Archive: Michael Munk's 2009 National Messages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

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

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

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

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

As it looks to me, here's a brief sumnmary of the politics that led to the promised House vote on 676 next month. Waxman's Energy & Commerce committee was the scene of the showdown. The seven Blue Dog Democrats on the committee had held up reform for the past several weeks.With a push from Obama whip Emanuel (enabler of many of the Dogs in the last congressional campaign) Waxman struck a deal with four of them --their leader Mike Ross (ARK), Bart Gordon (TN), Baron Hill (IN) and Zack Space (OH). In return for their votes, the deal would (1) delay the full House vote past August, (2) weaken the bill's public health care option and (3) cut $100 billion from health care spending over 10 years, much of it from insurance premium subsidies to uninsured middle income families. Those outrageous concessions finally produced some outrage from House progressives, 57 of whom signed a letter to House leadership threatening to vote against a weak bill. In response, Waxman renegotiated his deal on behalf of Obama with his committee's Blue Dogs and progressives that would (1) delink the public option from Medicare and force it to negotiate its own reimbursement rates, (2) restore the middle-income subsidies by shifting funds from existing federal health care programs and (3) reduce the limit of premiums for the uninsured from 12% to 11% of a household's annual income. But now Waxman faced another challenge from the Left. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) proposed a single payer amendment that would have forced every member of the committee to vote it up or down--a possible embarrasment to progressive members (including Waxman who was a co-signer of 676 last year but took his name off this year).With the support of Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Weiner offered to withdraw his amendment IF Pelosi promised to bring 676 to a floor debate and vote. She agreed and Waxman and Weiner sealed the committee vote at 31-28. In that vote, only three of the original Blue Dogs (Jim Matheson of Utah, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana and Bart Stupak of Michigan) and two other Democrats (John Barrow of Georgia and Rick Boucher of Virginia) held out and joined every Republican to vote no. The four other Blue Dogs honored their deal with Waxman and voted with their party. No one expects 676 to win in September, but it will be a significant test of strenght between the progressives and their opponents in the Democratic party. No Democrat will have anything to lose by supporting it--they can tell their constituents they supported single payer in a losing effort and went on to pass whatever the Rules Committee will decide will be the final version of the Obama bill in the House (which evidently will be heavily influenced by the Senate's version. I confess I am not completely clear on how "robust" the public option is in Waxman's bill is, but the opportunity to watch House Democrats stand up and be counted on single payer 676 is a worthwhile achievment. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Compare media ttention: Honduran vs Iran protests by Michael Munk Sat, Aug 1, 2009

Honduran pro-Zelaya protester dies after shooting August 1, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090801/wl_nm/us_honduras TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - A man who was shot during a protest in Honduras this week in support of ousted President Manuel Zelaya died of his injuries on Saturday, as efforts to resolve the crisis over last month's coup remained stalemated. Roger Vallejo, a teacher participating in a rally blocking a road leading out of the capital, Tegucigalpa, died of a bullet wound to the head after two days in a hospital's intensive-care unit, two nurses there said. It was the second death in the aftermath of a widely criticized military coup that exiled Zelaya and installed a de facto government headed by former congressional head Roberto Micheletti. Micheletti, who is refusing to let Zelaya return to the presidency as requested by mediators, said on Saturday he was keeping a strong military and police presence on the southern border with Nicaragua to control any actions by the ousted president's supporters. Soldiers and police in riot gear broke up Thursday's rally by hundreds of demonstrators calling for the return of Zelaya, who is now in Nicaragua. A Reuters cameraman at the protest saw police using teargas and bullets to disperse the protesters, but the police said in a statement they did not fire the bullet that hit Vallejo. Dozens of people were detained after the rally and at least one other person suffered a minor bullet wound. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias has been mediating but has made little progress in resolving Central American's worst political crisis in nearly two decades. The coup has also tested U.S. President Barack Obama as he tries to define his relationship with the region. Zelaya, an ally of socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, has been in exile since he was captured by the army on June 28, accused of violating the constitution by pushing for presidential re-election to be allowed. Zelaya supporters and backers of the coup and de facto government have since staged frequent protests. The pro-coup marches have not been confronted by security forces. A young man was killed in early July when soldiers shot into a crowd awaiting Zelaya's return at the airport in Tegucigalpa after the army prevented his plane from landing. Washington has revoked diplomatic visas for four members of Micheletti's administration to pressure it to reverse the coup, which has been condemned by Latin American governments and the U.N. General Assembly. International loans and U.S. military aid have also been frozen. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

NYT experts want Iraq occupation to continue by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 31, 2009

Consequences of giving up single payer by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 30, 2009

So far, every progressive threat has evaporated to just a handful of House Dems. Let's see how many of the 57 will actually oppose a mild healthcare reform bill if Obama's whip confronts them again. The signers of the letter are: Woolsey, Grijalva, Kilpatrick, Nadler, Hare,Roybal-Allard, Ellison, Blumenauer, Watts, Edwards,Olver, Kucinich,Richardson ,Waters Conyers,Chu, Hinchey,Johnson,Watson,Spier, Pascrell, Doggett, Kaptur, Hirono,Filner,Sanchez, Fudge,Lee, Carson, Lee, Honda McDermott, Clay,McGovern, Clarke, Massa, Pingree, Jackson, Cummings,Thompson, Moore, Payne, Stark,Towns,Brown,Hastings Valezquez, Gutierrez, Napolitano, Sires,Tierney, Capuano, Fattah, Serrano,Farr,l Delahunt, E.B.Johnson Liberal Democrats threaten to reject House healthcare compromise http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-overhaul31-2009jul31,0,2426079.story By Noam N. Levey and James Oliphant LA Times, July 31, 2009 Reporting from Washington -- After months of marching in line as senior Democrats worked with the White House to develop healthcare legislation, liberal lawmakers from solidly Democratic districts are threatening a revolt that could doom President Obama's bid to sign a major bill this year. In the House, liberals are furious at their leaders for striking a deal with conservative Democrats that would weaken the proposal to create a government insurance program, a dream long cherished on the left. .On Thursday, 57 of these liberals sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) warning that they would vote against any bill that contained the terms of the deal. "We have compromised and we can compromise no more," an angry Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) said at a raucous news conference outside the Capitol. Meanwhile in the Senate, a growing number of Democrats and Republicans were taking aim at an effort led by finance committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to develop centrist healthcare legislation that could attract GOP support -- in part by eliminating a government plan entirely. The rising tide of liberal anger sent the White House scrambling, with Obama calling at least one left-leaning lawmaker to offer reassurance before Congress leaves town for its August break. On Thursday afternoon, Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders also met privately with a group of labor leaders, consumer advocates and AARP to enlist their support. Ever since the Democrats won congressional majorities in 2006, party leaders have struggled to balance the demands of their liberal and more conservative members. And although the leadership has more than a month to rally enough votes to pass healthcare bills when Congress returns in September, the latest unrest is raising a menacing specter for the president and his allies. Some worry about a possible repeat of the healthcare debacles in the early 1970s and '90s, when divisions within the party helped doom bids to create universal coverage. "Historically, the good has become the enemy of the perfect," warned Ron Pollack, a veteran of past healthcare battles who heads the consumer group Families USA. "I'm afraid we have seen that repeated a little bit in the past several days." Scores of liberal Democrats favor a single-payer system similar to those in Canada and Britain, where the government controls the delivery of healthcare. (Eighty-six House Democrats are cosponsoring a bill to create a single-payer system in the U.S.) But most, eager to break the decades-long logjam blocking a healthcare overhaul, decided that they would have to compromise this year. During the presidential campaign and after taking office, Obama voiced his support for liberal healthcare principles. And many lawmakers put their faith in liberal leaders such as Pelosi and Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and George Miller (D-Martinez), the three committee chairmen who wrote the bill being debated in the House. That measure -- and a similar one developed by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and his staff -- includes a provision creating a government-run insurance plan as an alternative to private coverage. "What the American people want, very clearly, is a Medicare-type public option in 50 states in this country which will give them the choice against private insurance companies," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats. Polls have shown consistently that a large majority of Americans favor such a plan. But senior Democrats in the House and Senate are contending with a growing cadre of centrists in their party, many of whom are uneasy about expanding government's role in healthcare. "It's the moderates that give [Democrats] their majority," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. "The bigger the Democratic majority grows, the more moderate it becomes. Democrats are a center-left coalition, so big legislative initiatives need to be shaped accordingly." House leaders bowed to that idea this week. Facing the prospect that a group of conservative Democrats in the 52-member Blue Dog Coalition might block a healthcare bill from moving through the energy and commerce committee, they modified the bill. The backlash was swift and severe. "We're at a point where there's no retreat, and we can and must hold the line," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus. In a letter, liberal lawmakers attacked the deal. "We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the committee as fundamentally unacceptable," they wrote. "This agreement is not a step forward toward a good healthcare bill, but a large step backwards." In the Senate, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), a widely respected, longtime advocate of a healthcare overhaul, took aim at a key part of the Baucus efforts to craft a bipartisan bill: a proposal to create a system of insurance cooperatives in place of a government plan. "We cannot afford to hang our hat on any unproven, unregulated or unreliable model for health insurance coverage," said Rockefeller, who also expressed his expectation that Baucus' effort would fail to produce a bill before the August recess. "I have a sense the tide is moving the other way," he said. Pelosi, meanwhile, was left to try to downplay the divisions in her party. "We have tremendous diversity, whether it is generational, geographic, philosophical, ethnic, gender, you name it," she said. "It is a great kaleidoscope." noam.levey@latimes.com joliphant@latimes.com Janet Hook in the Washington bureau contributed to this report. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Liberals opposed single payer, now pay the price by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 30, 2009

Are Liberal Netroots Groups Helping Obama Fail? 30 July 2009 http://www.truthout.org/073009A?n by: Jeff Cohen, t r u t h o u t | Report I've started deleting them as spam. I'm not talking about the enlarge-your-penis emails or "You've Won the Lottery" notices. I'm talking about the increasingly urgent emails coming for weeks from liberal netroots groups calling for a "public option" for health care - a government insurance plan citizens could choose to PAY FOR instead of private insurance. Never has so much passion been so misdirected. If what these liberal groups ultimately wanted out of President Obama and corporate-funded Democrats in Congress was a topnotch public plan to compete with the first-rate private plans, the wrong way to get it was to make that THE demand. Especially of a president whose instinct is toward conciliation and splitting the difference with big business and the right wing. Sure, Obama was a community organizer once. That was decades ago when Russia was still our mortal enemy, Nelson Mandela was still an official State Department terrorist threat and the White House was still funding Islamist fanatics in Afghanistan. For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician - and a consummate compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice? Activists must recognize the surest way to get a strong public option that could compete with the Cadillac of health plans. We needed to mobilize millions of netroots people, almost every union and 150 members of Congress to endorse a maximum demand: National health insurance ... enhanced Medicare for All. In other words, a cost-effective, single-payer system of publicly financed, privately delivered health care that ends private health insurance (and its waste, bureaucracy, ads, sales commissions, lavish executive salaries, profiteering). Had liberal groups sent out millions of emails building a movement that posed an existential threat to the health insurance industry, Senator Baucus and Blue Dog Democrats and their corporate health care patrons might well be on their knees begging for a comprehensive public option - to avert the threat of full-blown Medicare for All. As things stand now, as writers like Bob Kuttner and Norman Solomon have warned, a weak public option would institutionalize a two-tiered system with healthier, wealthier citizens getting the best (private) plans, and sicker, harder-to-treat people getting an inferior (public) plan. Newt Gingrich couldn't dream up a better scenario to discredit an enhanced government role in health care. To win serous reforms, we need activist leaders who are tough-minded progressives making maximum demands for reforms that truly address our nation's problems. Leave the inside-the-Beltway deal-making to the politicians, properly frightened and moved by the roar of mass movements. We need activist leaders who have a clearer idea of who Obama is. He's not one of us. He's one of them - a politician bent on placating corporate interests. We knew all we needed to know about his current world view from all the corporatists he put in top jobs. And from the fact that he felt the need - six weeks into his administration, after the middle-class bailed out Wall Street - to call up The New York Times and assure the world that his policies were NOT socialist but were "entirely consistent with free market principles." At a time the corporate greedsters and free-market ideologues had been exposed as having threatened the economic well-being of the world, they weren't the ones on the defensive. They weren't doing the apologizing. Obama was on the defensive; he was apologizing to them! When Democratic leaders start borrowing right-wing rhetoric, we know our activism has not been strong or progressive enough. At the AARP town hall on Tuesday, Obama described a public option as "controversial, I understand people are worried about that." He went on to assure his audience that "nobody is talking about ... government-run health care" or "a Canadian-style plan." At one point, he further assured seniors that no "bureaucratic law in Washington" would interfere in their health care decisions - seeming to adopt the faux populism of anti-government rightists. Yet, he seems incapable of anti-corporate populism, even with despised industries like Wall Street and health insurance. I have huge respect for the smart young activists who built up the netroots, unleashing all sorts of progressive possibilities for our country. But I'm bothered by their often ineffectual, Beltway-originated, halfway demands. I became active during the Vietnam War. We might still have troops in Vietnam if - instead of militantly demanding "All Troops Home Now" - we'd organized behind polite Beltway initiatives like: "Let's begin negotiations" or "Let's set a timeline for phased withdrawal." I fear that netroots leaders are doing the same dance with Obama today that they did with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007 to 2008. Instead of demanding that Democrats in Congress bring our troops home by using the power of the purse to defund the war, netroots leaders rallied behind weak, nonbinding timelines and other halfway measures cooked up with Congressional leaders. Without a loud, clear demand for "troops home" from the huge online, out-of-Iraq forces, Democratic leaders started retreating and succumbing to Republican rhetoric. Reid proclaimed: "We will never abandon our troops in a time of war." Pelosi declared, "We will have legislation to fund the troops!" And the corpses kept piling up. Great social reforms have occurred in our country not when social movements took their lead from what the White House deemed possible, but when the White House was pushed by powerful movements demanding reforms bolder than what the president was comfortable with. Leading abolitionists pushed Lincoln toward ending slavery by demanding immediate abolition. Socialists' and workers' movements in the '30s sufficiently scared elites so that FDR could pass New Deal reforms far short of socialism. Martin Luther King and civil rights activists continuously pushed and prodded JFK and later LBJ. And these movements didn't have the Internet. In 1993, a National Health Insurance bill gained 100 co-sponsors in the Democrat-led House, plus endorsements from many unions, even Consumers Union. There was, unfortunately, no Internet then when the Clinton White House undermined this growing movement by proposing an incredibly complex plan that left big insurers dominating the system. Clinton's plan inspired few and confused many. After it went down in flames, talk radio host Jim Hightower asked President Clinton why he didn't back an easily-explained Medicare for All approach that had so much support in Congress. Clinton said he'd thought it was politically too difficult, but now wondered about that judgment. Here we are 16 years later. Neglected by large netroots groups, John Conyers today has 85 House co-sponsors for HR 676, the Expanded Medicare for All Act , as well as the endorsement of many unions and Obama's longtime personal physician. If all those emails I've received lately had been about building the HR 676 movement and a public system instead of a "public option," the bill would have many more co-sponsors and could be pressuring Democrats to stand tough today. For Obama to feel secure about reform and standing up to the right, he needs to feel that he's in the center pushed by noisy forces to his left. He's admitted as much. The way to help him succeed is to mobilize seriously to his left. The way to help Obama fail is for netroots and liberal groups to collapse toward him from the get-go. And if Obama does fail, we can quit laughing at a Republican Party in disarray due to Bush, religious extremism, hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism. Because, in this period of crisis and fear, unless a progressively-prodded White House delivers reforms that actually improve lives soon, right-wing reaction could rebound more dangerous than ever in 2010 and/or 2012. » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and former board member of Progressive Democrats of America. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama as he looks from Europe by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 28, 2009

Princeton prof published this in France--no outlet in the US? Obama and Capitalism: Whither the American Left? July 8, 2009 http://www.truthout.org/071509C?n by: Bernard Chazelle | Visit article original @ Rue89 Bernard Chazelle writes that subsequent to the "Welfare Reform Act" of 1996, "Society became a club in which one is a member 'under certain conditions.' The images of Hurricane Katrina would reveal the cruel meaning of that conditionality to the whole world." (Photo: greenmannowar / Flickr) The triumph of neo-liberalism on the other side of the Atlantic may be explained - like almost everything else in American history - by inflation and racial conflict. The 1970's were years of historic compromise: Blacks were integrated into the great American family in a legal sense, but at the price of abandoning all social demands. The "stagflation" that shook the economy catalyzed a process that was to extend over the next three decades and dispute all the social breakthroughs of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. That evolution would withstand the power alternations between parties so well that the United States would finish the century with a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, anchored firmly to the right of Republican Richard Nixon. What happened? The great project of the American right, constructed in the New York hallways of Bill Buckley's National Review, saw its hour of triumph with Reagan's election in 1980. A "Righting" of the Left Twelve years later, Clinton appropriated Reagan's themes and became the bard of neo-liberalism. He kept the marginal income tax rate at half of what it had been under Nixon. He eliminated social assistance for 9 million poor children. With help from the financial bubble, he presided over the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich since 1929. The income of the richest one percent of Americans doubled, while that of the median tranche rose by 15 percent only (over eight years in constant dollars). The Wal-Mart founder's family possesses a personal fortune equal to the collective personal fortune of 120 million Americans. Clinton doubled the prison population compared to what it had been under Reagan. Accused of being "soft on crime" during his campaign, he went to attend the execution of a mentally handicapped man, famous for having asked the guard who served him his last meal whether he could keep his yoghurt for later. Welfare Was Supposed to Reinforce Poverty and Consequently Had to Be Subjected to Merit Criteria. In 1996, along with the great "Welfare Reform Act," Clinton signed the death certificate for the American left. The attractive idea was: since welfare reinforces poverty, let's submit it to merit criteria. In this politically savvy marriage of solidarity and common sense, the key word became "responsibility." Hidden therein, however, as though it were totally insignificant, is what historian Tony Judt has described as the return of the spirit of "England's New Poor Law" of 1834. As in Dickens's England, citizenship became conditional. So there was an outright assault on the primary idea of social justice, that is, the absolute right to dignity. When one is hungry, well then, one asks for alms. In its wake, the unconditional right of membership in the community disappeared also. Society became a club in which one is a member "under certain conditions." The images of Hurricane Katrina would reveal the cruel meaning of that conditionality to the whole world. On top of this "righting" of the left came submission to the capitalist schema of historical determinism. Echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous "Tina" ("There is No Alternative"), New York Times editorialist Tom Friedman explained enthusiastically that once a country puts on the "Golden Straitjacket," "its political choices get reduced to Pepsi or Coke." It's not the "End of History" Fukuyama proclaimed, but the end of politics. The Faustian neo-liberal pact is to barter away mastery of our collective destiny for a promise of prosperity, a promise that moreover often proves illusory. In close to half the world's countries, income per person in 2000 was inferior to what it had been in 1990. The Cult of Capitalism Capitalism or neo-liberalism is an essentially self-referential dogma. As the sole goal of the economy is to satisfy its own needs for growth, the citizen is no longer anything but a passive consumer. In the United States, the dogma tolerates social conflicts only insofar as they remain orthogonal to economic fault lines. Thus, we may debate abortion at our leisure, but social assistance is a "fiscally imprudent" idea. Of course, free market capitalism is no more an economic theory than greed is a theory of property. It is primarily hypnosis. The Republicans at least propose choices: one may be for or against tax reductions. The Democrats promise "vibrant communities" and "growing prosperity." What party do you have to belong to, or what planet, to not wish for such things? Just as science should be falsifiable, ideologies should be deniable. One will notice that Democratic platitudes - as though by miracle - perfectly marry "Tina" dogma to the opportunisms of the moment. The United States is at a turning point of its history. The uni-polar hour is coming to an end, but who will be able to snatch the country away from its much-prized Nineteenth Century values, such as the power of gaps in wealth to spur emulation and the cult of military force? Obama: Beneath the Center-Left Rhetoric, Rightwing Policy Obama? It's too soon to express a definitive opinion, but the enthusiasm he arouses is largely unmerited. His charm, tone and intelligence captivate. The symbolic power of a black American president is undeniable. Nonetheless, the acrobatic quality of his approach, masking right-leaning policy under center-left rhetoric, invites caution. His rejection of torture is categorical, eloquent and in flagrant contradiction to his support for the "rendition" program that sends terrorist suspects to be tortured in friendly countries. His populist remarks against Wall Street excesses translate into measures that, in fact, reward those excesses. His soothing speech in Cairo is served along with increased bombing of Pashtun lands. His plan for withdrawal from Iraq goes hand in hand with a defense budget $20 billion higher than Bush's. Barack Obama is the most talented politician of his generation. His mastery of the straddle is formidable, but the prolonged practice of this dangerous exercise rarely ends well. For the American left, "Yes we can" runs a strong risk of proving to be a Siren song. -------- Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US left-liberal advice for Iranians by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 28, 2009

Obama can't break with Honduran gorillas by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 25, 2009

Ousted Zelaya on Honduras border, criticizes U.S. By Sean Mattson and Esteban Israel Jul 25, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090726/wl_nm/us_honduras LAS MANOS, Honduras (Reuters) - Defying U.S. criticism, ousted President Manuel Zelaya returned for a second day to Honduras' land border to try to put pressure on the coup leaders who threw him out of the country last month. In a move that risked alienating his most powerful ally in his bid to return to power, Zelaya also said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not adequately informed about Honduras' "repressive regime". Clinton criticized Zelaya as "reckless" when he came to this town on the Honduran border with Nicaragua on Friday and took a few steps on Honduran soil as police and soldiers with orders to arrest him stood just yards away . He returned on Saturday and insisted he would not give up his fight to regain power, although he showed little appetite for a confrontation with security forces, saying he had held back from entering Honduras to avoid provoking a massacre. "You know that if I get close and they want to arrest me, people will defend me and there will be a massacre," he told reporters, sitting on the hood of a white jeep. The United States, the United Nations and Latin American presidents have roundly condemned Zelaya's forced removal from power on June 28 and are demanding he be reinstated. U.S. President Barack Obama has cut $16.5 million in military aid to Honduras and threatened to slash economic aid. But he has yet to take measures directly against the coup leaders, and there are tensions between Washington and Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuela's anti-American and socialist president, Hugo Chavez. Zelaya has asked Obama to take tougher measures against the de facto government, and he said on Saturday that Clinton was not fully aware of its repressive policies. "I think she has to be given the correct information so that she comes to see what is happening in Honduras and her words are to complain about the coup leaders, not the heroic people that are resisting and accompanying me so that things return to normal," he said. The crisis has put Obama in a difficult position. He does not want to continue a tradition of U.S. support for rightist coups in Latin America, but is uncomfortable with Zelaya's own democratic credentials and some Republicans in Congress say he has already done too much for the ousted leftist. ARREST ORDER Zelaya's enemies say he was acting illegally in trying to extend presidential term limits and that his removal was authorized by Honduran laws. De facto leader Roberto Micheletti has resisted international pressure to back down and insists Zelaya will be arrested if he returns. Zelaya, a timber magnate known for his trademark cowboy hat, angered the conservative ruling elite by allying himself with Chavez and his plans for constitutional reforms raised fears that he would try to extend his rule. The Supreme Court ordered his arrest and Congress backed his ouster. Micheletti seems to believe he can resist international pressure until elections in November and the world will accept the new order when a next president takes office in January. Chavez said on Saturday that Obama would not stand by Zelaya. "What the government of the United States and its allies want is simply for the coup leaders to consolidate their position and be recognized, if not by law, then de facto." Micheletti's ability to hold out depends largely on Washington, which as the biggest trading partner could cripple the economy of one of Latin America's poorest nations if it were to block trade with the coffee and textile exporter. Zelaya is expected in Washington on Tuesday, but it was not clear if he would meet with Clinton. Honduran police have imposed a curfew near the border with Nicaragua to prevent Zelaya's supporters from gathering there. About 160 people were being held at various checkpoints but will be released later on Saturday, a police official said. In the town of Danli, around 20 miles from the border, a small group of Zelaya supporters including Zelaya's wife were blocked from proceeding to the border. "We will stay as long as it takes, they can't keep repressing the people," his wife Xiomara Castro told Reuters. Armando Flores, 46, who worked in construction in New York before employment dried up and he returned home, sounded more resigned: "We are realistic. They have the weapons and they have the power, what can we do?" Security forces used tear gas on Friday to disperse several hundred Zelaya supporters who tried to reach the border. The corpse of a young man was found in El Paraiso, near the border with Nicaragua, but it was not clear how he died or if there was any connection to protests in the area on Friday. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Feingold: No one asked about Afghan war at last presser by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 24, 2009

Published on Friday, July 24, 2009 by The Nation VIA Steve Weiss = Feingold: White House is Whistling Past Afghan Graveyard In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Sen. Russ Feingold defends = his lone vote to oppose an amendment to the latest defense spending = bill. by Jeremy Scahill In 2001 Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold famously and courageously stood = up as the lone senator to vote against the Patriot Act. On July 21 he = did it again, casting the lone vote [1] opposing Connecticut Senator Joe = Lieberman's amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization bill that = immediately authorizes an expansion of the military by 30,000 troops. In = an exclusive interview with The Nation, Feingold says he "did not = believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national = security." The measure passed 93-1.=20 Feingold said he is increasingly disturbed by the war in Afghanistan, = where troop levels are escalating by the month, US casualties are = mounting and the insurgency is expanding. "It appears that no one even = asked the president about [Afghanistan] at his [July 22] press = conference after apparently thirty or thirty-one Americans were killed = in Afghanistan last month. How is that possible?" Feingold asks. "People = have to wake up to what's going on in Afghanistan, and my vote is a = request that people wake up to what's happening, which is we are getting = deeper and deeper into this situation in a way that I don't think = necessarily makes sense at all and may actually be counterproductive."=20 On July 23 Vice President Joe Biden told the BBC [2] that "in terms of = national interest of Great Britain, the US and Europe, [the war in = Afghanistan] is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is = being felt.... And more will come." Feingold said Biden's statement and = requests [3] from Defense Secretary Robert Gates for more US troops in = Afghanistan are making him "very worried that this is heading into a = free fall of support for something that may not make sense."=20 Feingold believes "the so-called surge may actually make matters worse = by pushing militants into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation which is = still not effectively dealing with terrorist sanctuaries in that = country." He is particularly concerned with what he calls the "balloon = effect:" resistance fighters in Afghanistan being pushed into Pakistan, = where "they may be safer."=20 As a member of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, = Feingold has grilled both civilian and military officials. In May he = asked [4] Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard = Holbrooke, "Are we sure that when we...get up to a level of 70,000 = troops, are we sure that that isn't making the situation in Pakistan = potentially worse?" Holbrooke replied that the troop buildup "could end = up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability."=20 "Are you sure that the troop buildup in Afghanistan will not be = counterproductive vis-=E0-vis Pakistan?" Feingold asked. "No," Holbrooke = replied. "I'm only sure that we are aware of the problem."=20 Feingold received [5] a similar answer from the chair of the Joint = Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, in May. "Can I [be] 100 percent = certain that won't destabilize Pakistan? I don't know the answer to = that," Mullen said.=20 "This is something I've been trying to hammer away at," Feingold tells = The Nation. "They admitted that it's a problem, but where's the = follow-up? This administration is almost whistling past the graveyard on = this issue." Feingold added, "How is it that the chairman of the Joint = Chiefs of Staff and our special envoy to this region both agree that = this could be a problem and that it is not talked about as a serious = mistake if we're going to keep increasing troops and increase that = effect? This is, in my view, the central flaw in what is otherwise a = policy that is better than the Bush administration's. This is the = central flaw in the thinking of the administration on this issue, and it = needs to be pursued."=20 In the halls of Congress, Afghanistan remains the "good war," though = little by little, legislators are speaking out and a handful are = standing up. In June thirty House Democrats [6] voted against continued = funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a rare moment when = the collective votes of the small number of antiwar legislators = mattered--indeed, the bill almost failed. That was due in large part to = the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the bill because a = massive bailout for the International Monetary Fund was attached to the = spending measure. Consequently, the White House needed to persuade some = of the antiwar Democrats to vote with the president instead of with = their conscience or their constituents. The White House feverishly = lobbied the Hill and threatened some freshmen representatives with not = campaigning for them in 2010 if they did not switch their votes in favor = of the war-funding bill, which narrowly passed. The Senate, however, is = a much bleaker landscape when it comes to opposing the expansion of the = war in Afghanistan--as Feingold's lonely dissent underscores. In May = Feingold was one of just three senators--and the only Democrat--to vote = against a $91 billion war spending bill.=20 On a wide range of issues that Feingold has hammered away at for years, = the senator finds himself confronting a Democratic president for whom he = campaigned. Some of the Bush-era policies that Feingold passionately = opposed are now Obama's policies. To Feingold's credit, the change in = administrations has clearly not altered his core principles. Since = January 20 Feingold has pressed the Obama administration on Bush-era = policies that are either being continued or expanded under Obama.=20 In a May 22 letter [7] to Obama, Feingold expressed concern over the = president's suggestion that the United States can engage in indefinite = detentions, saying such a practice "violates basic American values and = is likely unconstitutional." In the same letter, Feingold said Obama's = policy could set "the stage for future Guant=E1namos, whether on our = shores or elsewhere." While the Obama administration has continued to = defend the warrantless wiretapping program in various court cases, = Feingold has hounded the president to "formally" oppose the program, = which Obama has thus far refused to do. In a June letter to Obama, = Feingold suggested that by not "renounc[ing] the assertions of executive = authority made by the Bush administration with regard to warrantless = wiretapping," Obama may be sending a message that the Bush-era = "justifications were and remain valid."=20 Recently, in a sharp break from many Democrats, Feingold wrote Obama and = Attorney General Eric Holder, calling for a prosecutor to investigate = the torture program. Feingold said the investigation should target = officials at "the highest levels of government, which is where the need = for accountability is most acute. Those who developed, authorized and = provided legal justification for the interrogations should be held = responsible."=20 In some cases, the policies are getting worse, as Feingold has pointed = out. "It's both an easier and a lonelier role," he says. "It's easier = because this president understands these issues and cares about them = deeply. He wants to support the side of the law and civil liberties, but = he's getting counterpressures from, obviously, elements of his = administration that are not wanting him to give any ground in this area = at all."=20 "But it's lonelier," Feingold adds, "because when I do have to disagree, = yes, it's disagreeing not only with all the Republicans but even a = Democratic president and some Democratic senators. That's a role I still = have to play. I'm here to defend the Constitution and try to protect = this country. That's why I'm here. And if it means sometimes I'm going = to disagree with my president, I will."=20 =A9 2009 The Nation

Americans opposed to Obama's Iraq and Afghan wars by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 24, 2009

A new Roper Poll taken July 16-20 http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_Topline_Politics_Economy_FINAL.pdfasked "Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq"?found 63% disapprove; 34% approve. In intensity, 43% were strongly opposed,15% strongly favoredThe identical question about the war in Afghanistanfound 53% disapprove; 44% approve.In intensity, 34% strongly oppose; 20%strongly favor.visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Who knew? Afghan candidate wants US Out by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 23, 2009

Afghan Presidential Candidate: The U.S. Occupation Must End The past 8 years have done more harm than good to women's rights in Afghanistan -- the U.S. is waging a war, not winning a peace. By Sonali Kolhatkar, Uprising Radio. July 23, 2009. The following is Co-Director of Afghan Women's Mission Sonali Kolhatkar's statement regarding an ongoing debate among progressives over the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, and appearing below it the transcript of a recent interview by Kolhatkar with independent candidate for Afghan president Ramazan Bashardost. Recently prominent liberal voices in the United States have expressed the view that the US war in Afghanistan is being waged to help secure the rights of Afghan women. The Feminist Majority, a prominent women's organization in the US responded today to my critique of their pro-war position, co-authored with Mariam Rawi, a member of RAWA. The FM response was originally published under the title, "Why the Feminist Majority Foundation Supports Engagement in Afghanistan," and later changed to "Why Is the Feminist Majority Foundation Refusing to Abandon the Women and Girls of Afghanistan?" In it, Eleanor Smeal and Helen Cho assert that "As long-time peace activists, we did not support the bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11." But the FM also never came out against the war in Afghanistan as they did against the war in Iraq. Instead they called for full inclusion of women in any post-war government. That silence meant tacit support of the war. Today that support for war continues by equating the security craved by all Afghans with the war being waged by US troops. While I fully agree with the FM that the US must stop supporting warlords, and pour resources into development and aid I disagree that dropping bombs, fighting ground offensives, imprisoning Afghans, and all the byproducts of war are somehow making women safer. Similarly, Howard Dean, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and one-time Presidential candidate on a liberal platform, in an interview on Democracy Now on Friday July 17th, pronounced his support for the US war in Afghanistan based on protecting women's rights. In the interview, Dean repeated the logic that the US is waging war for Afghan women's liberation. And on the flip side, according to Dean, "if we leave, women will experience the most extraordinary depredations of any population on the face of the earth." By this logic, Dean implies that the US has for the past 8 years been a bulwark against a the deterioration of women's rights. But even cursory examination of the actual situation on the ground reveals that aside from theoretical changes embodied in the constitution, women's rights have actually deteriorated as a direct consequence of deliberate US policy. This policy has included empowering anti-woman warlords who have committed rape and thrown out female members of parliament, appointing a fundamentalist judiciary that has imprisoned women for adultery and being victims of rape, etc. Additionally, the US war has fueled an misogynist insurgency that has only gotten stronger and worsened anti-woman sentiment. I spoke very recently with independent candidate for president Ramazan Bashardost about his view of the US war. He put it bluntly: "This is not a war for women's rights in Afghanistan. It is not a war for human rights in Afghanistan." He added, "the problem is that the analysis of the Afghan situation by the US is wrong." The Feminist Majority, Howard Dean, and other American liberals in support of this war need to re-analyze the situation in Afghanistan and examine the real consequences of the US war over the past 8 years that have done more harm than good to women's rights. Additionally liberals need to honestly assess that whether there has been some sort of about-turn in US policy since January 2009 save for a stated desire to reduce civilian casualties. In fact, the US has not suddenly changed its mandate from war-fighting to providing security under President Obama, and no such policy shift is on the horizon. The Democrats and Republicans, led by President Obama are waging a war, not winning a peace. And war is a force for destruction, not liberation. **** Interview with Ramazan Bashardost Introduction: Despite his unpopularity, Afghanistan's incumbent President Hamid Karzai faces few challenges to re-election on August 20th. But one of his most vocal critics and rivals commands the respect of a large number of Afghans looking for a change in the summer Presidential elections. Dr. Ramazan Bashardost is a former member of Karzai's own cabinet and currently a popular Member of Parliament. Armed with a plethora of degrees in political science from Pakistan and France, Bashardost resigned in disgust as Planning Minister in protest of the vast amounts of corruption he witnessed at the highest levels of government. Read the interview at http://www.alternet.org/world/141504/afghan_presidential_candidate%3A_the_u.s._occupation_must_end/ visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Leaving AFPAC prematurely by Michael Munk Wed, Jul 22, 2009

The Oregonian's editorial begins:, "When the United States launched its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, commentators invoked Rudyard Kipling's memorable poem, "The Young British Soldier." "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." read the rest at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/07/exorcising_kiplings_ghost.html My response: To the Editor Your editorial "Exorcising Kipling's ghost" (July 18) extends The Oregonian's record of never opposing a single one of America's unnecessary and eventually unpopular (did someone say "imperialist"?) wars. From Korea to Vietnam to Iraq and now Afghanistan you have been a reliable cheer leader for the bipartisan, knee jerk reflex to impose our will on any nation labeled unfriendly by force of (very pricey) arms. So now you uncritically justify Bush's and now Obama's Afghan war, by offering that; eight years out, it is somehow still intended to "establish a stable, democratic government." A more honest rendition would exchange those meaningless adjectives with the less attractive purpose of imposing pro-US regimes on "AFPAC" by killing anyone who resists. War enablers should consider that that most of the violence in Afghanistan is resistance to the US invasion and occupation. If our goal was to actually reduce bloodshed among the civilian population as well as our own troops, we would indeed leave "prematurely." And since Obama's proffered goal is will eventually be recognized as unachievable, we are bound to leave "prematurely"--no matter how far in the future that may be. Unfortunately, you will not recognize that and allow your support to expire until many more thousands of human lives and billions of dollars" have been wasted. Michael Munk For a closer reasoing see Chris Hedges http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090720_war_without_purpose/ visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

08 election: White turnout dropped, minorities' went up by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 21, 2009

Despite all the predictions and hoopla over the Obama campaign, only 131 million of the 206 million eligible voters actually voted in the 2008 election, for a turnout (about 64%)-- the same as in Bush's victory over Kerry four years earlier. The reason seems to be racism: enough whites who normally vote Democrat (and supported Hillary in the primaries?) stayed home in November to reduce non-Hispanic white turnout by a full percentage point from 67% to 66%. But the white decline of almost five million was matched by 4.6 million new minority voters. Black turnout increased from 61% to 65%, while Hispanic and Asian turnout went up from 44% to 49%. Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election, U.S. Census Bureau Reports July 20, 2009 Data Show Significant Increases Among Hispanic, Black and Young Voters http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian voters, while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically unchanged. Additionally, voters 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, reaching 49 percent in 2008 compared with 47 percent in 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate among 18- to 24-year-old voters - 55 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2004. The increased turnout among certain demographic groups was offset by stagnant or decreased turnout among other groups, causing overall 2008 voter turnout to remain statistically unchanged - at 64 percent - from 2004. "The 2008 presidential election saw a significant increase in voter turnout among young people, blacks and Hispanics," said Thom File, a voting analyst with the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. "But as turnout among some other demographic groups either decreased or remained unchanged, the overall 2008 voter turnout rate was not statistically different from 2004." The table package released today, Voting and Registration in the Election of 2008, examines the levels of voting and registration in the November 2008 presidential election, the demographic characteristics of citizens who reported that they were registered for or voted in the election, and the reasons why registered voters did not vote. Although the youngest voters were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, voting did tend to increase with age. In 2008, younger citizens (18-24) had the lowest voting rate (49 percent), while citizens who fell into older age groups (45-64 and 65-plus) had the highest voting rates (69 percent and 70 percent, respectively). Looking at voter turnout by race and Hispanic origin, non-Hispanic whites (66 percent) and blacks (65 percent) had the highest levels in the November 2008 election. Voting rates for Asians and Hispanics were not statistically different from one another at about 49 percent. Relative to the presidential election of 2004, the voting rates for blacks, Asians and Hispanics each increased by about 4 percentage points. The voting rate for non-Hispanic whites decreased by 1 percentage point. The voting rate was highest in the Midwest (66 percent), while the rates in the West, Northeast and South were about 63 percent each. Among states, voting rates varied widely. Among states and state-equivalents with the highest voter turnout were Minnesota and the District of Columbia, each with voting rates of about 75 percent. Hawaii and Utah were among the states with the lowest turnouts, each with approximately 52 percent. By sex, women had a higher voting rate (66 percent) than males (62 percent). Neither was statistically different from 2004. The overall voting age (18 and older) citizen population in the United States in 2008 was 206 million compared with 197 million in 2004. Of that total, 146 million, or 71 percent, reported being registered to vote. That's slightly lower than the 72 percent who reported being registered to vote in the 2004 presidential election, but does represent an increase of approximately 4 million registered voters. The percentage of those registered to vote that actually did so was slightly higher in the 2008 election (90 percent) than in 2004 (89 percent). -X- These data come from the Current Population Survey. Statistics from sample surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling error. For further information on the source of the data and accuracy of the estimates, including standard errors and confidence intervals, go to Appendix G of . visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

17 worst Repubs back Honduran gorillas by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 21, 2009

Note how many overlap with the racists exposed in the Sotomajor hearings {To head off questions about "gorillas" it's the term used by the Latin American Left to refer to illegitimate military juntas in power through coups} July 10, 2009 from rightwing site http://angela-stevens.com/archives/alg-praises-17-senators-for-standing-with-honduras/ "Yesterday, an urgent letter was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to meet with the current government of Honduras, stating, "While you have already met with Mr. Zelaya, we find it discouraging that you are unwilling to meet with Honduran officials that have simply followed their constitution." The letter was sent by Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), John Ensign (R-Nevada), Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska), Kit Bond (R-Missouri), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), James Risch (R-Idaho), Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), John Thune (R-South Dakota), and Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Honduran Gorillas have freinds in Washington by Michael Munk Mon, Jul 20, 2009

Feminist Majority defends Afghan war by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 17, 2009

Read it (and weep) at http://www.alternet.org/world/141345/why_the_feminist_majority_foundation_supports_engagement_in_afghanistan/ visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The truth about Obama's war by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 17, 2009

Tomgram: Ann Jones, Creating Hescostan in Kabul July 16, 2009 http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175096/ann_jones_creating_hescostan_in_kabul Writing on the phenomenon of escalation, journalist Norman Solomon begins a recent piece this way: "The president has set a limit on the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. For now. That's how escalation works. Ceilings become floors. Gradually." Then he adds: "[N]o amount of spin can change the fact that the U.S. military situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. It would be astonishing if plans for add-on deployments weren't already far along at the Pentagon." Well, be astonished no longer. Right now, unsurprisingly enough, it's not looking good in that country. Roadside bomb (IED) attacks are spiking (with an "all-time high" of 465 in May alone), and American and NATO deaths have jumped by 40% since 2008, 75% since 2007. And so, despite a major Obama administration expansion of the war and a significant commitment of new troops and money, fast on the heels of Solomon's piece came the first trial balloon -- the first leaks in a Washington Post piece from those unnamed, if ubiquitous, "senior military officials" -- for what may be the next round of escalation. In an ongoing assessment of the devolving situation in Afghanistan, due to be delivered to the White House next month, the new U.S. commander General Stanley A. McChrystal has supposedly already concluded "that the Afghan security forces will have to be far larger than currently planned if President Obama's strategy for winning the war is to succeed." Here's the catch (and you knew there would be one, didn't you?): the only way to make that force larger is to pour billions more dollars and thousands of new American soldiers into the country as "advisors" and "trainers." As if he had read Solomon, National Security Adviser James Jones was already talking about those ceilings. ("It would not surprise me if the ceiling for the Afghan army request was raised...") So it goes. Too bad no one's escalating the diplomacy, as the regularly on-target columnist for the British Guardian, Simon Jenkins, pointed out recently: "Diplomacy, your hour has come. There is no way soldiers will find an exit from Afghanistan. They can deliver defeat or they can deliver bloody stalemate. They cannot deliver victory and every observer knows it. This conflict will end only when the courage being daily demanded of soldiers is also shown by politicians." From Kabul, TomDispatch regular Ann Jones reports on a changing situation in her normal vivid fashion, offering in the process a unique movie review from the front lines of filmmaking. Tom Everything That Happens in Afghanistan Is Based on Lies or Illusions A Film That Captures Some Edgy, Fearful Truths By Ann Jones Kabul, July 2009 -- I've come back to the Afghan capital again, after an absence of two years, to find it ruined in a new way. Not by bombs this time, but by security. The heart of the city is now hidden behind piles of Hescos -- giant, grey sandbags produced somewhere in Great Britain. They're stacked against the walls of government buildings, U.N. agencies, embassies, NGO offices, and army camps (of which there are a lot) -- and they only seem to grow and multiply. A friend called just the other day from a U.N. building, distressed that the view from her office window was vanishing behind yet another row of Hescos. Urban life as Kabulis knew it in this once graceful city has been lost to the security needs of strangers. The creation of Hescostan in the middle of Kabul is both an effect of, and a cause of, war: an effect because it seems to arise in response to devious enemy tactics that are still relatively new to Afghanistan, such as the use of roadside bombs (IEDs) and suicide bombers (though there has actually been no attack in Kabul for six months now); a cause because it is so clearly a projection, an externalization of the fears of men out of their depth. It is a paradox of such "force protection" that the more you have, the more you feel you need. What's called security generates fear. Now comes a documentary that projects that fear onto the screen. It is 2006, late in the year. A reporter stands on a rocky hillside near the city of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan and points a wobbly camera at dark-clad gunmen ranged at a distance before him. They've wrapped the tails of their turbans to mask their faces. They carry their Kalashnikovs at the ready. The reporter shouts a question: "Does the Taliban receive support from Pakistan?" As the camera jumps about to find the Talib who is speaking, a translator voices his answer: "Yes, Pakistan stands with us. On the other side of the border, we have our offices there. Some people in Pakistan is supporting us and the government of Pakistan does not say anything to us. They provide us with everything." The reporter -- Christian Parenti of the Nation magazine -- has his story. For years, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has charged Pakistan with backing the Taliban, while Pakistan's then-President Musharraf denied it, and officials of the Bush administration looked the other way. Now, Parenti has the word of armed Taliban. This is the kind of story a foreign correspondent can't get without a fixer; that is, a local guy who knows the language, the local politics, the protocols of custom -- and how to arrange a meeting like this in the middle of nowhere with men who might kill you. A Talib warns of an approaching reconnaissance plane. "We should go," the scared reporter says. The camera spins wildly across a vast empty expanse of rock and pale sky. "We should go." Moments later, safely back in a car speeding away, Parenti turns the camera on his own grinning face: "This is the most relieved American reporter in Afghanistan," he says, and describes the man sitting beside him -- Ajmal Nashqbandi, a 24-year-old Pashtun from Kabul -- as "the best fixer in Afghanistan." But we already know what Parenti doesn't (because filmmaker Ian Olds has told us up front before the titles even hit the screen): soon the fixer will be dead, murdered by the Taliban. We will be witnesses. If this sounds harrowing, it is. Fixer is the best documentary I've seen on Afghanistan -- so good it's hard to imagine a better one. It's all jagged edges, blurs, and disconnects, catching as it does both the forbidding emptiness of the land and the edginess of war-weary Afghans. One long segment, apparently showing the inside of Parenti's shawl as he conceals a camera from potentially hostile villagers, seems the visual correlative of the feeling that unsettles all outsiders from time to time in this country: the sense of being completely in the dark. In 2006-2007, as the Taliban surged back with kidnappings, murders, bombs, and jihadi suicide attacks, this is how Afghanistan felt. It's the feeling that still drives Hesco sales in the capital. Full disclosure: both Parenti and I have written about Afghanistan for the Nation for several years. I write mostly about women, Parenti mostly about the war, and I admire his work. We met for the first time only a couple of months ago, after both of us were invited to take part in a conference on Afghanistan. He told me about Fixer, then playing at the Tribeca Film Festival. I went to see it, and when it ended I could hardly get out of my seat. Watching it again on DVD in Kabul made me weep. By refusing to exploit Ajmal's murder for the sake of suspense -- by revealing it at the start -- Olds has chosen to make a film full of the kind of fear that seems to inhabit international centers of power in Afghanistan today. The film's nervous visual style is strikingly different from the clean-cut look of Occupation: Dreamland, his earlier documentary about American soldiers in Iraq. Critics will surely have much more to say about Fixer's importance as a film. It has already won a raft of prizes, including firsts at Documenta Madrid and the Pesaro (Italy) Film Festival, and Olds took home a Tribeca award this year as the best new documentary filmmaker. How Lies Begat Illusions Begat Lies What I want to focus on, though, is the way the film resonates with conditions in Afghanistan today. Olds has the good sense to insert a quick history lesson in this film, on the grounds that you can't understand the Taliban without knowing about America's covert operations in the region in the 1980s. Back then, President Ronald Reagan's administration, mainly through the CIA, used the Pakistani Intelligence services to fund, arm, and train Afghan and foreign Islamist jihadis to defeat the Soviet army in Afghanistan. Pakistan subsequently used "channels built with U.S. money" to install in Afghanistan a friendly government -- the Taliban. Later, after the George W. Bush administration invaded the country and the U.S. ousted the Taliban, it installed Hamid Karzai as president and returned many of the old Islamist jihadis to power in his government. Thus, this peculiar, well-established fact underlies the current war in Afghanistan: the United States sponsored both sides. Some analysts say the U.S. "invented" all the "enemies" involved; others, that the U.S. (and Saudi Arabia) merely paid the bills, while Pakistan directed the action to its own advantage. Either way, this history -- much of it still secret or repeatedly re-spun -- leaves all parties to the current conflict in an intellectual sweat. They must plan for the future on the basis of a past they can't acknowledge. With national elections set for August 20th, the United States is planning for an Afghan future that still includes the jihadi buddies its officials know they should long ago have left behind. Only the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has called, year after year, for a moral accounting. Its surveys of Afghan citizens consistently find that the people want lasting peace, and to attain it, they would prefer some sort of truth and reconciliation procedure, like the one that took place in South Africa, to cleanse the country and set it on an honest intellectual and moral footing. For obvious reasons, the United States wants no part of the truth that would emerge from such a process. Just this week, the Obama administration first claimed it had no grounds to investigate General Abdul Rashid Dostum's infamous 2001 massacre of Taliban prisoners, even though Dostum seems to have been on the CIA payroll at the time, and his troops were backed by U.S. military operatives. Later, the president reversed course, ordering national security officials to "look into" the matter. In the end, President Obama may prefer to "move on." As does Dostum, who recently rejoined the Karzai administration. I've elaborated here on Olds's quick history lesson to more fully explain why you may be finding it hard these days to understand how we got into what's already being called "Obama's War" -- and how to get out. Think of it this way: everything that happens in Afghanistan is based on (1) a lie, (2) an illusion, or (3) both. Then throw in mass illusion as well, carefully constructed so that each person tells others only what they want to hear. Which brings us back to Fixer, a film steeped in stories of duplicity and self-delusion that are the personal and political currency of Afghanistan today. In one telling incident, Parenti pushes to observe the famously corrupt Afghan judiciary in action. He's rewarded with a front row seat at a murder trial, only to learn that it has been staged for his edification. In fact, a court official admits, the production Parenti witnessed didn't depict the way the court really works, but the way "it should work" according to international standards. The judiciary knows those international standards very well, since NGOs and private contractors supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development and other aid agencies have offered them training, and what's called "capacity building," for years. The trainers report success, which of course is what the aid agencies want to hear; and the trainees may be encouraged (as in this case) to perform for the public. If Parenti had played the part assigned to him in this exercise in mass illusion, he'd have reported a glowing story about the success of Afghanistan's new rule of law. (He didn't.) Afghans have an expression -- "pesh pa been" -- referring to people who move relentlessly ahead by watching their own feet. Parenti, at least, could see when he was being tripped up. But the incident leaves you wondering: if officials of the Karzai government go this far for a single American reporter, what extravagant performances have they mounted all along for junketing Senators and cabinet members, and the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Laura Bush, not to mention the recent rounds of Obama era visitors? Even Ajmal the fixer repeatedly misjudges situations and his own people; and in the end, he proves to have been more of an innocent than Parenti. In an eerie moment captured on screen, Parenti predicts that one day the Taliban will kidnap a Western journalist. No way, says Ajmal, assuming that he and his clients are protected by Pashtunwali, his (and the Taliban's) tribal code of honor. Later, working for the Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo, Ajmal fixes a fatal appointment with Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah. Taken hostage, Ajmal reassures his family in a Taliban video: "These are Muslims. We are in the hands of Islam." Behind the Hescos Where History Is Being Re-Spun Illusion and duplicity entrap the fixer, too, and spin his personal story into a political event. The Italians, who notoriously negotiate with hostage takers, persuade Karzai to exchange five Taliban prisoners for Mastrogiacomo and Ajmal. In the excitement of being freed, however, Mastrogiacomo fails to keep track of his fixer. The Taliban see an opportunity to recapture Ajmal and demand the release of two more prisoners. Karzai and his foreign minister, having freed the foreigner, then scramble to the moral high ground, refusing to negotiate with terrorists. Orders come down from Pakistan to kill Ajmal -- on April 8, 2007 -- to make Karzai look bad in the eyes of his own people. Mullah Dadullah sends a video of the beheading. Ajmal's stricken father asks, "What kind of government doesn't protect its own citizens?" The answer is: a government that's bought, paid for, and answerable to outsiders, a government that has neither the need nor the inclination to care for its citizens. As Karzai explains the matter, "The Italians built us a road." That's the government the international community is now spending more than $500 million to reelect. (Most of that money comes from the U.S.) International election officials, of course, are neutral -- so neutral that they look the other way as Karzai makes deals with rival warlords to ensure his reelection. One by one they come over to his side, and word leaks out about which ministries they've been promised. International agencies responsible for mounting the election have already abandoned the goal of a "free and fair" vote. They're aiming for "credible," which is to say, an election that looks pretty good, even if it's not. In the context of accumulated illusions, this goal is called "realistic," and perhaps it is. As the fixer's grieving father says, "Our government is a puppet of foreigners. That is why we expect nothing from it." As I write, 4,000 newly arrived U.S. Marines are trudging through the blistering heat of Helmand Province to push back the Taliban so local Pashtuns can turn out to vote next month for Karzai, their fellow Pashtun. What's wrong with this new Obama strategy? For one thing, in some areas the local Pashtun population has instead turned out to fight against the foreign invaders, side by side with the Taliban (who, it should be remembered, are mostly local Pashtuns). They're as fed up as anybody with the puppet Karzai. Like millions of other Afghans, they say Karzai has done nothing for the people. But saddled with history, Karzai remains the horse the U.S. rode in on. Let me make it clear that Olds and Parenti don't draw these comparisons to current affairs in Afghanistan. Fixer is simply and appropriately subtitled The Taking of Ajmal Nashqbandi. It's a tribute to a trusted colleague. But watch the film yourself and you'll be immersed in duplicity: officials manipulate the truth, citizens fear to tell it, Americans can't bear to look it in the face. Watch the film and maybe you'll understand how hard it has become, here behind the Hescos where history is being re-spun, to size anything up, pin anything down, recognize an enemy, or help a friend. [Note: Fixer will first be shown on HBO on Monday night, August 17th. It will be re-aired on August 20th, 23rd, 25th, 29th, and 31st. Check your local listings for the exact times.] Ann Jones is the author of Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan (Metropolitan Books, 2006). She is in Kabul this summer, working with women's organizations, as she has done intermittently since 2002. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's war: Vietnam escalation deja vu? by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 16, 2009

Gates: More US troops could head to Afghanistan By LARA JAKES (AP) - July 16, 2009 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iKWTgFoMWR18oWax9-WTTzgZPX4gD99FSB180 CHICAGO - The Pentagon's chief said Thursday he could send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year than he'd initially expected and is considering increasing the number of soldiers in the Army. Both issues reflect demands on increasingly stressed American forces tasked with fighting two wars. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' comments came during a short visit to Fort Drum in upstate New York - an Army post that that he said has deployed more soldiers to battle zones over the last 20 years than any other unit. Two Fort Drum brigades are headed to Iraq in coming months, and a third is currently in Afghanistan. Asked about Afghanistan by one soldier, Gates said, "I think there will not be a significant increase in troop levels in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000, at least probably through the end of the year. Maybe some increase, but not a lot." So far, the Obama administration has approved sending 68,000 troops to Afghanistan by the end of 2009, including 21,000 that were added this spring. The White House has wanted to wait until the end of the year before deciding whether to deploy more, but Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that Gates does not want to discourage his new commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, from taking a frank look at how many troops he needs. McChrystal, who took over as commander for all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, is expected to advise Washington in the next few weeks on his views of how to win the 8-year war. McChrystal is nearing the end of a 60-day review of troop requirements in Afghanistan, and will soon provide that report to Gates. The former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, had told Obama that he needed an additional 10,000 troops, beyond the 68,000. The White House had put off that decision until the end of this year. Gates and other military leaders have said they are reluctant to send many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, because of concerns that a large American footprint there could appear to Afghans as an occupying force. During a question-and-answer session with soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division, Gates also said he is looking at beefing up the Army with more troops. He did not say by how many, or what the plan would cost, but predicted that he'll decide as early as next week. "We are very mindful of stress on the force," he said. Earlier this week, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., filed legislation to authorize the hiring of 30,000 new active-duty Army soldiers for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. In a statement, Lieberman called it a "critical first step toward making sure that our military leaders can execute their strategy while also reducing the heavy strain on our soldiers and their families." Most of the 200 soldiers in Thursday's short town hall-style meeting are headed to Iraq later this fall. Their commander, Maj. Gen. Mike Oates, returned from his third tour in Iraq only 50 days ago and said he is working to easing stress on soldiers and their family members who have faced a seemingly revolving door of deployments since 2001. "What we're trying to do is help everybody receive this stress and deal with it better," Oates told reporters. "And there's a lot of room for growth there." Gates stopped at Fort Drum on his way to Chicago, where he gave a feisty speech Thursday evening hammering Congress for trying to tack on billions of dollars for additional F-22 fighter jets to the Pentagon's 2010 spending plan. Troop safety remained on Gates' mind, however, as he told a friendly audience of the Economic Club of Chicago that high Army suicide rates "are a reflection of the stress on the force." Fifty-one soldiers have killed themselves since March 1, the Army reported Thursday. Still, that indicates a tapering of the extremely high numbers of suicides in January and February, when 41 soldiers killed themselves amid intense Army efforts to stem the deaths. "My guess is, ultimately the solution to this problem is where our soldiers have more time at home, where there's less stress and where we are not putting people through four and five rotations in incredibly stressful situations, where it's in Iraq or Afghanistan," Gates said. He also took about 15 minutes of questions from the friendly audience, during which he repeated his belief that the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be closed as President Barack Obama has promised. He also said anew that Pentagon lawyers are looking at whether gay troops who are outed by hostile colleagues can be protected from military discharge until Congress changes the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" law. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's war: US outpost overrun at Bari Alai by Michael Munk Wed, Jul 15, 2009

We don't get such reporting in the US media US trapped in 'bitter war'? An investigation continues into how the Taliban overran the US Bari Alai outpost in Afghanistan Al-Jazeera, July 14, 2009 http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/07/200971392319600978.html Al Jazeera's Clayton Swisher spent two weeks embedded with the US military along the northeast Afghan border with Pakistan, where the Taliban has US troops on its heels. As part of a special series, he asks if US claims of success in the region stand up to scrutiny. When Barack Obama, the US president, hosted Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari at the White House back in May, a sense of urgency hung over the meeting that may not have been appreciated until now. "US troops are serving courageously and capably in a vital mission in Afghanistan," assured President Obama, "alongside our Afghan and international partners." But given that, half a world away, the Taliban had just days earlier overrun a US army outpost in the Kunar River valley near Pakistan, President Obama surely knew some people were casting doubt over just how loyal the Afghan National Army is to their American comrades. I arrived at my combat embed with the 10th Mountain Division on June 14 - six weeks after the US army suffered defeat at the Bari Alai outpost. I had not even arrived in Kunar Province when I first heard rumours of what had happened. It was the buzz among journalists at Bagram Air Base, who thought I might learn more as I was heading to that area of military operations. So, before boarding my early morning flight to the Afghan-Pakistan border the next day, I arranged for a late night meeting with Army Lieutenant Colonel Clarence Counts, the spokesman for Bagram Air Base. As might be expected, Counts kept quiet on all the predictable questions, including the construction of a new secret prison on the base to try and exorcise the ghosts of Bagram's past. He also said Afghan civilians killed in US drone attacks were an issue for OGA - Other Government Agencies. However, there was one squeamish point in our friendly pre-embed chat. "How about the army outpost that was overran by the Taliban up in Kunar?" I asked. Silence. Lean back in the chair. Change of posture. "When you say overrun," Counts carefully began, "I'm thinking the Taliban held on to that actual piece of real estate and planted their flag. That never happened." "True enough," I dissembled back, "But isn't every single outpost in Afghanistan subject to new tenants from time to time? Brits? Russians? Americans?" How could the fact that the US lost one of "its" pieces of real estate to the Taliban be denied when the only three Americans who were there were killed and the insurgents made off with almost a dozen Afghan prisoners of war? It was a question that I took with me on arrival for my embed in Kunar with Charlie Company 1-32. In my first and only meeting with the battalian executive officer - a portly man who had been making the rounds at the local outposts and had joined us in Asmar - it was clear I struck a nerve. "The Taliban got their asses kicked!" bellowed Major Peter Graner, who - from across the conference room table where we sat - went on to educate me on how the actual overrun itself did not last long and how US airpower then blasted the Taliban to smithereens. Away from the hot air of rhetoric, the major went on to tell me how the army is winning in Afghanistan. However, the rank and file grunts of Charlie 1-32 tell a different tale. Some of them told me they participated in the quick reaction force mission to rescue Bari Alai, but had arrived too late. "There was only brief media attention when... [the outpost was overrun] in the United States, where the war is all but forgotten" Some had to remove the remains of their friends whose bodies, they say, had been decimated by US bombs that were called in on their own position. The young soldiers wax heroic over what happened at Bari Alai. The incident merited only brief media attention back in the United States, where the war is all but forgotten from the news agenda as a weary public would rather look elsewhere. However, something that did make it onto the Fox News channel was a quotation by Marine Lieutenant Colonel Ted Adams, who remarked that the Afghan soldiers, who were ultimately released by their Taliban captors, were returned in "good condition, too good, actually". This supposed Afghan "treachery" has yet to be proven. In fact, from the anecdotes I collected from the American troops who first picked up the returned Afghan prisoners, the Afgan Nation Army (ANA) captives were "badly shaken" and "definitely not faking it". Defeat is never easy to admit, so it is not beyond the pale to this journalist that attempts to lay the blame on Afghan footsteps are but a way of shelving America's own severe tactical shortcomings at Bari Alai. An investigation continues into what had happened at the overrun Bari Alai outpost. Some of the only witnesses living may be found in the Baltic capital of Riga, of all places, as a Latvian special forces contingent was present when the takeover occurred. The three felled American soldiers were nominated for medals of valour, though the level of their heroics may not be appreciated as the facts are yet to be made public. It was in that spirit that a coalition soldier shared with me a thumbdrive copy of the Bari Alai takeover, which Al Jazeera aired for the first time in Monday. Here was the evidence, in case anyone forgets, of US war planes dropping munitions on its own personnel. It clearly shows how, out in the remote mountains of Afghanistan, America remains engaged in a bitter war. It is not the first time America's been overrun by insurgents. There were clear instances of it in Vietnam, for example. But one would not expect it from a war that many American thought was all but over. It was George Bush, after all, who declared on July 4, 2002, that in "Afghanistan we defeated the Taliban". That was never a true statement. And, as the Obama Administration takes ownership of this war nearly eight years since it first began, there is mounting evidence to suggest the opposite may be true. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama sends 14,000 new troops to Iraq by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 14, 2009

U.S. has new brigades with advisory mission in Iraq ABC News Julu 14, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090714/wl_nm/us_iraq_usa_troops WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Tuesday announced the deployment of newly modified Army brigades to Iraq to focus on training and development duties that will dominate the U.S. mission after combat forces leave by August 2010. Four "advisory and assistance brigades," constituting up to 14,000 soldiers, will begin deploying to Iraq this fall as part of a routine 30,000-troop rotation that also includes three Army combat brigades and three Army division headquarters, defense officials said. The overall deployment will not increase the U.S. military presence in Iraq, which currently stands at 128,000 troops. Pentagon officials said the creation of new brigades focused training Iraqi security forces will lay the groundwork for the 30,000 to 50,000 troop residual force that President Barack Obama plans to maintain in Iraq from August 2010 until all U.S. forces withdraw by January 2012. The new brigades are based on existing Army combat brigades that have prosecuted the war in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. "But it's a different mission," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "The mission of these brigades will be to train and mentor Iraqi security forces, conduct coordinated counterterrorism missions and protect ongoing civilian and military efforts." He said the new brigades still will be able to conduct full-spectrum combat operations when necessary. Under Obama's plan, the Pentagon would maintain the U.S. force at the current levels through Iraq's upcoming elections and begin drawing down troops early next year as the mission's focus shifts from combat to training and support. The residual force that remains after August 2010 is expected to consist of six advisory and assistance brigades. Three of the new brigades are being drawn from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division. The fourth will come from its 4th Infantry Division. Pentagon officials said the new brigades differ from conventional combat brigades because they have larger numbers of field-grade officers and civil-military capabilities including civil affairs personnel, engineers, military police and transportation specialists to support State Department development efforts. "They will typically also have personnel attached working in areas such as rule of law, governance, economic development," a Pentagon statement said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Correction? Obama will investigate war crime? by Michael Munk Mon, Jul 13, 2009

I sent out a story yesterday reporting that Obama spokepoeple said he would NOT investigate because the crimes were committed abroad by foreigners. Obama Orders Probe of Alleged Mass Grave Investigation to focus on the deaths of up to 2,000 Taliban in Afghanistan. 12 July 2009 http://www.truthout.org/071309B?n by: | Visit article original @ The Associated Press Washington - President Barack Obama has ordered his national security team to investigate reports that U.S. allies were responsible for the deaths of as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners of war during the opening days of the war in Afghanistan. Obama told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday that he doesn't know how the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance behaved in November 2001, but he wants a full accounting before deciding how to move forward. "I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have even in war," Obama said during an interview at the end of a six-day trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana. "And if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of the laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that." Were They Killed by US-Backed Forces? The president's comments seem to reverse officials' statements from Friday, when they said they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces. Reacting to the interview, Physicians for Human Rights hailed Obama's decision. "President Obama is right to say that U.S. and Afghan violations of the laws of war must be investigated," said Nathaniel Raymond, a Physicians for Human Rights researcher. "If the Obama administration finds that criminal wrongdoing occurred in this case, those responsible - whether American or Afghan officials - must be prosecuted." But Obama's direction - discussed as he toured a former slave castle on Ghana's coast - does not guarantee action. "We'll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all the facts gathered up," Obama said. The mass deaths were brought up anew Friday in a report by The New York Times. It quoted government and human rights officials accusing the Bush administration of failing to investigate the executions of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of prisoners. U.S. officials said Friday they did not have legal grounds to investigate the deaths because only foreigners were involved and the alleged killings occurred in a foreign country. The Times pointed to U.S. military and CIA ties to Afghan Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, accused by human rights groups of ordering the killings. The newspaper said the Defense Department and FBI never fully investigated the incident. Prisoners Died in Transit in 2001 The allegations date back to November 2001, when as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners died in transit after surrendering during one of the regime's last stands, according to a State Department report from 2002. Witnesses have claimed that forces with the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance placed the prisoners in sealed cargo containers over the two-day voyage to Sheberghan Prison, suffocating them and then burying them en masse, using bulldozers to move the bodies, according to the State Department report. Some Northern Alliance soldiers have said that some of their troops opened fire on the containers, killing those within. Dostum, the Northern Alliance general who is accused of overseeing the atrocities, has previously denied the allegations. He was suspended from his military post last year on suspicion of threatening a political rival, but Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently rehired him. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Real costs of the Bush/Obama wars by Michael Munk Mon, Jul 13, 2009

Obama continues Bush's coverup of war crimes by Michael Munk Sun, Jul 12, 2009

The trouble with Obama's decision to support Bush's effort to avoid responsibility for another war crime is that it was committed by a bought and paid-for military ally of the US (war lord Abdul Rashid Dostum) as part of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the murdered prisoners surrendered while under heavy air attack by the US. There's an old BBC doc on the story. Obama sounds more like Bush every damn day. Obama Admin: No Grounds to Probe Afghan War Crimes 11 July 2009 http://www.truthout.org/071209F?n by: Lara Jakes | Visit article original @ The Associated Press Washington - Obama administration officials said Friday they had no grounds to investigate the 2001 deaths of Taliban prisoners of war who human rights groups allege were killed by U.S.-backed forces. The mass deaths were brought up anew Friday in a report by The New York Times on its Web site. It quoted government and human rights officials accusing the Bush administration of failing to investigate the executions of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of prisoners. U.S. officials said Friday they did not have legal grounds to investigate the deaths because only foreigners were involved and the alleged killings occurred in a foreign country. The Times cited U.S. military and CIA ties to Afghan Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, whom human rights groups accuse of ordering the killings. The newspaper said the Defense Department and FBI never fully investigated the incident. Asked about the report, Marine Corps Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that since U.S. military forces were not involved in the killings, there is nothing the Defense Department could investigate. "There is no indication that U.S. military forces were there, or involved, or had any knowledge of this," Lapan said. "So there was not a full investigation conducted because there was no evidence that there was anything from a DoD (Department of Defense) perspective to investigate." A Justice Department official said the FBI had no jurisdiction to investigate. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Separately, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller declined to comment. A spokesman for former President George W. Bush did not have an immediate comment Friday night. Reacting to the Times' report, human rights group Physicians for Human Rights called for the Justice Department to begin a criminal investigation into whether the Bush administration blocked inquiries into the Taliban deaths. "For U.S. government officials to claim that there is no legal basis to investigate this well-documented mass atrocity is absurd," said the groups deputy director, Susannah Sirkin. The allegations date back to November 2001, when as many as 2,000 Taliban prisoners died in transit after surrendering during one of the regime's last stands, according to a State Department report from 2002. Witnesses have claimed that forces with the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance placed the prisoners in sealed cargo containers over the two-day voyage to Sheberghan Prison, suffocating them and then burying them en masse using bulldozers to move the bodies, according to the State Department report. Some Northern Alliance soldiers have said that some of their troops opened fire on the containers, killing those within. Dostum, the Northern Alliance general who is accused of overseeing the atrocities, has previously denied the allegations. A former U.S. ambassador for war crimes issues, Pierre Prosper, told the Times that the Bush administration was reluctant to investigate the deaths, even though Dostum was on the payroll of the CIA and his soldiers worked with U.S. special forces in 2001. Dostum was suspended from his military post last year on suspicion of threatening a political rival, but Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently rehired him, the Times reported. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Malia Obama's message by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 10, 2009

=20 Statement dresser: Malia Obama in a T-shirt bearing the Campaign for = Nuclear Disarmament symbol in Rome ahead of the G8 summit Read more: = http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1198393/Miss-Obamas-pea= cenik-T-shirt-sends-message-G8-leaders.html#ixzz0Kv7AloPW&C visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Misguided feminists support Obama's Afghan war by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 10, 2009

Why Is a Leading Feminist Organization Lending Its Name to Support Escalation in Afghanistan? By Sonali Kolhatkar and Mariam Rawi, AlterNet. Posted July 8, 2009. http://www.alternet.org/world/141165/why_is_a_leading_feminist_organization_lending_its_name_to_support_escalation_in_afghanistan/?page=entire Waging war does not lead to the liberation of women anywhere -- even if you call soldiers "peacekeeping forces."Years ago, following the initial military success of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the temporary fall of the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan were promised that the occupying armies would rebuild the country and improve life for the Afghan people. Today, eight years after the U.S. entered Kabul, there are still piles of garbage in the streets. There is no running water. There is only intermittent electricity in the cities, and none in the countryside. Afghans live under the constant threat of military violence. The U.S. invasion has been a failure, and increasing the U.S. troop presence will not undo the destruction the war has brought to the daily lives of Afghans. As humanitarians and as feminists, it is the welfare of the civilian population in Afghanistan that concerns us most deeply. That is why it was so discouraging to learn that the Feminist Majority Foundation has lent its good name -- and the good name of feminism in general -- to advocate for further troop escalation and war. On its foundation Web site, the first stated objective of the Feminist Majority Foundation's "Campaign for Afghan Women and Girls" is to "expand peacekeeping forces." First of all, coalition troops are combat forces and are there to fight a war, not to preserve peace. Not even the Pentagon uses that language to describe U.S. forces there. More importantly, the tired claim that one of the chief objectives of the military occupation of Afghanistan is to liberate Afghan women is not only absurd, it is offensive. Waging war does not lead to the liberation of women anywhere. Women always disproportionately suffer the effects of war, and to think that women's rights can be won with bullets and bloodshed is a position dangerous in its naïveté. The Feminist Majority should know this instinctively. Here are the facts: After the invasion, Americans received reports that newly liberated women had cast off their burquas and gone back to work. Those reports were mythmaking and propaganda. Aside from a small number of women in Kabul, life for Afghan women since the fall of the Taliban has remained the same or become much worse. Under the Taliban, women were confined to their homes. They were not allowed to work or attend school. They were poor and without rights. They had no access to clean water or medical care, and they were forced into marriages, often as children. Today, women in the vast majority of Afghanistan live in precisely the same conditions, with one notable difference: they are surrounded by war. The conflict outside their doorsteps endangers their lives and those of their families. It does not bring them rights in the household or in public, and it confines them even further to the prison of their own homes. Military escalation is just going to bring more tragedy to the women of Afghanistan. In the past few years, some cosmetic changes were made regarding Afghan women. The establishment of a Ministry of Women's Affairs was one celebrated example. In fact, this ministry is so useless many think that it should be dissolved. The quota for 25 percent women in the Afghan parliament was another such show. Although there are 67 women in the Afghan parliament, most of them are pro-warlord and are themselves enemies of women's rights. When the famed marriage rape law was passed in the parliament, none of them seriously raised their voice against it. Malalai Joya, an outspoken feminist in the parliament at the time, has said that she has been abused and threatened by these pro-warlord women in the parliament. The U.S. military may have removed the Taliban, but it installed warlords who are as anti-woman and as criminal as the Taliban. Misogynistic, patriarchal views are now embodied by the Afghan cabinet, they are expressed in the courts, and they are embodied by President Hamid Karzai. Paper gains for women's rights mean nothing when, according to the chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court, the only two rights women are guaranteed by the constitution are the right to obey their husbands and the right to pray, but not in a mosque. These are the convictions of the government the U.S. has helped to create. The American presence in Afghanistan will do nothing to diminish them. Sadly, as horrifying as the status of women in Afghanistan may sound to those of us who live in the West, the biggest problems faced by Afghan women are not related to patriarchy. Their biggest problem is war. More than 2,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2008. And disastrous air strikes like the one in Farah province in May that killed an estimated 120 people -- many of them women and children -- are pushing the death toll ever higher. Afghans who survive these attacks often flee to cities, where overcrowded refugee camps strain to accommodate them. Living in tents without food, water and often blankets, the mortality rate soars. For those who do not flee, life is not better. One in three Afghans suffers from severe poverty. With a 1 in 55 chance of mothers surviving delivery, Afghanistan has been, and still, is the second most dangerous place for women to give birth. Afghan infants still face a 25 percent risk of dying before their fifth birthdays. These are the consequences of war. In addition, in the eight years since the U.S. invasion, opium production has exploded by 4,400 percent, making Afghanistan the world capital of opium. The violence of the drug mafia now poses greater danger to Afghanistan and its women than the rule of the Taliban. Some of the biggest drug-traffickers are part of the U.S. puppet regime. To make matters worse, corruption in the Afghan government has never been so prevalent -- even under the Taliban. Now, even Western sources say that only pennies of every dollar spent on aid reach the people who need it. If coalition forces are really concerned about women, these are the problems that must be addressed. The military establishment claims that it must win the military victory first, and then the U.S. will take care of humanitarian needs. But they have it backward. Improve living conditions and security will improve. Focus on security at the expense of humanitarian goals, and coalition forces will accomplish neither. The first step toward improving people's lives is a negotiated settlement to end the war. In our conversations arguing this point, we are told that the U.S. cannot leave Afghanistan because of what will happen to women if they go. Let us be clear: Women are being gang raped, brutalized and killed in Afghanistan. Forced marriages continue, and more women than ever are being forced into prostitution -- often to meet the demand of foreign troops. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is doing nothing to protect Afghan women. The level of self-immolation among women was never as high as it is now. When there is no justice for women, they find no other way out but suicide. Feminists and other humanitarians should learn from history. This isn't the first time the welfare of women has been trotted out as a pretext for imperialist military aggression. Columbia Professor Lila Abu-Lughod, a woman of Palestinian descent, writes: "We need to be suspicious when neat cultural icons are plastered over messier historical and political narratives; so we need to be wary when Lord Cromer in British-ruled Egypt, French ladies in Algeria, and Laura Bush, all with military troops behind them, claim to be saving or liberating Muslim women." Feminists around the world must refuse to allow the good name of feminism to be manipulated to provide political cover for yet another war of aggression. The Feminist Majority Foundation would do well to heed the demand of dissident Member of Parliament Malalai Joya, representing Farah province, who was kicked out of the parliament last year for courageously speaking out. Addressing a press conference in the wake of the U.S. bombing of her province she was clear: "We ask for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan and a stop to such tragic war crimes." That should be the first action item for the Feminist Majority Foundation's Campaign for Afghan Women and Girls. ---------------------------------------- Sonali Kolhatkar is co-cirector of the Afghan Women's Mission, a U.S. nonprofit that funds health, educational and training projects for Afghan women. She is also the host and producer of Uprising Radio. Mariam Rawi is a member of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan writing under a pseudonym. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The occupation Obama imposes in the dark by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 10, 2009

Tomgram: July 9, 2009 Michael Schwartz, Twenty-First-Century Colonialism in Iraq http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175093/michael_schwartz_twenty_first_century_colonialism_in_iraq One of the earliest metaphors President George W. Bush and some of his top officials wielded in their post-invasion salad days in Iraq involved bicycles. The question was: Should we take the "training wheels" off the Iraqi bike (of democracy)? Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, commented smugly on the way getting Iraq "straightened out" was like teaching your kid to ride a bike: "They're learning, and you're running down the street holding on to the back of the seat. You know that if you take your hand off they could fall, so you take a finger off and then two fingers, and pretty soon you're just barely touching it. You can't know when you're running down the street how many steps you're going to have to take. We can't know that, but we're off to a good start." That image (about as patronizingly colonial as they come) of the little pedaling Iraqi child with an American parent running close behind, was abandoned when around the first corner, as it turned out, was an insurgent with an rocket-propelled grenade. Many years and many disasters later, though, Americans, whether in the Obama administration, the Washington punditocracy, or the media are still almost incapable of not being patronizing when it comes to Iraq. Take a typical recent piece of "news analysis" in the New York Times by a perfectly sharp journalist, Alissa J. Rubin. It was headlined in print "America's New Role in Iraq Prompts a Search for Means of Influence" and focused, in part, on Vice President Joe Biden's recent trip there supposedly to "assuage" Iraqi feelings that they are being "moved to the bottom shelf." Rubin writes (and this sort of thing has been written countless times before) that the Americans are now in search of a "new tone" for their dealings in that country. (In the Bush years, this was often called -- in another strange imperial metaphor -- "putting an Iraqi face" on things.) "They have," she comments, "a reputation for being heavy-handed, for telling Iraqis what to do rather than asking what they want." But of course, as the piece makes clear, whatever his tone, Biden arrived in Iraq to tell Iraqis what they should do -- or as she puts it, to try to "solve" the "troubles... that stymied three previous ambassadors and President George W. Bush": continuing sectarian animosities, the passage of an Iraqi oil law, and the Kurdish problem. These, it seems, are still our burden and we really can't imagine it any other way. As the Iraqis quoted in Rubin's piece make clear, the dominant role played by the U.S. is resented by the occupied -- especially the elite -- who have contempt for the occupiers, even if they find it hard to imagine life without them. I mention this only because the tone of American writing and thought on Iraq has always been tinged with what Michael Schwartz, TomDispatch regular and author of a superb study, War Without End: The Iraq War in Context, says is a deeper colonial urge, one that unfortunately may not be fading, even as discussion of a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq grows. (Catch a TomDispatch audio interview with Schwartz by clicking here.) Tom Colonizing Iraq The Obama Doctrine? By Michael Schwartz Here's how reporters Steven Lee Myers and Marc Santora of the New York Times described the highly touted American withdrawal from Iraq's cities last week: "Much of the complicated work of dismantling and removing millions of dollars of equipment from the combat outposts in the city has been done during the dark of night. Gen. Ray Odierno, the overall American commander in Iraq, has ordered that an increasing number of basic operations -- transport and re-supply convoys, for example -- take place at night, when fewer Iraqis are likely to see that the American withdrawal is not total." Acting in the dark of night, in fact, seems to catch the nature of American plans for Iraq in a particularly striking way. Last week, despite the death of Michael Jackson, Iraq made it back into the TV news as Iraqis celebrated a highly publicized American military withdrawal from their cities. Fireworks went off; some Iraqis gathered to dance and cheer; the first military parade since Saddam Hussein's day took place (in the fortified Green Zone, the country's ordinary streets still being too dangerous for such things); the U.S. handed back many small bases and outposts; and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki proclaimed a national holiday -- "sovereignty day," he called it. All of this fit with a script promisingly laid out by President Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign. More recently, in his much praised speech to the students of Egypt's Cairo University, he promised that the U.S. would keep no bases in Iraq, and would indeed withdraw its military forces from the country by the end of 2011. Unfortunately, not just for the Iraqis, but for the American public, it's what's happening in "the dark" -- beyond the glare of lights and TV cameras -- that counts. While many critics of the Iraq War have been willing to cut the Obama administration some slack as its foreign policy team and the U.S. military gear up for that definitive withdrawal, something else -- something more unsettling -- appears to be going on. And it wasn't just the president's hedging over withdrawing American "combat" troops from Iraq - which, in any case, make up as few as one-third of the 130,000 U.S. forces still in the country -- now extended from 16 to 19 months. Nor was it the re-labeling of some of them as "advisors" so they could, in fact, stay in the vacated cities, or the redrawing of the boundary lines of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, to exclude a couple of key bases the Americans weren't about to give up. After all, there can be no question that the Obama administration's policy is indeed to reduce what the Pentagon might call the U.S. military "footprint" in Iraq. To put it another way, Obama's key officials seem to be opting not for blunt-edged, Bush-style militarism, but for what might be thought of as an administrative push in Iraq, what Vice President Joe Biden has called "a much more aggressive program vis-à-vis the Iraqi government to push it to political reconciliation." An anonymous senior State Department official described this new "dark of night" policy recently to Christian Science Monitor reporter Jane Arraf this way: "One of the challenges of that new relationship is how the U.S. can continue to wield influence on key decisions without being seen to do so." Without being seen to do so. On this General Odierno and the unnamed official are in agreement. And so, it seems, is Washington. As a result, the crucial thing you can say about the Obama administration's military and civilian planning so far is this: ignore the headlines, the fireworks, and the briefly cheering crowds of Iraqis on your TV screen. Put all that talk of withdrawal aside for a moment and -- if you take a closer look, letting your eyes adjust to the darkness -- what is vaguely visible is the silhouette of a new American posture in Iraq. Think of it as the Obama Doctrine. And what it doesn't look like is the posture of an occupying power preparing to close up shop and head for home. As your eyes grow accustomed to the darkness, you begin to identify a deepening effort to ensure that Iraq remains a U.S. client state, or, as General Odierno described it to the press on June 30th, "a long-term partner with the United States in the Middle East." Whether Obama's national security team can succeed in this is certainly an open question, but, on a first hard look, what seems to be coming into focus shouldn't be too unfamiliar to students of history. Once upon a time, it used to have a name: colonialism. Colonialism in Iraq Traditional colonialism was characterized by three features: ultimate decision-making rested with the occupying power instead of the indigenous client government; the personnel of the colonial administration were governed by different laws and institutions than the colonial population; and the local political economy was shaped to serve the interests of the occupying power. All the features of classic colonialism took shape in the Bush years in Iraq and are now, as far as we can tell, being continued, in some cases even strengthened, in the early months of the Obama era. The U.S. embassy in Iraq, built by the Bush administration to the tune of $740 million, is by far the largest in the world. It is now populated by more than 1,000 administrators, technicians, and professionals -- diplomatic, military, intelligence, and otherwise -- though all are regularly, if euphemistically, referred to as "diplomats" in official statements and in the media. This level of staffing -- 1,000 administrators for a country of perhaps 30 million -- is well above the classic norm for imperial control. Back in the early twentieth century, for instance, Great Britain utilized fewer officials to rule a population of 300 million in its Indian Raj. Such a concentration of foreign officialdom in such a gigantic regional command center -- and no downsizing or withdrawals are yet apparent there -- certainly signals Washington's larger imperial design: to have sufficient administrative labor power on hand to ensure that American advisors remain significantly embedded in Iraqi political decision-making, in its military, and in the key ministries of its (oil-dominated) economy. From the first moments of the occupation of Iraq, U.S. officials have been sitting in the offices of Iraqi politicians and bureaucrats, providing guidelines, training decision-makers, and brokering domestic disputes. As a consequence, Americans have been involved, directly or indirectly, in virtually all significant government decision-making. In a recent article, for example, the New York Times reported that U.S. officials are "quietly lobbying" to cancel a mandated nationwide referendum on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated between the United States and Iraq -- a referendum that, if defeated, would at least theoretically force the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the country. In another article, the Times reported that embassy officials have "sometimes stepped in to broker peace between warring blocs" in the Iraqi Parliament. In yet another, the military newspaper Stars and Stripes mentioned in passing that an embassy official "advises Iraqis running the $100 million airport" just completed in Najaf. And so it goes. Segregated Living Most colonial regimes erect systems in which foreigners involved in occupation duties are served (and disciplined) by an institutional structure separate from the one that governs the indigenous population. In Iraq, the U.S. has been building such a structure since 2003, and the Obama administration shows every sign of extending it. As in all embassies around the world, U.S. embassy officials are not subject to the laws of the host country. The difference is that, in Iraq, they are not simply stamping visas and the like, but engaged in crucial projects involving them in myriad aspects of daily life and governance, although as an essentially separate caste within Iraqi society. Military personnel are part of this segregated structure: the recently signed SOFA insures that American soldiers will remain virtually untouchable by Iraqi law, even if they kill innocent civilians. Versions of this immunity extend to everyone associated with the occupation. Private security, construction, and commercial contractors employed by occupation forces are not protected by the SOFA agreement, but are nonetheless shielded from the laws and regulations that apply to normal Iraqi residents. As an Iraq-based FBI official told the New York Times, the obligations of contractors are defined by "new arrangements between Iraq and the United States governing contractors' legal status." In a recent case in which five employees of one U.S. contractor were charged with killing another contractor, the case was jointly investigated by Iraqi police and "local representatives of the FBI," with ultimate jurisdiction negotiated by Iraqi and U.S. embassy officials. The FBI has established a substantial presence in Iraq to carry out these "new arrangements." This special handling extends to enterprises servicing the billions of dollars spent every month in Iraq on U.S. contracts. A contractor's prime responsibility is to follow "guidelines the U.S. military handed down in 2006." In all this, Iraqi law has a distinctly secondary role. In one apparently typical case, a Kuwaiti contractor hired to feed U.S. soldiers was accused of imprisoning its foreign workers and then, when they protested, sending them home without pay. This case was handled by U.S. officials, not the Iraqi government. Beyond this legal segregation, the U.S. has also been erecting a segregated infrastructure within Iraq. Most embassies and military bases around the world rely on the host country for food, electricity, water, communications, and daily supplies. Not the U.S. embassy or the five major bases that are at the heart of the American military presence in that country. They all have their own electrical generating and water purification systems, their own dedicated communications, and imported food from outside the country. None, naturally, offer indigenous Iraqi cuisine; the embassy imports ingredients suitable for reasonably upscale American restaurants, and the military bases feature American fast food and chain restaurant fare. The United States has even created the rudiments of its own transportation system. Iraqis often are delayed when traveling within or between cities, thanks to an occupation-created (and now often Iraqi-manned) maze of checkpoints, cement barriers, and bombed-out streets and roads; on the other hand, U.S. soldiers and officials in certain areas can move around more quickly, thanks to special privileges and segregated facilities. In the early years of the occupation, large military convoys transporting supplies or soldiers simply took temporary possession of Iraqi highways and streets. Iraqis who didn't quickly get out of the way were threatened with lethal firepower. To negotiate sometimes hours-long lines at checkpoints, Americans were given special ID cards that "guaranteed swift passage... in a separate lane past waiting Iraqis." Though the guaranteed "swift passage" was supposed to end with the signing of the SOFA, the system is still operating at many checkpoints, and convoys continue to roar through Iraqi communities with "Iraqi drivers still pulling over en masse." Recently, the occupation has also been appropriating various streets and roads for its exclusive use (an idea that may have been borrowed from Israel's 40-year-old occupation of the West Bank). This innovation has made unconvoyed transportation safer for embassy officials, contractors, and military personnel, while degrading further the Iraqi road system, already in a state of disrepair, by closing useable thoroughfares. Paradoxically, it has also allowed insurgents to plant roadside bombs with the assurance of targeting only foreigners. Such an incident outside Falluja illustrates what have now become Obama-era policies in Iraq: "The Americans were driving along a road used exclusively by the American military and reconstruction teams when a bomb, which local Iraqi security officials described as an improvised explosive device, went off. No Iraqi vehicles, even those of the army and the police, are allowed to use the road where the attack occurred, according to residents. There is a checkpoint only 200 yards from the site of the attack to prevent unauthorized vehicles, the residents said." It is unclear whether this road will be handed back to the Iraqis, if and when the base it services is shuttered. Either way, the larger policy appears to be well established -- the designation of segregated roads to accommodate the 1,000 diplomats and tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors who implement their policies. And this is only one aspect of a dedicated infrastructure designed to facilitate ongoing U.S. involvement in developing, implementing, and administering political-economic policies in Iraq. Whose Military Is It? One way to "free up" the American military for withdrawal would, of course, be if the Iraqi military could manage the pacification mission alone. But don't expect that any time soon. According to media reports, if all goes well, this isn't likely to occur for at least a decade. One telltale sign of this is the pervasive presence of American military advisors still embedded in Iraqi combat units. First Lt. Matthew Liebal, for example, "sits every day beside Lt. Col Mohammed Hadi," the commander of the Iraqi 43rd Army Brigade that patrols eastern Baghdad. When it comes to the Iraqi military, this sort of supervision won't be temporary. After all, the military the U.S. helped create in Iraq still lacks, among other things, significant logistical capability, heavy artillery, and an air force. Consequently, U.S. forces transport and re-supply Iraqi troops, position and fire high-caliber ordnance, and supply air support when needed. Since the U.S. military is unwilling to allow Iraqi officers to command American soldiers, they obviously can't make decisions about firing artillery, launching and directing U.S. Air Force planes, or sending U.S. logistical personnel into war zones. All major Iraqi missions are, then, fated to be accompanied by U.S. advisors and support personnel for an unknown period to come. The Iraqi military is not expected to get a wing of modern jet fighters (or have the trained pilots to fly them) until at least 2015. This means that, wherever U.S. air power might be stationed, including the massive air base at Balad north of Baghdad, it will, in effect, be the Iraqi air force for the foreseeable future. Even the simplest policing functions of the military might prove problematic without the American presence. Typically, when an Iraqi battalion commander was asked by New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers "whether he needed American backup for a criminal arrest, he replied simply, 'Of course.'" John Snell, an Australian advisor to the U.S. military, was just as blunt, telling an Agence France Presse reporter that, if the United States withdrew its troops, the Iraqi military "would rapidly disintegrate." In a World Policy Journal article last winter, John A. Nagl, a military expert and former advisor to General David Petraeus, expressed a commonly held opinion that an independent Iraqi military is likely to be at least a decade away. Whose Economy Is It? Terry Barnich, a victim of the previously discussed Falluja roadside bombing, personified the economic embeddedness of the occupation. As the U.S. State Department's Deputy Director of the Iraq Transition Assistance Office and the top adviser to Iraq's Electricity Minister, when he died he was "returning from an inspection of a wastewater treatment plant being built in Falluja." His dual role as a high official in the policy-making process and the "top advisor" to one of Iraq's major infrastructural ministries catches the continuing U.S. posture toward Iraq in the early months of the Obama era. Iraq remains, however reluctantly, a client government; significant aspects of ultimate decision-making power still reside with the occupation forces. Note, by the way, that Barnich was evidently not even traveling with Iraqi officials. The intrusive presence of the Baghdad embassy extends to the all-important oil industry, which today provides 95% of the government's funds. When it comes to energy, the occupation has long sought to shape policy and transfer operational responsibility from Iraqi state-owned enterprises of the Saddam Hussein years to major international oil companies. In one of its most successful efforts, in 2004, the U.S. delivered an exclusive $1.2 billion contract to reconstruct Iraq's decrepit southern oil transport facilities (which handle 80% of its oil flow) to KBR, the notorious former subsidiary of Halliburton. Supervision of that famously mismanaged contract, still uncompleted five years later, was allocated to the U.S. Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The Iraqi government, in fact, still exerts remarkably little control over "Iraqi" oil revenues. The Development Fund for Iraq (whose revenues are deposited in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) was established under U.N. auspices just after the invasion and receives 95% of the proceeds from Iraq's oil sales. All government withdrawals are then overseen by the U.N.-sanctioned International Advisory and Monitoring Board, a U.S.-appointed panel of experts drawn mainly from the global oil and financial industries. The transfer of this oversight function to an Iraqi-appointed body, which was supposed to take place in this January, has been delayed by the Obama administration, which claims that the Iraqi government is not yet ready to take on such a responsibility. In the meantime, the campaign to transfer administration of core oil operations to the major oil companies continues. Despite the resistance of Iraqi oil workers, the administrators of the two national oil companies, a majority bloc in parliament, and public opinion, the U.S. has continued to pressure the al-Maliki administration to enact an oil law that would mandate licensing devices called production-sharing agreements (PSAs). If enacted, these PSAs would, without transferring permanent ownership, grant oil companies effective control over Iraq's oil fields, giving them full discretion to exploit the country's oil reserves from exploration to sales. U.S. pressure has ranged from ongoing "advice" delivered by American officials stationed in relevant Iraqi ministries to threats to confiscate some or all of the oil monies deposited in the Development Fund. At the moment, the Iraqi government is attempting to take a more limited step: auctioning management contracts to international oil companies in an effort to increase production at eight existing oil and natural gas fields. While the winning companies would not gain the full discretion to explore, produce, and sell in some of the world's potentially richest fields, they would at least gain some administrative control over upgrading equipment and extracting oil, possibly for as long as 20 years. If the auction proves ultimately successful (not at all a certainty, since the first round produced only one as-yet-unsigned agreement), the Iraqi oil industry would become more deeply embedded in the occupation apparatus, no matter what officially happens to American forces in that country. Among other things, the American embassy would almost certainly be responsible for inspecting and guiding the work of the contract-winners, while the U.S. military and private contractors would become guarantors of their on-the-ground security. Fayed al-Nema, the CEO of the South Oil Company, spoke for most of the opponents of such deals when he told Reuters reporter Ahmed Rasheed that the contracts, if approved, would "put the Iraqi economy in chains and shackle its independence for the next 20 years." Who Owns Iraq? In 2007, Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve, told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that "taking Saddam out was essential" -- a point he made in his book The Age of Turbulence -- because the United States could not afford to be "beholden to potentially unfriendly sources of oil and gas" in Iraq. It's exactly that sort of thinking that's still operating in U.S. policy circles: the 2008 National Defense Strategy, for example, calls for the use of American military power to maintain "access to and flow of energy resources vital to the world economy." After only five months in office, the Obama administration has already provided significant evidence that, like its predecessor, it remains committed to maintaining that "access to and flow of energy resources" in Iraq, even as it places its major military bet on winning the expanding war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There can be no question that Washington is now engaged in an effort to significantly reduce its military footprint in Iraq, but without, if all goes well for Washington, reducing its influence. What this looks like is an attempted twenty-first-century version of colonial domination, possibly on the cheap, as resources are transferred to the Eastern wing of the Greater Middle East. There is, of course, no more a guarantee that this new strategy -- perhaps best thought of as colonialism lite or the Obama Doctrine -- will succeed than there was for the many failed military-first offensives undertaken by the Bush administration. After all, in the unsettled, still violent atmosphere of Iraq, even the major oil companies have hesitated to rush in and the auctioning of oil contracts has begun to look uncertain, even as other "civilian" initiatives remain, at best, incomplete. As the Obama administration comes face-to-face with the reality of trying fulfill General Odierno's ambition of making Iraq into "a long-term partner with the United States in the Middle East" while fighting a major counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, it may also encounter a familiar dilemma faced by nineteenth-century colonial powers: that without the application of overwhelming military force, the intended colony may drift away toward sovereign independence. If so, then the dreary prediction of Pulitzer Prize-winning military correspondent Thomas Ricks -- that the United States is only "halfway through this war" -- may prove all too accurate. A professor of sociology at Stony Brook State University, Michael Schwartz is the author of War Without End: The Iraq War in Context (Haymarket Books), which explains how the militarized geopolitics of oil led the U.S. to dismantle the Iraqi state and economy while fueling a sectarian civil war. Schwartz's work on Iraq has appeared in numerous academic and popular outlets. He is a regular at TomDispatch.com. (An audio interview with him on the situation in Iraq is available by clicking here.) His email address is ms42@optonline.net. [Michael Schwartz's Note on Further Reading: For daily regular and reliable information about the now hard-to-keep-track-of situation in Iraq, you should go to Juan Cole's indispensable Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and Truthout. They all get you the news of the day and much more. For more focused and often in-depth information on specific topics, keep track of what is posted on Dahr Jamail's website, on Ben Lando's ever useful Iraq Oil Report, and read anything by Patrick Cockburn at the (London) Independent. Two of my favorite, though only occasional, commentators on things Iraqi are Badger at Missing Link and Reider Visser at Historiae. Both seem to have information and offer analyses that don't appear elsewhere.] visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Are liberals right about Obama? by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 10, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Must Call Off this Folly before Afghanistan Becomes his Vietnam by Simon Jenkins The Guardian (UK) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/25/afghanistan-vietnam-taliban-iraq-dannatt VIA cord macguire June 25, 2009 If good intentions ever paved a road to hell, they are doing so in Afghanistan. History rarely declares when folly turns to ­disaster, but it does so now. Barack Obama and his amanuensis, Gordon Brown, are uncannily repeating the route taken by American leaders in Vietnam from 1963 to 1975. Galbraith once said that the best thing about the Great Depression was that it warned against another. Does the same apply to Vietnam? Vietnam began with Kennedy's noble 1963 intervention, to keep the communist menace at bay and thus make the world safe for democracy. That is what George Bush and Tony Blair said of ­terrorism and Afghanistan. Vietnam escalated as the Diem regime in Saigon failed to contain Vietcong aggression and was deposed with American ­collusion. By 1965, despite Congress scepticism, American advisers, then planes, then ground forces were deployed. Allies were begged to join but few agreed - and not Britain. The presence of Americans on Asian soil turned a local insurgency into a regional crusade. Foreign aid rallied to the Vietcong cause to resist what was seen as a neo-imperialist invasio