed before the passage of the oil law is void. In addition to pushing the international SOFA and Iraq's oil law, the Bush administration is attempting to unilaterally carve a place in US law for a takeover of Iraqi oil, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. In a signing statement tacked on to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill, Bush excused himself from a provision intended to rein in US power of Iraq's oil. The statement - if one accepts it as authoritative - would allow Bush to use defense funds "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." Bush wrote that prohibiting such a use of funds "purport(s) to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations." Experts view this latest expansion of Bush's powers in Iraq as a kind of rush to the finish line: an attempt to accomplish as many of the administration's oil-control goals before it steps down and the Obama administration - which may well have different ideas - steps up. Bush's signing statement could forebode a weighty US push for Iraq's oil in the next two months, whether or not the SOFA passes, according to Fine. "The signing statement is in effect a corollary to the Bush doctrine of preventive warfare, which he is now extending to military action to seize control of natural resources in a foreign country," Fine told Truthout. "The logic of the signing statement is inescapable and extremely dangerous. Absent repudiation by a future president, this and other authorities that President Bush has asserted in signing statements constitute a foundation for draconian unilateral action by the US." However, the US's next president seems to have a very different interpretation of the US's relationship to Iraq's oil. In fact, Juhasz took the title of her book, "The Tyranny of Oil," from a line in President-elect Barack Obama's Iowa Caucus victory speech. Obama emphasized his hopes for a transition away from oil and toward sustainable energy sources throughout his campaign. He has also promised a drawdown of troops in Iraq. The next two months will measure just how far President Bush is willing to go to fulfill the objectives that, many say, underlie his occupation of Iraq. Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus's policy outreach director, says that the administration's last-ditch efforts - the signing statements, the SOFA, the oil law pressure - demonstrate that Bush has not taken his eye off Iraqi oil. "Although Bush has verbally assured the Iraqi people that we are not occupying their country for oil, the actions of the United States indicate otherwise," Leaver told Truthout. "The language calling for the protection of Iraq's oil resources in the long term agreement between Iraq and the US is another strong indication of what the US intent is inside of Iraq - gaining long-term access to Iraq's oil." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Questions about Iranian nuke docs by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 10, 2008

Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated http://rawstory.com/news/2008/IAEA_suspects_fraud_in_evidence_for_1109.html By Gareth Porter Raw Story November 10, 2008 (VIA Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/2008/11/us-documents-on-iran-nukes-forged.html Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian who has authored numerous foreign policy analyses and is the author of the book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. In a 2006 article in the American Prospect, he revealed Iran's spurned diplomatic outreach to the Bush Administration in 2003. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained evidence suggesting that documents which have been described as technical studies for a secret Iranian nuclear weapons-related research program may have been fabricated. The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source -- most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents. The new evidence of possible fraud has increased pressure within the IAEA secretariat to distance the agency from the laptop documents, according to a Vienna-based diplomatic source close to the IAEA, who spoke to RAW STORY on condition of anonymity. The laptop documents include what the IAEA has described in a published report as technical drawings of efforts to redesign the nosecone of the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile "to accommodate a nuclear warhead." The documents are also said to include studies on the use of a high explosive detonation system, drawings of a shaft apparently to be used for nuclear tests, and studies on a bench-scale uranium conversion facility. These technical papers, along with some correspondence related to the alleged secret Iranian program -- referred to by the IAEA as "alleged studies" -- have been the primary basis during 2008 for the insistence by the US-led international coalition pushing for sanctions against Iran that the Iranian case must be kept going in the United Nations Security Council. Handwritten Notes At the center of the internal IAEA struggle is an Iranian firm named Kimia Maadan, which is portrayed in the documents as responsible for studies on a uranium conversion facility, called the "green salt" project, as part of the alleged nuclear weapons program under the Iranian Ministry of Defense. According to a February 2006 Washington Post article, the United States and its allies believe that Kimia Maadan is a front for the Iranian military. One of the communications included in the laptop documents - a letter allegedly sent to Kimia Maadan from an unnamed Iranian engineering firm in May 2003 - is at the center of the authenticity argument. This letter is described in the May 26, 2008 IAEA report as "a one page annotated letter of May 2003 in Farsi." According to a US source who has been briefed on the matter, the letter has handwritten notes on it which refer to studies on the redesign of a missile reentry vehicle. Last January, however, Iran turned over to the IAEA a copy of the same May 2003 letter with no handwritten notes on it. This was confirmed by the director of the IAEA Safeguards Department, Olli Heinonen, during a February briefing for member states. Heinonen referred to "correspondence" related to Kimia Maadan that is "identical to that provided by Iran, with the addition of handwritten notes." Notes on the Heinonen briefing, compiled by unnamed diplomats who attended it, were posted on the website of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. The copy of the letter without the handwritten notes was part of a larger collection of documentation concerning Kimia Maadan provided to IAEA by Iran in response to a request for an explanation of that firm's role in the management of the Iranian Gchine uranium mine. After the IAEA received the copy of the letter without notes from Iran, some officials began pushing for an acknowledgment by the Agency that there were serious questions about the whether the laptop documents were fabricated, according to the Vienna-based source close to the IAEA. "There was an effort to point out that the Agency isn't in a position to authenticate the documents," said the source. Heinonen and other IAEA Safeguards Department officials have continued, however, to defend the credibility of the document in question. According to an American source briefed on the dispute, the defenders of the authenticity of the version of the letter with the handwritten notes say that the appearance of the clean copy can be attributed to Kimia Maadan making multiple copies of the original which have been circulated to various staff members. Only an Ore-processing Plant Further evidence damaging to the credibility of the letter and the handwritten notes was provided to the atomic energy watchdog last January by the Iranian government. According to Iran, Kimia Maadan was not working for the Defense Ministry but for the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The new Iranian documentation, described in the February 22, 2008 IAEA report, proved to IAEA's satisfaction that the Kimia Maadan Company had been created in May 2000 solely to carry out a project to design, procure and install equipment for an ore processing plant. The documents also showed that the core staff of Kimia Maadan was able to undertake the work on ore processing only because the nuclear agency had provided it with the technical drawings and reports as the basis for the contract. "Information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the agency," the IAEA concluded. Marie Harff, a spokesperson for the CIA, declined to comment. Additional Doubts About the Letter Other questions surround the letter with the handwritten notes. The subject of the letter was Kimia Maadan's inquiry to the engineering firm about procurement of a programmable logic control (PLC) system, according to the IAEA's May 26 report. A PLC system is one of many types of technology that the United States has long sought to deny to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Iran had informed the IAEA even before 2006 that Kimia Maadan had assisted the AEOI in getting around that denial strategy by procuring various technologies for the planned uranium conversion facility at Esfahan. Given that Kimia Maadan's role in procurement for the conversion facility was both unrelated to its technical work for the AEOI and part of a covert effort to get around U.S. restrictions, it seems unlikely that they would have made multiple copies of the letter. Even if multiple copies were made, the firm would certainly have taken normal security precautions for a document of that type, marking each copy with a number or name. A security procedure of that kind would have identified any missing copies. However, this was not the case with the 2003 letter. The United States, as its reason for refusing to provide a copy of the document to Iran, has argued that it would allow Iranian security personnel to identify the person who wrote the notes from their handwriting, according to the US source who has been briefed on the matter. Another problem with the handwritten letter is the absence of any logical link between the subject of the letter and the alleged work on redesign of the missile. PLC systems, which are used for automation of industrial processes, such as control of machinery on factory assembly lines, would have been irrelevant to the technical studies on redesigning the Shahab-3 missile. Other Documents Also Under Suspicion Other documents from the laptop collection, allegedly showing that Kimia Maadan was working closely with the team trying to redesigning the Shahab-3 missile, have also come under suspicion of fraud. The IAEA's May 2008 report describes a flowsheet under Kimia Maadan's name, showing a "process for bench scale conversion of uranium oxide" to UF4 (uranium tetraflouride), also known as "green salt." The project number shown in the disputed documents for the "green salt" subproject is 5.13. However, Heinonen stated that the number given to the Gchine subproject was 5.15. According to the documents obtained by the IAEA from Iran last January, this was the number of the uranium ore processing project that was assigned in 1999 by the civilian AEOI, not by the Iranian Defense Ministry. This would mean that the author of the document used the project number 5.13 for the "green salt" subproject based on their knowledge of the AEOI numbering system and not on a military designation. In his February 25 briefing, Heinonen additionally referred to an alleged letter sent by Kimia Maadan - as manager of three subprojects - to the "missile re-entry vehicle" project, asking for a "technical opinion" on the plans for equipment for a proposed "green salt" conversion facility. However, it is difficult to understand why the team working on redesigning the missile would be asked for a "technical opinion" on equipment for a uranium conversion facility. A spokesperson for the State Department's Office of Arms Control and International Security, which is responsible for IAEA affairs, said in an e-mail that specialists in the office "aren't able to comment" on the subject of the intelligence documents now being considered by the IAEA. The IAEA also declined to comment. Toward a Showdown on the Contradictions As the contradictions between the new Iranian evidence and the laptop documents relating to Kimia Maadan became apparent, some IAEA officials argued that the Agency should distance itself from what they now suspect are forgeries. Despite that argument, the May 2008 report contained no reference to the issue. The next IAEA report, due out in mid-November, will include the first response by the Agency to a confidential 117-page Iranian critique of the laptop documents, according to the Vienna-based source. In the past, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has shown an ability to face off with the United States when evidence has been called into doubt. The infamous "Niger forgeries" - documents that purported to show an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the purchase of uranium oxide - were used by the White House as part of its case for war against Iraq. In response, ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council in December 2002, over three months before the US launched the Iraq War, warning that he believed the documents were forgeries and should not be cited as evidence of Iraqi intention to obtain nuclear weapons. When ElBaradei received no response from the Bush administration, he went public to debunk the Niger forgeries. In a speech at the United Nations in March 2003, he declared that the IAEA, after "thorough analysis," had concluded that the documents alleging the purchase of uranium by Iraqi from Niger "are in fact not authentic." The anomalies that have been revealed by the Iranian documents obtained from Iran last January may not be as obvious as the ones that made it clear the Niger documents were fabrications. Nevertheless, they appear to be red flags for IAEA analysts concerned with the issue. Suspicion has surrounded the "alleged studies" documents from the beginning, because the United States has refused to say who brought the collection to US intelligence four years ago. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama making good on his promises? by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 10, 2008

"As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the military commisions and adhere to the Geneva Conventions." -Aug 1, 2007 "My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war - responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." -- July 3, 2008 Is this a start? Obama Plans US Trials for Guantanamo Detainees; Plan May Require Creation of New Court System 10 November 2008 http://www.truthout.org/111008B by: Matt Apuzzo and Lara Jakes Jordan, The Associated Press Washington - President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice. During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed. Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts. A third group of detainees - the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information - might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final. The move would be a sharp deviation from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. Obama's Republican challenger, John McCain, had also pledged to close Guantanamo. But McCain opposed criminal trials, saying the Bush administration's tribunals should continue on U.S. soil. The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But it is almost certain to face opposition from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. and from Democrats who oppose creating a new court system with fewer rights for detainees. Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, said discussions about plans for Guantanamo had been "theoretical" before the election but would quickly become very focused because closing the prison is a top priority. Bringing the detainees to the United States will be controversial, he said, but could be accomplished. "I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on U.S. soil as anywhere else," Tribe said. "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there." The tougher challenge will be allaying fears by Democrats who believe the Bush administration's military commissions were a farce and dislike the idea of giving detainees anything less than the full constitutional rights normally enjoyed by everyone on U.S. soil. "There would be concern about establishing a completely new system," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. "And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system - trying to establish that would be very difficult." Obama has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started. "It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts," Tribe said. "It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard." Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few other options. Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises a host of problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics. In theory, Obama could try to transplant the Bush administration's military commission system from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. prison. But Tribe said, and other advisers agreed, that was "a nonstarter." With lax evidence rules and intense secrecy, the military commissions have been criticized by human rights groups, defense attorneys and even some military prosecutors who quit the process in protest. "I don't think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent," Schiff said. That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn't be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what that something would look like remains unclear. According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private. Whatever form it takes, Tribe said he expects Obama to move quickly. "In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark," Tribe said. "It has to be dealt with." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Will Obama keep his promise? by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 10, 2008

Canada won't join Obama's Afgan escalation by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 10, 2008

Canada won't extend Afghan commitment, minister says http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081110/wl_nm/us_afghan_canada;_ylt=AsAA6z13.DfAqu6TtMCFQB9m.3QA Nov 9, 2008 Reuters TORONTO (Reuters) - Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said on Sunday that a stepped-up emphasis by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan won't change Canada's plans to pull its military out of that country in 2011. "While we welcome of course the Americans' renewed interest in Afghanistan, particularly President-elect Obama's position during the campaign ... the U.S. position will not change Canada's position as defined in our parliamentary resolution," Cannon said in an interview with CTV. "We will be pulling out our military forces in 2011 and that is quite clear." Canada has about 2,500 troops deployed in Afghanistan, mostly in the southern province of Kandahar. It has committed to extending its mission there until the end of 2011. Since the Afghan deployment began in 2002, 97 members of the Canadian Forces have been reported killed there. Cannon, who was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper after a Conservative minority government was returned to power in an October 15 federal election, also said he saw similarities between Obama's environmental policies and those of the Canadian government. "We feel that this could eventually lead to a North American approach to the environment as well as finding ways to ... reduce greenhouse gases, Cannon said. "So we are quite enthusiastic about this." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Zinn on Obama's possibility by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 9, 2008

The voice behind the anthem of The Depression by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 9, 2008

More on Obama's CoS by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 8, 2008

Is Obama Screwing His Base with Rahm Emanuel Selection? By Stephen Zunes, AlterNet. November 7, 2008. http://www.alternet.org/election08/106189/is_obama_screwing_his_base_with_rahm_emanuel_selection/?page=entire Conservative Clinton vet Rahm Emanuel is Obama's chief of staff -- it's not a good sign for progressives. I had really wanted to celebrate Barack Obama's remarkable victory for a day or so before becoming cynical again. I really did. And yet, less than 24 hours after the first polls closed, the president-elect chose as his chief of staff -- perhaps the most powerful single position in any administration -- Rahm Emanuel, one of the most conservative Democratic members of Congress. The chief of staff essentially acts as the president's gatekeeper, determining with whom he has access for advice and analysis. Obama is known as a good listener who has been open to hearing from and considering the perspectives of those on the Left as well as those with a more centrist to conservative perspective. How much access he will actually have as president to more progressive voices, however, is now seriously in question. Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel is a member of the so-called New Democrat Coalition (NDC), of group of center-right pro-business Congressional Democrats affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Conference, which is dedicated to moving the Democratic Party away from its more liberal and progressive base. Numbering only 58 members out of 236 Democrats in the current House of Representatives, the NDC has worked closely with its Republican colleagues in pushing through and passing such legislation as those providing President Bush with "fast-track" trade authority in order to bypass efforts by labor, environmentalists and other public interest groups to promote fairer trade policy. Emanuel began his political career as a senior adviser and chief fundraiser for the successful 1989 Chicago mayoral campaign of Richard M. Daley to seize back City Hall from reformists who had challenged the corrupt political machine of this father, Richard J. Daley. Emanuel later became a senior adviser to Bill Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998, serving as Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy, and was credited with playing a major role in shifting the Clinton administration's foreign and domestic policy agenda to the right. Emanuel was the single most important official involved in pushing through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the bill ending Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and Clinton's draconian crime bill, among other legislation. Leaving the administration in 1998, Emanuel worked as an investment banker in Chicago, where he amassed an $18 million fortune in less than three years prior to being elected to Congress. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since 2004, Emanuel has promoted pro-war and pro-business center-right candidates against anti-war and pro-labor candidates in the primaries, pouring millions of dollars of donations from Democrats across the country into the campaigns of his favored conservative minions to defeat more progressive challengers. Emanuel was a major supporter of the Iraq War resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, he was the only one of nine Democratic members of Congress from Illinois who backed granting Bush this unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to the United States at the time. Even more disturbingly, when asked by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" whether he would have voted to authorize the invasion "knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction," Emanuel answered that he indeed would have done so, effectively acknowledging that his support for the war was not about national security, but about oil and empire. Not surprisingly, he has also voted with the Republicans in support of unconditional funding to continue the Iraq War and has consistently opposed efforts by other Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces from that country and related Congressional efforts to end the war. At a time of record budget deficits, Emanuel has been a passionate supporter of increased spending for the Pentagon and has resisted efforts by fellow Democrats to trim excesses in the Bush administration's bloated military budget. For example, he has repeatedly voted against amendments to cut funding for Bush's dangerously destabilizing missile defense and even voted against an amendment to identify unnecessary Pentagon spending by examining the need, relevance and cost of Cold War weapons systems designed to fight the former Soviet Union. A major hawk regarding Iran, Emanuel has also voted against Democratic efforts to prevent the Bush administration from launching military action against that country and has joined the administration in exaggerated claims about Iran's alleged nuclear threat. He is not opposed to nuclear proliferation if it involves U.S. allies, however. Emanuel has consistently voted against a series of Democratic amendments that would have strengthened safeguards in the Bush administration's nuclear cooperation agreement with India to prevent U.S. assistance from supporting India's nuclear weapons program. Emanuel is also a prominent hawk regarding Israel, attacking the Bush administration from the right for criticizing Israel's assassination policies and other human rights abuses. He was also a prominent supporter of Israel's 2006 attacks on Lebanon, even challenging the credibility of Amnesty International and other human rights groups that reported Israeli violations of international humanitarian law. Emanuel's father had emigrated from Israel in the 1950s, where he had been a member of the terrorist group Irgun, which had been responsible for a series of terrorist attacks against Palestinian and British civilians in mandatory Palestine during the 1940s. Emanuel himself served in a civilian capacity as a volunteer for the Israeli army in the early 1990s. It is unclear how serious of a blow Obama's selection of Emanuel is to those who hoped that Obama might actually steer the country in a more progressive direction. It's easy to see it as nothing less than a slap in the face of the progressive anti-war elements of the party to whom Obama owes his election, particularly following his selection of Sen. Joe Biden as vice president. (See my articles "Biden's Foreign Policy 'Experience'" and "Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal.") However, this does not necessarily mean that Obama as president will pursue nothing better than a Clintonesque center-right agenda. Someone with Obama's intelligence, knowledge and leadership qualities need not be unduly restricted by the influence of his chief of staff as less able presidents have. At the same time, this shocking appointment of Emanuel is illustrative of the need for the progressive base that brought him to power to not celebrate too long and to refocus our energies into pushing hard to ensure that the change Obama promised is something we really can believe in. See more stories tagged with: obama, emanuel 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

How to send email to Obama's new office by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 7, 2008

Jewish Peace News has provided a contact page for Obama's new Office of the President Elect. I've tried it and it works. http://change.gov/page/s/contact

Obama: Drop Gates by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 6, 2008

Obama: Drop Gates http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/106135/ By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation. November 5, 2008. There is wide speculation that Robert Gates will stay on as Secretary of Defense under Obama. This would be a huge mistake. Tools Barack Obama will be getting off on the wrong foot, to put it mildly, if he does what seems likely now: allow Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense. For reasons that are unclear to me, many in Obama's inner circle seem to believe that it's important to bring so-called "moderate" Republicans into the president-elect's national security team. That is an awful idea, for two reasons: first, even though many of the names being floated -- such as Gates, Dick Lugar of Indiana, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- come from the traditional wing of the GOP, and they are not neoconservatives, they are almost guaranteed to push for an expansion of the U.S. military budget and a bigger armed forces. And second, by doing so Obama would be conceding many critics' argument that Democrats are somehow not suited to control the national security apparatus. Gates has reportedly already been working on the transition to an Obama administration, and he certainly hasn't done anything to damp down speculation that he is a candidate for the job under Obama. His thumbmail bio, for those who've forgotten: Gates spent decades in the CIA as a Soviet specialist, where he consistently inflated the threat from the USSR to justify a U.S. military buildup, especially under President Reagan; he served as a top CIA official under Reagan and Bush I, who nominated him (twice) to be CIA director. The first time, Gates was shot down in the Senate because of his ties to the Iran-contra scandal of the mid-1980s, but the second time was a charm, and he was CIA director from 1991 to 1993. During the Bush II years, Gates took part in two commissions that helped him earn some praise as a moderate, serving with Zbigniew Brzezinski on a CFR task force on Iran that called for negotiations with Tehran, and then briefly serving as a member of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in 2006, which called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. (Gates left the ISG to become secretary of defense before its report was issued, so he didn't sign on to its conclusions, but it seems clear that he supported the thrust of the ISG's work.) But since then Gates has been closely identified with the post-2006 "surge" in Iraq, and he has been closely involved in planning the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the recent pattern of attacks across the border into Pakistan. Some top Obama officials, including Richard Danzig -- a former secretary of the Navy, who is himself a candidate for secretary of defense -- have said on the record that Obama ought to retain Gates at DOD. At least one newspaper, the Canadian National Post, is reporting that Gates "has apparently said he wants to retire." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Moore hopes Obama wont escalate Afganistan by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 6, 2008

Move to the center or Move the Center by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 5, 2008

Emanuel is Obama's COS? by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 5, 2008

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell A senior Obama advisor confirms to NBC News that Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel has accepted the job of Chief of Staff for the Obama White House. A few of the responses to a weird Nation piece by Jane Hamsher http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/380233/how_would_obama_govern that seems to appreciate Likudnik Emanuel. She writes:" I don't share Rahm's political objectives -- he's the architect of NAFTA, a "free trade" hound and the godfather of the Heath Schuler immigration bill, which seeks to privatize the border and give illegal immigrants no path to citizenship. But Rahm doesn't do "bipartisan"--which I've always sort of liked about him." (1)This is a completely crazy article. Rahm is not of the "left." He is a consistent advocate for war and has proposed in his book The Plan increasing the military by 100,000 - the same number advocated by Obama AND McCain. He worked to defeat the antiwar Dems in 2006 using all the cash he had as chair of the DCCC. And at the time of the first Gulf War he volunteered to serve in the army of his country - that is the Israeli army. After that mysterious service he returned to become, overnite, a major player in the Clinton campaign. He is the quintessence of a Dem neocon. This is the first post-election sign of where Obama is taking us. Don't blame me. I voted for Ralph. (2)These, and other things, including the fact Rahm's now physician father fought in the Irgun, are true. Athens-Sparta all over again--which, if honestly declared, would mean that Athens-Sparta, while an ocean away, are the same state, rooted in the same history: murder of native populations for territory and material gain. (3) I am so glad to see others have noticed that Rahm Emmanuel is really a Democratic Neocon. If he were made the gateway to Obama as Chief of Staff, and as a probably source of leaks to AIPAC, etc., what kind of a changed foreign policy---that we so desperately need--could we hope for? visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Memo to Progressives for Obama by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 4, 2008

Obama advisors consider aggression against Iran by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 3, 2008

This is an important report. Note the writer regrets her uncritical acceptance of Bush's lies about Iraq as explanation for her skepticism of the current Obama/McCain threats against Iran. She names Obama Dennis Ross writing that a US attack on Iran is a "feasible option" and possible Obama SECDEF Richard Danzig asserting that "we may have to come to grips" with such aggression. New Beltway Debate: What to Do About Iran http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03mon4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=sloginBy CAROL GIACOMONew York Times: November 3, 2008It is a frightening notion, but it is not just the trigger-happy Bushadministration discussing - if only theoretically - the possibility ofmilitary action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program.Of course, no president or would-be president ever takes the military optionoff the table, and Barack Obama and John McCain are no exception.What is significant is that inside Washington's policy circles these days -in studies, commentaries, meetings, Congressional hearings and conferences -reasonable people from both parties are seriously examining the so-calledmilitary option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.One of the most thorough discussions is in a report by the Washington-basedBipartisan Policy Center, founded by four former senators - the RepublicansRobert Dole and Howard Baker and Democrats Tom Daschle and George Mitchell -to devise policy solutions both parties might embrace.The report warns that the next administration "might have little time andfewer options to deal with this threat." It explores such strategies asblockading Iran's gasoline imports, but it also says that "a military strikeis a feasible option and must remain a last resort."Its authors include Dennis Ross, top Mideast adviser to Mr. Obama, andformer Senator Dan Coats, a McCain adviser.Ashton Carter, a senior Pentagon official in the Clinton administration,wrote a paper for the Center for a New American Security, a prestigiousbipartisan think tank, that asserts military action must be seen as only onecomponent of a comprehensive strategy, "but it is an element of any trueoption."At a conference in September in Virginia sponsored by the WashingtonInstitute for Near East Policy, "surrogates" for Mr. McCain and Mr. Obamainsisted America must focus on preventing Iran from developing a bomb, noton allowing Iran to produce one and then deterring its use."John McCain won't wait until after the fact," declared the columnist MaxBoot, from the McCain team. The Arizona senator has previously said riskingmilitary action may be better than living with an Iranian nuclear weapon(and to his regret jokingly sang a song about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran).Richard Danzig, Mr. Obama's surrogate, said his candidate believes amilitary attack on Iran is a "terrible" choice, but "it may be that in someterrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice."Early in the primary campaign, Mr. Obama declared that as president he wouldsit down in his first year in office with - among others - Iran's president,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (He has been reparsing that commitment ever since.)Given the global economic meltdown and other crises, it is not surprising ifthe American public is largely unaware of this discussion. What makes menervous, is that's what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.In those days Americans were reeling from the shock of 9/11 and completelyfocused on hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In Washington, though, talkquickly shifted to the next target - Iraq.Bush administration officials drove the discussion, but the cognoscenti werecomplicit. The question was asked and answered in policy circles before mostAmericans knew what was happening. Would the United States take on SaddamHussein? Absolutely.As a diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in those days, I feel someresponsibility for not doing more to ensure that the calamitous decision toinvade Iraq was more skeptically vetted.This time the debate is not so one-sided. Most experts acknowledge thatmilitary action poses big risks and offers no guarantee of destroying Iran'snuclear program.Both presidential candidates have also promised new diplomatic initiatives.Mr. McCain talks of tougher sanctions and Mr. Obama proposes a comprehensiveapproach involving sterner penalties, more compelling incentives and directtalks with Iran.Mr. Ross, who was top Mideast negotiator for the first President George Bushand for President Bill Clinton, said that in the prelude to Iraq, nearly allof the talk focused on military action. He says this time experts are takinga harder, more systematic look at all options - including force - becausediplomatic efforts have failed to slow Iran's rush to master nucleartechnology."I want to concentrate the mind and make people understand, 'Look, this isserious and you don't want to be left with only those two choices' " - waror living with an Iranian bomb, he said.With Iran projected to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon by 2010, thenext president is going to have to concentrate his mind quickly. We hope he,unlike George W. Bush, will encourage a broader public debate about all ofAmerica's options, and the high cost of another war. I will certainly be alot more skeptical.visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

from Clinton to Nader by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 3, 2008

Ben Drendel was a Clinton delegate from Colorado to the Democratic national convention. But disappointed that his candidate, who represented the right wing of his party, lost he was unable to support his party's nominee. Instead he has become Ralph Nader's National Field Coodinator. That make me curious about his politics. Did he support Clinton in the primaries because he thought she was closer to Nader than Obama was? Not bloody likely. I suspect instead that like some Clinton deadenders, he hopes to punish Obama with a McCain win. But unlike Clintonites who proudly campaign for McCain/Palin, he concluded he could better contribute to an Obama defeat by working for Nader. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

73 million won't be voting by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 3, 2008

There are an estimated 208,323,000 Americans eligible (that is old enough and not ineligble by statute) to vote this year. But only 153,100,000 have registered to vote on Tuesday. Of those only a predicted maximum of 135,000,000 of them will actually vote. So although it may be a record turnout, less than 2/3 of the electorate will show up for the most intense and consequential election of most of their lifetimes.Hardly a healthy vital sign for American democracy under capitalism. Given the noise already generated about real or imagined fraud in the election process, the silence of the Obama camp about the outrage of the long waits to vote early in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina (as contrasted with Nevada which shows how voting can be quick and easy if state officials want to conduct it that way) reminds me of the whimpiness of Gore in 00 and Kerry in 04. Fearing that putting up a fight would raise questions about the legitimacy of the political process and therefore of the government, the Establishment Dems conceeded, folded their tents and stole into the night. One web site http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/donotconcede is urging Obama not to concede if the results suggests yet another illigitimate election. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Studs on Obama by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 1, 2008

John Nichols on Studs Terkel (1912-2008) go to http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/john_nichols for the full article: Studs was delighted when, in 2004, a young Chicago state senator with whom he had marched on picket lines, was elected to the US Senate on an anti-war "what-the-hell-are-we-doing-there?" platform. He followed Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency with enthusiasm. The old civil rights campaigner wanted to see an African-American elected president in his lifetime. But he also wanted the Democrat to remember his roots as, dare we say it, a community activist. "Obama can't be a moderate!" Studs said in one of his last interviews. "He's got to remember where he comes from! Obama, he has got to be pushed!" In particular, the man who well recalled the first 100 days of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency wanted to make sure that Obama was pressed to promote a new New Deal. "I'd ask Obama, do you plan to follow up on the program of the New Deal of FDR? I'd tell him, 'Don't fool around on a few issues, such as health care. We've got bigger work to do! Read FDR's second inaugural address!'" he told a Chicago reporter. "The free market has to be regulated. And the New Deal did that and they provided jobs. The government has to. The WPA provided jobs. We have got to get back to that. We need more reg-u-la-tion." -------- So who is going to press Obama in Terkel's absence? visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama for more money for war by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 31, 2008

In an effort to counter McCain claims that he would cut war spending, Obama's ad in an area dependent on war employment, quotes a McCain advisor saying: "Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines to fight terrorism."The ad concludes that Obama "knows a stronger military means a safer America, and a stronger economy here in Virginia." See http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/ visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

and Lukudnick Emanuel for Obama's COS?kes by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 31, 2008

This is Obama's SECDEF? Defense Secretary Demands Congress Fund New Nuclear Weapons Program, Offers Veiled Threats on Testing by John Byrne RAW STORY http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Defense_Secretary_demands_Congress_fund_new_1029.html October 29, 2008 VIA cord macguire cordymac@hotmail.com After making a comment the same day saying that Russia must reduce its nuclear arsenal, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on the United States to begin testing its nuclear weapon program and fund a new generation of nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration is at odds with Congress on a law that would authorize the funding for a Reliable Replacable Warhead project -- the so called "next generation" of nuclear weapon designs. "To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program," Gates told the Carnegie Endowment, where he spoke Thursday, according to prepared remarks posted by . "In other words," Wired's Nathan Hodge remarks, "fund this thing, mothertruckers, or we start testing. The United States concluded the last full-scale underground test of a nuke in 1992, and declared an official moratorium two years later; a return to testing would be a really big deal. In a speech last month on the limits of U.S. power, he alluded � briefly � to the importance of RRW. That part of the speech earned few headlines, but for nuke-watchers, it was a telling moment." "Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead," Gates added. "The United Kingdom and France have programs to maintain their deterrent capabilities. China and Russia have embarked on ambitious paths to design and field new weapons." Congress has blocked funding for the initiative in the past. For the last two years, $89 million needed to determine the cost of building a new warhead was axed. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

More on Obama-Gates by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 29, 2008

ABC News interview Oct 29: Obama said he "absolutely" considered it important to have Republicans in the Cabinet but he sidestepped a question on whether he would ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain in his job. There has been speculation that either Obama or his Republican rival, John McCain, might ask Gates to stay on. "I'm not going to get into details," Obama said, but he added that national security policy, in particular, should be nonpartisan. Other people mentioned as possible defense secretary picks in an Obama administration include former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig and Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Will Pres. Obama really keep warmonger Gates? by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 29, 2008

His advisor Danzig publicly suggests him! How will hopeful left/liberals respond? Gates Expands US Right to Defend Against Plots New York Times: 28 October 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/washington/29gates.html?_r=2&hp&oref=sloginhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/washington/29gates.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin By Thom Shanker Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's statement expanded on the Bush administration's doctrine for pre-emptive war. (Photo: Chuck Kennedy / McClatchy) Washington - Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Tuesday that the United States would hold "fully accountable" any country or group that helped terrorists to acquire or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The statement was the Bush administration's most expansive yet in attempting to articulate a vision of deterrence for the post-Sept. 11 world. It went beyond the cold war notion that a president could respond with overwhelming force against a country that directly attacked the United States or its allies with unconventional weapons. "Today we also make clear that the United States will hold any state, terrorist group or other nonstate actor or individual fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction - whether by facilitating, financing or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts," Mr. Gates said. The comments came in an address in which he said it was important to modernize the nation's nuclear arsenal as a hedge against what he described as "rising and resurgent powers" like Russia or China, as well as "rogue nations" like Iran or North Korea and international terrorists. By declaring that those who facilitated a terrorist attack would be held "fully accountable," Mr. Gates left the door open to diplomatic and economic responses as well as military ones. And, to be sure, the United States has acted forcefully before against those who sheltered terrorists, with the invasion of Afghanistan to oust Al Qaeda and its Taliban government supporters after the attacks of Sept. 11. His speech here before the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was the latest signal that the administration was moving in its closing months to embrace more far-reaching notions of deterrence and self-defense. On Monday, senior officials justified a weekend attack against a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader in Syria by saying the administration was operating under an expansive new definition of self-defense. The policy, officials said, provided a rationale for conventional strikes on militant targets in a sovereign nation without its consent - if that nation were unable or unwilling to halt the threat on its own. By law, the new president must conduct a review of the nation's nuclear posture, and Mr. Gates's address could be viewed as advocating a specific agenda for the next occupant of the White House. The first public indication that the administration was expanding the traditional view of nuclear deterrence came in a statement by President Bush in October 2006 that followed a test detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea. Mr. Bush said North Korea would be held "fully accountable" for the transfer of nuclear weapons or materials to any nation or terrorist organization. The president was not as explicit then as Mr. Gates was on Tuesday in saying that the administration would extend the threat of reprisals for the transfer of nuclear weapons or materials to all countries, not just North Korea. Mr. Gates also expanded the threat to nations or groups that provide a broader range of support to terrorists. Early this year, in a little-noticed speech at Stanford University, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, also spoke of how the president had approved an expanded deterrence policy. In his speech Tuesday, Mr. Gates argued for modernizing the nation's nuclear arsenal because "as long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons - and potentially can threaten us, our allies and friends - then we must have a deterrent capacity." Although Mr. Gates earlier this year fired the Air Force secretary and chief of staff after the discovery of shortcomings in the service's stewardship of nuclear weapons and components, he stressed that the nuclear arsenal was "safe, secure and reliable." "The problem is the long-term prognosis - which I would characterize as bleak," he said. Veteran weapons designers and technicians are retiring, and Congress has not voted for the money to build replacement warheads for an aging arsenal that can be produced without abandoning the nation's unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests, he said. To that end, he endorsed a comprehensive test ban treaty if adequate verification measures could be negotiated. Mr. Gates praised efforts to reduce the number of warheads, and predicted that the United States and Russia would at some point conclude another agreement limiting their arsenals. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Look out! US arms infiltrating Lebanon by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 29, 2008

U.S. Resupplies Lebanon Military to Stabilize Ally By ROBERT F. WORTH and ERIC LIPTON New York Times: October 25, 2008 BEIRUT, Lebanon - For years, the Lebanese military was ridiculed as the least effective armed group in a country that was full of them. After the army splintered during the 15-year civil war, its arsenal slowly rotted into a museum of obsolete tanks and grounded aircraft. Now that is starting to change. At the gates of a military base just north of Beirut, groups of soldiers drive new American Humvees and trucks, and some tote gleaming new American rifles and grenade launchers. The weapons are the leading edge of a new American commitment to resupply the military of this small but pivotal Middle Eastern country, which emerged three years ago from decades of Syrian domination. The new wave of aid, the first major American military assistance to Lebanon since the 1980s, is meant to build an armed force that could help stabilize Lebanon's fractured state, fight a rising terrorist threat and provide a legitimate alternative to the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. That organization, which controls southern Lebanon, has refused to disarm, arguing that it is the only force that can defend the country against Israel. So far, none of the deliveries of heavier weapons have been large enough to require a formal notification to Congress. Those deals are still in the early stages, administration officials said. Some officials within the Pentagon and State Department have expressed concern about extensive military aid to a country so recently free of Syrian control and in which Hezbollah, which has close Syrian and Iranian ties, has continued to gain political power. And that has been a main concern for Israel, which has been lobbying for a lower level of support to remove the possibility that American tanks and helicopters might one day be used against it. History also casts a shadow: the last major effort to assist the Lebanese Army, in the 1980s, ended with American troops being caught up in a civil war. These doubts, and the contrast with the robust American military aid to Israel, have provoked some anger in Lebanon. A television comedy here this week depicted American envoys handing out socks and toy airplanes to Lebanese generals. Still, officials at the State Department and the Pentagon say they are convinced that rebuilding Lebanon's military is essential to peace efforts in the region. Other nations are involved, including the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Belgium, Britain and Canada. There have even been rival offers of assistance from Russia, China and Iran. But so far the United States, which has long been the Lebanese military's main source of outside support for weapons and training, says it will anchor the effort. "United States policy is that Lebanon be sovereign and independent and the Lebanon government and its institutions govern all of Lebanon's territory and disarm militias," said Christopher C. Straub, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. "We recognize that is not going to happen overnight, but that is our policy." The plan to rearm Lebanon was born in 2005, after the popular so-called Cedar Revolution forced Syria to withdraw and seemed to vindicate the Bush administration's efforts to spread democracy throughout the region. In 2006, the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah bolstered the notion that Lebanon needed a stronger military, to provide a national alternative to the Shiite group's militia. The army was in terrible condition. After a brief injection of American aid during the early 1980s, it split along sectarian and political lines. The Sixth Brigade, composed of Shiites trained by the Americans, went over to the militias and won a mocking new slogan: "We serve and defect." After the civil war, during the years of Syrian domination, the army's stocks deteriorated to the point that most soldiers fired no more than 30 rounds a year. "It was like a police force, but undertrained and underequipped," said Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese general. "Even the Special Forces are very young and inexperienced now, whereas Hezbollah has lots of experience." In fact, the army was deliberately kept weak by the country's Syrian overseers, who did not want a strong alternative force. That was part of what allowed Hezbollah to grow into such a formidable power during the 1980s and 1990s, using advanced weaponry provided by Iran and Syria. Now, however, American officials say they have faith in the independence and professionalism of the army, which has become thoroughly integrated to include all of Lebanon's many religious and ethnic factions, and has avoided interfering in politics. American-driven audits have shown that almost nothing given to the army has ended up in Hezbollah's hands. "They have demonstrated year after year after year that when we give them equipment, they take responsibility for it," said Mark T. Kimmitt, assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs. An important moment for the army came in the summer of 2007, when it fought and won a three-month battle with Islamists in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in the northern city of Tripoli. That struggle, in which 168 soldiers and an unknown number of militants were killed, vividly underscored the need to re-equip the army. With no combat helicopters or precision weapons, the army had to resort to dropping bombs by hand from its Vietnam-era Huey helicopters, a hopelessly inaccurate method that resulted in the near-leveling of the camp. Although the United States rushed them 40 loads of C-17 transport planes full of ammunition and other gear, army commanders bitterly resented the failure to provide them with more sophisticated arms. "Nahr al-Bared lasted 105 days," said one high-level Lebanese officer involved in procurement issues, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "If we had had attack helicopters, it would have been over in 15 days." Another stark illustration of Lebanon's new military ambitions, and its gaping needs, is visible right now on the country's northern border with Syria. In recent weeks, after a string of bombings in Tripoli that left 20 people dead - most of them Lebanese soldiers - the military sent 8,000 soldiers to the border to monitor smuggling routes across the northern mountains. That effort alone was a measure of Lebanon's new independence from Syria. But the border control force was too small, and it lacked necessary equipment, Lebanese military officials say. "They have no U.A.V.'s, no night-vision equipment, none of the sensors they use in other countries to tell if what you're seeing is a threat or just an animal," the Lebanese procurement officer said, using the abbreviation for unmanned aerial vehicles. "Let's say you have 50 valleys in one area, and you have soldiers posted on hilltops. They can watch during the day, but at night they can do nothing." Lebanese commanders say they are anxious about the slow pace of American military support so far. Of the $410 million that has been committed since 2006, less than half has been delivered - mostly ammunition, communications equipment, Humvees, trucks, rifles, automatic grenade launchers and other light weapons, and spare parts, according to Lebanese and American military officials. And it is heavier weapons that are most needed, Lebanese officials say. In particular, they want an air defense system, which would allow them to argue that they could completely replace Hezbollah as a warding force against Israel in the south. "It's the ABC of any army to have the capacity to defend itself," the Lebanese procurement officer said. "During the 2006 war, Israeli aircraft were shooting from 300 meters up." Mr. Straub, with the Pentagon, said the focus is still on identifying Lebanon's exact military requirements and then finding the weapons to suit them. That means that although Lebanon has requested attack helicopters, for instance, it is not yet a question of approving a specific deal. "They have first got to define the requirement," Mr. Straub said. "Everybody wants to rush to the equipment. But we have got to define the requirement." Yet one State Department official said that conflicts in the administration are holding up any major deal, as some at the Pentagon and State Department are more eager to rebuild the Lebanon Armed Forces while others are reluctant to move too quickly, given Israel's concerns. "There are differing points of view," the State Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. The Lebanese also want precision antitank missiles and a rebuilt fleet of tanks to replace their aging American and Soviet models. Specifically, they want surplus Vietnam-era M60 tanks that would be rebuilt with American parts and transferred to Lebanon from Jordan. Even though that shopping list does not include the most advanced weaponry, it has caused serious discomfort for Israel. "We don't want Lebanon to be run by Hezbollah," said one Israeli official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of continuing negotiations with the United States. The fear, the official said, is that the weapons might fall into the wrong hands. For now, American officials say that they are committed to helping Lebanon get the weapons it needs to defend itself, and the acknowledge that the delays have caused anxiety in Lebanon. "It is understandable, the frustration the Lebanese are expressing," Mr. Kimmitt of the State Department said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Solomon looks for A Great Rejection by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 28, 2008

Obama no socialist by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 24, 2008

To the editor, The Oregonian I know socialists. In fact, I am one. And I can assure Carl Kostol (see below), John McCain and other "know nothings" that Barack Hussein Obama is not one of us. To my dismay, Mr. Obama is an avowed, unrepentent capitalist who supported the attempted bailout of the Wall Street welfare queens that Bush and Congress extracted from the taxpayers. The marginally progressive tax structure Mr. Kostel mistakes for socialism was in fact created to rescue capitalism from rejection by the American people. But socialism does not need taxes to provide health care, education, infrastructure, transportation and other public services. Instead it pays for them with what now goes to fund the obscene life styles of weathy private owners as "profit.." If the American people were ever able to enjoy life under socialism, major productive enterprises (like our Columbia River dams) they would own and "share" the benefit from those "profits." Michael Munk PS And where was Mr Kostol allowed to vote at 18 in 1940? http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1224636914216450.xml&coll=7&thispage=1 Avoid 'socialist' candidate To the editor, The Oregonian Oct. 22, 2008 Barack Obama is continually calling for "change" in his campaign. Let us see what he considers "change." He wants to increase taxes on everyone who earns more than $250,000 per year and reduce taxes for lesser earners. This is redistribution of wealth and is one of the basic principles of socialism. To (socialists), wealth can be money or property. Communists redistribute wealth by force but socialists try to do the same by political means. I have avoided socialist candidates since my first vote in 1940 at age 18 and would urge readers to do the same. Is Obama a socialist? You had better believe it. CARL R. KOSTOL Baker City visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Neocon queen Miller home to Fox by Michael Munk Thu, Oct 23, 2008

The NYTimes has never publicly acknowledged Miller's connection to neocons and their front organizations Former NYTimes reporter Judith Miller joins Fox News Agence France-Presse, Oct 20, 2008 VIA http://www.legitgov.org/ WASHINGTON (AFP) - Judith Miller, whose pre-Iraq war reporting was faulted in a 2004 apology to its readers by editors of The New York Times, has joined the Fox News television channel as a contributor. Miller, 60, "will provide commentary and analysis on national security issues, counterterrorism, and international affairs, including the Middle East on Fox," the cable news channel announced in a statement on Monday. Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said Miller will also write for FOXNews.com. Miller, the author of several books, spent 28 years with the New York Times and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for reporting on global terrorism. But she is perhaps better known for her reporting prior to the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq of claims by Iraqi exiles that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program, claims which subsequently turned out not to be true. The Times apologized in 2004 for its pre-Iraq war coverage. Five of the six dubious articles cited by the newspaper were written or co-written by Miller. Miller was also in the headlines in 2005 when she was imprisoned for 85 days for refusing to testify before a grand jury over the outing of an undercover CIA agent. Miller was jailed by a federal judge for contempt for refusing to divulge the name of her confidential source who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Her source turned out to be Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Miller retired from the Times in November 2005. Discussing Miller's hiring with The Washington Post, Fox executive vice president John Moody told the newspaper "she has a very impressive resume." "We've all had stories that didn't come out exactly as we had hoped," Moody said. "She has explained herself and she has nothing to apologize for visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Gates dismisses Iraqi objections to occupation pact by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 21, 2008

Those pushing for Gates to remain as Obama's SECDEF need to understand his role as Bush's main man in the occupations of Iraq and Afganistan Gates says U.S. reluctant to alter Iraq troop draft http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081021/wl_nm/us_iraq;_ylt=Akqd3KEXnlLQzFnTLBd08R1m.3QA By David Morgan David Morgan - Oct 21, 2008 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington does not want to alter a draft security pact with Iraq, despite demands for change from Baghdad where the document failed to win support from Iraqi political leaders, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday. After months of painstaking talks that ended last week, Iraq effectively called for reopening negotiations to address objections to the status of forces agreement (SOFA) draft that would require U.S. forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. But Gates told reporters at the Pentagon that the door to change was "pretty far closed" and warned that failure to reach a SOFA deal or renew the U.N. mandate for U.S. troops to remain in the country would mean suspension of U.S. operations. "There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process," the U.S. defense chief said. "This is not just kind of a paper exercise. The consequences of not getting an agreement are very real," he added. "We basically (would) stop doing anything." Objections by Iraqi political leaders appeared to be about details rather than the broad thrust of the pact, which is intended to replace the U.N. mandate that expires December 31. "The cabinet has agreed that necessary amendments to the pact could make it nationally accepted," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters after a cabinet meeting. "The cabinet will continue its meetings (in coming days), in which ministers will give their opinions and consult and provide the amendments suggested. Then this will be given to the American negotiating team." LET IRAQI POLITICS PLAY OUT Gates dismissed objections from Iraqi politicians, saying differing political opinions in Iraq would likely balance each other out and could lead to progress in the end. "We just have to let the Iraqi political process play out," Gates said. The Iraqi announcement on Tuesday was an apparent reversal for Baghdad, which had previously described last week's draft as a final text and said as recently as Saturday that it was unlikely to be renegotiated. The draft would require U.S. troops to leave Iraq after 2011 unless Baghdad asks them to stay and allow Iraqi courts try U.S. military service members accused of serious crimes while off duty. It would mean that foreign troops, which now operate under a U.N. Security Council mandate, would function for the first time under the authority of the elected government in Baghdad. Both sides call it a milestone for Iraqi sovereignty. Some Iraqi politicians have expressed reservations over details such as the mechanism for trying of U.S. troops. Only Kurdish groups have so far given the text full support. Humam Hamoudi, a leading member of parliament from the Shi'ite alliance, said that among those voicing doubts in recent days was Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has yet to speak about the pact in public. "The prime minister said: what (the Americans) have given with the right hand they have taken away with the left hand," Hamoudi told a news conference. Maliki's Shi'ite rivals -- followers of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- strongly oppose the pact, as does the leadership of mainly Shi'ite Iran, which has influence among Iraqi Shi'ites. A senior, non-Shi'ite government source said the delay was prompted by Shi'ite politicians under Iranian pressure. "It seems there was a (Shi'ite) alliance decision to reject it," he said. "I can only explain these Shi'ite delaying tactics by Iranian pressure. There's no other explanation." Gates said renewing the U.N. mandate was a less attractive option than the SOFA. It would require a vote by the U.N. Security Council that could draw a veto from Russia. "What really needs to happen is for us to get this SOFA done. It's a good agreement. It's good for us. It's good for them. It really protects Iraqi sovereignty," he said. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a member of a Kurdish group that backs the draft, said the pact was unlikely to pass before the U.S. presidential election on November 4. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Reed-Bryant Romance by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 21, 2008

My article on the "True Romance" of John Reed and Louise Bryant is now available online at http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/109.3/munk.html visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Meaningless Iraqi control over occupation by Michael Munk Mon, Oct 20, 2008

Powell: Iraq a war of choice? by Michael Munk Mon, Oct 20, 2008

Why a President Obama needs to wise up by Michael Munk Sat, Oct 18, 2008

Can Obama See the Grand Canyon? On Presidential Blindness and Economic Catastrophe By Mike Davis for TomDispatch Oct 15, 2008 http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174989/mike_davis_casino_capitalism_obama_and_ushttp://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174989/mike_davis_casino_capitalism_obama_and_us Let me begin, very obliquely, with the Grand Canyon and the paradox of trying to see beyond cultural or historical precedent. The first European to look into the depths of the great gorge was the conquistador Garcia Lopez de Cardenas in 1540. He was horrified by the sight and quickly retreated from the South Rim. More than three centuries passed before Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives of the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers led the second major expedition to the rim. Like Garcia Lopez, he recorded an "awe that was almost painful to behold." Ives's expedition included a well-known German artist, but his sketch of the Canyon was wildly distorted, almost hysterical. Neither the conquistadors nor the Army engineers, in other words, could make sense of what they saw; they were simply overwhelmed by unexpected revelation. In a fundamental sense, they were blind because they lacked the concepts necessary to organize a coherent vision of an utterly new landscape. Accurate portrayal of the Canyon only arrived a generation later when the Colorado River became the obsession of the one-armed Civil War hero John Wesley Powell and his celebrated teams of geologists and artists. They were like Victorian astronauts reconnoitering another planet. It took years of brilliant fieldwork to construct a conceptual framework for taking in the canyon. With "deep time" added as the critical dimension, it was finally possible for raw perception to be transformed into consistent vision. The result of their work, The Tertiary History of the Grand Canyon District, published in 1882, is illustrated by masterpieces of draftsmanship that, as Powell's biographer Wallace Stegner once pointed out, "are more accurate than any photograph." That is because they reproduce details of stratigraphy usually obscured in camera images. When we visit one of the famous viewpoints today, most of us are oblivious to how profoundly our eyes have been trained by these iconic images or how much we have been influenced by the idea, popularized by Powell, of the Canyon as a museum of geological time. But why am I talking about geology? Because, like the Grand Canyon's first explorers, we are looking into an unprecedented abyss of economic and social turmoil that confounds our previous perceptions of historical risk. Our vertigo is intensified by our ignorance of the depth of the crisis or any sense of how far we might ultimately fall. Weimar Returns in Limbaughland Let me confess that, as an aging socialist, I suddenly find myself like the Jehovah's Witness who opens his window to see the stars actually falling out of the sky. Although I've been studying Marxist crisis theory for decades, I never believed I'd actually live to see financial capitalism commit suicide. Or hear the International Monetary Fund warn of imminent "systemic meltdown." Thus, my initial reaction to Wall Street's infamous 777.7 point plunge a few weeks ago was a very sixties retro elation. "Right on, Karl!" I shouted. "Eat your derivatives and die, Wall Street swine!" Like the Grand Canyon, the fall of the banks can be a terrifying but sublime spectacle. But the real culprits, of course, are not being trundled off to the guillotine; they're gently floating to earth in golden parachutes. The rest of us may be trapped on the burning plane without a pilot, but the despicable Richard Fuld, who used Lehman Brothers to loot pension funds and retirement accounts, merely sulks on his yacht. Out in the stucco deserts of Limbaughland, moreover, fear is already being distilled into a good ol' boy version of the "stab in the back" myth that rallied the ruined German petite bourgeoisie to the swastika. If you listen to the rage on commute AM, you'll know that 'socialism' has already taken a lien on America, Barack Hussein Obama is terrorism's Manchurian candidate, the collapse of Wall Street was caused by elderly black people with Fannie Mae loans, and ACORN in its voter registration drives has long been padding the voting rolls with illegal brown hordes. In other times, Sarah Palin's imitation of Father Charles Coughlin -- the priest who preached an American Reich in the 1930s -- in drag might be hilarious camp, but with the American way of life in sudden freefall, the specter of star-spangled fascism doesn't seem quite so far-fetched. The Right may lose the election, but it already possesses a sinister, historically-proven blueprint for rapid recovery. Progressives have no time to waste. In the face of a new depression that promises folks from Wasilla to Timbuktu an unknown world of pain, how do we reconstruct our understanding of the globalized economy? To what extent can we look to either Obama or any of the Democrats to help us analyze the crisis and then act effectively to resolve it? Is Obama FDR? If the Nashville "town hall" debate is any guide, we will soon have another blind president. Neither candidate had the guts or information to answer the simple questions posed by the anxious audience: What will happen to our jobs? How bad will it get? What urgent steps should be taken? Instead, the candidates stuck like flypaper to their obsolete talking points. McCain's only surprise was yet another innovation in deceit: a mortgage relief plan that would reward banks and investors without necessarily saving homeowners. Obama recited his four-point program, infinitely better in principle than his opponent's preferential option for the rich, but abstract and lacking in detail. It remains more a rhetorical promise than the blueprint for the actual machinery of reform. He made only passing reference to the next phase of the crisis: the slump of the real economy and likely mass unemployment on a scale not seen for 70 years. With baffling courtesy to the Bush administration, he failed to highlight any of the other weak links in the economic system: the dangerous overhang of credit-default swap obligations left over from the fall of Lehman Brothers; the trillion-dollar black hole of consumer credit-card debt that may threaten the solvency of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America; the implacable decline of General Motors and the American auto industry; the crumbling foundations of municipal and state finance; the massacre of tech equity and venture capital in Silicon Valley; and, most unexpectedly, sudden fissures in the financial solidity of even General Electric. In addition, both Obama and his vice presidential partner Joe Biden, in their support for Secretary of the Treasury Paulson's plan, avoid any discussion of the inevitable result of cataclysmic restructuring and government bailouts: not "socialism," but ultra-capitalism -- one that is likely to concentrate control of credit in a few leviathan banks, controlled in large part by sovereign wealth funds but subsidized by generations of public debt and domestic austerity. Never have so many ordinary Americans been nailed to a cross of gold (or derivatives), yet Obama is the most mild-mannered William Jennings Bryan imaginable. Unlike Sarah Palin who masticates the phrase "the working class" with defiant glee, he hews to a party line that acknowledges only the needs of an amorphous "middle class" living on a largely mythical "Main Street." If we are especially concerned about the fate of the poor or unemployed, we are left to read between the lines, with no help from his talking points that espouse clean coal technology, nuclear power, and a bigger military, but elide the urgency of a renewed war on poverty as championed by John Edwards in his tragically self-destructed primary campaign. But perhaps inside the cautious candidate is a man whose humane passions transcend his own nearsighted centrist campaign. As a close friend, exasperated by my chronic pessimism, chided me the other day, "don't be so unfair. FDR didn't have a nuts and bolts program either in 1933. Nobody did." What Franklin D. Roosevelt did possess in that year of breadlines and bank failures, according to my friend, was enormous empathy for the common people and a willingness to experiment with government intervention, even in the face of the monolithic hostility of the wealthy classes. In this view, Obama is MoveOn.org's re-imagining of our 32nd president: calm, strong, deeply in touch with ordinary needs, and willing to accept the advice of the country's best and brightest. The Death of Keynesianism But even if we concede to the Illinois senator a truly Rooseveltian or, even better, Lincolnian strength of character, this hopeful analogy is flawed in at least three principal ways: First, we can't rely on the Great Depression as analog to the current crisis, nor upon the New Deal as the template for its solution. Certainly, there is a great deal of déjà vu in the frantic attempts to quiet panic and reassure the public that the worst has passed. Many of Paulson's statements, indeed, could have been directly plagiarized from Herbert Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, and both presidential campaigns are frantically cribbing heroic rhetoric from the early New Deal. But just as the business press has been insisting for years, this is not the Old American Economy, but an entirely new-fangled contraption built from outsourced parts and supercharged by instantaneous world markets in everything from dollars and defaults to hog bellies and disaster futures. We are seeing the consequences of a perverse restructuring that began with the presidency of Ronald Reagan and which has inverted the national income shares of manufacturing (21% in 1980; 12% in 2005) and those of financial services (15% in 1980; 21% in 2005). In 1930, the factories may have been shuttered but the machinery was still intact; it hadn't been auctioned off at five cents on the dollar to China. On the other hand, we shouldn't disparage the miracles of contemporary market technology. Casino capitalism has proven its mettle by transmitting the deadly virus of Wall Street at unprecedented velocity to every financial center on the planet. What took three years at the beginning of the 1930s -- that is, the full globalization of the crisis -- has taken only three weeks this time around. God help us, if, as seems to be happening, unemployment tops the levees at anything like the same speed. Second, Obama won't inherit Roosevelt's ultimate situational advantage -- having emergent tools of state intervention and demand management (later to be called "Keynesianism") empowered by an epochal uprising of industrial workers in the world's most productive factories. If you've been watching the sad parade of economic gurus on McNeil-Lehrer, you know that the intellectual shelves in Washington are now almost bare. Neither major party retains more than a few enigmatic shards of policy traditions different from the neo-liberal consensus on trade and privatization. Indeed, posturing pseudo-populists aside, it is unclear whether anyone inside the Beltway, including Obama's economic advisors, can think clearly beyond the indoctrinated mindset of Goldman Sachs, the source of the two most prominent secretaries of the treasury over the last decade. Keynes, now suddenly mourned, is actually quite dead. More importantly, the New Deal did not arise spontaneously from the goodwill or imagination of the White House. On the contrary, the social contract for the post-1935 Second New Deal was a complex, adaptive response to the greatest working-class movement in our history, in a period when powerful third parties still roamed the political landscape and Marxism exercised extraordinary influence on American intellectual life. Even with the greatest optimism of the will, it is difficult to imagine the American labor movement recovering from defeat as dramatically as it did in 1934-1937. The decisive difference is structural rather than ideological. (Indeed, today's union movement is much more progressive than the decrepit, nativist American Federation of Labor in 1930.) The power of labor within a Walmart-ized service economy is simply more dispersed and difficult to mobilize than in the era of giant urban-industrial concentrations and ubiquitous factory neighborhoods. Is War the Answer? The third problem with the New Deal analogy is perhaps the most important. Military Keynesianism is no longer an available deus ex machina. Let me explain. In 1933, when FDR was inaugurated, the United States was in full retreat from foreign entanglements, and there was little controversy about bringing a few hundred Marines home from the occupations of Haiti and Nicaragua. It took two years of world war, the defeat of France, and the near collapse of England to finally win a majority in Congress for rearmament, but when war production finally started up in late 1940 it became a huge engine for the reemployment of the American work force, the real cure for the depressed job markets of the 1930s. Subsequently, American world power and full employment would align in a way that won the loyalty of several generations of working-class voters. Today, of course, the situation is radically different. A bigger Pentagon budget no longer creates hundreds of thousands of stable factory jobs, since significant parts of its weapons production is now actually outsourced, and the ideological link between high-wage employment and intervention -- good jobs and Old Glory on a foreign shore -- while hardly extinct is structurally weaker than at any time since the early 1940s. Even in the new military (largely a hereditary caste of poor whites, blacks, and Latinos) demoralization is reaching the stage of active discontent and opening up new spaces for alternative ideas. Although both candidates have endorsed programs, including expansion of Army and Marine combat strength, missile defense (aka "Star Wars"), and an intensified war in Afghanistan, that will enlarge the military-industrial complex, none of this will replenish the supply of decent jobs nor prime a broken national pump. However, in the midst of a deep slump, what a huge military budget can do is obliterate the modest but essential reforms that make up Obama's plans for healthcare, alternative energy, and education. In other words, Rooseveltian guns and butter have become a contradiction in terms, which means that the Obama campaign is engineering a catastrophic collision between its national security priorities and its domestic policy goals. The Fate of Obama-ism Why don't such smart people see the Grand Canyon? Maybe they do, in which case deception is truly the mother's milk of American politics; or perhaps Obama has become the reluctant prisoner, intellectually as well as politically, of Clintonism: that is say, of a culturally permissive neo-liberalism whose New Deal rhetoric masks the policy spirit of Richard Nixon. It's worth asking, for instance, what in the actual substance of his foreign policy agenda differentiates the Democratic candidate from the radioactive legacy of the Bush Doctrine? Yes, he would close Guantanamo, talk to the Iranians, and thrill hearts in Europe. He also promises to renew the Global War on Terror (in much the same way that Bush senior and Clinton sustained the core policies of Reaganism, albeit with a "more human face"). In case anyone has missed the debates, let me remind you that the Democratic candidate has chained himself, come hell or high water, to a global strategy in which "victory" in the Middle East (and Central Asia) remains the chief premise of foreign policy, with the Iraqi-style nation-building hubris of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz repackaged as a "realist" faith in global "stabilization." True, the enormity of the economic crisis may compel President Obama to renege on some of candidate Obama's ringing promises to support an idiotic missile defense system or provocative NATO memberships for Georgia and Ukraine. Nonetheless, as he emphasizes in almost every speech and in each debate, defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, together with a robust defense of Israel, constitute the keystone of his national security agenda. Under huge pressure from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats alike to cut the budget and reduce the exponential increase in the national debt, what choices would President Obama be forced to make early in his administration? More than likely comprehensive health-care will be whittled down to a barebones plan, "alternative energy" will simply mean the fraud of "clean coal," and anything that remains in the Treasury, after Wall Street's finished its looting spree, will buy bombs to pulverize more Pashtun villages, ensuring yet more generations of embittered mujahideen and jihadis. Am I unduly cynical? Perhaps, but I lived through the Lyndon Johnson years and watched the War on Poverty, the last true New Deal program, destroyed to pay for slaughter in Vietnam. It is bitterly ironic, but, I suppose, historically predictable that a presidential campaign millions of voters have supported for its promise to end the war in Iraq has now mortgaged itself to a "tougher than McCain" escalation of a hopeless conflict in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal frontier. In the best of outcomes, the Democrats will merely trade one brutal, losing war for another. In the worst case, their failed policies may set the stage for the return of Cheney and Rove, or their even more sinister avatars. Mike Davis is the author of In Praise of Barbarians: Essays Against Empire (Haymarket Books, 2008) and Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb (Verso, 2007). He is currently working on a book about cities, poverty, and global change. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama mum on Iraq occupation extension pact by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 17, 2008

Crisis sends German to Marx--what about Americans? by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 17, 2008

Germans flocking to Marx By Erik Kirschbaum for Reuters Oct 16, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081016/wl_nm/us_financial_germany_capitalism;_ylt=AgUHxABHCsGVVFCudzKyGcpm.3QA BERLIN (Reuters) - Two decades after the Berlin Wall fell, communism's founding father Karl Marx is back in vogue in eastern Germany -- thanks to the global financial crisis. His 1867 critical analysis of capitalism, "Das Kapital," has risen from the publishing graveyard to become an improbable best-seller for academic publisher Karl-Dietz-Verlag. "Everyone thought there would never ever again be any demand for 'Das Kapital'," managing director Joern Schuetrumpf told Reuters after selling 1,500 copies so far this year, triple the number sold in all of 2007 and a 100-fold increase since 1990. "Even bankers and managers are now reading 'Das Kapital' to try to understand what they've been doing to us. Marx is definitely 'in' right now," Schuetrumpf said. The revival of Marx's treatise reflects a broader rejection of capitalism by many in eastern Germany, a communist country until 1989 and now racked by high unemployment and poverty. A month of intense financial turmoil has toppled banks in the United States and forced a series of government bailouts in Germany and elsewhere, reinforcing anti-capitalist sentiment. Chancellor Angela Merkel -- herself an easterner -- unveiled a 500 billion euro financial rescue package this week, a move decried as a reward for irresponsible bankers. A recent survey found 52 percent of eastern Germans believe the free market economy is "unsuitable" and 43 percent said they wanted socialism rather than capitalism, findings confirmed in interviews with dozens of ordinary easterners. "We read about the 'horrors of capitalism' in school. They really got that right. Karl Marx was spot on," said Thomas Pivitt, a 46-year-old IT worker from east Berlin. "I had a pretty good life before the Wall fell," he added. "No one worried about money because money didn't really matter. You had a job even if you didn't want one. The communist idea wasn't all that bad." CAPITALISM EVEN WORSE Unemployment in the former communist east is 14 percent, double western levels, and wages are significantly lower. Millions of jobs were lost after reunification. Many eastern factories were bought by western competitors and shut down. "I thought communism was shit but capitalism is even worse," said Hermann Haibel, a 76-year old retired blacksmith, who was strolling near Alexanderplatz in the heart of old East Berlin. "The free market is brutal. The capitalist wants to squeeze out more, more, more," he said. Free market hopes were high in the east when Chancellor Helmut Kohl promised "flourishing landscapes." But while some areas on the outskirts of Berlin, in Leipzig and along the Baltic shore are thriving, much of the rest suffers from depopulation and high unemployment. The opposition Left party, which traces its roots to Erich Honecker's SED party, has capitalized on the frustration and become the east's most popular party with support of 30 percent. "I don't think capitalism is the right system for us," said Monika Weber, a 46-year-old city clerk. "The distribution of wealth is unfair. We're seeing that now. The little people like me are going to have to pay for this financial mess with higher taxes because of greedy bankers." Like many other east Germans, Ralf Wulff said he was delighted about the fall of the Berlin Wall and to see capitalism replace communism. But the euphoria was ephemeral. "It took just a few weeks to realize what the free market economy was all about," said Wulff. "It's rampant materialism and exploitation. Human beings get lost. We didn't have the material comforts but communism still had a lot going for it." But not everyone condemned capitalism. Astrid Gerber was a master tailor in East Berlin before her company was shut down. "It was my dream job," said Gerber, 42. She was unemployed for seven years, then opened up a newsstand but gave it up after her family disintegrated due to her 90-hour work week. "Capitalism has its advantages but so does communism," she said. "I can't say one is better than the other." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

And again: it's still about oil by Michael Munk Thu, Oct 16, 2008

Again: it's about oil by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 14, 2008

Iraqi government in biggest ever sale of oil assets The Iraqi government is to sell the rights to recover 40 billion barrels of oil in the biggest ever sale of reserves. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/3187668/Iraqi-government-in-biggest-ever-sale-of-oil-assets.html The Telegram (London) 13 Oct 2008 Via http://www.legitgov.org/ BP, Shell and ExxonMobil are all expected to attend a meeting at the Park Lane Hotel in Mayfair with the Iraqi oil minister, Hussein al-Shahristani for the first round of bidding for new contracts. Access is being given to eight fields, representing about 40 per cent of the Middle Eastern nation's reserves. It is the first time since the 2003 US-led invasion that the contracts have been released. The sale is likely to spark debate over whether the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was part of a "war for oil" that has now delivered strategic Iraqi reserves into the hands of western multinationals. Iraq sits on more than 115 billion barrels of oil, but decades of wars, UN sanctions, violence and sabotage have battered its industry. As security improves, Iraq is trying to bring in foreign companies to help increase crude output from the current 2.5 million barrels a day to 4.5 million barrels a day by the end of 2013. Iraqi Oil Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said the purpose of the London meeting was to present the oil companies with the forms of the contracts and with data and details for fields being offered. "In light of these information, the companies will be in a better position to submit their bids which are planned to be approved by next summer," he said. The ministry will give the companies a six-month timetable from the receipt of data and other details to submit bids for a 20-year contract. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Ayers smear was also used by Clinton by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 7, 2008

Ari Berman reminds us that McCain/Palin are only resurrecting a smear used by Clinton against Obama during the primaries. Note that while Obama's defense did cite Clinton's links to anti union Wal-Mart, he avoided any mention of the New World Foundation--or Clinton's internship with a lefty law firm in the Bay Area for that matter. Excerprs from Berman's piece. Go to http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/368923 for the complete article. "The long-awaited smear campaign against Barack Obama has once again gone mainstream, with the McCain campaign and their Republican allies caricaturing Obama as a terrorist-loving 60s radical... Like me, you may be experiencing a sense of déjà vu. Much the same thing happened to Obama last spring, with Hillary Clinton and her surrogates pushing these flimsy connections and the mainstream media latching on. Eager to keep the issue alive, Hillary Clinton jumped in, noting, "Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Fund, which was a paid directorship position." The Clinton campaign has since distributed a document slamming Obama for, among other things, praising Ayers's 1997 book on juvenile-justice reform and appearing on two panels with him... The effort of the Clinton campaign to feed the media frenzy is particularly ironic, given Hillary's six-year tenure on the board of Wal-Mart and directorship, in the late '80s, of the New World Foundation, which is to the left of the Woods Fund and considerably more political in its grant-making. In the '90s conservatives slammed New World--and by extension Clinton--for funding the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, the National Lawyers Guild and Grassroots International, which backed two PLO-affiliated groups on the West Bank while Hillary was on the board. At the time Stuart Eizenstat, Bill Clinton's deputy Treasury secretary, called the reports "erroneous, irrelevant and outrageous slander on Hillary Clinton." That's a pretty good description of what Obama and his former colleagues are enduring today. " The Clinton's strange avoidance of any criticism of Palin in their occasional pro Obama appearences continues to raise questions about their actual position on an Obama presidency. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Bailout NOT socialism by Michael Munk Mon, Oct 6, 2008

October 5, 2008 Letters to the Editor = New welfare queens=20 While many are furiously challenging the giveaway of $700 billion of our = federal taxes to Wall Street's shiftless welfare queens, Oregon = taxpayers are put on the hook for another $40 million in corporate = welfare to bribe a foreign company to go into business near Salem = ("Goodies help lure Sanyo to Oregon," Sept. 27).=20 Not only that, but Marion County residents are being hit up to give = Sanyo discounted land, road improvements worth $1 million, worker = training, free money for equipment and a five-year exemption on property = taxes for its plant and machinery. If Congress renews its offer of = federal tax credits, the capitalist owners will see their risk shrink to = almost nothing.=20 Whatever happened to the fundamental capitalist value foisted on = Americans from childhood: that private owners are entitled to great = profits because they accept great risks when they invest their money?=20 I hear lots of complaints these days that the Wall Street bailouts are = "socialism." As a socialist, I can assure you they are not. Instead, = they are the price exacted from all of us to prop up a failed system = based on greed and rewards competition among us rather than cooperation. = If we actually enjoyed socialism in America, we would not need to rescue = capitalists who bet wrong or need to bribe them to create jobs in our = communities.=20 MICHAEL MUNK Southwest Portland=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Again: it IS about oil by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 3, 2008

Pentagon Hands Iraq Oil Deal to Shell 2 October 2008 http://www.truthout.org/100308S» by: Nick Turse, AlterNet On September 22, the government of Iraq and Royal Dutch Shell officially signed a $4 billion oil deal. The US government secretly facilitated dealings between Shell and the Iraqi Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts. In June of this year, Andrew Kramer, writing in The New York Times, broke the story that the world's oil giants, "Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP ... along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies" were "in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields." Subsequently, the Times went on to report that "A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies ... " The Times asserted that the "disclosure" was "the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq's oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism." In reality, there had long been ample evidence of deep involvement between the Bush administration, foreign firms and Iraq's Oil Ministry. The Times and other major media outlets also failed to expose the major financial ties between the military occupation in Iraq and the same oil giants. In fact, each of the oil giants named in the original New York Times piece - Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, BP, and Chevron - regularly shows up on the Pentagon's payroll. In fact, last year, the five firms took home more than $4.1 billion from the Pentagon - with Shell leading the way with $2.1 billion. In September, the "criticism" the Times predicted apparently finally scuttled the no-bid deals. In a piece by Kramer and Campbell Robertson, it was reported that the "plan to award six no-bid contracts to Western oil companies, which came under sharp criticism from several United States senators this summer, ha[d] been withdrawn." The companies would, however, be eligible to bid for contracts and, just days later, it was announced that the Pentagon's favorite of the oil majors, Shell, would become the first oil giant to sign an energy deal with the Iraqi government in 35 years. On September 22nd, the government of Iraq and Royal Dutch Shell officially signed a $4 billion deal "to establish a joint venture with [Iraq's] South Gas Company in the Basra district of southern Iraq to process and market natural gas." A day later, the Times reported that Shell had "established an office in Baghdad." From a "news conference in Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone," the Times quoted Linda Cook, the executive director of the Shell's gas and power unit, as saying, "We are ready to establish a presence." While the Times didn't report it, Cook went on to say, "I am delighted that the Iraqi Government including the Ministry of Oil have supported Shell as the partner for joint venture with the South Gas Company. We look forward to moving jointly to implement the JV and begin investing in the energy infrastructure in Iraq." What the Times (and other major media outlets) also failed to mention was that guarantor of that "Green Zone" from which Cook spoke, just days before, had the inked its own huge energy deal with Shell. On September 17th, Shell was awarded a $338 million contract for aviation fuel by the Pentagon. In fact, even before this contract, Shell had already awarded over $1 billion from the Pentagon during this fiscal year. If history is any guide, it will receive billions more before fiscal 2009 starts. The Pentagon's Shell deal came during one DoD's periodic petroleum benders - massive multi-day spending sprees where hundreds of millions or billions of taxpayer dollars are paid out to oil companies. This one, on September 17th and 18th, netted Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and seven other oil companies a grand total of over $1.5 billion. The fact that the U.S. government secretly facilitated dealings between Shell and the Iraqi Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts; that the U.S. military - the primary occupation force in Iraq - regularly pays Shell billions of dollars each year; that on the heals of a contract worth hundred of millions of dollars with the U.S. military, Shell just inked a deal with the with occupied Iraq and set up an office in the U.S. military's secure "Green Zone" should raise myriad questions about the tangled relationship between the major players in Iraq. These complex issues go ignored because they are viewed as so routine as not to be worth mentioning, but in any other context the confluence of guns, oil and billions of dollars would certainly raise eyebrows. -------- Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, the Village Voice, and regularly for Tomdispatch. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Fw: Homer Simpson Tries to Vote for Obama by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 3, 2008

Oregonian distributes hate DVD by Michael Munk Sun, Sep 28, 2008

Bush: This sucker [capitalism] is going down. by Michael Munk Sat, Sep 27, 2008

To the editor, The Oregonian: While many are furiously challenging the giveaway of $700 billion of our federal taxes to Wall Street's shiftless welfare queens, Oregon taxpayers are put on the hook for another $40 million in corporate welfare so bribe a foreign company to go into business near Salem ("Goodies help lure Sanyo to Oregon," A1 Sept.27). Not only that, but Marion County residents are being hit up to give Sanyo discounted land, road improvements worth $1 million, worker training, free money for equipment and a five-year exemption on property taxes for its plant and machinery. If Congress renews its offer of federal tax credits, the capitalist owners will see their risk shrink to almost nothing. What ever happened to the fundamental capitalist value foisted on Americans from childhood: that private owners are entitled to great profits because they accept great risks when they invest their money.? I hear lots of complaints these days that the proposed Wall Street bailouts are "socialism." As a socialist, I can assure you they are not. Instead they are the price exacted from all of us to prop up an failed system based on greed and a ban on human cooperation. If we actually enjoyed socialism in American, we would not need to rescue capitalists who bet wrong nor need to bribe them to create jobs in our communities. Michael Munk

NYT admits US violated Korean nuke agreement by Michael Munk Sat, Sep 27, 2008

Notice the odd role of the Clintons? by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 26, 2008

One of the strangest stories of the Democrats presidential campaign is the roles of the Clintons. Hillary carefully avoids any confrontation ( or mention) of Palin despite Palin's noisy challenge to allign herself with Clinton supportersHillary is supporting the Obama candidacy but she's AWOL on what could be her most imnportant contribution to a Republican defeat--the mobilization of her supporters against Pailin. Something like 3.5 million (20% ) of Clinton's "18 million voters" tell pollsters they intend to vote for McCain (and others are "undecided") which indicates that her base was the Ragen Democrat- DLC-right wing of the party. One of her richest backers has actually publicly switched to McCain. But by avoiding any negative critiques of Palin and even challenging her appeal to Clinton voters, she leaves the impression fo wanting to retain the conservative white women constituency for her future campaigns. Bill Clinton is even more obvious. It's difficult for him to even mention Obama's name and his remarks about Palin have been bizzarely positive. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

For your eye only from Minister of Treasury (US) by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 24, 2008

Bailout: another media fiasco like Iraq by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 23, 2008

Today more blood for oil by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 22, 2008

Iraq: US soldier killed in Baghdad Sept 22, 2008 BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military says an American soldier has been killed in an attack on his patrol in Baghdad. The military says in a statement that the attack happened at about 11 a.m. on Sunday. It says the patrol came under small arms fire. The statement says the name of the soldier is being withheld pending notification of family and a U.S. Department of Defense release. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shell Opens an Office in Baghdad After a 36-Year Absence By SAM DAGHER New York Times: September 22, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html BAGHDAD - Royal Dutch Shell, one of the world's biggest oil companies, completed a multibillion-dollar natural gas deal with the Iraqi government on Monday and said it had established an office in Baghdad - the first foreign petroleum giant to do so since Iraq nationalized its oil industry more than three decades ago. The company described its decision to open an office here as a milestone that partly reflected the vast improvement in Iraq's stability compared with conditions during the worst years of the war. But in a sobering reminder of the underlying dangers of doing business here, the company would not disclose the location of its office, and the senior Shell official who announced the gas deal was accompanied by a phalanx of armed guards. "We are ready to establish a presence," the official, Linda Cook, executive director of the company's gas and power unit, said during a news conference in Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone. Ms. Cook, who oversaw the signing of the gas deal with the Iraqi government, appeared with Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani. The joint venture - to recapture gas that now goes to waste during oil extraction in Basra, in southern Iraq - is the company's official return to Iraq after 36 years. Shell, along with the predecessors to BP, Exxon Mobil and Total, was among the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company before the companies lost their concessions to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose in the 1970s. Much of the recaptured gas will go to power stations and industrial sites like petrochemical and fertilizer plants, Mr. Shahristani said. The signing of the deal was expected; Shell is one of more than 30 foreign companies bidding on long-term contracts for six important oil fields. The winners are to be announced in 2009. A condition for any winning bid set by the Iraqi government is that the company be willing to establish a presence in Baghdad. Shell was also among a smaller group of Western companies negotiating no-bid contracts to help Iraq increase production from existing oil fields, but the process was suspended earlier this month following criticism from several United States senators. Mr. Shahristani praised the gas joint venture, which will be 51 percent owned by the Iraqi government through the South Oil Company and 49 percent by Shell, as a step to address Iraq's chronic and crippling power shortages. Besides their economic implications, the power problems have become a highly charged political and emotional issue for Iraqis. The deal with Shell came on the heels of a $3 billion agreement with China to develop the Ahdab oil field in the south, which was signed last month. Eleven people died in violence on Monday, and the American military said a soldier had been killed by small-arms fire in Baghdad on Sunday. In Diyala Province, two people were killed when a roadside bomb was detonated near the car they were driving in, according to police officials in Baquba, the provincial capital. In Hamam al Alil, a town about 10 miles south of Mosul, five children were killed and three were wounded when their soccer ball hit a roadside bomb on the street where they were playing. In Baghdad, a suicide bomber detonated his car at midday near a Shiite mosque in the busy Karrada neighborhood, killing himself and two passers-by and wounding nine people. A mortar shell killed one person in the Tobchi neighborhood, on the west side of the Tigris. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

War hero McCain? by Michael Munk Mon, Sep 22, 2008

Republicans Allege McCain Covered Up His Collaboration with the North Vietnamese While a POW By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted September 21, 2008. go to http://www.alternet.org/election08/99663/ if you want to see the video referred to below The video raises probing questions about the 2008 Republican presidential nominee's war record, especially after McCain made his captivity a major part of his qualifications for the presidency at the Republican National Convention. In 2004, the GOP focused on Democratic nominee John Kerry's war record to criticize his candidacy. To date, the video has been posted on a handful of blogs but has been ignored by the mainstream media. While it features Republican stalwarts on POW/MIA issues, it also suggests that McCain's war records at the Pentagon and in North Vietnam would reveal potentially very controversial details about the GOP's presidential candidate. The nearly eight-minute video is posted on YouTube under "Vietnam Veterans Against McCain." It begins with the title, "1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIAs," and features ex-Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH), Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), senate staffers Tracy Usry, James Lucier, and military family members Lynn O'Shea, of the National Alliance of Families and retired Army Cpl. Bob Dumas, whose brother was a POW lost in the Korean War, and Joseph Douglass, Jr., author of Betrayed, about America's missing POWs. The video has no author credits. The footage begins with Douglass, Usry, O'Shea and Smith all saying that McCain worked to kill legislation that would have opened the Pentagon's classified archive of POW/MIA files. "Many, many documents were held back for no reason," former Sen. Smith said. Dorman said legislation that passed the House with no opposing votes was single-handedly blocked in the Senate by McCain. "On the Senate side, we had one person standing in the way," Dornan said, referring to McCain. Dumas then gave the reason why - the Pentagon's records would reveal McCain had collaborated with the Vietnamese. "He didn't want nobody to check his background because a lot of POWs who were with him in the camp said he was a collaborator with the enemy," Dumas said. "He gave the enemy information they wanted." Lucier, identified as a former U.S. Senate Chief of Staff, said "we do know that when he was over there, he cooperated with Communist news services in giving interviews that were not flattering to the United States." Usry, identified as U.S. Senate Minority Staff former chief investigator, said "information shows that he made over 32 tapes of propaganda for the Vietnamese government." Dornan said there were transcripts of other POWs reacting to McCain's false statements, saying, "Oh my God, is that Admiral McCain's son Is that the admiral's son? Is that Johnny, telling us that our principle targets are schools, orphanages, hospitals, temples, churches? That was Jane Fonda's line." Dornan said those transcripts are in war museums in North Vietnam, where McCain, as a senator, pressured the country not to release them or face opposition concerning normalization of relations with the United States. "McCain could not have wanted those to turn up in the middle of a presidential race," the ex-congressman said. "He knows that. I know that. And a few other people know that. That's why he was against Bob Dole's legislation." Dornan then offered another interesting explanation why McCain refused an offer by the North Vietnamese to be released. Dornan said those released first were collaborators, which would have ended McCain's military career and hurt the Navy, where his father commanded the Pacific fleet. "Nobody takes that one step beyond that," Dornan said, speaking of McCain's refusal to be released. "If Admiral John McCain's son had accepted this princely status and come home in 1967, while others sat there for five years, what would the Navy have done with the son of an admiral who opted to get special treatment and come home? No Navy career. No House seat. No Senate seat. It would have been the end of his career." Steven Rosenfeld is a Senior Fellow at AlterNet.org, where he reports on elections from a voting rights perspective. His books include Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting (AlterNet Books, 2008), What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election (The New Press, 2006), and Making History in Vermont: The Election of a Socialist to Congress (Hollowbrook Publishing, 1992). An award-winning journalist, he has been a staff reporter at National Public Radio, Monitor Radio, TomPaine.com, and at daily and weekly newspapers in Vermont. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Just out: The Romance of John Reed and Lousie Bryant by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 17, 2008

Current Issue =20 Fall 2008, Vol 109, #:3 "The Romance of John Reed and Louise Bryant: New Documents Clarify How = They Met" by Michael Munk=20 Abstract Sifting through both popular myth and historical fact, historian Michael = Munk recounts the romantic affair of John Reed and Louise Bryant, = radical writers and activists from the early twentieth century. Reed, a = native Portlander, and Bryant, who moved to Oregon in 1907, were "one of = the most notorious romances to have been born in Oregon" and have since = been surrounded by both celebrity and public speculation. Their initial = meeting in 1915, reconstructed in Hollywood films and biographies, has = inspired the most wide-spread curiosity among admirers. Relying heavily = on the diary of Helen Walters, a close friend of Bryant, Munk accurately = describes Reed and Bryant's relationship, beginning with their meeting = in Portland in 1915 and ending with Reed's death in Moscow in 1920. = Ultimately, Munk suggests how such a short-lived relationship could = capture and hold onto the public imagination for so long.=20 =20 Single copies $10 from Oregon Historical Society Museum store: phone = (503) 306-5230, fax (503) 221-2035, or email museumstore@ohs.org. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

HR 362 ground for war with Iran by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 10, 2008

Congress is About to Pour Lighter Fluid on Iran by William O. Beeman Minneapolis Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/27836054.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU September 5, 2008 VIA cord macguire cordymac@hotmail.com The U.S. Congress may inadvertently lay the foundations for war against Iran when it reconvenes in Washington this month. Two essentially identical nonbinding resolutions call upon President Bush to "immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities." The House resolution has more than 200 cosponsors, including Minnesota Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Jim Ramstad. The Senate resolution has more than 30 cosponsors, including both Minnesota senators, Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar. The methods for increased pressure differ slightly in the two resolutions. The House resolution calls for "stringent inspection requirements" of all goods entering or leaving Iran. The Senate resolution does not call for the inspection of all goods but joins the House resolution in calling for an embargo of refined petroleum products to Iran, which lacks the refining capacity to meet its need for gasoline. Achieving either goal would require a naval blockade -- a de facto act of war on the part of the United States, though paradoxically both resolutions explicitly exclude authorization for military action. Other provisions call for an economic embargo of banking operations, with the House resolution adding a prohibition of international movement on the part of Iranian officials. Both resolutions have begun to cause alarm throughout the United States, and have caused several representatives to withdraw their cosponsorships. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., summed up the concerns in an article for the Huffington Post: "It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that 'nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran' that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as 'a green light' to use force against Iran." According to the Jewish Daily Forward, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., offered an apology to a representative from the antiwar group Peace Action, saying, "I regret the fact that I did not read this resolution more carefully." He further told the Valley Advocate of Northampton, Mass., that he's "all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far. I'm going to call the sponsors and tell them I'm changing my vote." Both Wexler and Frank are assuming some risk, because they are opposing the powerful American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which had a strong hand in the drafting of both resolutions. Just days before the resolutions were introduced, AIPAC issued a memo outlining what should be done to put more pressure on Iran. The language of the memo mirrors the language of the resolutions. The introduction of the resolutions also conveniently coincided with AIPAC's annual policy conference during which it had more than 7,000 people on Capitol Hill to lobby. Its top legislative priority was for cosponsorship of the resolutions. AIPAC is careful to avoid direct calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities but makes no secret that it would support such an action by the United States or Israel. The most unfortunate aspect of the two resolutions is that they contain numerous outright falsehoods, misinformation and alarmist exaggeration about Iran and its nuclear development program. Of the 23 clauses in the Senate resolution, only five present incontrovertible statements of fact. The many legislators who have signed on as cosponsors, having subscribed to this false information, could be attacked by the Bush administration if they oppose a later request for military attack, as happened in the Iraq invasion. Sadly, these resolutions make it clear that the battle to stop a war with Iran is not over. *** William O. Beeman is a professor and chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, and is president of the Middle East Section of the American Anthropological Association. He has lived and worked in the Middle East for more than 30 years. His most recent book is "The 'Great Satan' vs. the 'Mad Mullahs': How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other." After Frank and Wexler formally withdraw, about 115 Democrats including its main sponsor are still on board Here are the supporters: Rep. Gary Ackerman [D- AIPAC, NY) Cosponsors [as of 2008-08-30] Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO] Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA] Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA] Rep. Michael Arcuri [D-NY] Rep. Joe Baca [D-CA] Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN] Rep. James Barrett [R-SC] Rep. John Barrow [D-GA] Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD] Rep. Melissa Bean [D-IL] Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV] Rep. Robert Berry [D-AR] Rep. Judy Biggert [R-IL] Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA] Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R-FL] Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT] Rep. Sanford Bishop [D-GA] Rep. Timothy Bishop [D-NY] Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN] Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO] Rep. Jo Bonner [R-AL] Rep. John Boozman [R-AR] Rep. Dan Boren [D-OK] Rep. Allen Boyd [D-FL] Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA] Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA] Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL] Rep. Henry Brown [R-SC] Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R-FL] Rep. Vern Buchanan [R-FL] Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX] Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN] Rep. Ken Calvert [R-CA] Rep. David Camp [R-MI] Rep. John Campbell [R-CA] Rep. Christopher Cannon [R-UT] Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA] Rep. Shelley Capito [R-WV] Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D-CA] Rep. Russ Carnahan [D-MO] Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA] Rep. Kathy Castor [D-FL] Rep. Donald Cazayoux [D-LA] Rep. Steven Chabot [R-OH] Rep. Travis Childers [D-MS] Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO] Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC] Rep. Tom Cole [R-OK] Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX] Rep. Jim Cooper [D-TN] Rep. Jim Costa [D-CA] Rep. Jerry Costello [D-IL] Rep. Joe Courtney [D-CT] Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R-FL] Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY] Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY] Rep. Henry Cuellar [D-TX] Rep. John Culberson [R-TX] Rep. Artur Davis [D-AL] Rep. David Davis [R-TN] Rep. Lincoln Davis [D-TN] Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA] Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R-FL] Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R-FL] Rep. Norman Dicks [D-WA] Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA] Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA] Rep. David Dreier [R-CA] Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX] Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D-IN] Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL] Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R-MO] Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY] Rep. Philip English [R-PA] Rep. Mary Fallin [R-OK] Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL] Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ] Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA] Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE] Res.Com. Luis Fortuño [R-PR] Rep. Vito Fossella [R-NY] Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC] Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ] Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ] Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA] Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ] Rep. Jim Gerlach [R-PA] Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ] Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY] Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA] Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX] Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D-TX] Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA] Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA] Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN] Rep. Kay Granger [R-TX] Rep. Samuel Graves [R-MO] Rep. Al Green [D-TX] Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX] Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX] Rep. Phil Hare [D-IL] Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA] Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL] Rep. Doc Hastings [R-WA] Rep. Robin Hayes [R-NC] Rep. Dean Heller [R-NV] Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX] Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D-SD] Rep. Brian Higgins [D-NY] Rep. Paul Hodes [D-NH] Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R-MI] Rep. Tim Holden [D-PA] Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD] Rep. Bob Inglis [R-SC] Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY] Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA] Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL] Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX] Rep. Eddie Johnson [D-TX] Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA] Rep. Samuel Johnson [R-TX] Rep. Timothy Johnson [R-IL] Rep. Stephanie Jones [D-OH] Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH] Rep. Steve Kagen [D-WI] Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI] Rep. Ronald Kind [D-WI] Rep. Peter King [R-NY] Rep. Steve King [R-IA] Rep. Jack Kingston [R-GA] Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL] Rep. Ron Klein [D-FL] Rep. John Kline [R-MN] Rep. Joseph Knollenberg [R-MI] Rep. John Kuhl [R-NY] Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO] Rep. Nicholas Lampson [D-TX] Rep. James Langevin [D-RI] Rep. Thomas Latham [R-IA] Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH] Rep. John Lewis [D-GA] Rep. John Linder [R-GA] Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D-IL] Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ] Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY] Rep. Frank Lucas [R-OK] Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA] Rep. Connie Mack [R-FL] Rep. Tim Mahoney [D-FL] Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY] Rep. Donald Manzullo [R-IL] Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX] Rep. James Marshall [D-GA] Rep. Jim Matheson [D-UT] Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY] Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R-CA] Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX] Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI] Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC] Rep. John McHugh [R-NY] Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC] Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R-WA] Rep. Michael McNulty [D-NY] Rep. Kendrick Meek [D-FL] Rep. Michael Michaud [D-ME] Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC] Rep. Candice Miller [R-MI] Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA] Rep. Harry Mitchell [D-AZ] Rep. Jerry Moran [R-KS] Rep. Christopher Murphy [D-CT] Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA] Rep. Tim Murphy [R-PA] Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-CO] Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC] Rep. Devin Nunes [R-CA] Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ] Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ] Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN] Rep. Todd Platts [R-PA] Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX] Rep. Jon Porter [R-NV] Rep. Tom Price [R-GA] Rep. Adam Putnam [R-FL] Rep. George Radanovich [R-CA] Rep. James Ramstad [R-MN] Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R-MT] Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA] Rep. Rick Renzi [R-AZ] Rep. Thomas Reynolds [R-NY] Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX] Rep. Michael Rogers [R-AL] Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI] Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL] Rep. Peter Roskam [R-IL] Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR] Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ] Rep. Edward Royce [R-CA] Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D-MD] Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI] Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH] Rep. John Salazar [D-CO] Rep. Bill Sali [R-ID] Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA] Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD] Rep. James Saxton [R-NJ] Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA] Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL] Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA] Rep. Jean Schmidt [R-OH] Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA] Rep. David Scott [D-GA] Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX] Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA] Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ] Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT] Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA] Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL] Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC] Rep. William Shuster [R-PA] Rep. Michael Simpson [R-ID] Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ] Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY] Rep. Adam Smith [D-WA] Rep. Adrian Smith [R-NE] Rep. Christopher Smith [R-NJ] Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX] Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN] Rep. Zackary Space [D-OH] Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA] Rep. John Spratt [D-SC] Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL] Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK] Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH] Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO] Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA] Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE] Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS] Rep. Michael Thompson [D-CA] Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R-OH] Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY] Rep. Michael Turner [R-OH] Rep. Mark Udall [D-CO] Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD] Rep. Peter Visclosky [D-IN] Rep. Timothy Walberg [R-MI] Rep. Greg Walden [R-OR] Rep. James Walsh [R-NY] Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN] Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL] Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA] Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY] Rep. Gerald Weller [R-IL] Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA] Rep. Charles Wilson [D-OH] Rep. Addison Wilson [R-SC] Rep. Rob Wittman [R-VA] Rep. Donald Young [R-AK] Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL] Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN] Rep. Thomas Allen [D-ME] Rep. William Clay [D-MO]

Media should fight against McCain's bullying by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 4, 2008

Angry Amateurs 3 September 2008 by: Joe Klein, TIME Magazine http://www.truthout.org/article/angry-amateurs The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign's war against the press. This has been building for some time. Those of us who have criticized the candidate - and especially those of us who enjoyed good relations with McCain in the past - have been subject to off-the-record browbeating and attempted bullying all year. But things have gotten much worse in recent days: there was McCain's rude, bizarre interview with Time Magazine last week. Yesterday, McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God's sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard. (There was an answer that the unprepared Bounds didn't have: she had deployed them to fight fires.) So what's going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he's ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field...any intimations that he's gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable. The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair - sexist (you gotta love it) - personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media - about the substance of Palin's record as mayor and governor. Sure, there are a few outliers - and the tabloid press - who have fixed on baby stories. That was inevitable.... the flip side of the personal stories that the McCain team thought would work to their advantage - Palin's moose-hunting and wolf-shooting, and her admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby. And yes, when we all fix on the same story, whether it's a hurricane or a little-known politician, a zoo ensues. But the media coverage of the Palin story has been well within the bounds of responsibility. Schmidt is trying to make it seem otherwise, a desperate tactic. There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Portland Mayor Tom Potter on the Red Guide by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 4, 2008

Palin Appeals to Voter Emotions by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 3, 2008

Lakoff: Palin Appeals to Voter Emotions -- Dems Beware By George Lakoff, AlterNet Posted on September 1, 2008, Printed on September 2, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/97193/ This election matters because of realities -- the realities of global = warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil = liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on = and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and = how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform. Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. = But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' = minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are = cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, = effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective = of a worldview. The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, = and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate = reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political = marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting = disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness. The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is = inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or = national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government = to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government = to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health = coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for = the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths = of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; = she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than = being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue. All true, so far as we can tell. But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. = That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of = the political mind. The Obama campaign has done this very well so far. The convention events = and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, = traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically = American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and = others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the = world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while = replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks. But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been = to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and = differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically = about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the = symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, = metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't = win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, = activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that = conservatives have in dominating political discourse. Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with = family values at the center of our discourse. There is a reason why = Obama and Biden spoke so much about the family, the nurturant family, = with caring fathers and the family values that Obama put front and = center in his Father's day speech: empathy, responsibility and = aspiration. Obama's reference in the nomination speech to "The American = Family" was hardly accidental, nor were the references to the Obama and = Biden families as living and fulfilling the American Dream. Real = nurturance requires strength and toughness, which Obama displayed in = body language and voice in his responses to McCain. The strength of the = Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic = thought. The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is = well aware of how Reagan and W won -- running on character: values, = communication, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity -- not = issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is = central. Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought = to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and = discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. = Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and = individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and = discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The = market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. = In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist = religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. = Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John = McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares = with Sarah Palin. Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative = values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is = disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her = values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has = the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, = Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she = fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's = morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she = is running for Sweetheart of the West. And Palin, a member of Feminism For Life, is at the heart of the = conservative feminist movement, which Ronee Schreiber has written about = in her recent book, Righting Feminism. It is a powerful and growing = movement that Democrats have barely paid attention to. At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking = the Democrats' language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to = progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at = using the progressive narratives: she's from the working class, working = her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP = candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the = conservative populists that she is one of them -- all the things that = Obama and Biden have been saying. Bottom-up, not top-down. Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is = strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so = good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard = truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and = its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic = response to Palin -- the response based on realities alone -- indicates = that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush = years. They have not learned the nature of conservative populism. A great many = working-class folks are what I call "bi-conceptual," that is, they are = split between conservative and progressive modes of thought. = Conservative on patriotism and certain social and family issues, which = they have been led to see as "moral", progressive in loving the land, = living in communities of care, and practical kitchen table issues like = mortgages, health care, wages, retirement, and so on. Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and = promulgating the idea of "liberal elite" and focusing campaigns on = social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and = have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal = strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as = pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert = attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism. What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical = conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think = Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about = each other and working together for a better future-empathy, = responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to = a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, = worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through = infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, = and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an = American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government. = The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on = your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first = resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a = right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That = is not what American democracy has ever been about. What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the = future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front = and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the = realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values = and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an = extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of = McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They = share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud = and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us = who share democratic American values. Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the = political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through = cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and = express our ideals.=20 George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't = Understand 20th Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain.=20 =A9 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/97193/

What media interviewers fear by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 2, 2008

This is important because it exposes why media interviews allow their subjects to dodge questions, don't challenge their lies and in general permit the public to be inundated with false claims and erroneous statistics, etc. They behave that way because they fear the consequences of standing up to bullshit. McCain Cancels CNN Interview As Punishment For Criticizing Palin By Eric Kleefeld - TPM September 2, 2008, http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/ It looks like the McCain camp is now actively taking steps to punish media outlets that give them bad coverage. CNN just reported that the campaign has cancelled a scheduled interview with Larry King due to an unfriendly segment last night on CNN when the network's Campbell Brown grilled McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds [an Oregonian who's McCain's PR hack-MM] over Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy experience. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

MORE on political stadiums by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 29, 2008

A friend reminded me that Wallace accepted the 1948 Progressive party nomination in a Philadelphia baseball park-an even clearer predessor of Obama's acceptance in a Denver football stadium than Wallace's later rally at Yankee stadium. The definitve history of that campaign, Curtis MacDougall's Gideon's Army (1965), called it "a phenomenal episode in the history of Amnerican political parties" On the evening of July 24, 32,000 people filled every seat , buying tickets ranging from 65 cents to $2.60 (Denver was free) to hear Wallace and running mate Sen Glen Taylor accepted their nominations at Connie Mack's Shibe Park, home of his American League Athletics. And Obama followed the PPs model:. in Philadelphia, there was music (including Paul Robeson) and warm up speeches and a dramatic entrance of the nominees. No mention of fireworks, however. My orginal message: The 84,000 packing the Denver football stadium reminded me of the last serious effort of the American political left. On Sept 10, 1948 almost 50,000 supporters of the Progressive party came to Yankee stadium to hear Henry Wallace.(actually 65,000 tickets were sold for the event originally scheduled for the previous evening but postponed by rain). Defeated by redbaiting as the Cold War and McCarthyism were growing up, the PP captured just over a million votes--far less than the 20% it polled earlier in the campaign. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Stadiums in political history by Michael Munk Fri, Aug 29, 2008

The 84,000 packing the Denver football stadium reminded me of the last serious effort of the American political left. On Sept 10, 1948 almost 50,000 supporters of the Progressive party came to Yankee stadium to hear Henry Wallace.(actually 65,000 tickets were sold for the event originally scheduled for the previous evening but postponed by rain). Defeated by redbaiting as the Cold War and McCarthyism were growing up, the PP captured just over a million votes--far less than the 20% it polled earlier in the campaign. Footnote to Denver: Obama forced Kucinich to cut the best line from his speech: "The Republicans want four more years. In a just world they'd get 10 to 20." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Surprise! China signs 1st Iraq oil deal by Michael Munk Thu, Aug 28, 2008

China agrees $3bn Iraq oil deal Al-Jazeera Aug 28, 2008 http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2008/08/200882813538226440.html Iraq and China have agreed the terms of a $3 billion oil service contract, Iraq's oil minister says, announcing the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The deal means China has taken the first opening since the US-led invasion for work on the world's third-largest reserves. Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, warned that time was running out for big Western oil firms, which have jostled for years for Iraqi contracts, to seal even the short-term deals that were expected to mark their return to the country. Iraq and China's state-oil firm CNPC agreed the renegotiated terms of an old deal signed in 1997 to pump oil from the Adhab oilfield, Shahristani said. CNPC is Asia's biggest oil and gas company. "Finally we have reached an agreement," Shahristani said after clinching the deal. Tough bargains Iraq has toughened the terms, changing the contract to a set-fee service deal from the oil production sharing agreement signed under Saddam. Iraq needs billions of dollars of investment in its energy sector after years of war and sanctions. But with high oil prices and strong competition for access to some of the world's cheapest oil to produce, Iraq has been negotiating from a position of strength. Under the revised contract, Adhab will produce 110,000 barrels per day (bpd), up from the previous target of 90,000 bpd, Shahristani said. First output would come in three years, and the field should pump for 20 years, he said. CNPC would own 75 per cent of a joint venture to be set up for the contract, while Iraq's Northern Oil Company would own 25 per cent, he added. The value of the contract would be reviewed every quarter, he said. The deal was pending the final seal from both countries' governments. Hydroelectric deal China's state hydroelectricity firm also signed a deal to build a new hydroelectric power station in Tajikistan on Wednesday worth up to $300 million officials said. "The Chinese company undertakes to carry out the design and construction of the Nurobod" power station in eastern Tajikistan, read a memorandum of understanding signed by Sinohydro and the Tajik government. The deal was signed on the sidelines of a visit by Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, aimed at bolstering economic ties between the two neighbours. The trade turnover between China and Tajikistan amounted to $283 million last year. China is already a major player in Tajikistan's road infrastructure, telecoms and electricity sectors. Iraqi demands High oil prices have put al-Shahristani in a strong negotiating position [EPA] Iraq wanted six contracts to boost oil output by 100,000 bpd each to be signed in June and implemented within a year. Baghdad does not want to extend the end-date for the contracts as it plans to sign long-term deals for the same fields by mid-2009. "We only have about 10 months left," he said. "It seems more and more unlikely that these technical service contracts can be implemented now in such a short remaining time." The firms that have been negotiating deals are Royal Dutch Shell; Shell in partnership with BHP Billiton; Exxon Mobil; Chevron with Total. A smaller consortium of Anadarko, Vitol and Dome had negotiated for another deal but Anadarko walked away this month. Iraq still aimed to boost output by 500,000 bpd by the mid-2009, Shahristani said. Iraq pumped around 2.4 million bpd in July, according to a Reuters survey. A long-delayed draft oil law to set the framework for foreign investment was unlikely to be approved in parliament in the near-future, Shahristani said. "Different parliamentary blocs still have serious differences about the law," he said. "I have not heard anything new from the parliament to make me expect that the law will be passed any time soon." But Iraq was going ahead with new deals anyway under existing legislation, he said. Disputes with the regional government in Kurdistan have hobbled the progress of the law. There had been no progress in resolving differences between Baghdad and the Kurdish regional government, Shahristani said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US reneges, NK halts denuking by Michael Munk Tue, Aug 26, 2008

Back on Aug 11, I sent this to my "Korea" list, noting that NK could charge the US with violating the nuke agreement by refusing to remove NK from its "terrorist" list as soon as the 45 day waiting period expired. The issue is that the US is breaking the "action for action" process established by the agreement. Today, NK responded: NKorea says it halts nuclear reactor disablement By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer August 26, 2008 SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea said Tuesday it has stopped disabling its nuclear reactor and will consider restoring the plutonium-producing facility in anger over Washington's failure to remove it from the U.S. list of terror sponsors. The North's statement marks the emergence of the biggest hurdle yet to the communist nation's denuclearization process and is expected to escalate tension in the nuclear talks involving China, Japan, the two Koreas, the U.S. and Russia. Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said it suspended the disablement work at the reactor and other facilities at its Yongbyon nuclear complex as of Aug. 14 because the U.S. did not keep its promise to delist Pyongyang as a terror sponsor under last year's deal. for the entire article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear US to keep North Korea on terrorism list David Batty The Guardian (UK) August 11 2008 VIA Citizens for Legitimate Government http://www.legitgov.org/ The US will not immediately remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said today. Rice's comments came in a telephone conversation with the Japanese foreign minister, Masahiko Komura, a Japanese foreign ministry official said. Today was the earliest that the US could have delisted North Korea in exchange for the communist nation's June disclosure of its nuclear programmes. Pyongyang's long-delayed accounting of its weapons programme kicked off the process of removing it from the terrorism blacklist, but US officials had said any such move today was unlikely. In his conversation with Rice, the official said, Komura pointed out that North Korea had yet to specify how Pyongyang's dismantling of its nuclear weapons programme would be verified. "I didn't think it [the delisting] would happen because North Korea has yet to agree on concrete verification." The official quoted Komura as asking Rice: "Can I understand there will be no delisting on today, the 11th?" "To that question, Rice said, 'That's right,'" the official said. Last month, Rice held talks with her North Korean counterpart, the first such meeting in four years. The US is seeking extensive inspections of nuclear facilities, soil sampling and access to key scientists. The goal was to reach a deal on the document by mid-August, the US nuclear negotiator, Christopher Hill, said before last month's talks. Removal from the terrorism blacklist would end US sanctions that have seen Pyongyang mostly cut off from international banking. It would also clear the way for multilateral aid packages. The delay is likely to be welcomed in Japan, where there are grave concerns that an easing of US sanctions would lessen Tokyo's chances of settling a feud over citizens abducted by North Korean agents decades ago. Japanese and North Korean officials today began two days of talks in the north-east China city of Shenyang on the abductions by North Korea. They remain an emotive issue in Japan and a major obstacle to the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries. North Korea in 2002 admitted kidnapping 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s. It allowed five of the victims to return home, claiming that the other eight were dead. Japan, however, has demanded proof of the deaths, as well as an investigation into other alleged kidnappings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALSO SEE: 'Intel spin' by US hardliners sparked NKorean crisis: book August 4, 2008 http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j_CwsYm8vAfZjdJ3fEthjmrNh8sw VIA Citizens for Legitimate Government http://www.legitgov.org/ WASHINGTON (AFP) - In circumstances echoing the Iraq war controversy, hardliners in US President George W. Bush's administration spun intelligence and triggered a nuclear crisis with North Korea, says a new book to be released this week. Intelligence on a North Korea effort to acquire components for uranium enrichment was politicized to depict the hardline communist state running a full-fledged production facility capable of developing a nuclear bomb, said the book by former senior CNN journalist Mike Chinoy. Now with the Los Angeles-based Pacific Council on International Policy, Chinoy wrote "Meltdown: The inside story of the North Korean nuclear crisis" after gaining unprecedented access during his 14 trips to North Korea and conducting 200 interviews in Washington, Seoul, Tokyo and other Asian capitals. The book showed that US intelligence did discover in 2002-2003 a North Korea effort to acquire components that could be used for uranium enrichment but that it was only a procurement effort. There was no credible intelligence that North Koreans actually had a facility capable of making uranium based bombs. Yet, conservative hardliners bent on ending an "Agreed Framework" nuclear deal with North Korea forged under president Bill Clinton's administration seized on the issue to force a confrontation, the book said. It added that then US assistant secretary of state James Kelly was given instructions not to negotiate on his October 2002 trip to Pyongyang but simply tell the North Koreans they had to abandon their uranium program before any progress was possible. He was also ordered not to observe normal diplomatic courtesies such as holding a reciprocal banquet for his North Korean hosts or making a toast at a meal they hosted for him upon his arrival. It was widely reported then that the North Koreans admitted to Kelly they had an uranium program and this led the United States to take a series of retaliatory steps that led to a downward spiral in ties and Pyongyang restarting its nuclear program and testing the bomb in 2006. But Chinoy, who interviewed most of the members of Kelly's delegation, said he could not find any evidence that the North Koreans explicitly admitted having such a program. "It's interesting that the transcript remains classified but it appears that a North Korean official used much more ambiguous language and also tabled an offer to negotiate -- which Kelly rejected," he told AFP. "There are parallels and differences obviously with the way the intelligence became a source of controversy in Iraq but unlike Iraq, the actual intelligence that the Americans had in North Korea in the spring and summer of 2002 was pretty solid," Chinoy said. "But the combination of internal politics and media generalization...created an impression that it was somewhat different from the reality," he said. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at that time who discovered he had used questionable American intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ahead of the Iraq invasion in 2003, also found himself in a predicament with intelligence on North Korea. "They wanted to use this as a flaming red star cluster into the sky that the North Koreans cheated, abrogated the Agreed Framework, 'we always told you this was a bad idea,'" Powell said of the hardline opponents of engagement with North Korea. The 405-page book also documents in more detail than has previously been available how the stunning turnaround in policy toward North Korea took place under the second term of the Bush administration. It showed how Kelly's successor Christopher Hill seized control of the policy process -- first, by violating instructions from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and holding unauthorized bilateral meetings with the North Koreans, and then, after winning her over to his side, by freezing out hard-line opponents of engagement, including critics in the Vice President Dick Cheney's office. Hill helped reinvigorate six-nation talks that led to North Korea shutting down and disabling its key nuclear plant in Yongbyon from where plutonium was produced to make bombs. The Bush administration is currently prodding North Korea to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and surrender all its nuclear weapons in return for normalized ties and security guarantees. "There is an irony here that the hardliners' attempt to pressure the North Koreans to give up the bomb, in fact, created circumstances where the North became a nuclear power and made the whole process of undoing their nuclear program much, much harder than had they adopted a similar approach at the beginning," Chinoy said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Biden on Iraq by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 24, 2008

Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal By Stephen Zunes | August 24, 2008 Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492 Incipient Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies. Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration's decision to invade that oil-rich country. Shrinking Gap Between Candidates One of the most important differences between Obama and the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain is that Obama had the wisdom and courage to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama and his supporters had been arguing correctly that judgment in foreign policy is far more important than experience; this was a key and likely decisive argument in the Illinois senator's campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton, who had joined McCain in backing the Iraq war resolution. However, in choosing Biden who, like the forthcoming Republican nominee, has more experience in international affairs but notoriously poor judgment, Obama is essentially saying that this critical difference between the two prospective presidential candidates doesn't really matter. This decision thereby negates one of his biggest advantages in the general election. Of particular concern is the possibility that the pick of an establishment figure from the hawkish wing of the party indicates the kind of foreign policy appointments Obama will make as president. Obama's choice of Biden as his running mate will likely have a hugely negative impact on his once-enthusiastic base of supporters. Obama's supporters had greatly appreciated the fact that he did not blindly accept the Bush administration's transparently false claims about Iraq being an imminent danger to U.S. national security interests that required an invasion and occupation of that country. At the same time Biden was joining his Republican colleagues in pushing through a Senate resolution authorizing the invasion, Obama was speaking at a major anti-war rally in Chicago correctly noting that Iraq's war-making ability had been substantially weakened and that the international community could successfully contain Saddam Hussein from any future acts of aggression. In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein - severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions - somehow constituted both "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and was an "extreme danger to the world." Despite the absence of any "weapons of mass destruction" or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, "That's right, and I was correct about that." Biden Shepherds the War Authorization It is difficult to over-estimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing. As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, "For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions - and demand hard facts - concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq." It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself - who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament - to testify. Ironically, on Meet the Press last year, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them." Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include in the hearings some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter's conclusions about non-existent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world, and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired. Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein's possession. Ritter has correctly accused Biden of having "preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and . . . using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq." Supported an Invasion Before Bush Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration's lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of "weapons of mass destruction" years before President George W. Bush even came to office. As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq's WMD threat, Biden - in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war - insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, "As long as Saddam's at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam's program relative to weapons of mass destruction." Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, "The only way we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we're going to end up having to start it alone," telling the Marine veteran "it's going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down." When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton's proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were "beyond your pay grade." As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam's failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later. Biden's False Claims to Bolster War In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq's military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq's alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that "he may have a strain" of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was "seeking nuclear weapons." Said Biden, "One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power." He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that "If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late." He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that "He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation." In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed that "I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur." It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after." Biden's Current Position In response to the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and the resulting weakening of popular support for the war, Biden has more recently joined the chorus of Democratic members of Congress criticizing the administration's handling of the conflict and calling for the withdrawal of most combat forces. He opposed President Bush's escalation ("surge") of troop strength early last year and has called for greater involvement by the United Nations and other countries in resolving the ongoing conflicts within Iraq. However, Biden has been the principal congressional backer of a de facto partition of the country between Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab segments, a proposal opposed by a solid majority of Iraqis and strongly denounced by the leading Sunni, Shia, and secular blocs in the Iraqi parliament. Even the U.S. State Department has criticized Biden's plan as too extreme. A cynical and dangerous attempt at divide-and-rule, Biden's ambitious effort to redraw the borders of the Middle East would likely make a violent and tragic situation all the worse. Yet it is Biden's key role in making possible the congressional authorization of the 2003 U.S. invasion that elicits the greatest concern among Obama's supporters. While more recently expressing regrets over his vote, he has not formally apologized and has stressed the Bush administration's mishandling of the post-invasion occupation rather than the illegitimacy of the invasion itself. Biden's support for the resolution was not simply poor judgment, but a calculated rejection of principles codified in the UN Charter and other international legal documents prohibiting aggressive wars. According to Article VI of the Constitution, such a rejection also constitutes a violation of U.S. law as well. Biden even voted against an amendment sponsored by fellow Democratic senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the Republican-backed resolution authorizing the United States to go to war unilaterally. In effect, Biden has embraced the neo-conservative view that the United States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, somehow has the right to invade other countries at will, even if they currently pose no strategic threat. Given the dangerous precedent set by the Iraq war resolution, naming one of its principal supporters as potentially the next vice president of the United States has raised serious questions regarding Senator Obama's commitment to international law. This comes at a time when the global community is so desperately hoping for a more responsible U.S. foreign policy following eight years of Bush. Early in his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to not only end the war in Iraq, but to challenge the mindset that got the United States into Iraq in the first place. Choosing Biden as his running mate, however, raises doubts regarding Obama's actual commitment to "change we can believe in." Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why the AIPAC spy trial is delayed by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 24, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the view of Congressman Mark Udall's boss on the Armed Services Comm= ittee regarding the controversial 'Status of Forces' deal that Bush is negotiating with Ira= q. Chairman Skelton's priorities have little to do with Iraqi sovereignty & independence. -Cord >=20 House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Chairman http://armedservices.house.gov For Immediate Release: June 18, 2008 Contact: Loren Dealy o= r Lara Battles 202-225-2539 Skelton Says Status of Forces Agreement Must Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq =20 Washington, DC =96 House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skel= ton (D-MO) sent a letter urging the President to ensure that any the future= Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq adequ= ately protects the safety and security of U.S. troops: June 18, 2008 George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House Washington, DC 20500 =20 Dear Mr. President: =20 I am writing to express my strong concern about the potential impac= t that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) currently being negotiated wit= h the Republic of Iraq may have on the security of U.S. troops stationed in= that country. I am sure you have seen the letter I recently sent with Cha= irman Howard Berman discussing our dissatisfaction with both the amount and= quality of information Congress has received on the subject of the SOFA an= d the accompanying Strategic Framework Agreement. United Nations Security = Council Resolution 1790 will expire at the end of the year and is unlikely = to be renewed in its current form. However, we cannot allow such time pres= sures to undermine the goal of ensuring that any SOFA adequately protects o= ur troops in Iraq.=20 =20 Despite the protestations of several of the Administration official= s who have briefed the Members of the Committee and our staff, there is not= hing =93typical=94 about this SOFA. With very few exceptions, if any, we h= ave never negotiated a SOFA under fire before, where new rules are put in p= lace that govern the behavior and affect the security of U.S. troops alread= y engaged in combat and that has the potential to increase the risk to our = soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Congress should not, and I believe will no= t, permit any agreement to take effect that would unnecessarily increase th= e risk of U.S. casualties. =20 I believe that there are a number of areas in which the proposed SO= FA could affect the safety and security of U.S. troops in Iraq. I have tri= ed to outline the main questions below. =20 Several media articles concerning the SOFA have suggested that U.S. militar= y actions would be subject to coordination with the government of Iraq. It= is understandable for any sovereign government to wish to have situational= awareness about the activities of foreign troops in their country, but how= this coordination is conducted could have a significant impact on the secu= rity of U.S. forces. For example, will U.S. ground forces have freedom of = movement or will they be required to seek permission of local, provincial, = or national Iraqi authorities to conduct patrols? Who can veto proposed U.= S. actions? Will there be limits on the types of actions that can be under= taken, such as restrictions on air strikes, even in self defense? Will U.S= . forces be allowed to conduct counter-battery fire in response to mortar a= nd missile attacks on bases? If patrols and other combat actions must be c= oordinated with Iraqi authorities in advance, with what authorities, and ho= w will operational security be maintained? Will U.S. forces have to seek p= ermission to pursue those who attack them or will units in =93hot pursuit= =94 be allowed to follow their attackers wherever in Iraq it is required? =20 A number of media articles have also discussed proposed limits on U= .S. authorities to arrest and detain Iraqis. While it again is rational fo= r any sovereign government to not allow a foreign army to detain its citize= ns at will, if not handled carefully this could have a directly negative im= pact on the security of U.S. forces and their effectiveness in combat. For= example, what assurances will be given that those who attack U.S. forces w= ill face the Iraqi justice system and won=92t simply be released? Will U.S= . forces be allowed to detain or arrest Iraqi nationals at all? What mecha= nisms will be created to guarantee that intelligence developed from detaine= es that may have an impact on U.S. force protection or operations will be g= iven to U.S. forces? =20 =20 Many media articles, quoting Iraqi officials, have suggested that pr= ivate security contractors would no longer be immune from Iraqi law, even f= or official actions. Security contractors protect many facilities where U.= S. military forces are stationed and have protected convoys carrying suppli= es on which U.S. military forces depend. It is not unreasonable for the Ir= aqis to wish there to be legal controls on the behavior of these contractor= s, but it is also not impossible to imagine that the private security contr= actors will not wish to operate in what is perceived as a hostile legal env= ironment where they could be subject to arrest for actions taken in self-de= fense or simply by local authorities who res