Archive: Michael Munk's National Messages:

Pentagon's secret KBR war contract by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 1, 2010

Hexavalent chromium issues: Army Secretary says KBR contract still classified By Julie Sullivan The Oregonian, Sept 1, 2010 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/army_secretary_says_kbr_contra.html The Army's combat mission in Iraq has ended, but details of the no-bid contract it signed with Kellogg, Brown and Root before the war started remain classified. On Tuesday, Sec. of the Army John McHugh said he would not release the contract's specifics that holds taxpayers -- and not KBR -- responsible for any harm to a soldier or civilian as it worked restoring Iraqi oil flows in 2003. But in a two-page response to U. S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer's demand for details, McHugh reveals how unusual the Army's arrangement with the former Halliburton subsidiary was. "Apart from the Restore Iraqi Oil contract with KBR, no other Army contracts awarded since 2001....contain indemnification provisions," McHugh wrote. "The Army has made no payments as a result of indemnification provisions with contractors supporting contingency operations in Iraq. Afghanistan or anywhere else." In July, Blumenauer demanded the Army produce the contract after KBR's claims of immunity emerged in a U.S. District Court case in Portland. Chris Heinrich, a KBR attorney, said in a sworn deposition that after KBR signed its Restore Iraqi Oil contract and as the March 2003 invasion was taking place, he went to the Pentagon himself to demand immunity for KBR. He told Army officials that KBR refused to do the restoration without "broad coverage." KBR required that taxpayers -- not the war contractor -- pay for any property damage, injury or death at any KBR site. That applies even if the harm resulted from KBR negligence. KBR eventually billed the government $2.5 billion for the work. Hexavalent chromium Read The Oregonian's continuing coverage of the problems with Hexavalent Chromium.But it could cost taxpayers millions more. Dozens of National Guard soldiers from four states have sued KBR since 2008 claiming the contractor knowingly or negligently exposed them to a cancer-causing chemical at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant. Among them: 26 Oregon Army National Guard soldiers who arrived at the Iraq plant in late May 2003. They claim breathing, stomach and skin issues result from their exposure to hexavalent chromium. Blumenauer expressed disbelief that the specifics would remain classified -- even after combat operations ceased. "Who is it precisely we're keeping information from?" he asked. "It appears the only reason to invoke this classification at this point is to keep information from the American public." Blumenauer said he is drafting a bill requiring such an arrangement be reported to Congress in the future. "There ought to be someone looking over their shoulders." Meanwhile, the National Guard soldiers' case is moving forward in Portland. Monday, U.S. District Magistrate Judge Paul Papak denied a KBR motion to dismiss. Spokeswoman Heather Browne said KBR disagrees with the judge and may appeal. She restated KBR's stand that the Army was responsible for safety at the plant. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

60% now oppose Obama's war by Michael Munk Sat, Aug 21, 2010

Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 oppose war in Afghanistan By GLEN JOHNSON, AP Aug. 20, 2010 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38787528/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ 'We can't do this forever and lose more lives,' Mass. electrician says. "I think we really need to give them an opportunity to economically, socially grow," says Mary Campbell, 56, a Mass. city worker. She joins the growing number of Americans who see no end in sight in Afghanistan. LAWRENCE, Mass. - A majority of Americans see no end in sight in Afghanistan, and nearly six in 10 oppose the nine-year-old war as President Barack Obama sends tens of thousands more troops to the fight, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. With just over 10 weeks before nationwide elections that could define the remainder of Obama's first term, only 38 percent say they support his expanded war effort in Afghanistan - a drop from 46 percent in March. Just 19 percent expect the situation to improve during the next year, while 29 percent think it will get worse. Some 49 percent think it will remain the same. The numbers could be ominous for the president and his Democratic Party, already feeling the heat for high unemployment, a slow economic recovery and a $1.3 trillion federal deficit. Strong dissent - 58 percent oppose the war - could depress Democratic turnout when the party desperately needs to energize its supporters for midterm congressional elections. A majority of Americans do welcome Obama's decision to end combat operations in Iraq. Some 68 percent approve, a number unchanged from earlier this year. The last American combat brigade began leaving Iraq on Thursday, ahead of Obama's Aug. 31 deadline for ending the U.S. combat role there. Seven years after that conflict began, 65 percent oppose the war in Iraq and just 31 percent favor it. The growing frustration with the Afghanistan war was evident in Massachusetts' 5th Congressional District, not far from Concord where Minutemen fought for a new nation in 1775. In Lawrence, whose textile mills once relied on the roaring Merrimack River, exasperation with the war in Afghanistan is evident. "If they could resolve the issue, stabilize the government, that would be good. But we can't do this forever and lose more lives," said Terry Landers, 53, an electrician from North Andover. U.S. troops have suffered more than 1,100 deaths in Afghanistan since fighting began in October 2001, including a monthly record of 66 in July. Last fall, Obama authorized an increase in the force in Afghanistan by 30,000 to 100,000 troops - triple the level from 2008. Many in Congress are increasingly doubtful that the military effort can succeed without a tough campaign against bribery and graft that have eroded the Afghan people's trust in their government. The congressional seat is held by Rep. Niki Tsongas, a Democrat who is the widow of a former senator and one of the party's 1992 presidential contenders, Paul Tsongas. Four Republicans and one independent are seeking to oust her in November, with the primary next month. Lawrence has lost two sons in Iraq of the more than 4,400 Americans killed since fighting began in March 2003. Obama ran for president in part on a pledge to pull out of Iraq and divert U.S. resources to Afghanistan, and that shift has been accompanied by a changing death toll in each country. The war views expressed in a Lawrence diner, in a park across from City Hall and at an Essex Street hot dog cart, were echoed by poll participants across the country. Bea Boynton, 57, of Marysville, Pa., said she is less supportive of the wars than when Obama took office. "I just think it's not going well. Too many of our men and women are being killed," she said of Afghanistan in particular. Boynton, a registered Democrat who voted for Republican John McCain in 2008, added: "I don't think what we initially set out to do has been done. I mean, we still don't have (Osama) bin Laden." Erika Hickert, 68, a retired school teacher in Maricopa, Ariz., said she is an independent who voted for Obama in 2008 and would do so again if given the chance. She felt the same about the wars. "I'm just tired of taking care of the world," Hickert said. "They need to learn to take care of themselves, and war isn't the way to teach them." She also doesn't distinguish between Iraq and Afghanistan, even with the conflict winding down in one while ramping up in the other. ."I think of them as one big conflict," said Hickert. "We're militarily supporting both of them." Landers, the electrician, was among those with split opinions about Afghanistan in particular. A registered Republican who voted for McCain, Landers said he did not favor pulling out of Afghanistan despite his concern about the mounting death toll and his opposition to a long-term combat role. "I think we need to get the government stabilized before we get out of there. I don't know how we can do that, though," he said. Campbell, the city worker, is a Democrat who voted for Obama. She has a son-in-law in the Marine Reserves who has already made one tour of Iraq and is slated to head back to the Middle East next year. "I think it's important that, as citizen of the United States, where we live in a free country ... that we help support the mission of bringing along peace," she said. Another poll respondent, Jeff Foust, 60, a retired public defender in Springfield, Ill., was more sanguine. "All we can do is continue to provide some support but I think that we can't stay in either country for a long term with large numbers of troops," said Foust, a Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008 and said he would again. "We've been there long enough in both places that winning is up to the people that live there." The AP-GfK Poll was conducted August 11-16 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,007 adults nationwide, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Fwd: Last week: 121 US combat casualties by Michael Munk Tue, Aug 17, 2010

Fake feminists for Afghan war by Michael Munk Sun, Aug 15, 2010

If feminists actually had the interest of Afghan women at heart, they would have supported the lefttist government the US overthrew by supportin the Taliban. Women, the Taliban and That 'Time' Cover Robert Dreyfuss The Nation, August 9, 2010 http://www.thenation.com/blog/153951/women-taliban-and-time-cover?rel=emailNation The latest entry into the trumped-up debate over the fate of women in Afghanistan comes from Judy Bachrach, an editor at Vanity Fair. It's all part and parcel of a campaign, by some well-meaning people and some not so well-meaning, to justify America's failing counterinsurgency policy in that devastated nation by raising the banner of women's rights, a debate kicked off by the now ubiquitous Time magazine cover photograph of an Afghan woman whose face was mutilated, allegedly by a Taliban-allied, reactionary tribal potentate. Referring to a CNN interview of Nancy Pelosi by Christiane Amanpour, Bachrach writes: "To put it right down to its basics-Yes, Christiane. We are. You can bet your ass Nancy's not going to tell you this, in fact she'll tell you nothing at all substantive on your show in response to any of your questions, but abandonment is the American way." To her credit, Bachrach does go on to admit that the United States is not in Afghanistan because of the plight of its women but, as Pelosi told Amanpour, "because it's in our own strategic national interest." But, since the Time cover hit the newsstands, it's allowed proponents of the war to argue that America has a moral obligation to defend that country's woman against the predatory nature of the Taliban. However it's being used by the supporters of the war, it's an issue that progressives and antiwar activists need to address squarely, too. The issue is, what might happen if there is a Taliban restoration in Afghanistan. Now, it's true that it's possible to argue that the departure of US and NATO forces might not inevitably lead to a Taliban comeback. It's even possible to argue that the US presence in Afghanistan makes a Taliban comeback more likely, not less. But that's not the issue. The question is: might they come back? Might they seize Kabul, or just entrench themselves, in the manner of the autonomous Kurdish zone in Iraq, in the Pashtun areas? Personally, I'm an agnostic on this question. But it's foolish to dismiss the possibility, even probability. It's one thing to argue that the Taliban is a complex organism with many moving parts, and that it would be resisted by non-Pashtun minorities in the north and west and by liberal and enlightened Afghans everywhere. Still, it might come back, especially if Pakistan decides that's the game it wants to play. If the Taliban does come back, it would be a bad thing for Afghanistan-and not just for women. Women may have their noses sliced off when they act uppity, and schools for girls may close. But the cultural backwardness and reactionary politics of the Taliban will slice across all sexes, ages and ethnic groups. In other words, the Taliban's comeback isn't just bad for women. Both men and women will be forced to live under the benighted and despicable reign of the Taliban's thugs. Like the reign of the mullahs in Iran, the Taliban is bad news for all. Men and boys, like women and girls, will be forced to abandon modern life; they will be crowded into oppressive Islamist schools, compelled to forget that they live in the twenty-first century, and beaten or killed for listening to music, reading banned books (pretty much everything but the Koran), watching DVDs or flying kites. Tribal and clan leaders who are more enlightened, who'd like to bring Afghanistan into the modern world, will be slaughtered, just like tribal leaders who opposed the Taliban in FATA were obliterated by the hundreds since 2001. Is this a women's issue? I don't think so. Now, it's true that the sorts of reactionary drivel that comes from the Taliban is intrinsic to the institutionalized cultural life of that part of the world, in which men come first, women are treated as property, and so on. That is, only part of the deadening and oppressive conditions that existed under Taliban rule 1994-2001 arose because the Taliban were political reactionaries; some of it was already there, deeply ingrained into Afghan life. Indeed, even since 2001 there have been numerous reports of both official and unofficial mistreatment of women and women's rights by warlords, local and provincial official, and by the supposedly enlightened government in Kabul. It' s chicken-and-egg problem, and I'm not sure whether Afghanistan in the 1990s was so bad because the Taliban imposed an alien system or because an inherently reactionary system was already there and that that system helped produce the Taliban. Either way, however, the Taliban and its allies are bad news. The problem, as I said, can't be ignored by saying, "Oh, if the US leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban won't come back." The fact is, if the United States does leave Afghanistan, it is at least a 50-50 possibility that they'll storm back into power, and that civil war will result. (The US is leaving Iraq, and there is a real possibility that there, too, the result will be civil war sometime in late 2011 or 2012.) What's sad is the naked attempt by supporters of the war to put the women's issue out front so shamelessly. That's because it's effective. Back in the 1990s, when the Clinton adminstration, Khalilzad et al. were happily ready to make deals with the Taliban-in-power, it was the women's issue that overthrew those efforts, riled up Hillary Clinton and helped push the Taliban regime into Untouchable Land. Don't think for a minute that the war supporters who bemoan the issue of women-under-the-Taliban don't remember that. The fact remains that the forces of reactionary political Islam are dangerous and oppressive, whether its power is wielded by the CIA (in backing the anti-USSR jihad in the 1980s), by Shin Bet (in supporting the rise of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood between 1967 and 1987) or by the ISI. Yet the US has neither the right to fix Afghanistan nor the ability. All the economic aid in the world isn't going to do it, and promises of US postwar assistance to Afghanistan are a joke, if indeed the Taliban comes to power. Can you imagine any US Congress appropriating a dime to help Afghanistan in that case? Progressives need to take a cold-eyed look at the consequences of leaving Afghanistan. Pollyannish views and soothing bromides won't cut it. If there is any hope for Afghanistan after the United States leaves, that hope will reside in two places. First, India, Iran, Russia and the 'Stans will have to assert themselves in support of anti-Taliban Afghans. Second, Pakistan will have to decide whether supporting the most reactionary elements of the Taliban movement is worth continuing a bloody civil war that is the most likely result of America's departure. As I've argued for a long while now, the July 2011 deadline from President Obama ought to light a fuse on American diplomacy aimed at getting all of those parties to underwrite a deal that starts with an accord with the Taliban. I've spoken to Indian government officials who recognize that a deal with the Taliban ultimately is what's needed, even if they'd like to see Pakistan's influence radically diminished. Perhaps, inside the Taliban, there are relatively more enlightened individuals and pragmatists willing to acknowledge at least the minimal rights of Afghan women. But whether that's true or not, some sort of deal is going to be cut eventually. Is that abandonment? Maybe so. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

A familiar mantra from the NYT by Michael Munk Sat, Aug 14, 2010

Editorial The State of the War New York Times: August 12, 2010 "We believe that the United States has a powerful national interest in [Vietnam] Afghanistan, in depriving [the Viet Cong] Al Qaeda of a safe haven on either side of the [South Vietnam-Cambodian] Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the [Vietnamese] Afghan people to the [Viet Cong's] Taliban's brutalities. You can read the whole confused pro-war editorial at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/opinion/13fri1.html?_r=1&ref=editorials visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

by Michael Munk Thu, Aug 12, 2010

Obama's spokesman attacks fringe losers of the left by Michael Munk Wed, Aug 11, 2010

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs=20 =20 Tuesday, Aug 10, 2010 08:11 ET=20 Robert Gibbs attacks the fringe losers of the left By Glenn Greenwald=20 a..=20 =20 AP Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary. (updated below - Update II - Update III)=20 You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with the Obama = administration is because of substantive objections to their policies: = that they've done so little about crisis-level unemployment, = foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White = House's apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because the = President has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that = is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to = imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American = citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and = immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways = of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal = immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last = administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively = broken -- promises ranging from transparency to gay rights. But Robert Gibbs -- in one of the most petulant, self-pitying outbursts = seen from a top political official in recent memory, half derived from a = paranoid Richard Nixon rant and the other half from a Sean Hannity/Sarah = Palin caricature of The Far Left -- is here to tell you that the real = reason you're dissatisfied with the President is because you're a = fringe, ideological, Leftist extremist ingrate who needs drug = counseling: The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who = say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological = purity. During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House = press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said = would never regard anything the president did as good enough. "I hear these people saying he=E2=80=99s like George Bush. Those = people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy." The press secretary dismissed the =E2=80=9Cprofessional left=E2=80=9D = in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the = ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian = healthcare and we=E2=80=99ve eliminated the Pentagon. That=E2=80=99s not = reality."=20 Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as = healthcare reform, Gibbs said: =E2=80=9CThey wouldn=E2=80=99t be = satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president." The White House, constantly under fire from expected enemies on the = right, has been frustrated by nightly attacks on cable news shows = catering to the left, where Obama and top lieutenants like Chief of = Staff Rahm Emanuel have been excoriated for abandoning the public option = in healthcare reform; for not moving faster to close the prison at = Guant=C3=A1namo Bay; and for failing, so far, to end the ban on gays = serving openly in the military. . . . Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the = progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately = voted for Obama. Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington = =E2=80=9Cin America,=E2=80=9D and they are grateful for what Obama has = accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition = and a short amount of time. So, to recap: (1) The Professional Left are totally irrelevant losers = who speak for absolutely nobody, and certainly nobody in Real America = who matters; but (2) they're ruining everything for the White House!!! = And: if you criticize the President, it's only because you're such a = rabid extremist that you harbor a secret desire to eliminate the = Pentagon -- that's how anti-American you are! You're such a Far Left = extremist that Dennis Kucinich isn't far enough Left for you, you = subversive, drug-using hippies! You're so far to the Left that you want = to turn the U.S. into Canada. As David Frum put it today: "More proof = of my longtime thesis, Repub pols fear the GOP base; Dem pols hate the = Dem base."=20 The Democrats have been concerned about a lack of enthusiasm on the part = of their base headed into the midterm elections. These sorts of rabid, = caricatured, Fox-News-copying attacks on the Left will undoubtedly help = generate more enthusiasm -- more loud clapping -- for the Democrats. I = know I'm eager to go canvass and clap for Democrats after reading Gibbs' = noble, inspiring vision. If it were Gibbs' goal to be as petulant and = self-pitying as possible, what could he have done differently? Perhaps one day the White House can work itself up to express this sort = of sputtering rage against the Right, or the Wall Street thieves who = destroyed the American economy, or the permanent factions that control = Washington. Until then, we'll have to satisfy ourselves with White = House explanations that the Real Culprits are not (of course) them, but = the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and = ruining everything. I'll give credit to Gibbs for putting his name on = this outburst: these are usually the things they say anonymously and = then deny afterward on the record that it's what they think. UPDATE: On September 9, 2008 -- roughly two months before the election = -- Barack Obama addressed a large, enthusiastic crowd and said: "As = president, I will lead a new era of accountability in education. But = see, I don't just want to hold our teachers accountable; I want to hold = our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable." In 20 = short months, we've gone from "hold me accountable" to "get drug = tested," you wretched ingrates. UPDATE II: Robert Gibbs: =20 I hear these people saying he=E2=80=99s like George Bush. Those people = ought to be drug tested. I mean, it's crazy. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama accepts Honduran coup by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 30, 2010

Obama's AfPak war observed from his house by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 29, 2010

Obama on Iran Nukes = Bush on Iraq's WMDs by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 29, 2010

Republiicans pass Obama's war money by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 27, 2010

Public Option redux by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 24, 2010

Shirley and Charlie Sherrod by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 22, 2010

Ban US cluster bombs says mom of Marine victim by Michael Munk Thu, Jul 22, 2010

Sheehan: Requiem for the Antiwar Movement by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 20, 2010

Kidnapped Iranian gets refuge in Pakistan Embassy by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 13, 2010

'Abducted' Iranian seeks return Al-Jazeera, July 13, 2010 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/07/201071353210347523.html A nuclear scientist that the Iranian government claims was abducted by US agents has taken refuge in the Pakistan embassy in Washington DC, Iranian state media has reported. Iranian authorities have repeatedly said that Shahram Amiri was seized by the CIA as he visited Saudi Arabia last year. US officials have previously rejected the Iranian allegations. "A few hours ago Shahram Amiri took refuge at Iran's interest section at the Pakistan embassy in Washington, wanting to return to Iran immediately," Iranian state radio said on Tuesday. Iran and the US have no diplomatic relations so Tehran's interests in Washington are managed by the Pakistani embassy. "Amiri has asked for a quick return to Tehran," the website of Iranian state television reported. Earlier this month, Iranian authorities said that they had evidence that Amiri had been abductedand had handed it over to the Swiss embassy, which represents US interests in Tehran. Iranian television screened a video of a man claiming to be Amiri on June 29. The man said he had managed to escape from the hands of US intelligence agents in Virginia. "I could be rearrested at any time by US agents ... I am not free and I am not allowed to contact my family. If something happens and I do not return home alive, the US government will be responsible," he said. "I ask Iranian officials and organisations that defend human rights to raise pressure on the US government for my release and return to my country," the man said, adding he has not "betrayed" Iran. US officials dismissed the allegations in the Iranian broadcast. Before that video, two others said to show Amiri appeared on the internet. In the first, broadcast on Iranian TV, a man said he was abducted and was being held in the United States. He said he was forced to take part in a media interview "to claim that I was an important figure in Iran's nuclear programme and that I had sought asylum in America of my own free will". But in a second video, a man also purporting to be Amiri said he was actually studying in the United States. US-based ABC news reported in March that Amiri had defected and was working with the CIA. US officials have rejected these allegations, but Iran claims it has numerous citizens in secret detention in the US, including a former deputy defence minister who disappeared in 2007. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Ms Sparky exposes war contractors by Michael Munk Mon, Jul 12, 2010

Ms. Sparky aims at KBR, electrifies war-contractor scrutiny with blog By Julie Sullivan The Oregonian July 12, 2010 Debbie Crawford was playing with her grandson at her Battle Ground (WA) home two years ago when she heard a news report on a Green Beret who died in Baghdad. The water pump in his Army shower was not properly grounded, and when he turned the faucet, a jolt of electricity killed him. Crawford cried, her worst professional fear realized. She went to her laptop and began to type: "As a licensed electrician who worked for KBR in Iraq for two years, I find this UNACCEPTABLE!!!! How did this happen? Let me give you my opinion from first-hand experience...." Five weeks later, after a Senate staffer saw her post, Crawford testified before Congress to poor management and poor workmanship by Kellogg, Brown & Root in Iraq, including subcontracting electrical work to locals not skilled to U.S. standards and failing to check electricians' credentials. Hexavalent Chromium Read The Oregonian's continuing coverage of the problems with Hexavalent Chromium. Two years later, the blog she started that 2008 day --mssparky.com - is the largest online catalog of news articles, opinion, leaks and lawsuits regarding war contractors. The site has drawn more than 10.8 million page hits since Jan. 1. When Oregon veterans of the Iraq war appear in federal court in Portland today in their chemical-exposure lawsuit against KBR, they join a wide group of plaintiffs suing KBR -- over electrocutions, burn pits and sexual assault. Much of what connects them all is Ms. Sparky. "She's allowed people to speak that otherwise would be too afraid to do so," says Todd Kelly, a Houston attorney who represents six clients suing KBR alleging they were sexual assaulted while working in Iraq. "I would characterize her as pretty courageous in her own right, being willing to blog about the things she's willing to blog about. She has the sense that someone has to speak out." Crawford says, "This just took on a life of its own. My blogging is the least interesting part about it ." Since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, the federal government has paid private companies $150 billion to do what the military once did -- support daily life for the troops. KBR has been the single largest provider of meals, housing, recreation, mail delivery, laundry and fuel. KBR maintains there is no evidence that its work caused or contributed to the Green Beret's electrocution and that its military contract for his building was for on-call repairs, not preventative maintenance and inspections. KBR also denies responsibility for exposing troops or employees to carcinogens at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant, "There was no hazardous exposure and there has been no documented illness related to the facility." Today, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak will hear arguments on whether an Oregon Army National Guard veterans' case against KBR should go forward in U.S. District Court in Oregon. Twenty-six Oregon vets -- and soldiers in three other states -- have sued, saying they were sickened by hexavalent chromium, a cancer-causing chemical, as they guarded KBR employees working to restore Iraqi oil in 2003. Crawford has assembled an online library about the suits. "This wasn't done so a child could drink safe water. This was done to pump water into wells to get oil flowing. All these soldiers and civilians exposed, for oil." To meet Ms. Sparky -- the slang for female electrician -- drive past Vancouver's suburban blocks to the hobby farms beneath Mount St. Helen. The 49-year-old wife, grandmother and blogger answers the door in black jeans and a pink plaid cotton top. She homeschools her 7-year-old grandson and takes Tae Kwon Do lessons with him. Crawford says she is not a disgruntled KBR employee. The journeyman electrician says she went to Iraq four years ago out of patriotism and the same spirit of adventure that took her to contract jobs in Antarctica and China. She did not realize until she returned that problems she saw in Iraq were systemic, including what she saw as poor management and a lack of government oversight. Growing up near the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Crawford applied for an electrical apprenticeship after graduating Benton City High and became the first female journeyman out of IBEW Local 112 in Kennewick. She met her husband, Cal Crawford, at Hanford and talked him into moving to Seaside, then to Portland where she is a member of Local 48. Crawford liked the math and technology in being an electrician and working with people who can visualize a problem and design solutions. She also liked that she could get a job anywhere. She spent 10 months in Antarctica, then traveled the country with her husband performing maintenance on nuclear plants. They signed on in 2004 for Iraq. At $14.90 an hour, the salary was less than half what she made at home, but she felt she could contribute to the war effort. "I thought I was doing the right thing," Crawford says. The couple were housed at different camps. Both threw themselves into their work, surviving rocket and mortar attacks, heat and family disapproval. (Both of Crawford's parents died while she was overseas and her only daughter Tiffany went in prison for burglary.) Cal returned home after a year, but Crawford reupped for a second, with a raise and management opportunities. She returned to the Northwest July 28, 2008. She was blogging about her travels and struggles with her daughter, when she heard the news report about Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth's death. Since then, Crawford's writing has almost exclusively focused on war contractors. She rises every morning at 4:30 and logs on, often working well after her husband and grandson she is raising go to bed. Crawford posts anonymous tips, aggregates related news and videos, expresses her opinion, tips journalists and breaks news such as the death of State Department contractor who was electrocuted in his shower in Iraq in 2009. Categories on her website include "Chemical and other Exposures"; "Contractor Deaths"; "Electrocutions/"; "Indictments, Convictions and Arrests"; "Human Trafficking"; "Rape, Hazing, Discrimination and Harassment"; and "Rants." Crawford has expanded her scrutiny to include contractors DynCorp, Fluor and Triple Canopy. She works without pay but takes donations and advertisements on her website. She has had to bring on another person to handle the information flowing through the site. Still, she says the biggest payoff has been meeting all the special people affected by their service or work in the war zones. Jill Wilkins was a young Florida widow desperate for information after her Air Force reservist husband, a registered nurse, died of a brain tumor in 2008. Wilkins found Ms. Sparky and within weeks of posting her questions about her husband's exposure to burn pits in Iraq on mssparky.com, Wilkins was featured on CNN, found other plaintiffs suing over the use of burn pits and was awarded her husband's veterans benefits. "It was a lifeline," says Wilkins, who was so inspired she started her own Facebook site on burn pits. Crawford says what she wants most is for the federal government to police war contractors. "I have a 7-year-old who is bound and determined to be a soldier and I have to get this fixed before he is in the Army." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Watch out as Obama marginalizes rightwing crazies by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 10, 2010

Watch out! The efforts of liberals and President Obama to marginalize the right by calling it "too extreme" or "out of the mainstream" also means they consciously portray the Left (such as it is) as outside the serious political conversation. Liberals prefer that they are considered together with old-line conservative Republicans as the "vital center" of US politics and that we don't need to pay attention to opinions outside it. Obviously today the media report only the crazies on the right, but that's because the left is so quiet and deferential to Obama. So liberals prefer that mainstream politics are defined as a contest between "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans whose agreements are more profound than their differences. Indeed, now that private industry unions have become hors de combat, those groups form an educated, high income social as well as a political class. So the next time you hear Obama calling that nutcase Nevada senatorial candidate as "too extreme" consider that his agenda marginalizes the rational left as well. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

investors or speculators ? by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 9, 2010

Business editor, New York Times Your business writers routinely describe those of us to buy and sell stocks as "investors" and I guess that's how the NYT copy book says to do it. But although the term has by now become just background noise, I wonder when you dropped the proud "speculator" label that we used to-- more accurately--call ourselves. I understand that "investor" conjures a somehow lower-risk and more responsible image than "speculator," but we still actually walk our talk: we place real money bets based on our speculation that the future will help or hurt our wallets and bank accounts. In bed as you are with "the market," you could still celebrate with us on the good days or commiserate on the bad regardless of the term you choose. So why not call us by our right name? Why should business journalists carry water for Wall Street? I guess I just answered my own question. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama/Bush war casualties approach 100,000. by Michael Munk Wed, Jul 7, 2010

Biden praises Bush 's Iraq invasion by Michael Munk Tue, Jul 6, 2010

According to Mike Allen at POLITICO, Biden told the press before leaving the Green Zone: "I think everybody deserves credit [for the way the invasion and occupation of Iraq has turned out]- everyone from George Bush to [Obama] " visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iran remembers 290 dead in US terrorist attack on airliner by Michael Munk Sun, Jul 4, 2010

Remember that at the time Ragen was backing Sadam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war and was evidently supporting his side by shooting down his oponent's airliner! Iran remembers victims of airliner shot down by US By ALI AKBAR DAREINI (AP) - July 3, 2010 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8qwQ_WGLVfWyfLyAFW20VyazsmQD9GNJE181 BANDAR ABBAS, Iran - Iranian helicopters scattered flowers into the Persian Gulf waters on Saturday as family members and relatives remembered the 290 passengers killed when a U.S. warship shot down an Iranian airliner 22 years ago. About 250 relatives of victims and officials sailed from the southern port city of Bandar Abbas to the spot where the Iran Air A300 Airbus was downed on July 3, 1988 - just a month before the end of the Iraq-Iran war. The USS Vincennes shot down the airliner shortly after it took off from Bandar Abbas for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Washington said the Vincennes mistook the airliner for a hostile Iranian fighter jet. Iran maintains it was a deliberate attack. The commemoration comes as Tehran is further embroiled in a bitter standoff with the West over its controversial nuclear program. As tensions with the U.S. increased in recent years, the anniversary has become an annual outpouring of anger at America, and has drawn wider coverage in state media. Iranian television on Saturday showed 1988 footage of the remains of the victim's bodies. "No one buys the faulty claim that a sophisticated warship ... mistook a passenger plane for a fighter jet, two-thirds smaller," said Hesam Ansari, who lost his father in the crash. The relatives wept as they threw red and pink flower petals from the deck of a ferry into the sea where the plane crashed. A statement from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was read out at the ceremony, saying the "disaster was not an understandable accident, but a declaration of war against humanity" and claiming it was carried out "with the covert planning of White House leaders." Local provincial governor Hossein Hashemi Takhti called it an act of terrorism. Iran has called for the commander of USS Vincennes at the time, William C. Rogers III, to be brought to trial. In 1990, then-President George H. W. Bush awarded Rogers the Legion of Merit for his service as a commanding officer. "In which culture ... can that Legion of Merit be awarded to the criminal USS Vincennes commander," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. Iran has said it received $130 million from a 1996 settlement that included compensation for families of the victims. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama chooses words by Michael Munk Sat, Jul 3, 2010

More than seven years later, we approach the date (Aug 31) Bush and = Obama set to celebrate the actual realization of Bush's infamous "Major = combat operations in Iraq have ended," our understanding of common words = is being challenged:=20 "Combat operations" will become "Stability operations," "Combat troops" = will be magically transformed into "non-combat troops" and the date for = the last US soldier to leave Iraq (Dec 31, 2011) will be pushed back "at = the request of the Iraqi 'government." Check out the details at = http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?_r=3D1&ref= =3Dmiddleeast visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Another liberal collapse: House votes Obama's warbucks by Michael Munk Fri, Jul 2, 2010

In complex series of votes, only these 25 (3 Reps) stood up straight against $33B more for Obama's AfPak war: Clarke Clay Duncan (Republican) Edwards (MD) Ellison Filner Garamendi Grayson Grijalva Gutierrez Jackson (IL) Johnson (IL) Republican Kucinich Lewis (GA) Michaud Nadler (NY) Napolitano Paul (R) )Republican Pingree (ME) Schrader Serrano Sires Stark Velázquez Welch There were 75 more (complete list at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll432.xml ) that would restrict the $33B to paying for a pullout, and an even more pathetic one pleading with Obama to please, think about an actual withdrawal strategy got an additional 62 lost by 162- 260 (98 Dems voted against). When push came to shove, the actual war bucks were approved money was approved on a close 215-210 vote, with only 38 of the 162 Dems who expressed some doubts on the amendment votes not capitulating. List at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll428.xml visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Progressive education destroyed by McCarthyism by Michael Munk Sun, Jun 27, 2010

Well written and illustrated memoir of a fondly remembered education late 30s to early 50s.... New York Times | June 27, 2010 Lost and Found New York | James Stevenson: Hessian Hills This would be the time of year for a school reunion up at Hessian Hills, if the old school had been that kind of place. check it out at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/06/27/opinion/0627stevenson_interactive.html?ref=opinion visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Media stiffs Detroit Social Forum by Michael Munk Sat, Jun 26, 2010

15,000 Progressive Activists in Detroit: Why No Media or Respect? Why the United States Social Forum deserves to have a lot more influence than the negative agenda of the Tea Party crowd. By Sally Kohn Alternet/ June 26, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/147341/the_u.s._social_forum_deserves_a_lot_more_attention_than_the_destructive_tea_party_agenda It's not surprising that the mainstream media is paying little attention to the 15,000-plus community organizers and progressive activists gathered in Detroit, Michigan this week for the second United States Social Forum. After all, the center-left political establishment isn't paying attention either. Why is it that the Tea Party -- the right-wing edge of the conservative political sphere -- exerts a gravitational pull on the Republican party and the conservative mainstream while the United States Social Forum and the leaders and groups gathered here, who represent the left of the liberal mainstream, are disregarded as marginal and irrelevant -- that is, if they're regarded at all? For those of you who, like the center-left political establishment, think the United States Social Forum sounds like some sort of debutante ball, allow me to explain. In 2001, social movement leaders in Porto Alegre, Brazil, convened the first-ever World Social Forum as a space for progressive activists from around the globe to meet, learn and strategize with one another to strengthen the fight for justice, peace and equality worldwide. The World Social Forum's guiding vision is summed up in its motto: "Another World is Possible." Eventually, activists in the United States, wowed by the powerful experience of attending World Social Forums in Brazil, India and Africa and responding to calls from international activists that progressive change in the United States was critical to staunching injustice around the world, initiated the United States Social Forum. The first was held in 2007 in Atlanta, Georgia; the second this week in Detroit. Both U.S. Social Forums grew out of extensive regional and local social forum processes as well as nationwide planning committees, which were integral to the bottom-up formation of the forum The Tea Party, which few had even heard about a year ago, is courted by prospective political candidates and established Republican leadership alike. Tea Party leaders like Sarah Palin command $100,000 speaking fees and major news outlets write headline stories about Tea Party activists and actions. By comparison, there is not a single nationally recognized speaker on the dais at any of the United States Social Forum plenaries, no Democratic party candidates bombarding the Forum or its constituent organizations for endorsements and no mainstream liberal foundations are backing the effort. There are three possible explanations for why the Tea Party is treated as a force to be reckoned with on the right while the Social Forum is treated as fringe. The first is compositional. While the United States Social Forum gathers a disproportionately large number of poor people and people of color, repeated polls have shown that the Tea Party is predominantly comprised of financially well-off white men. Well-to-do white males generally have greater influence on the powers that be in our society than poor people of color. Of course, from the perspective of progressive activists, this is one reason why the Social Forum is needed, so accepting the permanence of this dynamic would be instantly self-defeating. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

BP = the corporate criminal Anglo-Iranian Oil by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 23, 2010

=20 BP as recidivist corporate criminal. To remind us that the villain of the Gulf gusher (not a "leak" as the = media call it) is the same corporation that was a major player in the = CIA overthrow of the popular Iranian governemnt of Mossadegh who = demanded that Anglo-Iranian abibe by Iranian law or be nationalized. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

McChrystal's only pal: Hillary Clinton by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 23, 2010

A little noticed line in the now famous Rolling Stone scoop http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=5 reminds us that Clinton was and is a warmonger (and now so is Obama). She lost the primary because she defended the Iraq invasion and threatened to wipe Iran off the map.Too many of us excused or ignored it, but it was an ominous sign when Obama gave her State. "Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' " visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US Social Forum opens in Detroit by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 23, 2010

"The Answers Are Coming from the Bottom": Legendary Detroit Activist Grace Lee Boggs on the US Social Forum Boggs calls Detroit a "symbol of a new kind of society, of people who grow their own food, of people who try and help each other." June 23, 2010 | http://www.alternet.org/vision/147297/%22the_answers_are_coming_from_the_bottom%22%3A_legendary_detroit_activist_grace_lee_boggs_on_the_us_social_forum?page=entire Amy Goodman: We're on the road in Detroit on the opening day of the US Social Forum. Thousands of people are here for one of the largest gatherings of grassroots activists and community organizers in the country. The event this week marks the second time the Social Forum has been held in the United States. The first one was three years ago in Atlanta. Detroit is a city with one of the highest unemployment and foreclosure rates in the country. But to many longtime Detroit-based activists, the city today is not just a picture of devastation and ruin. To them, Detroit is a city of hope, a place that seeks to nurture sustainability and community building. Democracy Now!'s Anjali Kamat and I spoke to the legendary Detroit-based radical organizer and philosopher Grace Lee Boggs. Born to Chinese immigrant parents in 1915, Grace Lee Boggs has been involved with the civil rights, Black Power, labor, environmental justice, and feminist movements for over the past seven decades. Along with her late husband Jimmy Boggs, Grace has been at the forefront of efforts to rebuild urban communities. In 1992, she co-founded the Detroit Summer youth program to renew her city. Grace Lee Boggs turns ninety-five this week and is speaking at a number of events at the Social Forum, including a public conversation with Immanuel Wallerstein. On Monday night, we visited Grace Lee Boggs at her home in Detroit on the east side, where she has lived for over fifty years. The city is considering declaring her home to be a historical landmark because it has served as an incubator for countless social justice organizations. We asked Grace Lee Boggs to talk about the importance of the US Social Forum coming to Detroit. Grace Lee Boggs: You know, the World Social Forums began after the Battle of Seattle in 1999. And the slogan, "Another World Is Possible," emerged out of a completely new mentality, when people recognized that essentially those in control are dysfunctional and that the old social democracy dependence on those in power to give you things, that period is over. And I think it's really wonderful that the Social Forum decided to come to Detroit, because Detroit, which was once the symbol of miracles of industrialization and then became the symbol of the devastation of deindustrialization, is now the symbol of a new kind of society, of people who grow their own food, of people who try and help each other, to how we begin to think, not so much of getting jobs and advancing our own fortunes, but how we depend on each other. I mean, it's another world that we're creating here in Detroit. And we had to. I mean, we didn't do so because we are better people than anybody else, but when you look out and all you see is vacant lots, when all you see is devastation, when all you see--do you look at it as a curse, or do you look at it as a possibility, as having potential? And we here in Detroit had to begin doing that for our own humanity. Anjali Kamat: So what do you think the rest of the United States can learn from Detroit? Boggs: Well, I'm hoping they will learn, and I spoke to two young groups today, one of them from California and another one from Ithaca, New York. Downtown they had come in vans for the Social Forum. I hope they understand from Detroit that all of us, each of us, can become a cultural creative. That's what's taking place. We are creating a new culture. And we're not doing it because we are such wonderful people. We're doing it because we had to, I mean, not only to survive materially, but to survive as human beings. We couldn't give up. And that's why I think--that's what I hope people will learn, because the United States is going through some difficult times, and unless we understand that, and that that is what it means to evolve, not--to see what is negative as a potential positive. Goodman: Grace Lee Boggs, we're here with you in Detroit at the time of the US Social Forum--Detroit, the center of the fossil fuel economy--at a time where, in the Gulf of Mexico, it's experiencing the worst environmental catastrophe in US history, the BP oil geyser. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing. How do you put these together? And what needs to be done about them? Boggs: Well, I think we have to see this as an opportunity and not just as a danger. I mean, it's difficult to do that and look at the catastrophe in the Gulf and to look at what's happening in Afghanistan and not think that the world has come to an end. But it's a fantastic opportunity to--you see this T-shirt? It says, "Revolution is evolution." It's this fantastic opportunity to advance our humanity, to become more creative, to know that there are other ways to live and the way that we have lived has been at the expense of so much, so many other people and so many of the earth, and that we don't have to live that way, that that only was only 300 years, that before that, people thought that the earth was more important than land and that work was more important than a job. This capitalist society has not lasted forever; it's only a few hundred years old. Goodman: Your assessment of how President Obama is dealing with these issues? Exacerbating them or solving them? Boggs: Well, I think that anyone who attempts a top-down solution can't succeed. And I don't think that, from the very beginning, he was so close to the grassroots. I think that he had--I think he--I don't know. I remember asking Bill Ayers once, who knew Obama in Chicago, "How would you characterize him?" He says, "He's a very ambitious person. He believes in advancing and climbing the ladder." A lot of people believe that, that when you climb the ladder, and you end in the White House, and you have the Pentagon, and you don't--and you rehire Bob Gates and Lawrence Summers. It's very sad. It's very sad. But I think it's very helpful to understand that, you know, when--I'm going to be talking to Wallerstein. Wallerstein understands how the feudal lords could not run European society, how the serfs were running into the cities, how disease was spreading, and they became dysfunctional. And I think we see the dysfunction in the White House. We see the dysfunction at the top level. We see how they propose top-down solutions for education, for example: testing, more testing, more standardized testing, punishment. The answers can't come from the top. And that's why Detroit's so important, why the Social Forum is so important. The answers are coming more from the bottom. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US media distorts Iran politic et al by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 17, 2010

US media & the Twitter revolt in Iran by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 10, 2010

The Twitter Devolution Far from being a tool of revolution in Iran over the last year, the Internet, in many ways, just complicated the picture. BY GOLNAZ ESFANDIARI | JUNE 7, 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/the_twitter_revolution_that_wasnt Before one of the major Iranian protests of the past year, a journalist in Germany showed me a list of three prominent Twitter accounts that were commenting on the events in Tehran and asked me if I know the identities of the contributors. I told her I did, but she seemed disappointed when I told her that one of them was in the United States, one was in Turkey, and the third -- who specialized in urging people to "take to the streets" -- was based in Switzerland. Perhaps I shattered her dreams of an Iranian "Twitter Revolution." The Western media certainly never tired of claiming that Iranians used Twitter to organize and coordinate their protests following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's apparent theft of last June's elections. Even the American government seemed to get in on the act. Former U.S. national security adviser Mark Pfeifle claimed Twitter should get the Nobel Peace Prize because "without Twitter the people of Iran would not have felt empowered and confidant to stand up for freedom and democracy." And the U.S. State Department reportedly asked Twitter to delay some scheduled maintenance in order to allow Iranians to communicate as the protests grew more powerful. But it is time to get Twitter's role in the events in Iran right. Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran. As Mehdi Yahyanejad, the manager of "Balatarin," one of the Internet's most popular Farsi-language websites, told the Washington Post last June, Twitter's impact inside Iran is nil. "Here [in the United States], there is lots of buzz," he said. "But once you look, you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves." A number of opposition activists have told me they used text messages, email, and blog posts to publicize protest actions. However, good old-fashioned word of mouth was by far the most influential medium used to shape the postelection opposition activity. There is still a lively discussion happening on Facebook about how the activists spread information, but Twitter was definitely not a major communications tool for activists on the ground in Iran. Nonetheless, the "Twitter Revolution" was an irresistible meme during the post-election protests, a story that wrote itself. Various analysts were eager to chime in about the purported role of Twitter in the Green Movement. Some were politics experts, like the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan and Marc Ambinder. Others were experts on new media, like Sascha Segan of PC Magazine. Western journalists who couldn't reach -- or didn't bother reaching? -- people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets posted with tag #iranelection. Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi. A pristine instance of this myopia was a profile, published in Britain's Guardian newspaper, of Oxfordgirl, a Twitter blogger who was described as "a key player" in Iran's postelection unrest. "Before they started blocking mobile phones, I was almost coordinating people's individual movements -- 'go to such and such street,' or 'don't go there, the Basij are waiting,'" she was quoted as saying. It's a riveting story -- but the reporter failed to ask how Oxfordgirl managed to communicate with residents of Tehran via cell phone when the Iranian government shut down the whole city's mobile network, as it always did on days of protest. Oxfordgirl was ultimately more successful at gaining publicity for herself than at helping any protesters in Iran. Compare her 10,000 Twitter followers with the 300 followers of a Karaj-based Green activist (who prefers not to be identified or to have his Twitter page publicized). The activist tweets in Persian, which few Western journalists can read, and he is often a source of valuable information about the mood in the country. The story of Oxfordgirl gives a clue about the real role that Twitter played. There is no doubt that she helped spread news about the Iranian protests -- often very quickly. Twitter played an important role in getting word about the events in Iran out to the wider world. Together with YouTube, it helped focus the world's attention on the Iranian people's fight for democracy and human rights. New media over the last year created and sustained unprecedented international moral solidarity with the Iranian struggle -- a struggle that was being bravely waged many years before Twitter was ever conceived. But an honest accounting of Twitter's role in Iran would also note its pernicious complicity in allowing rumors to spread. It began with the many unsubstantiated reports from the protests. In the early days of the post-election crackdown a rumor quickly spread on Twitter that police helicopters were pouring acid and boiling water on protesters. A year later it remains just that: a rumor. Other Twitter stories were quickly debunked, like the suggestion that circulated in late June that Mousavi had been arrested at his home in Tehran. Twitter followers of #iranelection also helped quickly name Saeedeh Pouraghayi -- who was allegedly arrested for chanting "Allah Akbar" on her rooftop, only to be raped, disfigured and murdered -- a new "martyr" of the Green Movement. Her tragic story quickly made the rounds on Twitter and other social networking websites. Mouasvi and his aides even reportedly attended a commemoration ceremony that was held for her in Tehran. Yet the whole story turned out to be a hoax. Pouraghayi later appeared on a program on Iran's state television and said that on the night when she was supposedly arrested, she had escaped by jumping off her balcony. In the intervening two months, she said was being treated at the home of the person who found her in the street. A reformist website later wrote that the Iranian government had planted the story in order to cast doubt on opposition claims about the rape of post-election detainees and pave the way for further arrests of opposition leaders. Twitter, it seems, can serve the purposes of Iran's regime as easily as it can aid the country's activists. To be clear: It's not that Twitter publicists of the Iranian protests haven't played a role in the events of the past year. They have. It's just not been the outsized role it's often been made out to be. And ultimately, that's been a terrible injustice to the Iranians who have made real, not remote or virtual, sacrifices in pursuit of justice. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Israel pirates kill US citizen by Michael Munk Thu, Jun 3, 2010

American Citizen Killed by Israeli Navy June 3, 2010 Juan Cole writes: American Citizen Killed by Israeli Navy Posted on June 3, 2010 by Juan Cole=20 Hey, Tea Party. A foreign navy boarded an unarmed ship flying the flag = of a NATO member in international waters and shot dead Furkan Dogan, a = 19 -year old American student with four bullets to the head and one in = the chest in the chest on Memorial Day. It did this while the head of = the belligerent state was on his way to a state visit to Washington, DC, = to be awarded a further $200 million in aid on top of the $3 billion of = American taxpayer money the US gives away to him every year. Furkan Dogan If you are not upset by this, your tea is weak, man. Weak.=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Irish aid ship Rachel Corrie sails to Gaza by Michael Munk Wed, Jun 2, 2010

Irish Aid Vessel Plans to Pass Through Israel's Gaza Blockade 'Most Serious Consequences' Promised If Passengers Harmed Reportedly due to land on Wednesday, Ireland's chief political leader offers stern warning to Israel. Raw Story / By Stephen Webster June 2, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/147073/irish_aid_vessel_plans_to_pass_through_israel%27s_gaza_blockade_--_%27most_serious_consequences%27_promised_if_passengers_harmed Irish humanitarian aid ship the MV Rachel Corrie is still sailing for Gaza, in spite of Israel's recent, devastating attack on other vessels in the Gaza aid flotilla, resulting in at least nine dead activists and hundreds of prisoners. The ship, named after 23-year-old U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie -- who was crushed to death in 2003 by an American-built bulldozer operated by the Israeli army -- has been pleading with the international community to pressure Israel into leaving them alone. The Irish government, for its part, has threatened Israel with "the most serious consequences" if any Irish national, captured or currently abroad an aid vessel, is harmed. "If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences," Taoiseach Brian Cowen said, according to The Irish Times. "Taoiseach" is the position bestowed upon the individual who leads Ireland's government. The MV Rachel Corrie is reportedly due to arrive in Gaza on Wednesday, according to the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Irish officials have demanded Israel let the boat pass unimpeded. Ireland has long opposed Israel's military blockade of Palestine. "The government has formally requested the Israeli government to allow the Irish-owned ship to be allowed to complete its journey unimpeded and discharge its humanitarian cargo in Gaza," Cowen said. "The Rachel Corrie is carrying medical equipment, wheelchairs, school supplies and cement, a material Israel has banned in Hamas-ruled Gaza, organizers said," the Seattle Post-Globe reported. Five Irish activists and five Malaysian activists were said to be aboard. "In the names of our friends, we are more determined than ever to continue into Gaza with our humanitarian cargo and our support for the blockaded and suffering people of Gaza," read a message sent on behalf of the activists, published by Global Research. "We expect Israel to respond to the international condemnation of its violence by not impeding by any means the safe passage of the Rachel Corrie. We appeal to the international community and United Nations to continue to demand Israel our safe passage into Gaza." Activist group Jewish Voice for Peace declared in an e-mail to supporters, "We still don't know the names of those who were killed or injured, or where they are from. And we don't know the whereabouts or well-being of more than 400 activists still being held by Israel." The group demanded Israel release the activists without condition or charge. The activists' call echoed another from NATO, which demanded the prisoners' freedom and pressed the need for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation" into the events. In response to the activist killings, Egypt announced it would open a portion of border crossing into Palestine to allow in future shipments of humanitarian supplies. Turkey, reportedly the country of origin for some of the May 31st raid's victims, pledged it would send a military escort with future Gaza aid boats. Israel claims the killings were the result of a "provocation" by activists who attacked the soldiers as they landed. However, journalists who were on board the vessel during the raid reported civilian casualties first, before they confirmed soldiers had landed, indicating that Israeli forces began their bombardment before boarding the ship. By Tuesday, the United States had not condemned Israel for taking action against a ship in international waters, instead calling for an investigation to learn the facts of what happened. Instead, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stuck to the language of a UN Security Council statement issued late Sunday on the Israeli assault on a convoy headed to Gaza. The statement condemns "those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded," but did not specifically say whether the Israeli raid or actions of pro-Palestinians supporters caused the violence. "Let me simply restate what the international community and the United States supported early this morning at the UN Security Council through a presidential statement," Gibbs said. "The Security Council statement that I read calls for an investigation that is prompt, impartial, credible and transparent, conforming to international standards, of exactly what happened," Gibbs said. "And we're obviously supportive of that." With AFP. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Hedges: This country needs a few good Communists by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 1, 2010

Check Chris Hedges out at http://www.truthout.org/chris-hedges-this-country-needs-a-few-good-communists60024 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Remember the Liberty! by Michael Munk Tue, Jun 1, 2010

Israel's navy bloody attack on the humanitarian flotiila recalls its attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, in which 34 US sailors were killed and 173 were wounded. Remmeber the Liberty! visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Israeli pirates kill 16(?) civilans on high seas by Michael Munk Mon, May 31, 2010

New novel by Bill (W.A.) Williams by Michael Munk Sat, May 29, 2010

Oregon State University releases unpublished William Appleman Williams = novel online=20 Ninety Days Inside the Empire May 27, 2010 CORVALLIS, Ore. - A previously unpublished novel written by William = Appleman Williams, one of the most acclaimed historians of the 20th = century, has been newly released online by Oregon State University in an = effort to make the manuscript as widely available as possible to = scholars and others. Titled Ninety Days Inside the Empire, the novel touches upon themes that = were important to the author's life and work, perhaps best exemplified = in his masterpiece, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. Set in Corpus = Christi, Texas, and written in the 1980s, Williams' newly released book = tells the story of racial strife and civil rights mobilization through = the eyes of military servicemen following the close of World War II. A veteran of the United States Navy, Williams served as a line officer = during the second world war. Following the close of hostilities, = Williams was stationed in Corpus Christi, where he joined the NAACP and = participated in local civil rights activities. The web version of Ninety Days Inside the Empire spans 125 pages over 14 = chapters. The text is enhanced by a number of illustrations and is = introduced by Kerry Ahearn, chair of the OSU English department. "Like millions of other veterans, [Williams] was moving from a life of = following orders to one of making large choices," writes Ahearn. "In = his case, there was the predictable option of using his Annapolis degree = and his connections to enter the military-industrial complex, or some = other undefined option in an America whose definitions of community had = been altered during the war: Women and minorities had been moved by = necessity into much broader areas of economic production and created a = social context that called into question the old rules of exclusion." Williams, who joined the OSU faculty in 1968 after more than 20 years as = a nationally prominent historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, = developed Ninety Days Inside the Empire substantially enough to share it = with colleagues, with his agent and even with fellow author Gore Vidal, = "who is said to have remarked that it would make a better movie than a = novel," writes Ahern. But for whatever reasons, he didn't aggressively = seek to publish the novel. In failing health, he retired in 1986 and died in 1990, leaving his = papers to OSU Special Collections, which oversaw preparation of the = manuscript for its online release. "This is a completed manuscript," said OSU Special Collections head = Clifford S. Mead. "We didn't edit it, but divided it into chapters that = seemed appropriate for a web-based presentation, and included images = drawn from multiple sources." This innovative web-based project underscores new possibilities at OSU = for making books available to students, scholars, and the wider = community using e-books, digital printing and print-on-demand = technologies. All are areas already being explored by Oregon State = University Press, the state's only academic press, which, like OSU = Special Collections, is part of the university's Valley Library. In addition to the Williams papers, OSU Special Collections is home to = the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers, including a treasure trove of = personal memorabilia from the only two-time winner of individual Nobel = Prizes, and the Bernard Malamud papers, and many other collections. It = is part of the Valley Library. About the Valley Library: Oregon State University's main reference = center and information repository, the Valley Library is home to more = than 1.4 million volumes, 14,000 serials and more than 500,000 maps and = government documents. Media Contact Todd Simmons, 541-737-4611=20 Source Clifford Mead, 541-737-2083=20 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Only 2 Dems against $60B for AfPak war by Michael Munk Fri, May 28, 2010

The vote to send another $60B of taxpapyers' money to pay for Obama's AfPak occupation was 67-28-5. But almost all the no votes were conservative Republicans. Only two Democrats, Feingold (WI) and Wyden (OR) voted against. Three Republicans and Lincoln (AR) and McCaskill (MO) did not vote. To their shame, the other 15 Dems and Sanders, who voted for the weak but significant Feingold effort to put an end date for the occupation, wound up votiing the money to pay for an open-ended war. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's drone drivers don't wear uniforms by Michael Munk Fri, May 28, 2010

Obama justfies his drone death squads with his ludicrous claim that his targetss "don't wear unforms" and therefore are "illegal combatants." U.N. Official Set to Ask U.S. to End C.I.A. Drone Strikes By CHARLIE SAVAGE New York Times: May 28, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28drones.html?ref=global-home WASHINGTON - A senior United Nations official is expected to call on the United States next week to stop Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes against people suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda, complicating the Obama administration's growing reliance on that tactic in Pakistan. Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Thursday that he would deliver a report on June 3 to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva declaring that the "life and death power" of drones should be entrusted to regular armed forces, not intelligence agencies. He contrasted how the military and the C.I.A. responded to allegations that strikes had killed civilians by mistake. "With the Defense Department you've got maybe not perfect but quite abundant accountability as demonstrated by what happens when a bombing goes wrong in Afghanistan," he said in an interview. "The whole process that follows is very open. Whereas if the C.I.A. is doing it, by definition they are not going to answer questions, not provide any information, and not do any follow-up that we know about." Mr. Alston's views are not legally binding, and his report will not assert that the operation of combat drones by nonmilitary personnel is a war crime, he said. But the mounting international concern over drones comes as the Obama administration legal team has been quietly struggling over how to justify such counterterrorism efforts while obeying the laws of war. In recent months, top lawyers for the State Department and the Defense Department have tried to square the idea that the C.I.A.'s drone program is lawful with the United States' efforts to prosecute Guantánamo Bay detainees accused of killing American soldiers in combat, according to interviews and a review of military documents. Under the laws of war, soldiers in traditional armies cannot be prosecuted and punished for killing enemy forces in battle. The United States has argued that because Qaeda fighters do not obey the requirements laid out in the Geneva Conventions - like wearing uniforms - they are not "privileged combatants" entitled to such battlefield immunity. But C.I.A. drone operators also wear no uniforms. Paula Weiss, a C.I.A. spokeswoman, called into question the notion that the agency lacked accountability, noting that it was overseen by the White House and Congress. "While we don't discuss or confirm specific activities, this agency's operations take place in a framework of both law and government oversight," Ms. Weiss said. "It would be wrong to suggest the C.I.A. is not accountable." Still, the Obama administration legal team confronted the issue as the Pentagon prepared to restart military commission trials at Guantánamo Bay. The commissions began with pretrial hearings in the case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian detainee accused of killing an Army sergeant during a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002, when Mr. Khadr was 15. The Pentagon delayed issuing a 281-page manual laying out commission rules until the eve of the hearing. The reason, officials say, is that government lawyers had been scrambling to rewrite a section about murder because it has implications for the C.I.A. drone program. An earlier version of the manual, issued in 2007 by the Bush administration, defined the charge of "murder in violation of the laws of war" as a killing by someone who did not meet "the requirements for lawful combatancy" - like being part of a regular army or otherwise wearing a uniform. Similar language was incorporated into a draft of the new manual. But as the Khadr hearing approached, Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, pointed out that such a definition could be construed as a concession by the United States that C.I.A. drone operators were war criminals. Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, and his staff ultimately agreed with that concern. They redrafted the manual so that murder by an unprivileged combatant would instead be treated like espionage - an offense under domestic law not considered a war crime. "An accused may be convicted," the final manual states, if he "engaged in conduct traditionally triable by military commission (e.g., spying; murder committed while the accused did not meet the requirements of privileged belligerency) even if such conduct does not violate the international law of war." Under that reformulation, the C.I.A. drone operators - who reportedly fly the aircraft from agency headquarters in Langley, Va. - might theoretically be subject to prosecution in a Pakistani courtroom. But regardless, the United States can argue to allies that it is not violating the laws of war. Mr. Alston, the United Nations official, said he agreed with the Obama legal team that "it is not per se illegal" under the laws of war for C.I.A. operatives to fire drone missiles "because anyone can stand up and start to act as a belligerent." Still, he emphasized, they would not be entitled to battlefield immunity like soldiers. Mary Ellen O'Connell, a Notre Dame University law professor who has criticized the use of drones away from combat zones, also agreed with the Obama administration's legal theory in this case. She said it could provide a "small modicum" of protection for C.I.A. operatives, noting that Germany had a statute allowing it to prosecute violations of the Geneva Conventions, but it does not enforce domestic Pakistani laws against murder. In March, Mr. Koh delivered a speech in which he argued that the drone program was lawful because of the armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the principle of self-defense. He did not address several other murky legal issues, like whether Pakistani officials had secretly consented to the strikes. Mr. Alston, who is a New York University law professor, said his report would analyze such questions in detail, which may increase pressure on the United States to discuss them. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's disgraceful capitulation to the Honduran coup by Michael Munk Thu, May 27, 2010

This is a section from Dilip Hiro's take on the Obama foreighn policy troubles on Tom Dispatch Read the complete article at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175254/tomgram%3A_dilip_hiro%2C_obama%27s_flip-flop_leadership_style/ Flip-Flop on Honduras By overthrowing the civilian government of President Manuel Zelaya in June 2009, the Honduran generals acquired the odious distinction of carrying out the first military coup in Central America in the post-Cold War era. What drove them to it? The precipitating factor was Zelaya's decision to have a non-binding survey on holding a referendum that November about convening a Constituent Assembly to redraft the constitution. Denouncing the coup as a "terrible precedent" for the region and demanding its reversal, President Obama initially insisted: "We do not want to go back to a dark past. We always want to stand with democracy." Those words should have been followed by deeds like recalling his ambassador in Tegucigalpa (just as Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did) and an immediate suspension of the American aid on which the country depends. Instead, what followed was a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the administration would not formally designate the ouster as a military coup "for now" -- even though the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the European Union had already done so. This backtracking encouraged the Honduran generals and their Republican supporters in Congress. They began to stonewall, while a top notch public relations firm in Washington, hired by the de facto government of the military's puppet president Roberto Micheletti, went to work. These moves proved enough to weaken the "democratic" resolve of a president who makes lofty speeches, but lacks strong convictions when it comes to foreign policy. Secretary of State Clinton then began talking of reconciling the ousted president and the Micheletti government, treating the legitimate and illegitimate camps as equals. Having realized that a hard line stance vis-à-vis Washington was paying dividends, the Honduran generals remained unbending. Only when Clinton insisted that the State Department would not recognize the November presidential election result because of doubts about it being free, fair, and transparent did they agree to a compromise a month before the poll. They would let Zelaya return to the presidential palace to finish his term in office. That was when rightwing Republican Senator Jim DeMint, a fanatical supporter of the Honduran generals, swung into action. He would give Republican consent to White House nominees for important posts in Latin America only if Clinton agreed to recognize the election results, irrespective of what happened to Zelaya. Clinton buckled. As a result, Obama became one of only two leaders -- the other being Panama's president -- in the 34-member Organization of American States to lend his support to the Honduran presidential poll. What probably appeared as a routine trade-off in domestic politics on Capitol Hill was seen by the international community as a humiliating retreat by Obama when challenged by a group of Honduran generals. Other leaders undoubtedly took note. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Why it's hard to kick a US base out... by Michael Munk Tue, May 25, 2010

Read the NYTimes report "Japan relents on US Base,," at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/world/asia/24japan.html?ref=asia visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Iran sends formal swap offer to IAEA by Michael Munk Mon, May 24, 2010

This is the offer in effect already rejected by Obama and his PR outlet, the NYTimes . Iran notifies IAEA over atomic deal Al-Jazeera, May 24, 2010 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/05/20105249542504394.html Iran has in a letter to the United Nation's nuclear watchdog described its nuclear swap deal with Turkey and Brazil as a "breakthrough". The letter, signed by Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, applauds the move to send 1,200kg of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel. Salehi's letter, delivered to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Austria, on Monday, reportedly said the deal was "a major step forward" towards defusing tensions over its nuclear energy programme. Iran has also pushed major world powers and the UN to implement the deal, with Iran's envoy to the IAEA saying "we expect this to be realised as soon as possible". Ali Asghar Soltanieh said that Iran's uranium enrichment programme, which Western powers have raised concerns over, was a separate issue to the deal. When asked if Iran would continue enriching uranium to higher levels if the deal went through, he said: "This is not the issue." Confirming the receipt of Iran's letter, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said: "If accepted and implemented, it could serve as an important confidence-building measure and open the door for a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue". He said Iran "should show greater transparency about its nuclear programme" and stressed the "importance of Iran's full co-operation with the IAEA and full compliance with relevant Security Council resolutions". The IAEA said it would pass on Iran's letter to the US, France and Russia, part of the so-called Vienna Group, but did not comment on the deal. Iranian diplomats travelled to the residence of Yukiya Amano, the IAEA chief, in Vienna, Austria along with representatives from Turkey and Brazil, for a 45-minute meeting on Monday. Jonah Hull, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Vienna, said the letter was handed over as the discussion took place behind closed doors at the residence. "The letter included details of the deal and details of Iran's commitment," he said. "In terms of the deal we don't yet have chapter and verse on this letter ... but we understand this is a deal to swap nuclear fuel." Iran signed a deal last week with Brazil and Turkey, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, to ship over half of its low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for fuel for a Tehran medical research reactor. Under the plan, Iran would transfer 1,200 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is enough for an atomic bomb if enriched to high purity, to Turkey in return for special fuel rods to replenish the stocks of its medical isotope reactor. But Western governments have been dismissive of the proposal, which they have said fails to address international concerns about Iran's nuclear programme. They have said that since Iran's LEU stockpile has grown significantly since the proposal was first raised seven months ago, meaning it could still be left with enough for a nuclear warhead. Western powers believe the Islamic state wants highly enriched uranium to make an atomic weapon, but Tehran says its programme is simply designed to meet its civilian energy needs. Washington has pressed ahead with circulating a new sanctions resolution. PJ Crowley, US assistant secretary of state for public affairs, said that Washington was reviewing a copy of the letter received from the IAEA. "As we have said, we remain concerned about Iran's defiance of Security Council resolutions, its ongoing enrichment activity and failure to meaningfully engage the P5+1," he said. "Nothing in the letter changes these broader concerns." Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Istanbul, said: "Turkey and Brazil have stood steadfastly by Iran in this, and the most positive sounds coming out today are from Turkey who say they stand by the deal. "Turkey's view is very simple: sanctions have been tried in the past and they haven't worked. They are determined to make their case in every international arena possible. "They say this deal should be given a chance to be worked through." An original deal brokered between Iran, the US, France and Russia in October last year foundered in disputes over detail. Iran had previously been reluctant to allow its stockpile of uranium to leave the country before receiving the nuclear fuel, saying that the exchange must take place simultaneously inside the country. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Capitalism devastates Mongolian livestock by Michael Munk Sun, May 23, 2010

The silence of the liberals by Michael Munk Fri, May 21, 2010

Laying Bare the Myth of 'The Left' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/laying_bare_the_myth_of_the_left_2010= 0520/ VIA Steve Weiss May 20, 2010 By David Sirota I'm always amused by popular references to the allegedly all-powerful = American "Left." The term suggests that progressives today possess the = same kind of robust, ideologically driven political apparatus as the = Right-a machine putting principles before party affiliation.=20 This notion is hilarious because it is so absurd.=20 Yes, there are certainly well-funded groups in Washington that call = themselves "progressive," that get media billing as "The Left," and that = purport to advocate liberal causes regardless of party. But unlike the = Right's network, which has sometimes ideologically opposed Republicans = on court nominations and legislation, many "progressive" institutions = are not principled at all-sadly, lots of them are just propagandists for = Democrats, regardless of what Democrats do. Everyone in professional "Left" politics knows this reality "deep down = in places they don't talk about at parties," as Jack Nicholson might = say-and they don't discuss it for fear of both jeopardizing their = employers' nonprofit tax status and/or undermining their employers' = dishonest fundraising appeals to liberal donors' ideals.=20 During the Bush years, this truth was easily obscured, as bashing the = Republican president for trampling progressive initiatives was = equivalent to aiding Democrats. But in the Obama era, "The Left's" = destructive, party-over-principles motivation has become impossible to = hide, especially recently. Behold, for instance, major environmental groups' attitude toward the = Gulf of Mexico oil spill.=20 We know that before the disaster, President Barack Obama recklessly = pushed to expand offshore drilling. We also know that his Interior = Department gave British Petroleum's rig a "categorical exclusion" from = environmental scrutiny and, according to The New York Times, "gave = permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf = without first getting required [environmental] permits." Worse, we know = that after the spill, the same Interior Department kept issuing = "categorical exclusions" for new gulf oil operations, and Interior = Secretary Ken Salazar still refuses "to rule out continued use of = categorical exclusions," as The Denver Post reported (heckuva job, = Kenny!).=20 Undoubtedly, had this been the behavior of a Republican administration, = "The Left's" big environmental organizations would be scheduling D.C. = protests and calling for firings, if not criminal charges. Yet, somehow, = there are no protests. Somehow, there have been almost no calls for the = resignation of Salazar, who oversaw this disaster and who, before that, = took $323,000 in campaign contributions from energy interests and backed = more offshore drilling as a U.S. senator. Somehow, facing environmental = apocalypse, there has been mostly silence from "The Left." That silence is similarly deafening when it comes to Supreme Court = nominee Elena Kagan.=20 We know Kagan was among the Clinton administration advisers urging the = president to support a serious abortion restriction and to avoid = reducing racist disparities in criminal sentencing. We know that as = Harvard Law School dean, Kagan "hired 29 tenured or tenure-track faculty = members [and] did not hire a single black, Latino, or American = Indian-not one, not even a token," reports Duke University's Guy-Uriel = Charles. And we know that in her solicitor general confirmation = hearings, Kagan stated her radical belief that the government can hold = terrorism suspects without trial. Again, if this were a Republican nominee's record, "The Left's" = pro-choice and civil rights groups would be frantically mounting = opposition-or at least raising concerns. But this is a Democratic = nominee, so they've fallen in line. Planned Parenthood celebrated = Kagan's "dedication," the NAACP trumpeted her "commitment to diversity" = and the liberal Alliance for Justice said it "applauds" her nomination. Surveying the hypocrisy, CNN's Roland Martin wrote that "The Left's" = organizations "need to decide what matters: their principles or their = politics ... their convictions or chicken dinners in the White House."=20 He's too late: They've already made their decision, which is = why-regrettably-a powerful Left does not exist in America. David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" = and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and = blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on = Twitter @davidsirota. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

What makes Obama run against Iran? by Michael Munk Fri, May 21, 2010

In his otherwise sound analysis, Cole tries to get Obama himself off the hook by blaming Obama's own team: " Ironically, Obama has allowed (sic) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and SecDef Gates to continue to build up Iran as a supposedly major security challenge to the US, making it harder for him to follow through on his original plan of direct negotiations with Tehran." But we've all heard Obama himself make that claim many times. I suspect his "original" plan of negotiation is in the category of his "original" promise to end the Iraq war in 16 months (which is today).. But I agree with Cole's conclusion that Israeli pressure explains why Obama has endorsed Bush s inclusion of Iran in an "Axis of Terror." Iran Threatens to Pull out of Nuclear Deal over new UN Sanctions By Juan Cole May 21, 2010 Iranian member of parliament Mohammad Reza Bahonar warned Thursday that "If (the West) issues a new resolution against Iran, we will not be committed to Tehran's statement and dispatching fuel outside Iran will be canceled." Turkey and Brazil, with full backing from Washington DC and in close cooperation with the Obama administration, had apparently succeeded by Monday morning in negotiating a deal whereby Iran would send over half of its low enriched uranium to Turkey, which would then send it on to (presumably) France and Russia for enrichment to 19.75 percent for use in Iran's medical reactor for the production of medical isotopes. The deal was nearly identical to the one sought last October in Geneva by the Obama administration. Iran had agreed to something like this arrangement, but then reneged. In the meantime, the Obama administration determined to seek a further round of United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran. Even as Brazil and Turkey were working overtime to get an agreement from Tehran, Washington had finally persuaded Russia and China to accept a new round of relatively weak sanctions. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton more or less rejected the Turkey-Brazil deal as soon as it was announced, in favor of increased sanctions. Veteran Iran observer Gary Sick predicted this course, calling it "moving the goalposts"- an email observation. Yesterday Roger Cohen wrote an op-ed for NYT to the same effect. Obama would no longer take 'yes' for an answer. One sticking point was that Iran did not offer, in the deal struck with Turkey and Brazil, to cease enriching uranium. But this goal is the primary one of the Obama administration and Gareth Porter argues that even last October's negotiations were viewed in Washington as a step toward ending the enrichment program. (The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty gives Iran the right to enrich for peaceful nuclear reactors to generate electricity, but the US and the Security Council have attempted to amend the NPT ex post facto). Brazil's foreign minister said, according to the USG Open Source Center translation of an article in the Portuguese Agencia Brasil for Thursday, May 20, 2010: 'According to the minister of foreign affairs, who spoke with reporters at Itamaraty in Brasilia today, no one will be able to ignore the agreement signed in Tehran. ". . . I feel that ignoring that agreement would reflect an attitude of disdain for a peaceful solution. I don't believe it is possible to do that." Amorim said that before traveling to Tehran with Lula, he had already learned that permanent members of the UN Security Council were drafting a resolution proposing new sanctions against Iran but that they would await the results of Lula's trip. According to Amorim, there has not yet been time to analyze the document. "If you have a result and the next day someone presents a resolution proposing sanctions, the wait was in fact purely formal." The minister said the announcement that Iran would continue its uranium enrichment program even after the agreement was signed with Brazil and Turkey was a matter to be dealt with in a second phase. "We were not intending to solve all the problems at once. That requires a conversation not with Brazil but with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and I am optimistic about its results. We put the ball in the goal area, but the goal will have to be scored by the permanent members of the council and the representatives of the IAEA." Amorim emphasized that continuing the uranium enrichment program was not part of the negotiations leading to the agreement signed yesterday. "I am trusting in people's common sense and feel that we have helped give a peaceful negotiation a chance. It was not we who invented the agreement. It had already been proposed by the UN Security Council and the IAEA." Amorim is likely to be disappointed by all sides, and in my view the reason lies in part in domestic US politics. There are four domestic political forces affecting Iran policy. The War Hawks, including the more hard line of the Israel lobbies, would like to see the US back on the war footing with Iran characteristic of the late Bush administration. The pragmatic hawks such as US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, aware of how ruinous entering a third war would be for the US at this point, would at least like to see the imposition of robust sanctions. The Realists, exemplified by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, would like to see engagement and negotiation with the regime in Tehran, even at the cost of ignoring the Islamic Republic's crackdown on the Green Movement and massive human rights violations. The Democratic left and the National Iranian American Council (the most effective Iranian-American lobby) would like to see a rapprochement with Iran, but urge continued pressure by the West on the regime to open up and to cease its authoritarian measures. The Obama administration came into office talking like the Realists, and the Realists, most Iranian-Americans and the left wing of the Democratic Party would have liked to see him take the Brazil-Turkey deal. But through congressional pressure and that of the Israel lobbies, the pro-sanctions faction has come out on top. Adopting the position of the pragmatic hawks and seeking tighter sanctions has the advantage that it blunts the arguments of the War Hawks. It is a better platform for Democrats to run on in the November midterms than open, direct negotiations with Iran. Ironically, Obama has allowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and SecDef Gates to continue to build up Iran as a supposedly major security challenge to the US, making it harder for him to follow through on his original plan of direct negotiations with Tehran. (How unlikely a candidate Iran is to play major foe of the United States is clear if you look, as Stephen Walt has, at the basic economic and military realities; Iran is poor and weak. Unhelpful linkage with other Middle East policy may be in play, as well. The slight increase of sanctions may be intended to mollify Israel and forestall a disastrous military strike by that country on the Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz near Isfahan. Promising stricter sanctions may also be important to the US negotiations with the Likud-led government of Israel over a two-state solution with the Palestinians. That is, horsetrading over Israel-Palestinian issues may be driving Iran policy in the White House. Those pragmatic hawks eager for stronger sanctions seem to envisage restrictions on Iran's finance sector in its interfacing with the rest of the world. Likewise, they wish to forestall further Russian arms deals with Tehran. Vedomosti Online reported on Thursday, May 20, 2010 (according to the translation of the USG Open Source Center): 'Konstantin Makiyenko, expert of the Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology, says that the adoption of this resolution would terminate the military-technical cooperation of Russia and Iran, except, probably, merely for deliveries of transport helicopters, and would directly affect deliveries to Iran of S-300 missile systems. . . The first contract for the delivery of Tor M-1 air-defense missile systems was signed in 2006, and for deliveries of the S-300, in 2007, but the contract has still not been executed. Russia is citing technical problems.' In contrast, Aleksey Arbatov of the Russian Academy of Sciences World Economy and International Relations Institute said, "The delivery of the S-300 never was planned since it would have provoked an Israeli military attack on Iran, now Israel is taking a time-out to asses the effectiveness of the new sanctions, and in the event of noncompliance with them, could strike in the fall or spring. . ." He added that Iran's lack of the S-300 minimizes the number of casualties on the attacking side . . ." Nevertheless, Arbatov thinks the West is flailing around on the sanctions issue and is unlikely to be effective: "The sanctions are being imposed as a conscience salve, they will have no effect, like the previous ones . . .' Obama mysteriously has ceased leading on the Iran issue and is instead showing himself willing to be led. Thus have the pragmatic hawks (with the war hawks waiting in the wings) defeated the Realists and the liberal internationalists. Obama stabbed Turkey and Brazil in the back after asking them to risk their face for him. Obama is giving Iran the impression that he is indecisive. All of this backtracking for the sake of a sanctions regime that is highly unlikely actually to change Iran's behavior, contrary to the express hopes of Secretary Gates. Obama's current Iran policy cannot be explained in the terms of US-Iranian relations. It must be driven by something else. The Israel lobbies and dealings with the Netanyahu government are the likeliest candidates in explaining the abandonment of a Realist approach. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Brazil, Turkey hit back against Obama by Michael Munk Wed, May 19, 2010

Obama won't take yes for an answer by Michael Munk Tue, May 18, 2010

Obama seems to reject the Brazil-Turkey-Iran Initiative "Gooaal!" for Lula Against Western Push for Iran Sanctions 18 May 2010 by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed http://www.truthout.org/gooaal-lula-against-western-push-iran-sanctions59618 Sao Paulo, Brazil - If I were in Washington, I would run down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to Congress with a big Brazilian flag, as the young Brazilians run down the Avenida Paulista in Sao Paulo during the futebol match, shouting, "Gooaal!" Because with the news that Iran has agreed to ship most of its enriched uranium to Turkey in a nuclear fuel swap deal reached in talks with Brazil and Turkey that could "deflate a US-led push" for new sanctions against Iran, the president of Brazil has scored a goal against the neocons in the West who want to gin up confrontation with Iran toward a future military conflict. AP reported: Iran agreed Monday to ship most of its enriched uranium to Turkey in a nuclear fuel swap deal that could ease the international standoff over the country's disputed nuclear program and deflate a US-led push for tougher sanctions. The deal was reached in talks with Brazil and Turkey, elevating a new group of mediators for the first time in the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities. The agreement was nearly identical to a U.N.-drafted plan that Washington and its allies have been pressing Tehran for the past six months to accept in order to deprive Iran - at least temporarily - of enough stocks of enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. If the deal is "nearly identical" to the plan that the US has been pressing, then we should all be celebrating, right? Not the right-wing German government, apparently. The key question is whether the agreement fulfills the demands that the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency has made of Tehran, German government spokesman Christoph Steegmans said. Steegmans noted that the point remains whether Iran suspends enrichment of nuclear material at home, raising a possible sticking point since the agreement reaffirmed Tehran's right to enrichment activities for peaceful purposes. But the demand that Iran suspend the enrichment of nuclear material was never part of the fuel swap deal, and, indeed, the whole point of the fuel swap deal was to de-escalate tensions around Iran's growing stockpile of enriched uranium without recourse to the politically unachievable demand that Iran suspend enrichment of uranium. Everyone involved in the diplomacy knows that "suspension of enrichment" crosses a red line for the Iranians, so saying that the deal is no good because it doesn't require Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium is like saying the deal is no good because it doesn't require Iranian leaders to eat pork on Iranian TV at noon during Ramadan. The main difference between the deal Iran has just agreed to and the UN-drafted version, AP reported, is that if Iran does not receive the fuel rods for its medical research reactor within a year, Turkey will be required to "quickly and unconditionally" return the uranium to Iran. Iran had feared that under the initial UN deal, if a swap fell through, its uranium stock could be seized permanently. If the West is operating in good faith, then this difference between the agreements shouldn't matter. Furthermore, Iran dropped an earlier demand for the fuel exchange to happen in stages and is now willing to ship abroad its nuclear material in a single batch. It also dropped an insistence that the exchange happen inside Iran as well as a request to receive the fuel rods right away. "There is no ground left for more sanctions or pressure," Turkey's foreign minister said. That should be true on the merits, but it's a safe bet that the "antipeace, pro-Israel" lobby in Washington isn't going to see it that way. How will the Obama administration see it? On Friday, Secretary of State Clinton predicted that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's mediation effort would fail. Now the Obama administration has to choose. Does it really want a deal? Can it take "yes" for an answer? visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Brazil-Turkey-Iran deal panics Obama adminsitration by Michael Munk Mon, May 17, 2010

A challange: Obama out of Iraq in his first term? by Michael Munk Fri, May 14, 2010

Dear Juan Cole, Assuming you are still convinced that Obama will complete his military withdrawal according to Bush's SOF deadline of Dec 31, 2011, I suggest people put your prediction next to William Pitt's on their wall until Obama's first term ends Jan 20, 2013 and judge who was correct. You fudged your position a little by predicting (May 14) that "a very small force may remain, of trainers, special operations, and air force... will be there, if at all, with the consent of the Iraqi government... their numbers will likely be tiny..." but Pitts gives Obama all of 2012 to get even those out. Fair enough? Mike Munk Out of Iraq? Don't Hold Your Breath by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed May 14, 2010 http://www.truthout.org/out-iraq-dont-hold-your-breath59458 President Obama will not get the United States out of Iraq in his first term. If he wins a second term, it is highly unlikely he will get us out of Iraq before he finally leaves office. Print that out and tack it to your wall. Six years from now, it will still be hanging there, yellow and curled, but entirely correct. We're not going anywhere. Yeah, yeah, I know, the word from the White House ever since Obama first began to campaign has been that we'll be out of Iraq by 2011. That was the promise, oft-repeated, and I'm here to tell you that it's a load of bull. Iraq is the 51st state, now and forever, so praise the Lord and pass the taxpayer-funded ammunition, amen. The reasons for this grim truth are myriad, and most recently have to do with another frenzy of violence and bloodshed in that ravaged, raped nation. A parliamentary election on March 7 failed to deliver majority control to either of the two major factions - one controlled by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the other by current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - and the resulting power struggle has spilled into the streets. Again. On Monday, more than 100 people were killed and 300 injured after a series of bombings and assassinations rippled across Iraq. In total, it appears there were more than 60 attacks; Baghdad, Mosul, Hilla, and other cities were rent by explosions and gunfire which, according to the power players, had a decidedly political edge. Matters have gotten so dangerous there that Allawi was compelled to lash out at his own government (such as it is) for sitting on their hands while people are getting killed: Allawi says he is under constant threat and that the government is doing little to help protect him. "We live every single day under a threat that we are going to be assassinated," he says. "I ask for support from the government, as an ex-Prime Minister ... Nobody cares a damn." Asked to specify what kind of support he has asked for, Allawi says, "Cars, communication gear, these bomb-detection, anti-detonator things ... These cost a lot of money. It's not free of charge. We need the government to protect us as they protect others. But this is not happening. I have to go to personal friends to donate a car, an armored car. It's ridiculous." Allawi is particularly furious that the impasse has allowed other rivals to whittle away at contested seats with a campaign of "de-Baathification" - that is, purging politicians with ties to Saddam Hussein's ousted Baath Party. "This smearing campaign was something unbelievable: the Baath Party is coming back to power, Saddam Hussein is coming out of his grave and things of this nonsense," he says. (Allawi's party crosses sectarian lines, while al-Maliki's is predominantly Shi'ite.) The violence didn't end on Monday. On Tuesday, two bombs went off in Mosul, one targeting the Iraqi police force and the other targeting an Iraqi military patrol. A suicide car bomb went off at a police checkpoint in Falluja, and hundreds of students tried to storm a local Parliament building in the Kurdish region of Iraq after the abduction and killing of a Kurdish journalist. This would all be disgusting by itself, but is made more so by the fact that these events have become so morbidly predictable. Advocates of the war, along with a herd of "professional" pundits, would argue that things are far better in Iraq than they used to be. Those unfortunate souls who have spent the first half of this week sweeping guts and eyeballs off the sidewalks, however, would probably beg to differ. Which brings us to why we're not leaving. According to The Associated Press: U.S. commanders, worried about increased violence in the wake of Iraq's inconclusive elections, are now reconsidering the pace of a major troop pullout this summer, U.S. officials said Tuesday. The withdrawal of the first major wave of troops is expected to be delayed by about a month, the officials said. Waiting much longer could endanger President Barack Obama's goal of reducing the force level from 92,000 to 50,000 troops by Aug. 31. More than two months after parliamentary elections, the Iraqis have still not formed a new government, and militants aiming to exploit the void have carried out attacks like Monday's bombings and shootings that killed at least 119 people - the country's bloodiest day of 2010. The threat has prompted military officials to look at keeping as many troops on the ground for as long as possible without missing the Aug. 31 deadline. A security agreement between the two nations requires American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. In Baghdad and Washington, U.S. officials say they remain committed to the deadline, which Mr. Obama has said he would extend only if Iraq's security deteriorates. Getting out of Iraq quickly and responsibly was among Mr. Obama's top campaign promises in 2008. Extending the deadline could be politically risky back home - but so could anarchy and a bloodbath following a hasty retreat. Two senior administration officials said the White House is closely watching to see if the Aug. 31 date needs to be pushed back - if only to ensure that enough security forces are in place to prevent or respond to militant attacks. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the administration's internal discussions. Already, the violence, fueled by Iraq's political instability, will likely postpone the start of what the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. Ray Odierno, has called the withdrawal "waterfall" - sending home large numbers of troops in a very swift period. Read between the lines of that carefully-worded report, and the reality of the situation becomes all too clear. We made such an incredible mess in Iraq that continued violence is a brass-bound guarantee. Every act of violence gives more fuel to those who argue for staying. It's a perfect circle, and it is not going to stop. George W. Bush and his merry men got us into Iraq with the absolute intention of staying there forever. We've built a bunch of massive bases for exactly that purpose. Most people consider the Bush administration to be an abject failure, but in this they succeeded beyond even the wildest expectations. The companies that continue to rake in cash from our expenditures in that war are going to be building golden statues of Bush for a long time to come. Whether President Obama is a prisoner of this situation, or is actively continuing the policy, is entirely irrelevant at this point. He may hate this war, or he may love it, but at the end of the day, he will continue in the manner of his predecessor. We're there, and unless this country erupts in a frenzy of furious protest and civil disobedience, we're staying. Even that may not make the nut, but it would be awfully nice to see this country shake itself out of its stupor and do what needs to be done. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama to progressives: you have nowhere else to go by Michael Munk Tue, May 11, 2010

With his escalating pamdering to the Right, it's clear that the "Progressive" wing of the Dems has no influence on him. I suggest his political reasoning is impeccable: Most fo the"progressive:" caucus has gone along with his wars in Iraq and Afgjhanistant, the health "reform" giveaway to the insurance industry, his war on civil liberties, and now this nomination that everyone agrees shifts the Supremes ever further to the Right. So why should he pay any attention to those of his supporters who have demonstrated they have no where else to go? Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values by Norman Solomon Common Dreams May 9, 2010 If President Obama has his way, Elena Kagan will replace John Paul Stevens -- and the Supreme Court will move rightward. The nomination is very disturbing, especially because it's part of a pattern. The White House is in the grip of conventional centrist wisdom. Grim results stretch from Afghanistan to the Gulf of Mexico to communities across the USA. "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," President Obama said in support of offshore oil drilling, less than three weeks before the April 20 blowout in the Gulf. "They are technologically very advanced." On numerous policy fronts, such conformity to a centrist baseline has smothered hopes for moving this country in a progressive direction. Now, the president has taken a step that jeopardizes civil liberties and other basic constitutional principles. "During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of 'enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right," University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle noted last month. "Now, in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court." Boyle added: "Kagan has said 'I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society." The departing Justice Stevens was a defender of civil liberties. Unless the Senate refuses to approve Kagan for the Supreme Court, the nation's top court is very likely to become more hostile to civil liberties and less inclined to put limits on presidential power. Here is yet another clear indication that progressives must mobilize to challenge the White House on matters of principle. Otherwise, history will judge us harshly -- and it should. For more than 15 months, evidence has mounted that President Obama routinely combines progressive rhetoric with contrary actions. As one bad decision after another has emanated from the Oval Office, some progressives have favored denial -- even though, if the name "Bush" or "McCain" had been attached to the same presidential policies, the same progressives would have been screaming bloody murder. But enabling bad policies, with silent acquiescence or anemic dissent, encourages more of them. At this point, progressive groups and individuals who pretend that Obama's policies merely need a few tweaks, or just suffer from a few anomalous deficiencies, are whistling past a political graveyard. At the same time, with less than six months to go before Election Day, there are very real prospects of a big Republican victory that could shift majority control of Congress. Progressives have a huge stake in averting a GOP takeover on Capitol Hill. The corporate-military centrism of the Obama administration has demoralized and demobilized the Democratic Party's largely progressive base -- the same base that swept Nancy Pelosi into the House Speaker's office and then Barack Obama into the White House. National polls now show Democrats to be much less enthusiastic about voting in November than their Republican counterparts. The conventional political wisdom (about as accurate as the claim that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills") is that when a Democratic president moves rightward, his party gains strength against Republicans. But Democrats reaped the whirlwind of that pseudo-logic in 1994 -- after President Clinton shafted much of the Democratic base by pushing through the corporate NAFTA trade pact against the wishes of labor, environmental and human-rights constituencies. That's how Newt Gingrich and other right-wing zealots got to run Congress starting in January 1995. For progressives, giving the Obama administration one benefit of the doubt after another has not prevented matters from getting worse. At the moment, U.S. troop levels are nearing 100,000 in Afghanistan. Massive quantities of oil are belching into the Gulf of Mexico. The White House has signaled de facto acceptance of a high unemployment rate for several more years, while offering weak GOP-lite countermeasures like tax breaks for businesses. Nuclear power subsidies are getting powerful support from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, while meaningful action against global warming is nowhere in sight. The Justice Department continues to backtrack on civil liberties. And now, if the president's nomination of Elena Kagan is successful, the result will move the Supreme Court to the right. Progressives should fight the Kagan nomination. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

When a nation wants a US base to go... by Michael Munk Wed, May 5, 2010

And Obama is maintaining 737 foreign military bases "... it is clear that we must maintain the Japan-U.S. alliance as a deterrent force, and that we must ask Okinawa to bear some of that burden," [the Japanese prime minister] said after the meeting with local leaders. "It has become clear from our negotiations with the Americans that we cannot ask them to relocate the base to too far-flung a location," he said. Read the entire article "Japanese Leader Backtracks on Revising Base Agreement" at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/world/asia/05japan.html?ref=asia visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's grotesque drone joke by Michael Munk Wed, May 5, 2010

Did You Hear the Joke About the Predator Drone That Bombed? Obama's 'joke' at the White House correspondents' dinner was no laughing matter to the relatives of the hundreds of people killed in Pakistan by drones. By Medea Benjamin and Nancy Moncias May 5, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/146739/did_you_hear_the_joke_about_the_predator_drone_that_bombed_ At the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner, President Bush joked about searching for WMDs under Oval Office furniture. The joke backfired when parents who had lost their children fighting in Iraq said they found the joke offensive and tasteless. Senator John Kerry said Bush displayed a "stunningly cavalier" attitude toward the war and those serving in Iraq. So it's odd that President Obama would make a crude joke about deaths that he is responsible for. But that's just what he did at the May 1 White House Correspondents Dinner. "Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere," President Obama quipped as he looked out at the packed room. Then he furrowed his brow, pretending to send a stern message to the pop band. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You'll never see it coming." For people in Pakistan, where most of the drones are being used, the joke lost something in translation. According to Pakistani journalist Khawar Rizvi, few Pakistanis have ever heard of the Jonas Brothers or understood the reference to the President's daughters. "But one thing we do know: There's nothing funny about predator drones," said Rizvi. "They've killed hundreds of civilians and caused so much suffering in Pakistan. And that's no laughing matter." The point of using attack drones, which are piloted from 6,000 miles away in the Nevada desert, is to guarantee no U.S. casualties. But the increased use of unmanned aerial vehicles has led to an increase in the killing and maiming of innocents, often while they are sleeping in their beds. You won't get much of a chuckle by reading The New America Foundation's 2009 report "Revenge of the Drones." It shows that Obama, far from curtailing the drone program he inherited from President Bush, dramatically increased the number of U.S. drone strikes. The report says that roughly 252 to 315 Pakistani civilians were killed by Predator and Reaper drone strikes between 2006 and 2009. Other reports place the figure much higher. Pakistani authorities released statistics indicating that over 700 civilians were killed by drones in 2009 alone, the year Obama took office. The running tally on the website PakistanBodyCount.Org is even more shocking: 1,226 civilians killed and 427 injured as of March 2010! Equally shocking is the ratio of civilians to militants killed, which Middle East scholar Daniel Byman estimates at ten to one. It is a cruel joke indeed for the people of Pakistan that the U.S. military finds it acceptable to murder 10 innocent people for every Al Qaeda or Taliban operative killed. The use of the drones has also expanded in Afghanistan. Every day, the Air Force now flies at least 20 Predator drones - twice as many as a year ago. They are mostly used for surveillance, but have also carried out more than 200 strikes over the last year. "Since the start of 2009, the Predators visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Deja vu: US dismisses Iran nuke claim by Michael Munk Tue, May 4, 2010

Media coverage of the UN anti-proliferation conference-in addition to avoiding the elephant in the room (Israel's c.300 nuclear weapons arsenal)-reminds me of US efforts to get the UN to dismiss Iraq's truthful claim (backed by a massive library of CDs) denying it has any nukes. Today, the US dismisses similar Iranian claims with no more media skepticsm than it showed eight years ago. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

TIME distorts position of Afghan anti war feminist by Michael Munk Tue, May 4, 2010

This is especially weird, because TIME used Hirshi Ali, a former Somali on the payroll of the right wing American Enterprise Institute, to urge Joya to recant and support the US occupation of Afganistan. Time Magazine's Sneaky Way of Muffling the Message of an Afghan Peace Activist Malalai Joya gets named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People of 2010, but allows Ayaan Hirsi to make the announcement and distort Joya's message. By Sonali Kolhatkar Uprising Radio / May 3, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/146714/time_magazine%27s_sneaky_way_of_muffling_the_message_of_an_afghan_peace_activistOutspoken Afghan activist and former member of the Parliament, Malalai Joyahas been one of the most vocal opponents of the US and NATO war inAfghanistan. In a recent op-ed she called on the US to "stop murdering mypeople."Joya was suspended from the Afghan Parliament nearly 3 years ago forchallenging warlord domination and lives in constant fear of her life. Shehas survived several assassination attempts but chooses to live inAfghanistan. Her memoir, with Derrick O'Keefe was published late last year(Simon and Schuster). Last week Malalai Joya was named one of TimeMagazine's "100 Most Influential People" of 2010. I reached her for aninterview via satellite phone in Afghanistan on May 3rd 2010.Sonali Kolhatkar: You were just named one of the 100 most influential peopleof 2010 by TIME Magazine. But author Hirsi Ali, who wrote the announcement,said "I hope in time she comes to see the U.S. and NATO forces in hercountry as her allies. She must use her notoriety, her demonstrated wit andher resilience to get the troops on her side instead of out of her country."How do you respond to this statement?Malalai Joya: I am very angry with the way they have introduced me. TIME haspainted a false picture of me and does not mention anything at all about mystruggle against the occupation of Afghanistan by the US and NATO, which isdisgusting. In fact every one knows that I stand side-by-side with theglorious anti war movements around the world and have proved time and againthat I will never compromise with the US And NATO who have occupied mycountry, empowered the most bloody enemies of my people and are killing myinnocent compatriots in Afghanistan. What TIME did was like giving an awardto someone with one hand and getting it back with another hand. I have sentmy protest through my Defense Committee, but TIME did not bother to evenanswer than protest letter. Perhaps this is the kind of freedom ofexpression exercised by TIME and the US. But I'm happy to see that many ofmy friends and supporters have objected to the write-up and expressed it byposting their comments on TIME's site or sending me many emails.Sonali Kolhatkar: Earlier this year some journalists were able to confirmthat US troops had killed two pregnant women during a night-time raid. Howcommon are such occurrences in Afghanistan today?Malalai Joya: Yes, the US and NATO often lie when they kill innocent peopleand also stop media from reporting civilian casualties. Most of the civiliancasualties take place in remote areas of Afghanistan where there is no mediato report it, so no one notices it. In many cases after killing people NATO[releases] statements saying that many insurgents were killed. When you tryto find out from the local people, they are actually women and childrenkilled, not insurgents. Afghan media are also mostly in the hands of theAfghan criminal bands. They rarely report civilians killed by the US andNATO. In Afghanistan most media outlets, especially TV channels, are a toolfor warlords of the Northern Alliance. For example warlords like AttaMohammed, Qanooni, Mohseni, Mohaqqiq, Rabbani and others, each have theirown TV channel and they naturally do not want to report civilian casualtiesby their US and NATO masters.visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Arrested in 2000 DC protest? Collect $18M by Michael Munk Mon, May 3, 2010

9. IT PAYS TO PROTEST From the ANSWER Coalition There are times when it literally pays to take part in a protest demonstration - to the tune of $18,000 each in this case - according to this message from ANSWER Coalition National Coordinator Brian Becker: Ten years ago on April 15, nearly 700 people were illegally arrested in Washington, D.C., while protesting against the brutality, racism and exploitation that are institutionalized in the vast Prison-Industrial Complex in the United States. While we were trapped and detained on 20th St., we announced over a bullhorn that the police action was illegal and that we would seek to file a class-action lawsuit against the D.C. police and government. After 10 long years of litigation filed by the attorneys from the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund on behalf of those of us who were arrested, a huge civil liberties victory has been achieved, resulting in the largest protest arrest settlement in U.S. history. This victory was due to the amazing diligence and expertise of the Partnership for Civil Justice, who worked pro bono for the decade, and the steadfastness of those who had been arrested. Everyone who was arrested at 20th St., NW between I and K St., on April 15, 2000, is now eligible to collect $18,000, but they must file their claim by May 17, 2010. If this message pertains to you, or to someone you know, you must read and act upon information from the Partnership for Civil Justice, just below my message, on how people can collect their $18,000. If claims are not filed by May 17, 2010, that money will revert back to the government. We need your help to circulate this email to as many friends, progressive list serves and social networking sites so those who are entitled to collect $18,000 can do so. For my part, I am donating the settlement money to the ANSWER Coalition so that the movement against war and for social justice can continue to organize. We hope others will consider doing the same, or donating a part of their settlement money. The ANSWER Coalition has a fiscal sponsor, the Progress Unity Fund, that allows for tax-deductible contributions. Checks may be sent to 167 Anderson St., San Francisco, CA 94110 and made out to Progress Unity Fund. Brian Becker, ANSWER Coalition http://www.answercoalition.org/ info@internationalanswer.org, Washington, D.C., National Office, (202) 265-1948 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 265-1948 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The elephant at the UN nonproliferation conference by Michael Munk Sun, May 2, 2010

Wall Street Journal on the opening of the UN nuclear nonproliferation = conference tommorow:=20 "The U.S. is negotiating with Egypt a proposal to make the Middle East a = region free of nuclear weapons, as the U.S. seeks to prevent Iran from = derailing a monthlong U.N. conference on nuclear nonproliferation that = begins Monday. U.S. officials familiar with the move call it an important step in = assuring countries that Washington-criticized by some for its silence = about Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal-will equitably address weapons = proliferation across the region, as Iran seeks to shift focus away from = its own nuclear program. Washington also reassured Israel it won't foist a nuclear-free zone on = the region until all parties agree to it and significant progress has = been made on Mideast peace. " Read the rest of the article at = http://freedomsyndicate.com/mayfair/wsj001.htm =20 Cartoon Khalil Bendib visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

For feminists who support Obama's war by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 30, 2010

Progressive movement declared : DOA by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 30, 2010

Obama's troops vs the Afghan people by Michael Munk Thu, Apr 29, 2010

After nine years of US occupation, a Penatgon analysis for Congress explains why Obama's war is going so badly. Afghans don't want his troops in their country: "The report concludes that Afghan people support or are sympathetic to the insurgency in 92 of 121 districts identified by the U.S. military as key terrain for stabilizing [read: dominating] the country. Popular support for Karzai's government [and, presumably, his patron in the White House] is strong in only 29 of those districts..." Read the entire article at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-0429-us-afghan-20100429,0,2848935.story visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama after NYT exposure of US Iran subversion by Michael Munk Thu, Apr 29, 2010

This was Bill Clinton's "false flag" operation intended to entice Iran into nuclear weapon acts. Now Obama's DOJ demands the Times reporter give up his source for the expose. Read the entire piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29justice.html?ref=us "[A chapter in James Risen's book "State of War" about CIA secret ops] describes how the agency sent a Russian nuclear scientist - who had defected to the United States and was secretly working for the C.I.A. - to Vienna in February 2000 to give plans for a nuclear bomb triggering device to an Iranian official under the pretext that he would provide further assistance in exchange for money. The C.I.A. had hidden a technical flaw in the designs. The scientist immediately spotted the flaw, Mr. Risen reported. Nevertheless, the agency proceeded with the operation, so the scientist decided on his own to alert the Iranians that there was a problem in the designs, thinking they would not take him seriously otherwise. Mr. Risen described the operation as reckless, arguing that Iranian scientists may have been able to "extract valuable information from the blueprints while ignoring the flaws." He also wrote that a C.I.A. case officer, believing that the agency had "assisted the Iranians in joining the nuclear club," told a Congressional intelligence committee about the problems, but that no action was taken. It is not clear whether the Iranians had figured out that the Russian scientist had been working for the C.I.A. before publication of Mr. Risen's book. " visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama's stovepipe to the NYT Sanger by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 28, 2010

How Obama leaks scoops to favorite war lovers like David Sanger. Of course, Iran had informed the IAEA of the Qum site about a week earlier, but the media have ever since spun the fable that Obama disclosed the info. From http://www.politico.com/email-alerts/playbook/playbook_04282010.html '[L]ast September in Pittsburgh, when about 20 journalists were attending an off-the-record dinner with Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel during the G-20 summit. Also in attendance: New York Times [chief Washington correspondent] David Sanger, a White House favorite. As one White House reporter tells it, [national secirity advisors] 'Jim Jones and Denis McDonough and Gary Samore were lurking in this very dark, nice dining room that we were in. And we were all kind of wondering why they were there. Then, at one point at the dinner, McDonough tapped on Sanger's shoulder and whispered something in his ear. Sanger got up and walked towards this clutch of NSC people, including Jones, and they walked off.' ... [Early the next morning], Sanger posted a blockbuster scoop: as Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy would announce the next morning, the Iranians had a secret nuclear site - but kept it hidden for years from the International Atomic Energy Agency. ... Sanger doesn't dispute that the White House confirmed the Iran story, but said he had written about suspicions of such a site in his book 'Inheritance' and says he put 'urgent' questions to officials earlier that day after learning that Iran had abruptly disclosed a new site in a letter to the IAEA.' visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama believers mute opposition to his wars by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 27, 2010

The Real War Reporters by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed April 27,l 2010 http://www.truthout.org/the-real-war-reporters58914 A good friend noted recently how little we hear of Iraq and Afghanistan in the news anymore, and further noted the deafening silence regarding those ongoing wars from what he described as "dishwater left-leaning political activists" whose disengagement from the issue, according to him, makes them full of something I can't repeat in print. That bogus disengagement, he asserts, stems from the fact that Obama is in office now, so everything must be OK. It isn't, of course, but it is hard to miss the fact that we haven't heard much about the wars, or the protesters, since a couple of Januarys ago. It's hard to argue against his point, and worse, the sense of being made of dishwater myself is difficult to avoid. I've written about the deadly messes in Iraq and Afghanistan several times in the last year or so, but it is nothing compared to the focus I had on those two conflicts going back to 2002. Back then, and until 2009, I wrote three books on those two wars, discussed them in detail in this space on a weekly basis, joined political campaigns based solely on the candidate's stance on those conflicts, and went to dozens of public protests all over the country. Why did my coverage of these conflicts get dialed back? There are several reasons, most of which sound like excuses. Obama's new administration brought forth a torrent of issues that also deserved coverage - the Sotomayor nomination, the retirement of Justice Stevens, the rescue of Detroit's auto industry, health care reform, and the eruption of right-wing insanity both in Congress and out in the streets, to name only a few - but in the end, my own attention has most definitely wandered from two wars that deserve much more attention. Other reporters, like Truthout's own Dahr Jamail have certainly not stepped back from covering these conflicts. Jamail, who went to Iraq to see and report what was happening from the ground, has consistently reminded us that the mayhem and bloodshed continue unabated. In an article from last month, he noted: It is highly unlikely that the US government will allow a truly sovereign Iraq, unfettered by US troops either within its borders or monitoring it from abroad, anytime soon. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the Iraqi and US governments indicate an ongoing US presence past both the August 2010 deadline to remove all combat troops, and the 2011 deadline to remove the remaining troops. According to all variations of the SOFA the US uses to provide a legal mandate for its nearly 1,000 bases across the planet, technically, no US base in any foreign country is "permanent." Thus, the US bases in Japan, South Korea and Germany that have existed for decades are not "permanent." Technically. Most analysts agree that the US plans to maintain at least five "enduring" bases in Iraq. You don't see stuff like that in "mainstream" news reporting, but it is a fact nonetheless. Even without the heroic work of people like Jamail, all you need to do is scan the wire reports buried in the avalanche of information that is available to everyone online, but is rarely passed up the food chain for general public consumption. This, for example, is what happened in Iraq on Monday: Reuters: A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol seriously wounded three policemen in Falluja, 50 km (35 miles) west of Baghdad, police said. Reuters: A sticky bomb attached to the car of a member of a local council wounded him in southwestern Baghdad, police said.... A roadside bomb wounded two people, including a policeman, in the Amil district of southwestern Baghdad, police said. Reuters: A roadside bomb planted close to a gas station killed two people and wounded three in Yusufiya, 20 km (12 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. Reuters: Roadside bombs planted around the houses of two policemen exploded before daybreak, killing one and wounding three other people, including one policeman's son, in Ramadi, 100 km (60 miles) west of Baghdad, police said. Reuters: A bomb attached to a car killed the driver and wounded five bystanders in the Mansour district of western Baghdad on Sunday, police said. Reuters: A roadside bomb wounded three people in the Saidiya district of southern Baghdad Sunday night, police said. Reuters: A roadside bomb targeting a US military patrol wounded two Iraqi civilians in Taji, 20 km (12 miles) north of Baghdad, Sunday night, police said. This was Afghanistan on Monday: The Washington Post: The CIA is using new, smaller missiles and advanced surveillance techniques to minimize civilian casualties in its targeted killings of suspected insurgents in Pakistan's tribal areas, according to current and former officials in the United States and Pakistan. The New York Times: Small bands of elite American Special Operations forces have been operating with increased intensity for several weeks in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan's largest city, picking up or picking off insurgent leaders to weaken the Taliban in advance of major operations, senior administration and military officials say. The New York Times: Twelve trucks, most of them carrying fuel to a NATO base in eastern Afghanistan, were burned by an angry crowd early Sunday less than 30 miles from Kabul, according to local officials and NATO reports. The attack was thought to be in retribution for two raids by a joint Afghan-American force over the weekend, Afghan officials said. AFP: Twin bomb blasts killed two people on Monday in an attack targeting police in the southern city of Kandahar, which is increasingly the focus of the Taliban's fight against Kabul. Once again, all that was from one single day. So, yeah, it's not over over there. Not by a long chalk, and despite the whistling silence, it's not over over here, either. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan affect every living American well beyond the impact of the flesh-and-blood conflicts we occasionally see on TV. The issue of who is still getting rich off those wars, how our society has been wired to blindly support a permanent state of war, and why we hear so little about these all-consuming matters, remain deeply pressing and of deadly importance. Jamail is not the only reporter focusing on this. This Thursday, a teach-in will be taking place on Capitol Hill to focus specifically on Iraq, Afghanistan and the issues that surround them. The moderator will be Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and the panelists will include Chris Hedges, author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"; Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army," and former Army colonel and current political activist Ann Wright. I spoke with David Swanson, a writer and political analyst who is one of the organizers of the event and also a panelist, about the purpose of Thursday's teach-in. "An immediate legislative goal is to increase the number of representatives in the House who vote No on borrowing another $33 billion from our children to escalate a hopeless, counterproductive, criminal and evil war with no end in sight," says Swanson. "One purpose of raising the number of No votes is the one that Congress members and most paid activists understand: pressuring the president. But another purpose that many in Washington find hard to fathom is building a caucus of war resisters who eventually gain a majority and deny a president war funding rather than persuading him he doesn't want it. So one line of thought for teaching and discussing is that of war powers and the best arrangement of powers among the branches of government. We hope also to establish what some of the reliable facts are on what is happening in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and the rest of the region. Is the resistance fueled by the occupation? Can a war be ended by escalating it? What is the cost to the rule of law? What is the cost to our safety? What is the cost to our wallets, and what are we trading away in terms of jobs or green energy? Above all, what is the human cost for both the victims and the perpetrators? And how can we end these wars? "The question of whether Congress exists to influence the president or to govern the nation," continued Swanson, "has a real impact on what people lobby Congress to do. If the purpose of voting No on the funding for the escalation is to persuade the president of something, then a toothless, unenforceable bill asking the president to draw up a plan to exit Afghanistan someday but not requiring that he stick to it seems equally good or maybe even better, since it directs the president what to do. If, on the other hand, the purpose is to move in the direction of actually ending the war in the first branch of our government, regardless of the president, then No votes on the funding are far and away the top priority. And if you think presidents, like all politicians, answer to real threats more than toothless persuasion, then a growing movement to cut off the money is the best rhetorical device as well. In that case, a weaker amendment that could offer representatives an excuse for voting Yes on the funding ('I voted for an exit timetable, so I'm antiwar') seems counterproductive - although it would be valuable if brought up the week after the funding vote." Asked why the panelists who are to participate in the event were chosen, Swanson replied, "The original organizers asked me to participate and to find more speakers; Hedges, Scahill and Wright were among those they wanted, and all proved to be available. Hedges is one of the most skillful writers or speakers I've seen at providing a broad understanding of the critical points in large and complicated discussions. He, like Scahill and Wright, does not bend the truth to please any party or even a Party. Scahill is one of the best investigative journalists we have, and he has an amazing grasp for how a story is being told, or not told, and how it ought to be told. And Ann Wright is the greatest living combination of fearless civil resistance and amiable diplomacy. She could ask you to surrender to a life in prison but leave you smiling. I'm afraid that comes pretty close to the skill set most needed on Capitol Hill." Lend this event your ear if you are able. Swanson, Scahill, Hedges and Wright, along with Kucinich, have not relented in their coverage and criticism of America's ongoing war, and they deserve all of our attention. The lack of attention paid recently to Iraq and Afghanistan by the "mainstream" media, and by independent journalists like myself, has been disgraceful and must change. As the last line in the film "Jarhead" succinctly puts it, "We are still in the desert." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Critics of Bush's wars back Obama's by Michael Munk Mon, Apr 26, 2010

Arizona racist law criminal by Michael Munk Sat, Apr 24, 2010

Letters to the editor The Oregonian April 24, 2010 http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2010/04/letters_immigration_law_cougar.html Immigration law 'criminal' I can trace my family history back several generations until it melts into the hills and deserts of New Mexico. My mother, all of her siblings and many of my cousins are dark-skinned Hispanics for whom English is a second language, and you can tell as soon as they begin to talk. Many are field workers with little or no education. My grandparents spoke only Spanish and raised their children far from the city. My mother was born at home, and while there is a record of her birth in the local church, she has no birth certificate. Arizona has a very similar history of Spanish and Native Americans giving birth to a local native Spanish-speaking population, and I fully expect there are many in Arizona, like my mother, who do not have a birth certificate, are poor, undereducated and work as laborers. My mother and those like her have a greater right to life in this country given their Native American ancestry than do those with European ancestry, and yet the law in Arizona now makes it possible for these people to be arrested for no reason other than they do not have a birth certificate. Those with European ancestry need not bother carrying identification. This is truly criminal. ROBBY CHAVEZ Southwest Portland visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Don't bet on Obama ending his occupations by Michael Munk Sat, Apr 24, 2010

What Obama's nuclear summit missed by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 23, 2010

=20 Cartoon Khalil Bendib visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Absurdity of US Human Rights rants by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 21, 2010

Share State Department's Human Rights Assessment Wednesday 21 April 2010 http://www.truthout.org/http:/%252Fwww.truthout.org/the-state-department-human-rights-assessment-only-a-us-perspective58747 by: María Gabriela Egas | Council on Hemispheric Affairs In what could be seen as an effort to respond to the March 11, 2009 edition of the U.S. Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights, Ecuador has promised to publish its own human rights counter-report. This initiative is meant to assess Washington's own respect for human rights from an outside perspective and is meant to be a necessary response to the State Department's often imprudent document. Also, the very next day, March 12, China published "Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009." At the least, this flap indicates that the report released by the U.S. has been suffering from a generalized lack of legitimacy, not only in the Latin-American region but also throughout the world. Egypt, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, Ecuador and China are only a few of the countries that have taken some form of exception to the U.S. global evaluation.* The underlying thrust of this general rejection by a number of countries is that Washington should not have unilaterally assumed a condemnatory role regarding the subject because the U.S. tends to be selectively indignant when it comes to its own policies toward the allegedly offending nation. The Department of State's Duty On March 11, 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted the traditional briefing in Washington D.C. in order to formally present the 34th edition of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices that reviews human rights conditions from 2009 in more than 190 countries. Clinton affirmed that her Department's reports provide "the most comprehensive record available of the condition of human rights around the world." Likewise, on March 2, 2010, Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Department of State, declared that reports prepared by non-governmental organizations "[.] are invaluable, but they don't have the same scope or breadth as what the State Department does. We report on 194 countries in the world." However, the notable absence of an examination of its own human rights' practices, to a large extent, brought on the rejection of its integrity by a number of the countries that the U.S. had condemned. Secretary Clinton asserted that "[h]uman rights are universal, but their experience is local. This is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves." The U.S. Secretary of State continued by noting that under the watchful eye of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Washington is undergoing the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. Nevertheless, the world will have to wait for its results as Washington's UPR session is scheduled to take place fall of 2010. Until then, critical assessments are likely to be made by other countries that had been negatively evaluated by U.S. authorities. The 2009 Report The last U.S. human rights self-review was officially released by the Department of State in 2006; however, the rest of the world has been consistently screened for the entire period, with no gaps. The current 2009 Report again is an extensive evaluation of 194 countries that includes a brief overview of each and 7 sections regarding human rights violations. Foreseeing what could be a rancorous reaction to its absence in the report, the State Department declared in its introduction to the 2009 Report that in fact, "the U.S. Government reports on and assesses [its] own human rights record in many other fora pursuant to [their] treaty obligations," as they will need to for the International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Still, it is not a fair comparison. First, these reports are not publicized in the same way the Department of State publicizes the rest of the country reports; and second, the U.S. conducts its own assessment, while the rest of the countries are measured by foreign standards and subject to a superpower whose democratic ideas have, at times, been wanting. World and Latin American Reactions Even though the U.S. Department of State explains that "[i]n the early 1970s [it] formalized its responsibility to speak out on behalf of international human rights standards," there are many countries that believe that this duty that has to be carried out by international organizations, rather than by states or governments that are not necessarily divorced from their own self-perceived national interests. According to the State Department's 2009 Report, this was a year with "serious human rights violations." The group of countries that were categorized as "human rights violators" include Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, China, Cuba, Colombia, Iran, DPRK, Venezuela, Vietnam, Egypt and even Switzerland, regarding Bern's initiative to ban minarets, among others. Ecuador Promises a Counter-Report As aforementioned, different countries, specifically several in the Latin American region, have backed up the rejection of the bona fides of Washington's report; these countries include Colombia, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Honduras, Cuba and Ecuador. The latter rejected Washington's findings on March 19, 2010 when Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ricardo Patiño made the Ecuadorian government's rejection public at the United Nations Office in Geneva, saying that the U.S. reports are "unilateral and biased." Its representatives maintained that the United States has a complex of being the world gendarme but continues to overlook its own wrongdoings. Patiño affirmed that "it is not acceptable that one state unilaterally becomes the world judge regarding human rights," when this is the duty of multilateral organizations. Therefore, Ecuador reaffirmed its support for the United Nations' Universal Periodic Reviews as the only suitable and equitable mechanism recognized by the international community to evaluate human rights performance in every nation. At the same time, as reported by Telesur, the Foreign Relations Ministry said that Ecuadorians considered that any human rights report coming from a state, rather than an international body, is bound to be illegitimate and invalid. For these reasons and in perhaps a petulant move, Quito decided to prepare a counter-report. President Rafael Correa has personally asked his Foreign Minister, Chancellor Patiño to start working on a report regarding United States' human rights abuses which, according to Correa, could seriously compromise the U.S.' image as a guarantor for the freedom of speech and the right of expression. Quito's Laundry List The countries that have rejected this human rights report have done it mainly for the same reason: inherent illegitimacy. In the case of Egypt, a country that is accused of having a "poor respect for human rights," Mohamed Faeq, head of the National Council of Human Rights (NCHR) said that they are not going to"[.] pay much attention to such report, as local reports from the NCHR, civil societies and international, Arab and African mechanisms concerned outweigh such [a] report." Similarly, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry declared that "[t]he U.S. Department of State's Human Rights Reports 2009 once again made partial remarks based on untrue information about the real situation in Vietnam" and that the international community has actually acknowledged and lauded the Asian country's achievements regarding the subject. In the same way, Cuba called the U.S. a major human rights violator and emphasized the fact that an evaluation of the U.S. was missing in the 2009 Report. China not only rejected this report, but also published its own "Human Rights Record of the United States" that analyzes only Washington's 2009 performance in this area. It contains extensive research regarding the nation's human rights conditions and includes topics such as the maintenance and consequences of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba, as well as the lack of political commitment the U.S. has shown through the non-ratification of certain international conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, among others. In essence, the Beijing-authored document asserts that the U.S. "[.] releases Country Reports on Human Rights Practices year after year to accuse other countries and takes human rights as a political instrument to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests." A Double Rejection from Venezuela The highly regarded Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Álvarez, has rejected the human rights report coming from the United States on the same basis of its "political nature" that China objected to and also because it only "attacks countries that have political differences with the U.S." The U.S. report informs that the politicization of the Venezuelan judiciary system and the intimidation of the political opposition to the media intensified during the past year. The Venezuelan government has seen this as a setback in the bilateral relations that the Obama administration started to improve by exchanging ambassadors once again, 9 months after having removed them. Caracas continued to affirm that if the U.S. persists with these reports, bilateral relations among both states will be weakened due to the lack of respect for international law principles, such as the principle of non-interference. On the other hand, the Venezuelan government has also been busy responding to the findings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Report called "Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela." According to the 2010 press release from the IACHR, Venezuela has displayed "political intolerance, lack of independence of the branches of the State in dealing with the executive, constraints on freedom of expression, the existence of a climate hostile to the free exercise of dissenting political participation [.] and, above all, the prevailing impunity affecting cases of human rights violations [.]." In essence, the 2010 IACHR release, in rather strong language, condemned the violation of political and civil rights, but acknowledged Venezuela's improvements regarding its conduct relating to economic, social and cultural rights. However, in the same press release the Commission "[.] emphasize[d] that observance of other fundamental rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of realizing economic, social, and cultural rights in Venezuela." In light of this, President Hugo Chávez withdrew his country from the IACHR, claiming that it is a "politicized body" that serves the "empire." With this action, Chávez passed up the opportunity to show his political will toward the protection of human rights. He declared the report "biased" because the IACHR is linked to the OAS. Accordingly, the Minister of Foreign Relations of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, alleged that the IACHR's report was reacting to political pressure coming from Washington and that it intervenes in his country's domestic affairs. In response to Venezuela's dismissal of the OAS body as being partial and yielding to the U.S. influence, the IACHR proclaims to "[.] act independently, without representing any particular country" and has done reports on a variety of countries, including Colombia in 2006, Chile in 2009, and one regarding the closure of Guantánamo in 2006. Moreover, as the IACHR was not allowed to enter the country for further research for the report, the sources that the Commission used are suspect. Yet, as Venezuelan society becomes even more politically polarized, there are two clear positions regarding the report. The first one is that it is well-grounded and that in fact, there is violence being applied against the opposition, as well as violations of the right to freedom of speech and laws (like the RESORTE Law-the law on social responsibility on radio and television) that are incompatible with international law principles. Concerning the sources of the IACHR, Carlos Correa of the non-governmental civil association Espacio Público insists that the majority of them are official. His voice represents one side of the divided society. The other sources are the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence and the testimonies from different actors, or, as Correa calls them, the "victims" of the regime. Likewise, human rights activist Liliana Ortega from the human rights-oriented NGO body COFAVIC agrees with the report's conclusion because it evidences what she calls the two transversal axes that are present in the current superheated Venezuelan society: impunity and violence. She continues to say that there is an arbitrary administration of justice along with many other social illnesses such as an exceptionally high child and adolescent death rate per month, cases of severe jailhouse violence, as well as disappearances and kidnappings all over the country. These issues revealed the need for a document that would hold the government accountable both for violence and continued impunity throughout the country. On the other hand, a contrary position argues that the report is in fact biased. For instance, Alfredo Ruiz from the Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, a Venezuelan human rights organization, is skeptical in regards to the sources of the report. Ruiz affirms that the sources were carefully selected and that a particular source was chosen to report on a particular human right, showing a lack of objectivity. He says that the sources used by the OAS body to report on political and civil rights came from the opposition and that it does not cite any pro-government newspaper information on the alleged incriminatory incident. Therefore, Ruiz asserts that the report gives preeminence to civil and political rights over other factors, especially over economic, social and cultural rights. Actually, the 297 page-long report dedicates as much as 240 pages to what the IACHR calls fundamental civil and political rights, 17 pages to the introduction, conclusion and recommendation sections and only 40 pages to the economic, social and cultural rights section. Similarly, Mark Weisbrot, the co-head of Center for Economic and Policy Research sustains that the bias of the report is explicit, since its introduction states that "[t]he Commission's last visit to Venezuela took place in May 2002, following the institutional breakdown that occurred in April of that year." Thus, the prejudices of the document, in Weisbrot's opinion, render it illegitimate. The Politicization of Human Rights The number of scathing attacks of the U.S. Department of State's 2009 Human Rights Report has given some credence to the charge that the role taken on by the United States is not without issue. A human rights assessment by one country of another lacks credibility as the assessor is seen as an accuser rather than an unbiased judge. Most nations' leaders have come to prefer reports prepared by human rights organizations or multilateral forums and institutions, rather than those prepared by contending countries. Those conducted by human rights organizations are specifically designed to evaluate human rights conditions, while those prepared by individual countries are more likely to also have ulterior political motives. However, as it has been sometimes seen, international organizations, such as the IACHR, can also be regarded as significantly politicized and thus of flawed legitimacy, like in the Venezuelan case. It is for these reasons that the non-intervention principle so often prevails in international affairs. Still, the traditional U.S. lack of interest in the ever treasured concept of sovereignty unsurprisingly has remained a part of its foreign policy, despite the change of administration. Lastly, it can be inferred that in view of the hostile responses, the spat over human rights may have been a contributing factor to the decision of Arturo Valenzuela-Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs-to travel, leaving on April 4 for a week-long trip to Ecuador, Colombia and Peru. Both Ecuador and Colombia have rejected the report, the latter claiming that the information used to compose it was false. According to the Ecuadorian newspaper El Comercio, in Valenzuela's visit to the Palacio de Carondelet in Quito, he and Correa addressed 4 main topics: Ecuador-Iran relations, the bilateral commercial agenda, the status of the right to freedom of speech in Ecuador and a possible Correa-Obama meeting to explore not only a bilateral agenda between the two countries but also to define an UNASUR-U.S. agenda. However, the human rights counter-report topic was missing from the program, perhaps contributing to Correa's description of the meeting as "fruitful," Patiño's "positive" comments and Valenzuela's affirmation that the meeting consisted of a "pleasant and respectful" dialogue. It safely can be assumed that the promised issuance of a human rights counter-report possibly will be delayed for strategic reasons until Correa secures a meeting with Obama to advance national and UNASUR-related topics. *Additional countries are: Liberia, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Bulgaria, Vietnam, Russia, Iran, Slovakia, Sudan visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Cuan scientist wins Green Nobel by Michael Munk Mon, Apr 19, 2010

Cuba's 'seed man' wins global environmental prize By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer , April 19, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_seed_man BAUTA, Cuba - The folk-singing scientist strides over dry, fluffy soil that's brown with a hint of red, like brownies fresh from the oven. He's talking about seeds. He's always talking about seeds. Humberto Rios Labrada's campaign to let Cuban farmers choose the crops and seed varieties best for their lands helped him win one of the 2010 Goldman Environmental Prizes - known as the "green Nobels" - on Monday. "I want the seed to adapt to the people, not the people to adapt to the seed," the 47-year-old, self-described hippy told The Associated Press during a recent visit to this farming town 20 miles east of Havana. Rios' wants to make Cuban farms more sustainable by giving farmers more autonomy - a radical notion in what has long been a strictly top-down planned economy where officials tell producers just what to grow, even if it isn't quite right for the soil. Government officials at first bristled at his ideas, but his success, along with greater government openness to local autonomy, has led them to grant him unusual and growing leeway in working with 50,000 farmers and counting. Amid spindly stalks of young corn and dark-green sweet potato shoots on a Bauta farm, he lectured farmers on how to mix seed combinations to improve yields and quality - techniques that have helped produce bigger beans, tastier squash, heartier rice and better varieties of other crops across Cuba. "The idea is to give farmers more of an active role," said Rios, "more participation in the process so we can increase production, but more importantly increase the happiness of the people in the fields." One of the ways he makes them happy is song, treating those he works with to rhyming verses. In Bauta, he offered a few racy lyrics about a juicy mango - Cuban slang that could also be interpreted as a bedroom romp. Goldman recipients are chosen annually from six regions worldwide. Winners receive $150,000 at a ceremony in San Francisco on Monday night, and Rios obtained sometimes tough-to-come-by permission to attend the event from both the Cuban and U.S. governments. The prize has been awarded to 139 people from 79 countries since philanthropist Richard Goldman and his late wife Rhoda created it in 1990. Rios is the first Cuban to win. Prize director Lorrae Rominger said Rios' selection emphasizes the importance of sustainable agriculture, and he was especially deserving given the governmental constraints of Cuba. "It was clear that he was a leader within his community," she said. "He started out very small and now his work has grown incredibly." Rios was a government bio-diversity researcher when, in 1999, he began organizing seed fairs, giving farmers themselves access to different varieties of crops and bypassing the government distribution centers and scientists who had traditionally told farmers what to grow and kept seed banks under lock and key. He also organized sessions where members of Cuban agricultural cooperatives could share their know-how. For decades, Moscow provided the island with subsidies and heavy machinery that led to a state-run farming sector dependent on chemicals. When the Soviet Union disbanded and its financial support dried up, so did the chemicals. "We thought all of us were going to die," Rios said His seed fairs and seminars have increased yields - the reason officials, desperate to increase food output, encourage him, even if quantifying the improvement is difficult since many produce on small scales. And, despite such efforts, most of the island's agricultural sector is still dominated by communist central planers. Like seed banks in other countries, Cuba's government has stockpiled tens of thousands of different kinds of seeds, including more than 500 varieties of rice alone. But getting the farmers more seeds was only half the battle. Rios also had to convince them to change the way they worked. So he not only sang in the fields, but also produced a CD full of catchy guitar and patriotic lyrics promoting the virtues of organic farming. While some songs have decidedly adult themes, many are playful, sprinkling lyrics about rice and beans into romatic odes. "With music, everybody gets more relaxed and the real work begins," Rios said. Conny Almekinders, a crop sociologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, has been working with Rios for nearly 15 years. She recalled flying to Cuba to meet him for the first time in 1997: "There's this hairy, sloppy guy, and I thought 'Oh, who have I come here to see?,'" she said. "But that's who he is. It makes him so creative." Today, Rios keeps his dark hair cut shorter and visits about 300 farms a year. Among those he's helping is 36-year-old Mario Garcia, a private farmer who recently received 10 hectares of formerly state-run land in Bauta under a new program launched in hopes small-scale farmers can help Cuba reduce reliance on imported food. Garcia and his 72-year-old father are experimenting, planting corn, sweet potatoes, beans, yuca, squash and taro root on land once used for tobacco. They sell what they produce to the state and eat anything left over. "I like to see for myself what works and what doesn't," Garcia said, pouring into his hands dark seeds from black-bean variety No. 37. "It's the only way to really know." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Tax day: you've paid $7,334 for Iraq and AfPak wars by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 14, 2010

Did your Senator defy AIPAC? by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 14, 2010

Obama's war: meaningless misguided violence by Michael Munk Mon, Apr 12, 2010

Bill Moyer notes the pro-American "Economist" magazine (UK) calls Obama's AfPak war "nothing but a meaningless exercise of misguided violence." But liberals are still afraid of calling him on it. Read his interview at http://www.alternet.org/story/146406/obama%27s_bad_gamble_on_afghanistan_--_100%2C000_soldiers_used_as_chips_for_a_bet_the_us_can%27t_win visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama abandons anti-torture nominee by Michael Munk Fri, Apr 9, 2010

Dawn Johnsen Withdrawing Nomination After Long Battle Christina Bellantoni | April 9, 2010 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/dawn-johnsen-withdrawing-nomination-after-long-battle.php?ref=fpa Dawn Johnsen today has withdrawn her nomination to lead the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, following a more than year-long confirmation fight with Senate Republicans. The White House said President Obama accepted Johnsen's withdrawal request today, adding a statement lauding her accomplishments as a "highly-respected constitutional scholar." Johnsen, who was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month (for a second time), made the announcement amid a news cycle when Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced he will retire. Senate Republicans challenged her because she took a strong position opposing torture practices during the Bush administration. Obama renominated Johnsen Jan. 20 after Senate Republicans forced her nomination back to the White House. He issued a series of recess appointments last month for stalled nominees but chose not to include Johnsen in the mix. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama will try to find a replacement who can be swiftly confirmed. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Outrage in Iraq over killing video by Michael Munk Wed, Apr 7, 2010

Iraq outrage over US killing video Al-Jazeera, April 7, 2010 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/04/20104782857326667.html Families of Iraqi civilians, seen being shot and killed by US forces in a leaked video, are seeking justice for their deaths. Earlier this week Wikileaks, a whistleblower website that publishes anonymously sourced documents, released a video showing the US military firing at a group of civilians in Baghdad three years ago. The shooting left 12 people dead, including two employees of the Reuters news agency. Al Jazeera is not responsible for the content of external websites The Pentagon said it had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the tape, but that two investigations into the incident cleared the aircrew of any wrongdoing. But victims' relatives have told Al Jazeera they want the military personnel responsible for the deaths to be taken to court. Two young children whose father was killed in the attack could not understand why they were targeted. "We were coming back and we saw an injured man. My father said, let's take him to hospital. Then I heard only the bullets ... Why did they shoots us? Didn't they see we were children?" said Sajad Mutashar, who was injured along with his sister. His uncle, Satar, demanded the pilot be taken to court. "Nobody gave the children anything, their rights are gone and the Americans didn't even compensate for the destroyed car. I sold it for $500 to spend the money treating them," Satar told Al Jazeera. The US army says it has authorised payments to the family. 'Monster pilot' The family of Saeed Chamgh, one of the Reuters employee killed in the attack, is also demanding justice for his death. "The pilot is not human, he's a monster. What did my brother do? What did his children do? Does the pilot accept his kids to be orphans?" Safa Chmagh, Saeed's brother, told Al Jazeera. "Inshallah we won't leave his rights." Salwan Saeed, Saeed's son, said: "The American has broken my back by killing my father. "I will not let the Americans get away with it. "I will follow the path of my father and will hold another camera." A statement from the two inquiries said the aircrew had acted appropriately and followed the rules of engagement. According to Pentagon investigations into the affair, the aircrew had reason to believe the people seen in the video were anti-government fighters. But Mark Taylor an international law expert and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, told Al Jazeera the evidence so far "indicated that there's a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed". Taylor said the US authorities, especially the US military, have to take a closer look at this investigation. "There are questions about the way the investigation was conducted and whether or not it was done in a proper manner," he said. Taylor said the Iraqi families may be able to get monetary compensation, but that there could be a much larger case to be had. "There are precedents of US soldiers being prosecuted for crimes in Iraq, for crimes of murder, rape and manslaughter. So it's not unprecedented that this could go forward both in military courts as well as in civilian criminal courts in the US. "The case also raises larger questions about the laws of war. I think what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough." WikiLeaks said it obtained the video from a number of "military whistleblowers". visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US paying child soldiers in Somalia by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 6, 2010

Is China right to filter a cesspool? by Michael Munk Tue, Apr 6, 2010

"Along with the freest access to knowledge the world has ever seen comes a staggering amount of untruth, from imagined threats on health care to too-easy-to-be-true ways to earn money by forwarding an e-mail message to 10 friends. "A cesspool," Google's chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, once called it. " Is this what China's effort to require Google to filter out porn and bullshit all about? from "Debunkers of Fictions Sift the Net" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.html?scp=1&sq=Snopes&st=Search By BRIAN STELTER New York Times: April 5, 2010 visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

US buying former socialist nations for AfPak war by Michael Munk Thu, Apr 1, 2010

AP Exclusive: US aid going to Afghanistan partners . By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer April 1, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_afghanistan_partners WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is pouring millions of dollars into equipment and training for its smaller partner nations in the Afghanistan war, a new effort that could encourage some countries not to abandon the increasingly unpopular conflict. The money comes from a $350 million Pentagon program designed to improve the counterterrorism operations of U.S. allies. While the funding cannot be openly used as an enticement for NATO nations to either send troops to Afghanistan or keep them in the country, the budding initiative sends the message that those who commit to the counterinsurgency fight could be rewarded. The U.S. is committing more troops to Afghanistan to beat back a stubborn Taliban-led insurgency - and watching in dismay as allies, including Canada and the Netherlands, look to pull troops out of the 8-year-old war or remove them from combat duties. Roughly 87,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan now, and about 100,000 are expected to be in place by late summer. The number of allied troops is a bit more than 40,000 and could dip as nations begin bowing to political pressures. The Obama administration has been pressing allies to increase the number of troops, both for combat and for training Afghan security forces. Defense officials tell The Associated Press that the initial aid package aimed at six small countries - Georgia, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - is about $50 million and will be distributed almost equally among them. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the details have not been announced. Those six countries account for fewer than 1,300 troops in Afghanistan. Most of the money will buy equipment for those forces, the defense officials said, but troops will also receive critical instruction on how to detect and counter roadside bombs as well as other training. "It's not bribery," said Rick Nelson, a counterterrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But at end of the day, we're asking these allies to join us and we want them to be valuable partners. And some lack the resources to be partners in ways we need them to do so." Nelson said that while the money can be an incentive for a country to keep forces in Afghanistan, some of the nations are under a great deal of political pressure to withdraw, and their minds aren't likely to be changed by a few million dollars. The broad outlines of the plan were forwarded to members of Congress late last week. A second notice with details of how the money will be spent will go to Congress soon. More than $200 million has been earmarked, with the bulk of it - roughly $150 million in military equipment and training - going to Yemen, a country seen as a growing haven for terrorists linked to al-Qaida. Officials said there is a broad consensus within the Pentagon that delivering aid to coalition partners in Afghanistan is a priority. They expect to provide help to additional countries when the remainder of the $350 million is parceled out later this year. Pentagon leaders are also pushing to expand the Afghanistan program beyond its current $75 million cap. Initially, defense officials believed that the rules of the program prohibited them from spending money to help nations fighting alongside the U.S. in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But as the Obama administration was debating the U.S. troop surge last fall, Pentagon officials went to Congress to clarify the rules. Lawmakers agreed that beefing up allies in the Afghanistan war was an appropriate expense, but they would not budge beyond the $75 million cap. Under the rules, the money can be spent building the counterterrorism abilities of smaller, poorer nations that have forces in Afghanistan. Beyond that $75 million, the aid is meant to provide equipment and training that will build allies' counterinsurgency forces. Included in this latest release of funding, along with Yemen and the Afghan allies, will be aid to the Philippines. Counterterror officials have grown increasingly concerned about the terror threat in Yemen, where militants linked to al-Qaida are believed to have planned the Christmas Day airliner attack over Detroit. Officials would not say what equipment Yemen would get, but it is likely to include helicopters, communications equipment and other supplies, in addition to more training of the Yemeni forces. Last year, the Philippines got about $14 million, largely for radar stations in the restive southern region. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

CIA asks feminists to support AfPak War by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 29, 2010

CIA 'suggests' Europe should understand suffering of women under Taliban European Nato governments should emphasise the suffering of women under Taliban rule to counter domestic calls for troop withdrawal a leaked CIA analysis suggests. By Ben Farmer in Kabul The Telegraph (UK) March 29, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7535681/CIA-suggests-Europe-should-understand-suffering-of-women-under-Taliban.html VIA http://www.legitgov.org A steep increase in French and German casualties this summer could trigger public anger at their involvement and calls for a military pull out the document warns. Paris and Berlin should start a targeted propaganda campaign to "forestall or at least contain" a backlash by stating the benefits of military action. French voters could be made to feel guilty about abandoning civilians and refugees, while both nations' electorates are reluctant to "disappoint" Barack Obama, it concludes. Afghan women are "ideal messengers in humanising the [international coalition] role" and should be put in front of European media for their "ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory." The analysis, marked "confidential" and not for release to foreign nationals, comes amid American concern that heavy fighting this summer could prompt a "precipitous" departure of Nato allies. It was complied by the CIA's Red Cell, which is charged with "taking a pronounced 'out-of-the-box' approach that will provoke thought and offer an alternative viewpoint". A spokesman for the CIA declined to comment on the document, dated March 11. It was leaked anonymously to the WikiLeaks whistle-blower website on March 26. The advice comes despite accusations from Afghan women's activists that Nato is prepared to sacrifice gains in freedom and equality for a political accommodation with insurgents. "If some forecasts of a bloody summer in Afghanistan come to pass, passive French and German dislike of their troop presence could turn into active and politically potent hostility," the report warns. "The tone of previous debate suggests that a spike in French or German casualties or in Afghan civilian casualties could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal." Governments could no longer rely on voter apathy alone to keep troops in Afghanistan it concludes. Using polling data and a "CIA expert on strategic communication" it suggests tapping "acute" French concern for civilians and refugees. "The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties," it concludes. The Germans view that the conflict is wasteful and "not our problem" needed to be reversed, it said. "For example, messages that illustrate how a defeat in Afghanistan could heighten Germany's exposure to terrorism, opium, and refugees might help to make the war more salient to sceptics." A former Western diplomat to Kabul warned playing on fears of Taliban mistreatment of civilians and women could undermine public acceptance of any future peace negotiations. He said: "This war is a communications war and a war of perceptions." "But these messages must be nuanced. If you say: 'My God what happens when the Taliban return', then how would you synchronise that with a discussion of reconciliation." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

A vet asks Thanks for what? by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 29, 2010

A veteran asks: Thanks for what? The Oregonian (Portland), March 29, 2010 http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2010/03/letter_a_veteran_asks_thanks_f.html To the editor: I write many commentary pieces critical of warmaking, and sometimes I conclude by stating that I'm a vet who served in the U.S. Special Forces. Invariably, those who respond thank me for my service before trashing my opinion. It's clear that no one cares what that service comprised. It matters not whether I saved a buddy's life or rolled a hand grenade into a hut, killing women and children -- always the knee-jerk "thank you." Within most of our living history, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are the nations we've invaded and killed their citizens, and we receive "thanks" for that service. MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls Sen. John McCain a war hero, even though the service he provided was dropping bombs on men, women and children from 20,000 feet. Does Matthews think McCain was defending America from a tiny war-ravaged nation with no planes, ships or missiles capable of threatening us? Does he care? The point is that we have been trained not to question what those who serve in war were actually doing. Matthews and his ilk don't ask. But the 12,000 American vets who attempt suicide each year because they cannot live with the behavior their service required of them do ask. The robotic "thank you" from the American citizenry matters naught to the 6,000 vets who actually commit suicide every year because they know their service betrayed their sense of decency, and they experience this final, fatal pain alone -- another betrayal. Do we really not know Vietnam was not about Communist dominoes, nor Iraq about weapons of mass destruction? What insidious rationales represent the true motives for these wars? If we spoke these reasons loudly and clearly, would we still thank our vets for their service to those unstated goals? The best worst reason given for these military assaults on the citizens of other nations is that it will make us safer. Dr. Ira Katz, the Veterans Administration's head of mental health, acknowledges that 12,000 vets attempt suicide each year and half of those succeed. Many more return home and live destructive lives impacted by drugs, violence and divorce, imparting pain to families and communities and making clear that the violence incurred "over there" cycles home. If we sacrifice our children in this uniquely depraved way to make ourselves feel safe, what then is the value of safety? It's difficult to draw a clear, straight line between a simple "thank you for your service" and a young vet driving his motorcycle into a tree. The light from 300 million candles will illuminate those connective threads. Does anyone hear me? DON SCOTTEN Sprague River, Oregon visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Obama as War President by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 29, 2010

Obama channels Bush Obama in a Bomber Jacket By Norman Solomon | Truthout March 29, 2010 http://www.truthout.org/obama-a-bomber-jacket58110 President Obama has taken a further plunge into the kind of war abyss that consumed predecessors named Johnson, Nixon and Bush. On Sunday, during his first presidential trip to Afghanistan, Obama stood before thousands of American troops to proclaim the sanctity of the war effort. He played the role deftly - a commander in chief, rallying the troops - while wearing a bomber jacket. There was something candidly macabre about the decision to wear that leather jacket, adorned with an American Eagle and the words "Air Force One." The man in the bomber jacket doesn't press the buttons that fire the missiles and drop the warheads, but he gives the orders that make it all possible. One way or another, we're used to seeing presidents display such tacit accouterments of carnage. And the president's words were also eerily familiar: with their cadence and confidence in the efficacy of mass violence, when provided by the Pentagon and meted out by a military so technologically supreme that dissociation can masquerade as ultimate erudition - so powerful and so sophisticated that orders stay light years away from human consequences. The war becomes its own rationale for continuing: to go on because it must go on. A grisly counterpoint to Obama's brief Afghanistan visit is a day in 1966 when another president, in the midst of escalating another war, also took a long ride on Air Force One to laud and boost the troops. In South Vietnam, at Cam Ranh Bay, President Johnson told the American soldiers: "Be sure to come home with that coonskin on the wall." Then, too, thousands of soldiers responded to the president's exhortations by whooping it up. And then, too, the media coverage was upbeat. In a cover story, Life quoted a corporal who called Johnson's visit the "best morale booster Cam Ranh's ever had." The magazine piece, written by an eminent journalist of the era, Shana Alexander, went on: "Certainly the corporal was right and so was [White House press secretary Bill] Moyers when he later compared the day to a sermon, in that so much of the real meaning is not in what the preacher says but in what his listeners hear." The article concluded that it had been a "wild and quite wonderful day." Fast forward 44 years. "There's going to be setbacks," President Obama told the troops at Bagram Air Base. "We face a determined enemy. But we also know this: The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something." The applause line lingered as the next words directly addressed the clapping troops: "You don't quit, the American armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that." The president added: "And we'll be there for you when you come home. It's why we're improving care for our wounded warriors, especially those with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries. We're moving forward with the post-9/11 GI Bill so you and your families can pursue your dreams." Those words provide a kind of freeze frame for basic convolution: The government will help veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injuries to pursue their dreams. In the realm of careful abstraction, where actual people are rendered invisible, best not to acknowledge how much better it would be if those veterans could pursue their dreams without suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injuries in the first place. But such human realities are for private suffering, not public discourse. The next morning, the front page of The New York Times reported that the president's visit to Afghanistan "included a boisterous pep rally with American troops." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Did Allawi personally murder prisoners? by Michael Munk Mon, Mar 29, 2010

Did Iraq Just Elect a Mass-Murderer? The charge that Ayad Allawi committed a heinous crime was widely reported outside the United States, but our media killed it. By Joshua Holland Alternet, March 28, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/146204/did_iraq_just_elect_a_mass-murderer We can't know whether the new Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, murdered six restrained men in cold blood while a mix of Iraqi and American guards looked on in shock. What we do know is that Allawi was alleged to have committed the gruesome crime just before the "hand-over" of the government to Iraqi nationals in 2004 (he served as interim prime minister in Iraq's transitional government). The allegations were made by an award-winning journalist in a major mainstream publication -- Australia's Sydney Morning Herald -- relying on two sources who confirmed details of the event independently of one another. We also know that the American media, with few exceptions, killed the story entirely. The few outlets that alluded to the charges did so with such a degree of skepticism -- essentially accepting official denials (and half-denials) as the end of the matter -- as to render it virtually meaningless. As a result, in 2004, with debate over the invasion of Iraq front and center around the world, the American public got a far different picture of the conflict -- and the leaders George W. Bush installed in the fledgling Iraqi government -- than the people of every other English-speaking country in the world. Here's how Paul McGeough broke the story in the Herald, Australia's leading daily: Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings. They say the prisoners -- handcuffed and blindfolded -- were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security centre, in the city's south-western suburbs. They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death". The Prime Minister's office has denied the entirety of the witness accounts in a written statement to the Herald, saying Dr Allawi had never visited the centre and he did not carry a gun. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, then Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that while he personally found the allegations "unbelievable," he also thought that, "because they are written by a credible journalist, [then-Foreign Minister Alexander] Downer's responsibility is to get the truth from the Australian embassy in Baghdad and from the government of the United States. It's important that these matters are clarified." In the UK, there were also calls for an inquiry. "It is vital that [the allegations] are cleared up one way or another and that needs an independent inquiry," said former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned his cabinet post over the Iraq war. Those calls went unheeded. Allawi was cleared of the charges in an investigation conducted by the subsequent Iraqi government under the auspices of President Ibrahim Al-Jafari. But that came during a period of unprecedented political upheaval and violence, and Allawi remained an influential MP in that government; his party, the Iraq National Accord, was the leading party in the Iraqi National List, which in turn was a key part of the governing coalition of Nouri al-Maliki at the time. Both the Iraqi government and the American forces in Iraq had every imaginable incentive to sweep the charges under the rug. While Allawi strenuously dismissed the charges, reports at the time suggested that rumors of the killings swirling around Baghdad actually enhanced Allawi's reputation in some quarters as a strong leader who had the backbone to tame the insurgency then raging at full steam. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

BRIC: The view from Hunan by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 26, 2010

If you ever visit Israel, watch out for your passport by Michael Munk Wed, Mar 24, 2010

This report by the Brit's Serious Organized Crime Agency, is why the UK expelled Israel's Mossad station chief yesterday Britons queued at Ben Gurion airport as Israeli officials cloned passports Soca report into forgeries used in Dubai killing says personal data was stolen in border checks By Sandra Laville, Julian Borger and Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian (K), March 24, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/israel-ben-gurion-cloned-passports-soca VIA http://www.legitgov.org Passing through Israel's Ben Gurion airport, a few miles east of Tel Aviv, is a unique experience no first-time visitor is likely to forget. It represents the pinnacle of modern aviation security. Baggage is passed through giant, state-of-the-art machines, and travellers - both arriving and leaving - are frequently subjected to lengthy, personal and repetitive questioning by officials, on their ethnic background and that of any local acquaintances they may have made. It is not at all uncommon for the mostly youthful immigration officers to wander off, passports and tickets in hand, ostensibly to consult with their seniors. Surrendering documents at check-in or at immigration has hitherto been considered a necessary evil for all those travelling in and out of Ben Gurion. But the evidence that the Israeli state has been taking the information gleaned from these inspections to create cloned identities for its spies introduces a new level of risk to the experience. The report by the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) into the use of cloned British passports in the Dubai assassination makes clear their view that this is what happened as Britons travelled through the airport in the months and years before the plot was hatched to kill the Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. The Soca report concluded that the passports must have been cloned at the airport or at other interfaces with Israeli officialdom, such as airline offices in other countries. There were no other links between the 12 individuals whose identities were stolen. According to insiders, the language in the Soca report, produced after a four-week investigation, was "direct" and the findings unequivocal: the inquiry showed that the victims' data was taken, stored and passed on when they handed their passports to Israeli officials or those linked to them. "We cannot pin it on individuals, but the evidence draws us to the conclusion that the only place these passports could have been cloned is when they were inspected at the Israeli border or in other countries, where they were passed to Israelis," said one source. In some cases, this information theft had taken place several years before the assassination. One of the Britons involved told investigators he had not travelled out of Israel for more than two years. Soca concluded the report on their findings last week and handed it to the Home Office on Friday, which passed it to the Foreign Office on Monday. It then moved from the criminal sphere to the diplomatic, as the foreign secretary, David Miliband, translated the raw findings into concrete measures to be taken against Israel: the expulsion of a diplomat and a travel warning that Israeli officials were not to be entrusted with passports. The foreign secretary's decision to accuse Israel directly in parliament yesterday reflected both the certainty among British officials of Israeli state involvement, and the anger among diplomats and security officials at such a blatant infringement of British sovereignty. At least 12 British passports were used in the Mabhouh plot, more than any other nation's. That irritation was heightened by Israel's record. In 1986, eight British passports were found inside an Israeli embassy envelope in a West German telephone box, apparently left there by an absent-minded Mossad agent. The next year, a Palestinian found with an arms cache in Hull turned out to be a double-agent working for the Mossad, taking part in a covert operation Israel had omitted to tell Britain about. After investigating operations by the Mossad, the Thatcher government expelled an Israeli diplomat, Arie Regev, for "activities incompatible with his status". And the Israeli government of the day gave an assurance that such transgressions would not be repeated. Today, Britain is looking for similar assurances. According to those close to the Soca investigation, detectives soon realised the passports involved were no ordinary forgeries of the type most often seen during inquiries into organised crime, terrorist support networks and money launderers in the UK and abroad. Most experts agree that British passports are notoriously difficult to forge, and those which do come to light are either poorly doctored originals, or passports created from fake documents. "It is rare for us to see forged British passports," said one police expert. "When we do, they are not often of the quality which could pass through an international border." So when investigators from Soca examined the details of the passports, they immediately noticed the difference. "These were incredibly good forgeries. They are not the thing that anyone could do," said an investigative source. "The originals were still in the hands of their owners and someone had used the information to create a new document. The quality of the forgeries made it highly likely that there was state involvement." The accusations will put considerable strain on Britain's relationship with Israel. But MI6, which pursued its own informal investigation into the affair, is likely to maintain its close, professional relationship with the Mossad. Key findings from the Soca investigation have been passed to the United States and to investigators in the United Arab Emirates, who are leading the inquiry into the murder of Mabhouh. To all intents and purposes the Soca investigation is now closed, although detectives may still be asked to provide additional information to the Foreign Office or the Dubai authorities. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Protests against Obama mark Iraq invasion + 7 years by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 21, 2010

Thousands Rally on Anniversary of Invasion of Iraq by Matthew Barakat, March 20, 2010 http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/20-5 WASHINGTON (AP)- Thousands of protesters - many directing their anger squarely at President Barack Obama - marched through the nation's capital Saturday to urge immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. At least least eight people, including activist Cindy Sheehan, were arrested by U.S. Park Police at the end of the march, after laying coffins at a fence outside the White House. Friday marked the seventh anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. "Arrest that war criminal!" Sheehan shouted outside the White House before her arrest, referring to Obama. At a rally before the march, Sheehan asked whether "the honeymoon was over with that war criminal in the White House" - an apparent reference to Obama - prompting moderate applause. The protesters defied orders to clear the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House and park police say they face charges of failure to obey a lawful order. Activist Ralph Nader told thousands who gathered in Lafayette Park across from the White House that Obama has essentially continued the policies of the Bush administration, and it was foolish to have thought otherwise. "He's kept Guantanamo open, he's continued to use indefinite detention," Nader said. The only real difference, he said is that "Obama's speeches are better." Others were more conciliatory toward Obama. Shirley Allan of Silver Spring, Md., carried a sign that read, "President Obama We love you but we need to tell you! Your hands are getting bloody!! Stop it now." Allan thought it was going too far to call Obama a war criminal but said she is deeply disappointed that the conflicts are continuing. "He has to know it's unacceptable," Allan said. "I am absolutely disappointed." The protest drew a smaller crowd than the tens of thousands who marched in 2006 and 2007. Protesters stopped at the offices of military contractor Halliburton - where they tore apart an effigy of former Vice President and Halliburton Chief Executive Dick Cheney - the Mortgage Bankers Association and The Washington Post offices. Anna Berlinrut, of South Orange, N.J., was one of a number of protesters who have children who have served in Iraq, and said her son supports her protests. "If there were a draft, we'd have a million people out here," Berlinrut said when asked about the turnout. The exact number of protesters was unclear, as D.C. authorities do not give out crowd estimates. Organizers estimated the march, which stretched for several blocks, at 10,000. Despite the arrests, the protest was peaceful. At the outset, police closed a portion of the sidewalk in front of the White House fence after protesters tried to use mud and large stencils to spell out "Iraq veterans against the war." Once the sidewalk was closed, the protesters stenciled the message on the street using mud they had carried in buckets to the rally. Sheehan has been a vocal critic of the war since her 21-year-old son Casey was killed in Iraq in April 2004. She staged a prolonged demonstration in 2005 outside former President George W. Bush's ranch near Crawford, Texas. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark also spoke, calling on the Justice Department to investigate the officials who launched the Iraq war. In New York City, there were far fewer protesters at a similar rally. A few dozen enthusiastic protesters gathered near a military recruiting station in Times Square, though they were far outnumbered by disinterested tourists. A group of older women calling themselves the Raging Grannies sang, "The country is broke, this war is a joke." Four demonstrators evoked images of the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by dressing in orange uniforms and wearing black hoods. Liz Proefriedt, a retired Roman Catholic nun, held up a banner that read, "Bread not bombs." "It's sad that a lot of people did not come out for this protest," said Kathy Hoang, of Manchester, Conn. "People are getting used to the war, and don't bother even to think about it anymore." In Los Angeles, hundreds chanted anti-war slogans and carried mock tombstones, and several hundred gathered in San Francisco to protest. The Los Angeles march, which was under a mile, was to culminate with a rally in front of the famed Grauman's Chinese Theater. [In Portland, 300 marched] "We want to see the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq," said Corazon Esguerra. "We want all the troops wherever they are to come back." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Reality check on Obama's Afghan war by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 19, 2010

.Afghanistan war: lessons from the Soviet war By Edward Girardet Edward Christian Science Monitor, March 18, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100318/wl_csm/288563 Lashkargar, Afghanistan - It was early summer, 1982. The Soviet war in Afghanistan was gathering momentum against the mujahideen, the country's disparate but increasingly widespread resistance movement. I'd just trekked for 10 days across rugged mountains from neighboring Pakistan to the beleaguered Panjshir Valley, an assertive thorn against the Red Army's might barely 40 miles north of Kabul. I was traveling with a half-dozen mujahideen guerrillas accompanying a French medical team being sent to replace a group of volunteer doctors working clandestinely among the civilian population. My purpose was to report on the largest Soviet-led offensive against the mujahideen to that date. More than 12,000 Soviet and Afghan troops would attempt to crush 3,000 fighters led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, known as the "Lion of Panjshir" and one of the 20th century's most effective guerrilla commanders. Last month's NATO-led operation in Marjah in Helmand Province - the largest offensive of the current war - put me in mind of the Panjshir. There are clear lessons from the nearly decade-long Soviet occupation that the international community might heed in its ninth year of war in Afghanistan, with the biggest battle campaign now under way. The Panjshir push was roughly the same size as the Marjah offensive - called Operation Moshtarak - and involved 10,000 to 12,000 coalition and Afghan troops. In the Soviet war, Western journalists reported primarily from the guerrilla side. But in contrast to most of today's media, embedded with NATO troops, we had constant access to ordinary Afghans. We walked through the countryside sleeping in villages, with long evenings spent drinking tea and talking with the locals. Frank conversation doesn't happen when one party wears body armor or is flanked by heavily armed soldiers: Afghans will only tell you what they think you want to hear. Or, even more crucial, what suits their own interests. Hence the highly questionable veracity of opinion polls in Afghanistan today. Similar to the Marjah offensive, the Soviets warned the population of the impending attack with propaganda leaflets and radio broadcasts. They appealed to the Panjshiris to support the government in return for cash and other incentives, such as subsidized wheat. Their tactic was to force the guerrillas out, but allow the civilians to remain. To make their point, the communists lambasted the guerrillas as criminals supported by foreign interests in the tribal areas across the border in Pakistan, a tactic similar to those used by the Americans against the Taliban today. APPROACHING THE PANJSHIR THAT SUMMER of 1982, we skirted the massive Bagram Air Base, today run by the Americans but then a hugely fortified Soviet bastion blistering with helicopter gunships and MiGs. On reaching the outer edges of the mighty Hindu Kush, we encountered groups of refugees hiding among the gorges. Days earlier, Massoud had evacuated the area's 50,000 or more people, somewhat less than the population affected by the Marjah campaign. He did this to minimize civilian casualties and to give his fighters free rein. Before dawn the morning after we arrived, we could hear the ominous drone of helicopters. As the throbbing grew louder, tiny specks appeared on the horizon, gunships sweeping over the jagged snowcapped peaks like hordes of wasps. Soon the hollow thud of rockets and bombs were pounding guerrilla positions. Intermittently, pairs of MiG-23 jets and the new highly maneuverable SU-24 fighter bombers shrieked across the skies dropping their loads. With two journalist colleagues, I climbed to a 7,000-foot vantage over the valley. Dozens of front-line guerrillas, looking like Cuban revolutionaries with their long hair and beards, lounged among the rocks in the bright sun watching the spectacle. Grinning, they handed us glasses of tea, oblivious of helicopters roaring barely 500 meters overhead. Massoud's strategy was to empty the valley, let the Soviets in, and have fighters hit the occupation forces in their own time. It was reminiscent of a 19th-century painting of picnickers casually watching a distant battle. We counted no fewer than 200 helicopter sorties that morning, while scores of tanks and armored personnel carriers ground their way up the riverbed, the only way to penetrate the valley because guerrillas had mined the road. Unlike the current anti-NATO insurgency, however, the use of improvised explosive devices was limited; while suicide bombers, a relatively recent tactic introduced by Al Qaeda, were never used by the mujahideen. There seemed to be many simultaneous operations: Across the valley, M-24 gunships circled like sharks to attack guerrilla positions. Farther on, trucks mounted with rockets fired into mountainsides. Just below, a Soviet machine gun leveled off bursts against guerrillas among the boulders above. Nearby, shirtless Red Army soldiers took breaks sunning on looted carpets spread on the flat roofs of houses, while others redeployed, jogging single file through shrapnel-torn mulberry trees. The Soviet/Afghan force quickly took the valley, proclaiming victory. The reality was far different. Massoud's experienced guerrillas suffered few casualties and, within days, launched assaults against the entrenched Red Army troops. Afghan government soldiers, too, poorly paid and disheartened, slipped out at night with their weapons to join the resistance. Massoud eventually made a truce with the Soviets. This enabled the Red Army a "take and hold" policy with several garrisons in the Panjshir. Some civilians returned, while the guerrillas established their own concealed bases in mountains beyond. The truce was much criticized by rival groups of mujahideen, but it was part of a long-term strategy: Massoud had no intention of collaborating with the regime. Occupation troops first had to leave before any unity government could be formed. It's the same refrain today by the Taliban, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, and other opposition groups. For years, Massoud kept the Soviets tied down while focusing on other areas and building a highly proficient regional force denying the communists swaths of countryside. The mujahideen - like the Taliban now - always felt they had time on their side. All they needed to do was wear down the Red Army. At the height of the occupation, the Soviets commanded 120,000 troops in Afghanistan, compared with the 150,000 coalition high expected by next fall with completion of the US troop surge. When the Soviets, who suffered at least 15,000 deaths and thousands of injured, pulled out in February 1989, they had little to show but widespread destruction of much of the country. Three years later, the Moscow-backed regime in Kabul crumbled. Today, it's as if the Soviets had never been there. Unlike NATO forces, who now make pointed efforts to protect civilians, the Soviets and their Afghan cohorts often deliberately targeted local populations. Throughout its war, however, the Red Army held little more than the main towns. The countryside remained largely in the hands of the mujahideen. Similarly, today, 70 percent of the country is ranked as "insecure" by the United Nations. THE parallels of the panjshir with today just keep rolling. Today's insurgents fight much like the mujahideen; and, in fact, many now call themselves mujahideen. Many commanders earned their battle spurs during the Soviet war. Their fighters hide among the locals and, often, are the locals. If things get tough, they deploy elsewhere. Like Marjah, a deliberate joint NATO-Afghan operation, the Soviets made a point of involving Afghan partners and constantly extolled the effectiveness of the Kabul regime in the hope that Afghan security forces would assume the brunt of the war. In reality, the Soviets were running the show just as US, British, and other forces are today. Ironically, the Soviets did succeed in creating an effective Afghan fighting force. Following the Red Army withdrawal, the communists fought hard and well against fundamentalist mujahideen supported by the Pakistani military in eastern Afghanistan. The communist regime finally fell for political, not military, reasons. There's little doubt that Afghan security capabilities can be improved today, but can the Kabul regime achieve acceptance? Red Army commanders were very aware that they couldn't trust "their" Afghans. Massoud's mujahideen enjoyed full details of planned operations before launch. Many government, military, and police officials, including senior commanders, secretly collaborated with the resistance, just as pro-Taliban and other insurgent collaborators have infiltrated most ministries of the current administration. The Soviets also succeeded in building a highly effective network of informers and often thwarted resistance operations based on this intelligence. But they never gained the upper hand. The more effective guerrilla commanders always seemed to keep two steps ahead of the game. (Twice, while reporting for the Monitor during the 1980s, I was nearly captured by Soviet heliborne troops after being informed upon by local Afghans.) Moscow's attempts to establish hard-core militia fronts by purchasing their allegiance also faltered. The old adage of "you can only rent an Afghan, you can never buy him" remained the rule of thumb. Many militia had "just in case" arrangements with the mujahideen, just as today numerous police and military units collaborating with NATO forces have their own deals with the insurgents. While the coalition may claim the Marjah offensive routed the Taliban, it will probably have little impact on the long-term fighting capability of the opposition, even if NATO holds terrain captured. To claim success shows a poor understanding of Afghanistan. Only a small proportion of the insurgents are actually fighting. The majority of sympathizers will have buried their weapons or simply blended in among the civilians. Others are in the process of deploying elsewhere, just as Massoud used the interim to organize fighting fronts throughout the north. There's no way that all these areas can be controlled militarily. Many of the Western governments operating in Afghanistan focus on their own zones, such as the Dutch in Uzurugan and the Germans in Kunduz. Most officers come for six-month deployments, a period in which no one can even begin to understand this country. It is this lack of understanding about Afghan culture and thought that is the biggest problem today. Crucial, too, is the need for a long-term approach for the next 30 years. Talk of exit strategy only plays into the hands of insurgents biding their time. The Western missions, barricaded in Kabul compounds, are out of touch with what's happening on the ground. So are their intelligence operations. They spend billions on recovery or security initiatives, yet are reluctant to invest in credible information efforts. As the Marjah operation demonstrates, there is still the belief that the problem can be resolved by clearing out the insurgents militarily, and holding the territory while installing new top-down structures - "a government in a box." For most Afghans I've talked to on recent trips to Kabul and eastern, central, and southern Afghanistan, justice, not security, is the principal concern. Even where the military is in control, Afghans slip out to Taliban-controlled areas to seek fair dealing, having more confidence in Taliban sharia courts than in Karzai-regime judges. They see lack of rule of law and international community failure to develop a functioning economy, particularly in the countryside where 80 percent of Afghans live. And they increasingly perceive the coalition as a foreign occupation force, much like the Soviets. The Soviets thought they could subdue Afghanistan through brute force, political indoctrination, and bribes. They wanted to put across the notion that their form of government had far more to offer than the jihad embraced by the mujahideen. They lost. The West, following dangerously close to the path of its Soviet predecessor in Afghanistan, must show that it isn't there to impose its own views but to help ordinary people feel they have a future. .Edward Girardet, author of "The Soviet War" and a forthcoming 30-year retrospective on Afghanistan, has reported for the Monitor since 1979. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Afghan Reds to Return? by Michael Munk Wed, Mar 17, 2010

In Texas schools Capitalism verboten by Michael Munk Sun, Mar 14, 2010

Good-bye "capitalist, free market;" only "free enterprise" survives Board of Education Houston Chronicle March 11, 2010 http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2010/03/goodbye_capital.html Texas public school students no longer would hear the terms "capitalism" or "free market" under new social studies curriculum standards the State Board of Education is developing. All references will be limited to "free enterprise" after an 8-7 board vote. Pat Hardy, R-Fort Worth, pleaded with the board not to change the style recommended by board-appointed experts who proposed "free enterprise" with "capitalist, free market" is parenthesis. "A lot of blood, sweat and tears went into this (compromise)," Hardy said. "This board is getting too specific. Leave it as it is." State law requires the term "free enterprise," although college students use "capitalism" and "free market" descriptions. Teri Leo, R-Spring, urged her colleagues not to compromise "with liberal professors from academia. That's how we end up with liberal textbooks because that's who's writing them," she said. Hardy identified one of the primary sponsors of the change, as a Texas A&M professor who, she said, "is not some sort of crazy college liberal." The board voted 7-7, so Chair Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas, broke the tie to delete "capitalist" and "free market" in all references. "We don't have to apologize for our free enterprise system," Lowe said. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

China reports on human rights in the US by Michael Munk Fri, Mar 12, 2010

China reports on US human rights record (Xinhua) http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/12/content_9582218.htm March 12, 2010 BEIJING - China Friday retorted US criticism by publishing its own report on the US human rights record. "As in previous years, the (US) reports are full of accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China, but turn a blind eye to, or dodge and even cover up rampant human rights abuses on its own territory," said the Information Office of the State Council in its report on the US human rights record. The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009 was in retaliation to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009 issued by the US Department of State on March 11. The report is "prepared to help people around the world understand the real situation of human rights in the United States," said the report. The report reviewed the human rights record of the United States in 2009 from six perspectives: life, property and personal security; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; rights of women and children; and the US' violation of human rights against other countries. It criticized the United States for taking human rights as "a political instrument to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, defame other nations' image and seek its own strategic interests." China advised the US government to draw lessons from the history, put itself in a correct position, strive to improve its own human rights conditions and rectify its acts in the human rights field. This is the 11th consecutive year that the Information Office of China's State Council has issued a human rights record of the United States to answer the US State Department's annual report. "At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the US subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the US government still ignores its own serious human rights problems but revels in accusing other countries. It is really a pity," the report said. SPYING ON CITIZENS While advocating "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press" and "Internet freedom," the US government unscrupulously monitors and restricts the citizens' rights to freedom when it comes to its own interests and needs, the report said. The US citizens' freedom to access and distribute information is under strict supervision, it said. According to media reports, the US National Security Agency (NSA) started installing specialized eavesdropping equipment around the country to wiretap calls, faxes, and emails and collect domestic communications as early as 2001. The wiretapping programs was originally targeted at Arab-Americans, but soon grew to include other Americans. After the September 11 attack, the US government, in the name of anti-terrorism, authorized its intelligence authorities to hack into its citizens' mail communications, and to monitor and erase any information that might threaten the US national interests on the Internet through technical means, the report said. Statistic showed that from 2002 to 2006, the FBI collected thousands of phones records of US citizens through mails, notes and phone calls. In September 2009, the country set up an Internet security supervision body, further worrying US citizens that the US government might use Internet security as an excuse to monitor and interfere with personal systems. The so-called "freedom of the press" of the United States was in fact completely subordinate to its national interests, and was manipulated by the US government, the report said. At yearend 2009, the US Congress passed a bill which imposed sanctions on several Arab satellite channels for broadcasting contents hostile to the US and instigating violence. WIDESPREAD VIOLENT CRIMES Widespread violent crimes in the United States posed threats to the lives, properties and personal security of its people, the report said. In 2008, US residents experienced 4.9 million violent crimes, 16.3 million property crimes and 137,000 personal thefts, and the violent crime rate was 19.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons aged 12 or over. About 30,000 people die from gun-related incidents each year. According to a FBI report, there had been 14,180 murder victims in 2008, the report said. Campuses became an area worst hit by violent crimes as shootings spread there and kept escalating. The US Heritage Foundation reported that 11.3 percent of high school students in Washington D.C. reported being "threatened or injured" with a weapon while on school property during the 2007-2008 school year. ABUSE OF POWER The country's police frequently impose violence on the people and abuse of power is common among US law enforcers, the report said, Over the past two years, the number of New York police officers under review for garnering too many complaints was up 50 percent. In major US cities, police stop, question and frisk more than a million people each year, a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Prisons in the United State are packed with inmates. About 2.3 million were held in custody of prisons and jails, the equivalent of about one in every 198 persons in the country, according to the report. From 2000 to 2008, the US prison population increased an average of 1.8 percent annually. The basic rights of prisoners in the United States are not well-protected. Raping cases of inmates by prison staff members are widely reported, the report said. According to the US Justice Department, reports of sexual misconduct by prison staff members with inmates in the country's 93 federal prison sites doubled over the past eight years. According to a federal survey of more than 63,000 federal and state inmates, 4.5 percent reported being sexually abused at least once during the previous 12 months. POVERTY LEADS TO RISING NUMBER OF SUICIDES The report said the population in poverty was the largest in 11 years. The Washington Post reported that altogether 39.8 million Americans were living in poverty by the end of 2008, an increase of 2.6 million from that in 2007. The poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, the highest since 1998. Poverty led to a sharp rise in the number of suicides in the United States. It is reported that there are roughly 32,000 suicides in the US every year, double the cases of murder, said the report. WORKERS' RIGHTS NOT PROPERLY GUARANTEED Workers' rights were seriously violated in the United States, the report said. The New York Times reported that about 68 percent of the 4,387 low-wage workers in a survey said they had experienced reduction of wages and 76 percent of those who had worked overtime were not paid accordingly. The number of people without medical insurance has kept rising for eight consecutive years, the report said. Data released by the US Census Bureau showed 46.3 million people were without medical insurance in 2008, accounting for 15.4 percent of the total population, comparing 45.7 million people who were without medical insurance in 2007, which was a rise for the eighth year in a row. WOMEN, CHILDREN FREQUENT VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE Women are frequent victims of violence and sexual assault in the United States, while children are exposed to violence and living in fear, the report said. It is reported that the United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan. Reuters reported that based on in-depth interviews on 40 servicewomen, 10 said they had been raped, five said they were sexually assaulted including attempted rape, and 13 reported sexual harassment. It is reported that 1,494 children younger than 18 nationwide were murdered in 2008, the USA Today reported. A survey conducted by the US Justice Department on 4,549 kids and adolescents aged 17 and younger between January and May of 2008 showed, more than 60 percent of children surveyed were exposed to violence within the past year, either directly or indirectly. TRAMPLING UPON OTHER COUNTRIES' SOVEREIGNTY, HUMAN RIGHTS The report said the United States with its strong military power has pursued hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing their human rights. As the world's biggest arms seller, its deals have greatly fueled instability across the world. The United States also expanded its military spending, already the largest in the world, by 10 percent in 2008 to 607 billion US dollars, accounting for 42 percent of the world total, the AP reported. At the beginning of 2010, the US government announced a 6.4-billion-US dollar arms sales package to Taiwan despite strong protest from the Chinese government and people, which seriously damaged China's national security interests and aroused strong indignation among the Chinese people, it said. The wars of Iraq and Afghanistan have placed heavy burden on American people and brought tremendous casualties and property losses to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the report. Prisoner abuse is one of the biggest human rights scandals of the United States, it said An investigation by US Justice Department showed 2,000 Taliban surrendered combatants were suffocated to death by the US army-controlled Afghan armed forces, the report said. The United States has been building its military bases around the world, and cases of violation of local people's human rights are often seen, the report said. The United States is now maintaining 900 bases worldwide, with more than 190,000 military personnel and 115,000 relevant staff stationed. These bases are bringing serious damage and environmental contamination to the localities. Toxic substances caused by bomb explosions are taking their tolls on the local children, it said. It has been reported that toward the end of the US military bases' presence in Subic and Clark, as many as 3,000 cases of raping the local women had been filed against the US servicemen, but all were dismissed, according to the report. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

65 votes against Obama's Afpak War by Michael Munk Thu, Mar 11, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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