Archive: Michael Munk's 2007 National Messages:

Challenge to US resolution that terrorists killed Bhutto by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 31, 2007

UN Accused in Bhutto 'Cover-Up' by Haider Rizvi, OneWorld US http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20071231/wl_oneworld/45361564571199143156;_ylt=Arj59BVwht1bRGHnhrVbvHAE1vAI Dec 31, 2007 UNITED NATIONS, Dec 31 (OneWorld) - Benazir Bhutto's supporters are wondering if the UN Security Council is helping cover up a conspiracy behind her killing. The Pakistani opposition leader's supporters have asked Council members how they knew that she was killed by "terrorists," and not the government she opposed. Last Thursday, after hours-long discussions behind closed doors, the Council released a presidential statement saying that Bhutto was killed as a result of a "terrorist" attack. That is exactly what the Pakistani government was saying at the time, without holding any investigations into the crime. But the official version of how Bhutto was assassinated has changed since then. Those questioning the Council's view wonder why it could not wait for the result of an initial probe into the cause of the fatal attack on Bhutto's life before stating in a resolution that it was a terrorist act. The Council met around noon last Thursday, just four hours after Bhutto's death. According to UN officials, the decision to convene the Council meeting was made around 10:30 that morning. A diplomatic source who was present at the meeting told OneWorld that the Council did not immediately agree on a presidential draft statement because some members had issues with its wording. Delegates from Belgium and Africa, according to the source, wanted to know why Bhutto's murder should be described as a terrorist act in the statement in the absence of any conclusive evidence. But the United States envoy who had introduced the draft statement insisted that the cause of her death was a terrorist act and that its ally Pakistan would like to retain that wording. "Why should Pakistan tell us what to do?" the Belgian delegate reportedly asked in response. "It's not a member of the Council." Soon after that the Council reportedly decided to take a "short break," a diplomatic practice meant to indicate difficulties in agreeing on a collective course of action. On their return, the members disagreed again and took another recess before reaching a consensus on the final draft with certain, but not overly substantial, changes in the language. The final statement still reflected more concern about "terrorism" than the assassination of Bhutto. In fact, the word "terrorism" appears 10 times more than the name of the slain Pakistani leader. Critics have also wondered why the Council did not call for an international investigation into her murder as it did in the case of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri, who was killed in relatively similar circumstances in 2005. The Council statement underlined "the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers, and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice." Since her murder at a public rally last Thursday, Bhutto's supporters have consistently charged that the government, led by President Pervez Musharraf, was responsible for the assassination of their leader. But Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan as a military dictator for about 8 years and is now a civilian president, blames Islamist "terrorists" for Bhutto's murder. So does U.S. President George W. Bush. Musharraf and Bush, who are allies in the so-called "war on terror," have so far offered no solid evidence to substantiate their claim that Bhutto was killed by "terrorists." Within hours of the assassination, the government in Islamabad said a Taliban leader with a link to Al Qaida was involved. That has raised the question that if the government knew that then, why did it fail to stop the carnage? The man accused by Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, denies that his group was involved. Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which mistrusts the Musharraf government, says it wants justice from the international community. Bhutto herself made a similar call for an international inquiry into the government's actions some two months ago when a powerful blast killed more than 100 of her supporters and injured many more. Musharraf not only refused to allow an international probe then, but also rejected Bhutto's demand for the removal of officials she suspected to be involved in the October attack on her rally. He blamed Islamist terrorists for the incident and promised to bring the culprits to justice while urging opposition leaders to stay away from speaking at mass demonstrations and rallies. No one has been punished for that carnage as yet. Bhutto said the October blast was masterminded by certain elements in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the military's secret service, which is notorious for its deep involvement in the country's politics. According to regional experts, the ISI was actively involved in setting up training camps for Islamist "holy warriors" who fought the Soviets in the 1980s. Many analysts believe close links still exist between the ISI and militant Islamists. Pakistan, an nation carved from a piece of British India in 1947, has been ruled by military dictators for well over 30 years of its existence. Almost all of them enjoyed the full backing of the White House. Bhutto's father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was the only Pakistani leader who openly clashed with Washington. He was hanged by the U.S.-backed military dictator Ziaul Haq in 1979. Bhutto was around 25 at the time her father was executed. She spent five years in solitary confinement before her captors let her seek medical treatment in London in 1984. When she returned home in April 1986, millions of people took to the streets to show their support for her determination to challenge the army rule. She won national elections in 1988 and became the first-ever prime minister, but could not complete her 5-year term due to increased hostility from the army establishment. Bhutto regained power in 1993, but her term was cut short again by another president close to the army leadership. In both cases, she was thrown out of the office on corruption charges that were never proved. After living in exile for eight years, she reached an understanding with Musharraf earlier this year that would allow her to run for prime minister as he remained in office as president. But the U.S.-brokered deal did not work. During her election campaign Bhutto not only posed a strong challenge to religious extremists, but also attacked Musharraf for cracking down on the judiciary, media, and civil society. The Musharraf regime has changed its version of the events leading to Bhutto's death. First it said the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber. But later, officials said she was killed when the force of the bomb blast knocked her head against a sun roof fitting of her vehicle. The state-owned television released new pictures it said showed Bhutto's attackers -- a gunman and a suicide bomber. They also apparently showed Bhutto was inside her car, and no longer standing through the sun roof, when the explosion happened. The images added to the dispute over Bhutto's death. The PPP has insisted she was killed by two bullets, one of which pierced her skull and another that hit her in the neck. No autopsy was conducted on Bhutto's body. Her husband and other party leaders said Sunday they want the UN and the British government to conduct an investigation similar to the one carried out after the killing of Lebanon's Hariri. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

More neocon comings at the NYTimes by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 30, 2007

Add to previous post (below): Noted neocon and New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus (right) has been given control of the paper's Week in Review section. Prepare for (justified) liberal outrage. ...says http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/12/noted-neocon-takes-over-times-week-in-review.php#comments Huffington Post says Dec 28 that "The New York Times is set to announce that Bill Kristol will become a weekly columnist in 2008. Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative who recently departed Time magazine in what was reported as a "mutual" decision, has close ties to the White House and is a well-known proponent of the war in Iraq. Kristol also is a regular contributor to Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume." In September, the fallen Judith Miller, who also had close ties to the White House and is a well known proponent of the war in Iraq, was hired as an adjunct fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a right wing think tank funded by fat cats. Among its trustees is Bill Kristol. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Bush veto protects $30B in US banks by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 30, 2007

The NYTimes explains: (see the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/washington/29bush.html?ex=1199595600&en=2a9a1c7c859e7281&ei=5070&emc=eta1) At a minimum, the veto will provoke a fight over an issue that was put into the legislation after no public debate. The Senate sponsor, Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, expressed strong support for the provision on Friday, saying it would help plaintiffs in lawsuits against Iran and Libya, including relatives of Americans killed in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and in the bombing of a Berlin disco in 1986. "My language allows American victims of terror to hold perpetrators accountable - plain and simple," said Mr. Lautenberg, who has long championed expanding legislation to let victims sue foreign governments. In a "statement of disapproval," or pocket veto that lets the bill expire on Dec. 31, Mr. Bush said that the provision could result in preliminary injunctions freezing Iraqi assets in American banks - $20 billion to $30 billion, according to a senior administration official - and even affect commercial ventures with American businesses. He also warned that it was written to revive dormant legal claims, including a $959 million judgment won by American pilots who were prisoners of war during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. The administration had declared the new government exempt from claims dating to Mr. Hussein's government, which the United States overthrew in 2003. "Exposing Iraq to such significant financial burdens would weaken the close partnership between the United States and Iraq during this critical period in Iraq's history," Mr. Bush said in his statement. A senior administration official said, "The Iraqis certainly did raise very serious and strong concerns about this, which were confirmed as we really dived into this and gamed out the consequences." The White House allowed the official to speak only if not identified. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Bill Kristol to be the new Judith Miller at the NYTimes? by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 29, 2007

Neocon goings and comings at the New York Times: Huffington Post says "The New York Times is set to announce that Bill Kristol will become a weekly columnist in 2008. Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative who recently departed Time magazine in what was reported as a "mutual" decision, has close ties to the White House and is a well-known proponent of the war in Iraq. Kristol also is a regular contributor to Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume." In September, Judith Miller, the fallen transmission belt between the neocoms and the New York Times, was hired as an adjunct fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a right wing think tank funded by fat cats. Among its trustees is Bill Kristol. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Marx, Che T-shirts reverse shoplifted by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 24, 2007

From a NYTimes report today headlined "Anarchists in the Aisles" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/us/24shopdrop.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 on "Shopdropping" or reverse shoplifting wherein goods are added to store shelves: This week an arts group in Oakland, the Center for Tactical Magic, began shopdropping neatly folded stacks of homemade T-shirts into Wal-Mart and Target stores in the San Francisco Bay Area. The shirts feature radical images and slogans like one with the faces of Karl Marx, Che Guevara and Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian anarchist. It says, "Peace on Earth. After we overthrow capitalism." "Our point is to put a message, not a price tag, on them," said Aaron Gach, 33, a spokesman for the group. Mr. Jennings's anarchist action figure met with a befuddled reaction from a Target store manager on Wednesday in El Cerrito, Calif. "I don't think this is a product that we sell," the manager said as Mr. Jennings pretended to be a customer trying to buy it. "It's definitely antifamily, which is not what Target is about." *** At Powell's Books in Portland, Ore., religious groups have been hitting the magazines in the science section with fliers featuring Christian cartoons, while their adversaries have been moving Bibles from the religion section to the fantasy/science-fiction section. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Scholars for US hegemony by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 23, 2007

An interesting NYTimes article today, "Scholars and the Military Share a Foxhole, Uneasily" summarizes debates in academia about working for the Pentagon. With reference to Harvard's Carr Center's participation in revising the Army's counterinsurgency field manual, David Rieff makes the observation that its "really a manual about maintaining hegemony in the world" and if one thinks US military power can do good it makes sense to collaborate with it. He adds that "I don't believe that." Read the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/books/22harv.html visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The real Iraqi Resistance by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 23, 2007

Iraq resistance still in operation Al-Jazeera Dec 23, 2007 See this site for video: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23D247D6-4601-43D3-91B7-CF1DE1555FC8.htm Jami claims responsibility for carrying out dozens of attacks on US forces in northern Iraq Al Jazeera has obtained video footage that appears to show that Iraq's resistance movements are very much in operation, despite the US administration's claims. The US has been pointing to the decreasing number of violent deaths in recent months as a sign the country is being brought under control. The footage shows the inner workings of the Islamic Front for Iraqi Resistance, known as Jami. Deeply nationalistic with a slight Islamic leaning, it appeals more to Iraqis than extreme groups involved in global jihad such as al-Qaeda. Formed in 2004, the group's stated aim is to drive all foreign soldiers out of Iraq. It is not clear how many fighters the group has, but it claims to have been responsible for dozens of attacks on US forces in northern Baghdad. Al Jazeera, however, cannot independently verify Jami's claims. Now, alongside its military campaign, it has launched a propaganda war to get its message across. Over the years, Jami has established itself as a resistance group which publicly condemns attacks on Iraqi security forces and random targeting of Shia civilians. Its media centre is run by fighters who each hold a masters degree in media, Al Jazeera has been told. A Jami media officer told Al Jazeera: "We want to show the West our suffering and we want to show that the Iraqi resistance is not about the killing of Iraqis and terrorism. "We want them to understand the situation here and see that we are only fighting occupation forces." For Jami, the most convincing recruitment tools are pictures of abuse by US forces. The group's field of operations covers the provinces of Anbar, Salahedin, Diyala and around Mosul in the north. Of late, the US and Iraqi governments have taken advantage of a wave of popular anger that has chased al-Qaeda from its strongholds, to claim a small victory against the "insurgency". But groups such as Jami will have to be dealt with by other means. In the absence of Iraqi security forces, they provide security by setting up checkpoints in the areas under their control. They make sure no stranger enters those areas and establish friendly relations with residents. In return, the fighters get full support. The US has not yet to acknowledge their existence as a political force. Jami says it wants to show that resistance is not about the killing of Iraqis and terrorism Mohamed Ayash, the head of Iraqi Scholars' Council, says: "There is a big deal of development in the political and military wings of the resistance. "It now has a political council with a clear agenda. "George Bush mentions al-Qaeda as his only enemy, he doesn't refer to Iraqi resistance groups. "But they will continue their attacks on American soldiers." Ending the fight in Iraq will have to include real negotiations with Jami and the rest of the Iraqi resistance. So far, none of the plans for national reconciliation includes this vital step. Source: Al Jazeera visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

NY Times: Correction needed by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 23, 2007

In "A 1950 Plan: Arrest 12,000 and Suspend Due Process," (A30, Dec. 23) you write that "the president signed" the Internal Secuirty Act of 1950 that codified Hoover's proposed dentention of "subversives." Harry Truman was an enthusiastic supporter of the supression of the American Left--the consequence of which we still suffer from--during what is now referred to as the McCarthy Era, but he did not sign the act. Its provision for concentration camps for leftists violated the Constitution too violently even for him, and the President vetoed it. In a reflection on the climate in today's Congress, they overrode his veto 248-48 and 57-10. Michael Munk visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Permanent US bases in Afganistan too by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 22, 2007

Thanks to Cord Macguire for this item Troops Needed for Ten More Years: Karzai ////////////////////////////////// Agence France-Presse http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22962175-5005961,00.html December 21, 2007 AFGHANISTAN President Hamid Karzai said that his war-torn country will need foreign troops for at least another decade. "I believe it will take another 10 years, at least 10 years," he told German newspaper Bild when asked for how much longer the country will need German troops. "We need more time. The destruction was massive. Rebuilding Afghanistan will take longer than we thought." Mr Karzai said the most important step in restoring security to Afghanistan was closing down insurgents' rear bases, and accused the international community of failing to realise this. "Our biggest security problem is that the international community has not been concerned enough about the rear bases of the Taliban and terrorists outside Afghanistan," he said. "This is the most important element in the fight against terrorism. And we are suffering because of this." There are more than 60,000 international troops helping the Afghani government to battle Taliban and other insurgents, train up its own forces and establish its authority across the fractured country. Germany has contributed some 3000 troops to the 37-nation, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Afghanistan has seen a sharp spike in violence in the past two years, with 2007 being the bloodiest since a US-led invasion toppled the Taliban regime six years ago. Mr Karzai said on Wednesday that the US-led "war on terror" should be directed at islamist sanctuaries outside Afghanistan, which he said was not a "hideout for terrorism" but a victim. *** visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Who's really intervening in Lebanon? by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 21, 2007

Lebanon delays presidential vote By Laila Bassam Dec 21, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071221/wl_nm/lebanon_president_delay_dc_3;_ylt=ApTfyVL7jaxJQRcyR79J_IoE1vAIBEIRUT (Reuters) - A Lebanese presidential election scheduled for Saturdayhas been postponed until December 29, the parliament speaker said on Friday,the tenth delay to the vote.The Western-backed ruling coalition and the Hezbollah-led opposition haveagreed on army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, but they arestill at odds over how to share power in the new government to be formedonce he takes office.The repeatedly delayed vote cannot take place without a two-thirds quorum inparliament, which can only be secured by a deal between the anti-Syrianmajority and the opposition, backed by Damascus. The post has been vacantsince pro-Syrian Emile Lahoud's term expired on November 23.Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a leading opposition figure, said in astatement the next session was scheduled for December 29 at 12 p.m. (5 a.m.EDT).The opposition wants guarantees it will have veto power in the new cabinetto be formed once Suleiman is elected. But majority leader Saad al-Haririsaid this week he opposed the idea.Raising tension in the country's worst political crisis since the 1975-1990civil war, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed on Thursday that thegoverning coalition elect a new president unilaterally, a move Hezbollahdescribed as a threat to Lebanon's stability.Bush, accusing Syria of interfering in Lebanon, said that if the deadlockcontinued, the ruling group should vote using its simple majority of MPs.POWER STRUGGLEHezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah told Reuters earlier on Friday that Bush'scomments had further complicated efforts to forge a deal between the twofeuding sides, locked in a power struggle for more than a year."Matters are complicated and Bush's position has increased theircomplexity," Hezbollah's Fadlallah said.Hezbollah, which is also backed by Iran and listed by the United States as aterrorist group, has previously warned that a unilateral move by themajority to elect a president would be tantamount to a coup.Hezbollah deputy chief Naim Kassem also accused Bush of proposing theabsolute majority idea "without caring about the repercussions of thisissue."Governing coalition leaders have yet to comment on Bush's proposal. Theyhave lately backed away from threats of a unilateral vote and have statedtheir commitment to reaching consensus with the opposition over thepresidency.Fadlallah said Hezbollah was committed to a deal with the governingcoalition and accused the United States of obstructing mediation efforts ledby France.In a phone call to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, French PresidentNicolas Sarkozy told him that the election, which had been due on Saturday,must go ahead as planned, Sarkozy's spokesman said on Friday.Damascus said on Thursday it was working to facilitate the presidentialelection. Hariri responded in a statement that Syria, which dominatedLebanon until 2005, had effectively announced that the vote "will nothappen."(Additional reporting by Tom Perry; writing by Yara Bayoumy, editing by TimPearce)visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

UN covers for Iraq occupation by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 20, 2007

Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew UN Mandate for Occupation By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland AlterNet http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122007A.shtml Thursday 20 December 2007 A majority of Iraqi lawmakers say renewal requests not ratified by the parliament are illegal. On Tuesday, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council extending the mandate that provides legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq for another year. The move violated both the Iraqi constitution and a law passed earlier this year by the Iraqi parliament - the only body directly elected by all those purple-finger-waving Iraqis in 2005 - and it defied the will of around 80 percent of the Iraqi population. Earlier in the week, a group representing a majority of lawmakers in Iraq's parliament - a group made up of Sunni, Shiite and secular leaders - sent a letter to the Security Council, a rough translation of which reads: "We reject in the strongest possible terms the unconditional renewal of the mandate and ask for clear mechanisms to obligate all foreign troops to completely withdrawal from Iraq according to an announced timetable." We don't know if it was even read by members of the Security Council, but we do know that it, like previous communications from the Iraqi legislature, was completely ignored. James Paul, director of the Global Policy Forum, which follows the United Nations' intrigues, said that while "there's concern in many delegations at the United Nations about what is going on," Security Council delegates "are under instructions from their governments to lay low and pass the U.S. resolution." According to Paul, the move "shows the despotic power of the U.S. government to force everyone to knuckle under, no matter how much the law is violated." It was an egregious assault on Iraq's nascent democracy, as well as its supposed "sovereignty," and can only encourage more bloodshed. Yet the commercial media has so far ignored the story entirely, reporting only that "Iraq" had requested that the mandate be renewed. The real picture is dramatically different. Just as some congressional Democrats in Washington have tried desperately to limit Bush's ability to maintain troops in Iraq forever - inserting various conditions into the endless series of supplemental spending bills that have financed the occupation - and been thwarted by the administration, so too has a majority of Iraq's parliament come out against renewing the mandate without attaching conditions to it, including a requirement that the United States set a timetable for withdrawal. That's a process story, unsexy by definition, but that doesn't change its importance. This move speaks to the degree to which occupation and democracy are mutually exclusive, and to how Bush and Maliki must run roughshod over the Iraqi legislature (not to mention the U.S. Congress), sacrificing opportunities for political reconciliation along the way, in order to maintain an almost universally despised American military presence in the country. The UN Mandate The U.N. mandate provides vital political cover for the occupation. The Bush administration has ignored or violated much of the international law governing the conduct of an occupying power. As Orwellian as it is, the United States, having bombed the hell out of Iraq, invaded it with a huge mechanized army and installed a government that exists wholly within the confines of its sheltered "international zone" - the "Green Zone" - and now maintains that its troops are in the country by the invitation of that government. The United Nations' mandate is a key part of maintaining that fiction. Last year, at Maliki's request, the Security Council renewed the U.N. mandate suddenly, surprising many of the Iraqi lawmakers we reached in Baghdad at the time. Dr. Alaa Makki, a Sunni MP representing the Accord Front, asked that we send him a copy of the U.N. resolution and Al-Maliki's letter since he had no clue about the machinations that were going on between the PM and the Security Council. Hasan al-Shammari, a Shia parliamentarian with the Al-Fadhila party, told us by phone: "We had a closed session two days ago, and we were supposed to vote on the mandate in 10 days. I can not believe the mandate was just approved without our knowledge or input." Dr. Hajim al-Hassani, a secular MP and the former speaker of the parliament, also didn't know that the mandate had been renewed until receiving our call. "We were supposed to have a meeting with the Prime Minister and other top officials in the parliament during the next couple of weeks to decide what to do with the mandate," he said. A majority of Iraq's legislators viewed the renewal as unconstitutional. While article 80, section 6, of the young constitution gives the cabinet the right to "negotiate" and "sign" international agreements and treaties, article 61, section 4, reads: "A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives." Like the U.S. system, the executive branch can only negotiate international treaties; the legislature has to ratify them. At the time, Maliki argued that while he respected the powers given to the parliament, the U.N. mandate didn't count as either a treaty or an agreement, and therefore didn't require a nod from the legislative branch. Hoping to avoid a repeat of the PM's maneuvers this year, the Iraqi legislature has tried to put its foot down and assert its rights under the country's constitution. First, at the end of April, 144 members of the parliament - a majority - sent a nonbinding letter to the members of the United Nations Security Council and to the United Nations secretary general condemning last year's "unconstitutional" renewal and calling for a timetable for foreign troops to withdraw from Iraq. The Parliament then went a step further at the end of May, when 140 of its members co-sponsored a resolution requiring Maliki to get parliamentary approval before renewing the mandate this year. Here the story gets a bit legalistic, but bear with us. The resolution was submitted on May 27. During the session, Al-Mashhadani, the head of the Iraqi parliament, refused to allow a vote on the measure, sending it instead to the parliament's legal committee for review (also known as "sending it to die in committee"). On June 5, however, Al-Mashhadani bowed to pressure and allowed a vote on the resolution, which passed by an 85-59 margin. Maliki's cabinet then had a choice of vetoing the law or sending the resolution to the federal court for review. According to Article 73, section 3 of the constitution, if neither of those actions are taken, then a law passed by the parliament is "considered ratified after 15 days from the date of receipt." The legislation was neither vetoed nor sent to the judiciary for review, so, according to the Constitution, it was duly passed and became binding under Iraqi law. A few days later, Hoshyar Zebari, the minister of foreign affairs, was called to a hearing at which a member of the parliament's legal committee posed a question. "A few days ago," said Omar Khalaf Jawad, an MP from the secular National Iraqi Dialogue Front, "the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution that obligates the cabinet to receive approval from the parliament before renewing the occupation forces' mission. What steps have your ministry, or the Iraqi cabinet as a whole, taken to inform international entities and countries with forces in Iraq about this resolution, so that we will be sure the resolution will be respected and implemented?" Zebari assured the parliament that its legislation would be disseminated to the appropriate parties and respected by the prime minister and his cabinet. But, four months after that hearing, in an off-the-record conference call with most of the Security Council's 15 delegates and a number of Sunni, Shiite and secular Iraqi MPs, two unexpected discoveries came to light. First, the delegates were informed that a report submitted by the secretary-general contained some crucial factual errors. The SG's report said that the parliament had "passed a nonbinding resolution on 5 June obligating the cabinet to request parliament's approval on future extensions of the mandate governing the multinational force in Iraq and to include a timetable for the departure of the force from Iraq." On the call, the Iraqi lawmakers explained to the delegates that the resolution was a binding law and that it did not contain a request to include a timetable. One of the MPs attending the meeting from Baghdad clarified: "All that the resolution requests is that the Iraqi parliament be allowed to practice its constitutional rights." The second and more shocking discovery of the meeting was that the letter sent in April by the 144 members of Iraq's parliament had never been delivered to the Security Council delegations. Some of the Iraqi MPs confirmed that they had handed the letter to Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the United Nation's special representative for Iraq (Qazi later insisted that he had indeed delivered the letter to the Security Council members and to the secretary-general). The next day, the Iraqi MPs took it upon themselves to notify the Security Council delegates that any request to renew the mandate that is "issued by the Iraqi cabinet without the Iraqi parliament's approval is unconstitutional." It added: "The Iraqi parliament, as the elected representatives of the Iraqi people, has the exclusive right to approve and ratify international treaties and agreements including those signed with the United Nations Security Council." At the end of November, Foreign Affairs Minister Zebari was again called to testify before the Iraqi parliament. He promised, unequivocally, that any request to extend the mandate "will not be presented to the U.N. Security Council prior to its submission to the Iraqi parliament for deliberation." But that wasn't to be. In the letter sent this week, Iraqi lawmakers' demand was unambiguous: "We ask the Security Council not to accept any letter requesting renewal that is not ratified by the parliament. Such a letter would be deemed illegal and unconstitutional according to the laws of Iraq," it read. No debate was held in the Iraqi legislature, and on Tuesday the Security Council voted unanimously to renew the mandate. Iraqi Lawmakers Not the Only Ones Getting the Runaround Our sources in the United Nations told us to expect a vote towards the end of the week, and we were caught by surprise when it was held Tuesday. The timing appears to have been a response to senior members of Congress picking up on the Iraqi legislature's efforts to put conditions on the renewal. In a letter sent to Condoleezza Rice on Dec. 5, Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., chairman of a House subcommittee on foreign affairs, noted the Iraqi parliament's legislation and warned that ignoring its prerogatives might lead to a broader perception that the occupation is "illegal, illegitimate and evidence of a desire for the long-term basing of our military officials in Iraq." On Wednesday, Delahunt held hearings on the renewal (at which one of this article's authors, Raed Jarrar, testified). We can't say for sure if the attempt to get these issues into the record on Capitol Hill had to do with the vote being moved up to Tuesday, but the fact that the mandate was renewed, suddenly, just one day before Congressional hearings were held suggests that there was an effort to create "facts on the ground" that would effectively sideline legislators' interest in the matter. What this story reveals, again, is that U.S. "interests" - that is, the interests of the U.S. foreign policy elite - which include establishing a permanent foothold in the Middle East and exerting influence over the political and economic course Iraq takes in the future, are paramount, and that any talk of democratizing missions or "liberating Iraqis" has never been more than political theater. The renewal is the latest in a string of instances in which the Bush administration and its allies in Iraq's executive branch have shut down a nonviolent, political avenue for Iraqi citizens to resist the presence of foreign troops in their country. By denying them those avenues, Bush and Maliki have effectively done what they accuse advocates of withdrawal of doing: "emboldening" violent insurgents and getting more innocent Iraqis and more U.S. troops killed. One can only wonder, now that the United States has "liberated" Iraq from Saddam Hussein, just who will liberate Iraq from the United States? ----------- Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle. Joshua Holland is an AlterNet editor and staff writer. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

One Dem cave too many by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 20, 2007

"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war." McGovern was one of 141 Dems (and one Rep) to vote against the amended $700+ B for the Pentagon that includes $70 B more for the Iraq occupation. But a sizeable minority of Dems--78-- joined 194 Reps to pass the bill by 272-142. As McGovern observes, this is "one cave-in too many" but those 78 Dems (see list below) demonstrate how their party enables the regime in Washington and has become in effect part of it. Altmire Baird Barrow Bean Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Boren Boucher Boyd (FL) Boyda (KS) Brown, Corrine Carney Chandler Clyburn Cooper Costa Cramer Cuellar Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis, Lincoln Dicks Dingell Donnelly Edwards Ellsworth Emanuel Etheridge Giffords Gillibrand Gonzalez Gordon Green, Gene Herseth Sandlin Hill Hinojosa Holden Hoyer Kanjorski Kildee Kind Lampson Larsen (WA) Levin Lynch Mahoney (FL) Marshall Matheson McIntyre Melancon Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Murtha Pomeroy Reyes Rodriguez Ross Ruppersberger Rush Salazar Schwartz Scott (GA) Sestak Shuler Skelton Snyder Space Spratt Tanner Taylor Udall (CO) Walz (MN) Wilson (OH) visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

History's first draft on Congressional Dems by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 19, 2007

Recent media predictions that the Dems will collapse again and vote another blank check for the regime in Washington's wars turned out to be correct. So isn't it time to begin calling them the Dems wars? The leadership intended the multiple choreographed votes on the eve of the holliday to avoid and confuse the public and hide its collapse behind media inattention to the disgraceful spectacle. As Sen Feingold--one of only three senators(the others were Sanders and Byrd; six Dems didn't vote) to oppose the $700 billion Pentagon authorization bill that included almost $200 B for the wars--told his colleagues: "If those of us in Congress who want to end this war don't take every opportunity to push back against this administration, we will be just as responsible for keeping our troops in Iraq," There were only 45 votes against the $700 B (mostly corporate welfare) authorization in the House. So it's also time to begin writing the first draft of history's take on this cowardly and phoney bunch --from Pelosi and Reid on down to the newest electee who voted for that blank check. Their names will forever be linked to their enabling the worst debacle of US imperialism while claiming they were "misled" by false intelligence, intimidated by charges they were "endangering our troops" and by an inexplicable and false fear of a Republican fillbuster (enabled by a few GOP wantabee Democratic Senators) or a Bush veto. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Half of Senate Dems vote more money for their wars by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 18, 2007

Seventy senators including about half the Dems voted Tuesday to give Bush another $70 billion for their wars. Note that Smith was only Republican voting against so all west coast senators except Feinstein (who didn't vote)were among the following 25 voting "NAY." Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Not Voting - 5 Biden (D-DE) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Obama (D-IL)

Senate votes for war 90-3 by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 14, 2007

Only three Senators-- Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI), and Sanders (I-VT)-- voted against $700 billion more for the Pentagon, including almost $200 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afganistan. On Wednesday on 45 members fo the House stood up against it. Clinton, Obama and five others (Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Innoye and McCain) didn't vote. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

It's still about (Big) Oil by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 10, 2007

Analysis: Big Oil to sign Iraq deals soon by Ben Lando, UPI Energy analyst Washington (UPI) Dec 6, 2007 . Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true as Iraq's Oil Ministry prepares deals for the country's largest oil fields with terms that aren't necessarily what companies were hoping for but considered a foot in the door of the world's most promising oil sector. Iraq's proven oil reserves are only smaller than those in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- and the country is only about 30 percent explored. Iraq produces about 2.4 million barrels per day, a recent increase from the 2 million bpd post-invasion average, but far below what its reserves could handle. Its oil sector is suffering from decades of Saddam Hussein-era mismanagement, U.N. sanctions and the effects of the current war. The decision of how to develop a resource that provides for nearly the entire federal budget is political and controversial. To each side's alarm, the national government will rely on a Saddam-era law and Iraq's Kurdish region is signing deals on its own. Details of negotiations between the ministry and international oil majors are being kept quiet, though media are picking up on pieces of deal-making. MarketWatch reports executives from BP and Shell were to meet with Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani following Wednesday's meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Abu Dhabi. The global energy information firm Platts reports top ministry and company officials are to meet in Amman this week. Shahristani himself dropped hints to United Press International in a recent interview. He said he's moving forward with oil deals despite the lack of a new national oil law, a draft of which has been stalled in negotiations for more than a year. "This has nothing to do with the national oil law. There is no timeline. Whenever we finish our discussions we'll just sign the contracts," he told UPI on the sidelines of the OPEC heads of state summit last month. "This is basically technical-support contracts," he said, adding the contracts will not be the result of a bidding process. "Selected companies will offer us technical support that we need to develop our producing fields." Develop producing fields? "Yes, only." With the companies who are helping to, who have been studying them, who have been doing this work? "Yes. Exactly. That's right." How many fields? "We will not be announcing anything until we sign the contracts." Super giants? "They are the super giants, yes." Super giant fields are those with at least 5 billion barrels in reserves, and in Iraq include the Kirkuk, Majnoon, Rumaila North and South, West Qurna and Zubair fields. Reserves of the Nahr Umr and East Baghdad fields may also reach 5 billion barrels, and there are many large producing fields rumored to be on the negotiating table. The world's largest oil companies are keen on entering Iraq, as their own booked reserves decline and a growing bulk of global reserves are under nationalized systems. Oil company officials met with U.S. officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, prior to the war and since, to discuss contracts for Iraq's oil. Former top officials of the companies were tasked by the U.S.-led occupation with advising the Oil Ministry. "This means that it is pay-off time for the majors that have been running training courses for Oil Ministry personnel, reservoir surveys, drawn up work-plans and given general advice during the past years," said Samuel Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst for Global Insight. "It is clever." He said forgoing bidding allows the ministry to move quickly, as well as prove wrong critics, such as the Iraqi Kurds. According to insiders to whom UPI talked recently as well as media reports, Shell, which produced a technical study of Kirkuk in 2005, wants a deal for the field. BP wants one for Rumaila, which it studied last year. Shell and BHP Billiton are angling for the Missan field in the south. ExxonMobil is interested in the southern Zubair field while the Sabha and Luhais fields are being targeted by Dome and Anadarko Petroleum. ConocoPhillips is talking with the ministry about the West Qurna oil field, officials with Russian major Lukoil told Dow Jones Newswires. Lukoil, of which Conoco is a 20 percent shareholder, had a deal with Saddam Hussein for West Qurna in the 1990s, but it was cancelled prior to the war. Chevron and Total have teamed up in a bid for the Majnoon field. Less than 1 percent of Iraq's proven reserves are located in the area controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government, but limited successful exploration and geological formations have the KRG excited with prospects. Bolstered by contempt for central control and the sluggish pace of the oil law, the KRG has passed its own regional oil law and signed more than 20 exploration and production deals with international oil firms. Shahristani has called the KRG deals "illegal" and a dispute is slowly brewing in Baghdad. None of the major companies has signed with the KRG, fearing being blacklisted by Baghdad from the rest of Iraq's bounty. Shahristani, growing impatient himself, has started his negotiations, though the KRG claims the Saddam-era law is illegitimate. Washington, which maintains an emphasis on approving a new oil law, has given Shahristani its blessing. Iraq's oil sector was fully nationalized in 1972 and power was concentrated in the hands of the Iraqi National Oil Company. INOC is temporarily defunct, and its role has been incorporated into the ministry. The ministry can sign the service contract deals on its own, though it may need to get Cabinet approval first. But if it were to sign any risk or concession contracts, such as production-sharing contracts like the KRG, it would need parliamentary approval under the Saddam-era law. And while service contracts would be highly profitable for companies, Big Oil wants risk contracts. Such deals are usually long term, covering its exploration costs and guaranteeing a profit if oil is found, and allowing them to put the reserves it discovers on the books, a boon in Wall Street's eyes. Aside from security -- which if it stays bad would make the deals costlier for Iraq -- there's relatively little risk in exploring for crude in Iraq. Historically it has been easy to find, inexpensive to produce and top quality. Supporters of the popular nationalized structure in Iraq -- led by the powerful oil unions -- and campaigners who fear the ultimate end to the war is the heist of Iraq's oil wealth are against risk contracts. Hassan Jumaa Awad, president of the umbrella Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, told UPI in London last week that service contracts bringing new technology and training will suffice. "National expertise and resources," he said, "are capable of enhancing production in the oil industry." (blando@upi.com) visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Challenged, Gates endorses Israeli nukes by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 9, 2007

At the so-called "Regional Security Conference" in Baharin, the following dialog took place between Pentagon chief Gates and a cabinet minister of the host country: Bahraini Minister of Labor Majeed al-Alawi asked Gates if he believed ""the Zionist (Israeli) nuclear weapon is a threat to the region." Gates paused, and answered tersely: "No, I do not." Al-Alawi then suggested that Gates was guilty of using "a double standard in light of Washington's pressure on Iran." Gates again said "no," and argued that "I think Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbors. It has not shipped weapons into a place like Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians covertly. So I think that there are significant differences in terms of both the history and the behavior of the Iranian and Israeli governments." Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani disputed Gates' reasoning because "We can't really compare Iran with Israel. Iran is our neighbor, and we shouldn't really look at it as an enemy. I think Israel through 50 years has taken land, kicking out the Palestinians, and interferes under the excuse of security, blaming the other party." See the enter Dec 8 AP report by Sebastian Cabot at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120907Z.shtml visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Pelosi didn't object to torture by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 9, 2007

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen The Washington Post 9 December 2007 In meetings, spy panels' chiefs did not protest, officials say. In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange. Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup. Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge. With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack. "In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' " Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 - by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding - did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general. GOP lawmakers and Bush administration officials have previously said members of Congress were well informed and were supportive of the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques. But the details of who in Congress knew what, and when, about waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning that is the most extreme and widely condemned interrogation technique - have not previously been disclosed. U.S. law requires the CIA to inform Congress of covert activities and allows the briefings to be limited in certain highly sensitive cases to a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings. That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision. Critics have since said the administration's motivation was at least partly to hide from view an embarrassing practice that the CIA considered vital but outsiders would almost certainly condemn as abhorrent. Information about the use of waterboarding nonetheless began to seep out after a furious internal debate among military lawyers and policymakers over its legality and morality. Once it became public, other members of Congress - beyond the four that interacted regularly with the CIA on its most sensitive activities - insisted on being briefed on it, and the circle of those in the know widened. In September 2006, the CIA for the first time briefed all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, producing some heated exchanges with CIA officials, including Director Michael V. Hayden. The CIA director said during a television interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all aspects of the detention and interrogation program." He said the "rich dialogue" with Congress led him to propose a new interrogation program that President Bush formally announced over the summer "I can't describe that program to you," Hayden said. "But I would suggest to you that it would be wrong to assume that the program of the past is necessarily the program moving forward into the future." Waterboarding Used on at Least Three Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War. In general, the technique involves strapping a prisoner to a board or other flat surface, and then raising his feet above the level of his head. A cloth is then placed over the subject's mouth and nose, and water is poured over his face to make the prisoner believe he is drowning. U.S. officials knowledgeable about the CIA's use of the technique say it was used on three individuals - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qaeda member and Osama bin Laden associate captured in Pakistan in March 2002; and a third detainee who has not been publicly identified. Abu Zubaida, the first of the "high-value" detainees in CIA custody, was subjected to harsh interrogation methods beginning in spring 2002 after he refused to cooperate with questioners, the officials said. CIA briefers gave the four intelligence committee members limited information about Abu Zubaida's detention in spring 2002, but offered a more detailed account of its interrogation practices in September of that year, said officials with direct knowledge of the briefings. The CIA provided another briefing the following month, and then about 28 additional briefings over five years, said three U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge of the meetings. During these sessions, the agency provided information about the techniques it was using as well as the information it collected. Lawmakers have varied recollections about the topics covered in the briefings. Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. "Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn't object," Graham said in an interview. He said he now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal. Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage - they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice - and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time. Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy. "When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath - one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything." Roberts declined to comment on his participation in the briefings. Rockefeller also declined to talk about the briefings, but the West Virginia Democrat's public statements show him leading the push in 2005 for expanded congressional oversight and an investigation of CIA interrogation practices. "I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation activities," Rockefeller said in a statement Friday. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam War prisoner who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, took an early interest in the program even though he was not a member of the intelligence committee, and spoke out against waterboarding in private conversations with White House officials in late 2005 before denouncing it publicly. In May 2007, four months after Democrats regained control of Congress and well after the CIA had forsworn further waterboarding, four senators submitted written objections to the CIA's use of that tactic and other, still unspecified "enhanced" techniques in two classified letters to Hayden last spring, shortly after receiving a classified hearing on the topic. One letter was sent on May 1 by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). A similar letter was sent May 10 by a bipartisan group of three senators: Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Staff writers Josh White and Walter Pincus and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

the NYT ignores those permanent bases by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 3, 2007

A careful analysis that offers very recent evidence for my long term contention that the NYTimes, the most authoritative US mainstream media, consistently ignores both the fundamental US efforts to control Iraqi oil and the establishment of permanent/enduting bases from which to control it. These are those "vital US interests" in Iraq that Clinton supports but does not define. Iraq as a Pentagon Construction Site: How the Bush Administration "Endures" By Tom Engelhardt TomDispatch.com Sunday 02 December 2007 The title of the agreement, signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki in a "video conference" last week, and carefully labeled as a "non-binding" set of principles for further negotiations, was a mouthful: a "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America." Whew! Words matter, of course. They seldom turn up by accident in official documents or statements. Last week, in the first reports on this "declaration," one of those words that matter caught my attention. Actually, it wasn't in the declaration itself, where the key phrase was "long-term relationship" (something in the lives of private individuals that falls just short of a marriage), but in a "fact-sheet" issued by the White House. Here's the relevant line: "Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq." Of course, "enduring" there bears the same relationship to permanency as "long-term relationship" does to marriage. In a number of the early news reports, that word "enduring," part of the "enduring relationship" that the Iraqi leadership supposedly "asked for," was put into (or near) the mouths of "Iraqi leaders" or of the Iraqi prime minister himself. It also achieved a certain prominence in the post-declaration "press gaggle" conducted by the man coordinating this process out of the Oval Office, the President's so-called War Tsar, Gen. Douglas Lute. He said of the document: "It signals a commitment of both their government and the United States to an enduring relationship based on mutual interests." In trying to imagine any Iraqi leader actually requesting that "enduring" relationship, something kept nagging at me. After all, those mutual vows of longevity were to be taken in a well publicized civil ceremony in a world in which, when it comes to the American presidential embrace, don't-ask/don't-tell is usually the preferred course of action for foreign leaders. Finally, I remembered where I had seen that word "enduring" before in a situation that also involved a "long-term relationship." It had been four-and-a-half years earlier and not coming out of the mouths of Iraqi officials either. Back in April 2003, just after Baghdad fell to American troops, Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt reported on the front page of the New York Times that the Pentagon had launched its invasion the previous month with plans for four "permanent bases" in out of the way parts of Iraq already on the drawing board. Since then, the Pentagon has indeed sunk billions of dollars into building those mega-bases (with a couple of extra ones thrown in) at or near the places mentioned by Shanker and Schmitt. When questioned by reporters at the time about whether such "permanent bases" were in the works, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the U.S. was "unlikely to seek any permanent or long-term' bases in Iraq" - and that was that. The Times' piece essentially went down the mainstream-media memory hole. On this subject, the official position of the Bush administration has never changed. Just last week, for instance, General Lute slipped up, in response to a question at his press gaggle. The exchange went like this: "Q: And permanent bases? "GENERAL LUTE: Likewise. That's another dimension of continuing U.S. support to the government of Iraq, and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year." White House spokesperson Dana Perino quickly issued a denial, saying: "We do not seek permanent bases in Iraq." Back in 2003, Pentagon officials, already seeking to avoid that potentially explosive "permanent" tag, plucked "enduring" out of the military lexicon and began referring to such bases, charmingly enough, as "enduring camps." And the word remains with us - connected to bases and occupations anywhere. For instance, of a planned expansion of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, a Col. Jonathan Ives told an AP reporter recently, "We've grown in our commitment to Afghanistan by putting another brigade (of troops) here, and with that we know that we're going to have an enduring presence. So this is going to become a long-term base for us, whether that means five years, 10 years - we don't know." Still, whatever they were called, the bases went up on an impressive scale, massively fortified, sometimes 15-20 square miles in area, housing up to tens of thousands of troops and private contractors, with multiple bus routes, traffic lights, fast-food restaurants, PXs, and other amenities of home, and reeking of the kind of investment that practically shouts out for, minimally, a relationship of a distinctly "enduring" nature. The Facts on Land - and Sea These were part of what should be considered the facts on the ground in Iraq, though, between April 2003 and the present, they were rarely reported on or debated in the mainstream in the U.S. But if you place those mega-bases (not to speak of the more than 100 smaller ones built at one point or another) in the context of early Bush administration plans for the Iraqi military, things quickly begin to make more sense. Remember, Iraq is essentially the hot seat at the center of the Middle East. It had, in the previous two-plus decades fought an eight-year war with neighboring Iran, invaded neighboring Kuwait, and been invaded itself. And yet, the new Coalition Provisional Authority, run by the President's personal envoy, L. Paul Bremer III, promptly disbanded the Iraqi military. This is now accepted as a goof of the first order when it came to sparking an insurgency. But, in terms of Bush administration planning, it was no mistake at all. At the time, the Pentagon made it quite clear that its plan for a future Iraqi military was for a force of 40,000 lightly armed troops - meant to do little more than patrol the country's borders. (Saddam Hussein's army had been something like a 600,000-man force.) It was, in other words, to be a Military Lite - and there was essentially to be no Iraqi air force. In other words, in one of the more heavily armed and tension-ridden regions of the planet, Iraq was to become a Middle Eastern Costa Rica - if, that is, you didn't assume that the U.S. Armed Forces, from those four "enduring camps" somewhere outside Iraq's major cities, including a giant air base at Balad, north of Baghdad, and with the back-up help of U.S. Naval forces in the Persian Gulf, were to serve as the real Iraqi military for the foreseeable future. Again, it's necessary to put these facts on the ground in a larger - in this case, pre-invasion - geopolitical context. From the first Gulf War on, Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of energy on the planet, was being groomed as the American military bastion in the heart of the Middle East. But the Saudis grew uncomfortable - think here, the claims of Osama bin Laden and Co. that U.S. troops were defiling the Kingdom and its holy places - with the Pentagon's elaborate enduring camps on its territory. Something had to give - and it wasn't going to be the American military presence in the Middle East. The answer undoubtedly seemed clear enough to top Bush administration officials. As an anonymous American diplomat told the Sunday Herald of Scotland back in October 2002, "A rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. It's not just a case of swopping horses in mid-stream, the impending U.S. regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity." As those officials imagined it - and as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz predicted - by the fall of 2003, major American military operations in the region would have been re-organized around Iraq, even as American forces there would be drawn down to perhaps 30,000-40,000 troops stationed eternally at those "enduring camps." In addition, a group of Iraqi secular exiles, friendly to the United States, would be in power in Baghdad, backed by the occupation and ready to open up the Iraqi economy, especially its oil industry to Western (particularly American) multinationals. Americans and their allies and private contractors would, quite literally, have free run of the country, the equivalent of nineteenth century colonial extraterritoriality (something "legally" institutionalized in June 2004, thanks to Order 17, issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority, just before it officially turned over "sovereignty" to the Iraqis); and, sooner or later, a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA would be "negotiated" that would define the rights of American troops garrisoned in that country. At that point, the U.S. would have successfully repositioned itself militarily in relation to the oil heartlands of the planet. It would also have essentially encircled a second member of the "axis of evil," Iran (once you included the numerous new U.S. bases that had been built and were being expanded in occupied Afghanistan as part of the ongoing war against the Taliban). It would be triumphant and dominant and, with its Israeli ally, militarily beyond challenge in the region. The cowing of, collapse of, or destruction of the Syrian and Iranian regimes would surely follow in short order. Of course, much of this never came about as planned. It turned out that, once the Sunni insurgency gained traction, the Bush administration had little choice but to reconstitute a sizeable, if still relatively lightly armed, Iraqi military (as a largely Shiite force) and then, more recently, arm Sunni militias as well, possibly opening the way for future clashes of a major nature. It had to accept a Shiite regime locked inside the highly fortified Green Zone of the Iraqi capital that was religious, sectarian, largely powerless, and allied to some degree with Iran. It had to accept chaos, significant and unexpected casualties, continual urban warfare, and an enormous strain and drain on its armed forces (as well as a black hole of distraction from other global issues). None of this had been predicted, or imagined, by Bush's top officials. On the other hand, the Bush administration has demonstrated significant "endurance" of its own, especially when it came to the linked issues of oil and bases. In a recent report for Harper's Magazine, "The Black Box, Inside Iraq's Oil Machine," Luke Mitchell describes traveling the southern Iraqi oil field of Rumaila with a petroleum engineer working for Foster Wheeler, a Houston engineering firm hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "to oversee much of the oilfield reconstruction," and protected by private guards employed by the British security company Erinys. He describes what's left of the Iraqi oil industry after decades of war, sanctions, civil war, sabotage, and black-market theft - a run-down industrial plant with a rusting delivery system that, at a technical level, is now largely in the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, the State Department, and private contractors like KBR, the former division of Halliburton. At the most basic level, he reports that many of "Iraq's native oil professionals," who heroically patched up and held together a broken system in the years after the first Gulf War, have (along with so many other Iraqi professionals) fled the country. He writes: "The Wall Street Journal in 2006 called this flight a 'petroleum exodus' and reported that about a hundred oil workers had been murdered since the war began and that 'of the top hundred of so managers running the Iraqi oil ministry and its branches in 2003, about two-thirds are no longer at their jobs.' Now most of the [oil] engineers in Iraq are from Texas and Oklahoma." Similarly, in Baghdad, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not expected to handle the crucial energy problems of its country alone. Here's a relevant (if well-buried) passage from a recent New York Times piece on the subject: "Earlier this month, the White House dispatched several senior aides to Baghdad to work with the Iraqis on specific legislative areas. They include the under secretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs, Reuben Jeffery III, who is working on the budget and oil law" This is what passes for "sovereignty" in present-day Iraq. In this context, the following line of text about agreed-upon subjects for negotiation in last week's Bush/Maliki "declaration" caused eyebrows to be raised (at least abroad): "Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq." As the British Guardian put the matter: "The promise was immediately seen as a potential bonanza for American oil companies." A BBC report commented, "Correspondents say US investors benefiting from preferential treatment could earn huge profits from Iraq's vast oil reserves, causing widespread resentment among Iraqis." (American coverage regularly ignores or plays down the oil aspect of the Bush administration's Iraq policies, even though that country has the third largest reserves on the planet.) Bases, Bases Everywhere Among the most tenacious and enduring Bush administration facts on the ground are those giant bases, still largely ignored - with honorable exceptions - by the mainstream media. Thom Shanker and Cara Buckley of the New York Times, to give but one example, managed to write that paper's major piece about the joint "declaration" without mentioning the word "base," no less "permanent," and only Gen. Lute's slip made the permanence of bases a minor note in other mainstream reports. And yet it's not just that the building of bases did go on - and on a remarkable scale - but that it continues today. Whatever the descriptive labels, the Pentagon, throughout this whole period, has continued to create, base by base, the sort of "facts" that any negotiations, no matter who engages in them, will need to take into account. And the ramping up of the already gigantic "mega-bases" in Iraq proceeds apace. Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon will call on Congress to pony up another billion dollars soon enough for further upgrades and "improvements." We also know that frantic construction has been under way on three new bases of varying sizes. The most obvious of these - though it's seldom thought of this way - is the gigantic new U.S. Embassy, possibly the largest in the world, being built on an almost Vatican-sized plot of land inside Baghdad's Green Zone. It is meant to be a citadel, a hardened universe of its own, in, but not of, the Iraqi capital. In recent months, it has also turned into a construction nightmare, soaking up another $144 million in American taxpayer monies, bringing its price tag to three-quarters of a billion dollars and still climbing. It is to house 1,000 or so "diplomats," with perhaps a few thousand extra security guards and hired hands of every sort. When, in the future, you read in the papers about administration plans to withdraw American forces to bases "outside of Iraqi urban areas," note that there will continue to be a major base in the heart of the Iraqi capital for who knows how long to come. As the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler put it, the 21-building compound "is viewed by some officials as a key element of building a sustainable, long-term diplomatic presence in Baghdad." Presence, yes, but diplomatic? In the meantime, a relatively small base, "Combat Outpost Shocker," provocatively placed within a few kilometers of the Iranian border, has been rushed to completion this fall on a mere $5 million construction contract. And only in the last weeks, reports have emerged on the latest U.S. base under construction, uniquely being built on a key oil-exporting platform in the waters off the southern Iraqi port of Basra and meant for the U.S. Navy and allies. Such a base gives meaning to this passage in the Bush/Maliki declaration: "Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace." As the British Telegraph described this multi-million dollar project: "The US-led coalition is building a permanent security base on Iraq's oil pumping platforms in the Gulf to act as the nerve centre' of efforts to protect the country's most vital strategic asset." Chip Cummins of the Wall Street Journal summed up the project this way in a piece headlined, "U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports - Long-Term Presence Planned at Persian Gulf Terminals Viewed as Vulnerable": "[T]he new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry." Though you'd never know it from mainstream reporting, the single enduring fact of the Iraq War may be this constant building and upgrading of U.S. bases. Since the Times revealed those base-building plans back in the spring of 2003, Iraq has essentially been a vast construction site for the Pentagon. The American media did, in the end, come to focus on the civilian "reconstruction" of Iraq which, from the rebuilding of electricity-production facilities to the construction of a new police academy has proved a catastrophic mixture of crony capitalism, graft, corruption, theft, inefficiency, and sabotage. But there has been next to no focus on the construction success story of the Iraq War and occupation: those bases. In this way, whatever the disasters of its misbegotten war, the Bush administration has, in a sense, itself "endured" in Iraq. Now, with only a year left, its officials clearly hope to write that endurance and those "enduring camps" into the genetic code of both countries - an "enduring relationship" meant to outlast January 2009 and to outflank any future administration. In fact, by some official projections, the bases are meant to be occupied for up to 50 to 60 years without ever becoming "permanent." You can, of course, claim that the Iraqis "asked for" this new, "enduring relationship," as the declaration so politely suggests. It is certainly true that, as part of the bargain, the Bush administration is offering to defend its "boys" to the hilt against almost any conceivable eventuality, including the sort of internal coup that it has, these last years, been rumored to have considered launching itself. In an attempt to make an end-run around Congress, administration officials continue to present what is to be negotiated as merely a typical SOFA-style agreement. "There are about a hundred countries around the world with which we have [such] bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements," Gen. Lute said reassuringly, indicating that this matter would be handled by the executive branch without significant input from Congress. The guarantees the Bush administration seems ready to offer the Maliki government, however, clearly rise to treaty level and, if we had even a faintly assertive Congress, would surely require the advice and consent of the Senate. Iraqi officials have already made clear that such an agreement will have to pass through their parliament in a country where the idea of "enduring" U.S. bases in an "enduring" relationship is bound to be exceedingly unpopular. Still, a formula for the future is obviously being put in place and, after more than four years of frenzied construction, the housing for it, so to speak, is more than ready. As the Washington Post described the plan, "Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops" No matter what comes out of the mouths of Iraqi officials, though, what's "enduring" in all this is deeply Pentagonish and has emerged from the Bush administration's earliest dreams about reshaping the Middle East and achieving global domination of an unprecedented sort. It's a case, as the old Joni Mitchell song put it, of going "round and round and round in the circle game." [Note: Spencer Ackerman has been offering especially good coverage of developments surrounding the recent Bush/Maliki declaration at TPM Muckraker. I'd also like to offer one of my periodic statements of thanks to Iraq-oriented sites that give me daily aid and succor in gathering crucial material and analysis, especially Juan Cole's invaluable Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and Paul Woodward's The War in Context.] -------- Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has recently been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

NYTimes: Hugo Chavez Departs by Michael Munk Sat, Dec 1, 2007

It's hard to avoid the hysteria the NYTimes is trying to generate about the Venezuelan vote on Sunday. Simon Romero, its dependable critic of the elected President in Caracas, has contributed major articles in recent days (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/world/americas/30venez.html) and Friday Jens Gould joined him in the business section (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/worldbusiness/30chavez.html. Saturday an oped appearsd from a general Baduel who previously supported the President and who Romero has been boosting in his dispatches (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01baduel.html.) As the following ediorial makes clear, the Times is not an objective observer of Venezuela. If we remind ourselvesof its editorial support for the military putsch that, with US backing, briefly overthrew an elected President, perhaps we will better understand its current campaign. Hugo Chávez Departs Editorial New York Times: April 13, 2002 With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona. But democracy has not yet been restored, and won't be until a new president is elected. That vote has been scheduled for next spring, with new Congressional elections to be held by this December. The prompt announcement of a timetable is welcome, but a year seems rather long to wait for a legitimately elected president. Washington has a strong stake in Venezuela's recovery. Caracas now provides 15 percent of American oil imports, and with sounder policies could provide more. A stable, democratic Venezuela could help anchor a troubled region where Colombia faces expanded guerrilla warfare, Peru is seeing a rebirth of terrorism and Argentina struggles with a devastating economic crisis. Wisely, Washington never publicly demonized Mr. Chávez, denying him the role of nationalist martyr. Rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair. Public faith in Venezuela's institutions began eroding well before Mr. Chávez burst on the scene with a failed 1992 coup. Corruption discredited both main parties, and a patronage-fueled bureaucracy devoured the country's abundant oil revenues, leaving many Venezuelans desperately poor. Mr. Chávez was elected president in 1998 promising change he never delivered. He courted Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein, battled the media and alienated virtually every constituency from middle-class professionals, academics and business leaders to union members and the Roman Catholic Church. This week's crisis began with a general strike against replacing professional managers at the state oil company with political cronies. It took a grave turn Thursday when armed Chávez supporters fired on peaceful strikers, killing at least 14 and injuring hundreds. Mr. Chávez's response was characteristic. He forced five private television stations off the air for showing pictures of the massacre. Early yesterday he was compelled to resign by military commanders unwilling to order their troops to fire on fellow Venezuelans to keep him in power. He is being held at a military base and may face charges in Thursday's killings. New presidential elections should be held this year, perhaps at the same time the new Congress is chosen. Some time is needed for plausible national leaders to emerge and parties to reorganize. But Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate to clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down and professionalize the bureaucracy. One encouraging development has been the strong participation of middle-class citizens in organizing opposition groups and street protests. Continued civic participation could help revitalize Venezuela's tired political parties and keep further military involvement to a minimum. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

How the NYT spins those permanent bases by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 27, 2007

The NYTimes spin on this pact focuses on the technical aspects of the "status of forces" issue. I complained to its the writers and editors with this note: "It is remarkable that you spin your report to avoid what the rest of the world regards as the major points of the proposed agreement: that it legitimizes US permanent bases in Iraq and grant preferential treatment to US oil companies. Note the quite different AFP treatment:" US, Iraq set stage for long US presence by Olivier Knox (Agence France-Presse) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071127/ts_afp/usiraqunpoliticsbushmaliki_071127055112;_ylt=AlqyDu2E1znRbg6SwkQO1bUE1vAI Nov 27, 2007 WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki vowed Monday to agree next year on the terms for what could be an open-ended US military presence in the war-torn country. During a secure videoconference, the two leaders signed a non-binding statement of principles for the negotiations, setting a July 31, 2008 target date to formalize US-Iraq economic, political, and security relations. Maliki announced in Baghdad that the accord sets 2008 as the final year for US-led forces to operate in Iraq under a UN mandate, which the new bilateral arrangement would replace. The current one-year UN mandate expires December 31. Under the document signed and made public Monday, the new security pact would trigger the end of UN sanctions imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and return full sovereignty to the government in Baghdad. "All the justification created by the former regime is now over," Maliki said, a reference to Saddam Hussein, the dictator ousted by the March 2003 US-led invasion and later executed. At the White House, US "war czar" Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said that next year's talks would cover issues at the heart of the bitter US debate over the war -- including whether Washington would have permanent bases in Iraq, how many US troops would be stationed there, and for how long. "The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone," Lute told reporters in a briefing on the tentative accord. "The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, US presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States," the general said. Lute's remarks were notable in that top US officials, starting with Bush, have repeatedly denied seeking permanent bases in Iraq or that the US deployment -- currently at roughly 162,000 troops -- is open-ended. The Bush-Maliki agreement was also expected to raise eyebrows with one provision that cited the need to promote the flow of international capital to Iraq but "especially American investments." Monday's announcement means that the Bush administration and Iraq will work out the future of US forces in Iraq in the shadow of the November 2008 US presidential election and despite sky-high US public opposition to the war. Any resulting agreement could limit the ability of Bush's successor to break with the current US strategy, as Democratic candidates have promised to do amid increasingly vocal calls for a US withdrawal. While Maliki said any final deal would require the Iraqi parliament's approval, Lute said the accord would not need backing from the US Congress, which is in the hands of Bush's Democratic foes. "It's a mutual statement of intent that will be used to frame our formal negotiations in the course of the upcoming year. It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," he said. The hoped-for accord "will be something like a 'state of forces agreement,' which would then replace the existing Security Council mandate as the authority by which we operate alongside our Iraqi partners inside Iraq," he said. "So what US troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that, are bases required, which partners will join them -- all these things are on the negotiating table," said Lute. A status of forces agreement is usually a key part of any agreement to base US forces in another country, and often cover difficult issues like entry and exit rights and legal jurisdiction over US military personnel. Democratic Party Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi blasted Bush late Monday for planning to leave US forces mired in Iraq after his presidential term ends in January 2009. "President Bush's agreement with the Iraqi government confirms his willingness to leave office with a US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit strategy from Iraq," Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, said in a statement. "The president should take responsibility for his Iraq policy rather than expect the American people or the next administration to bear the consequences of his mistakes." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

The legal cover for those permanent bases by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 26, 2007

Iraq to Seek Long-Term US Presence By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA Nov. 26, 2007 (via CLG http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news) BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday. The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence. In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations." As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty. In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the U.N. to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008. Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said. U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal - which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year - to be the last. The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions. The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula. Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations. At the White House, Lute said the new agreement was not binding. "It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," Lute said. "Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations." Those negotiations will take place during the course of 2008, with the goal of completion by July, Lute said. The new agreement on principles spells out what the formal, final document will contain regarding political, economic and security matters. "We believe, and Iraqis' national leaders believe, that a long-term relationship with the United States is in our mutual interest," Lute said. From the Iraqi side, Lute said, having the U.S. as a "reliable, enduring partner with Iraq will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bets in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership with the United States." When asked about the plan, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the U.S. in a political declaration in August and an end to the U.N.-mandated force. "Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth." She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment." The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000. Haidar al-Abadi, a senior Dawa member of al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Alhurra television that the prime minister would write parliament in the next few days to tell lawmakers that his government would seek the renewal of the U.N. mandate for "one last time." Al-Abadi said the Iraqi government would make the renewal conditional on ending all U.N.-mandated restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty. The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence. On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the U.N. mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues." Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the U.S. on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests." He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil." One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a U.S. presence in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners. Cheers, Mike check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

pro-US Bias in Lebanon reports by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 25, 2007

Your correspondents for "Vote Is Postponed as Lebanese President Leaves" ( A3, Nov 24) reveal their pro-US bias. Of the six Lebanese politicians they interviewed for their piece, four were pro-US and only two represented the other side (which they erroneously label "pro-Syrian."). Will your editors call them to account? Mike Munk visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Kurd oil giveaways to 20 foreign cos. challenged by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 24, 2007

Iraq nullifies Kurdish oil deals by Ammar Karim Nov 24, 2007 (via Citizens for Legitimate Government http://www.legitgov.org/) BAGHDAD (AFP) - Iraq's oil ministry has declared all crude contracts signed by the Kurdish regional authorities with foreign companies null and void, a government official said on Saturday. "The ministry has nullified all contracts signed by the Kurdistan Regional Government," the official told AFP, asking not to be named. "They will not be recognised." The government in Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdish region has signed 15 exploration and exportation contracts with 20 international companies since it passed its own oil law in August, infuriating the Baghdad government. Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani has in recent weeks angrily denounced the Kurdish authorities for signing the contracts before the national parliament approves a new oil and gas law, declaring them "illegal". The government official said the minister had now gone further and nullified all the contracts and had warned the foreign companies involved that they would be blacklisted. "Minister Shahristani had warned companies who sign contracts without taking the advice of the oil ministry that the ministry would ... blacklist them from any future deals with Iraq," the government official said. "The minister had told them the oil ministry in Baghdad is the only institution authorised to sign oil contracts before the approval of the oil law." Shahristani told Monte Carlo radio on Friday that countries neighbouring Iraq would prevent the Kurdish authorities from exporting oil. "There is an understanding between Tehran, Ankara, Damascus and Baghdad," he said. "The Iraqi government had warned these companies of the consequences of entering into these contracts," the minister added. "And the consequence is that Iraq will not allow these companies to extract the oil." The Kurdish authorities reacted sharply on Saturday, saying Shahristani should take the matter to the federal tribunal which deals with disputes between the provinces and the central government. "The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) signed contracts according to laws passed by the Kurdistan provincial parliament which comply with the Iraqi constitution," said a statement on the KRG website. "The KRG considers that the minister is exceeding his authority in making these statements," it added. "His statements will not affect our contracts with foreign companies." It said his comments were reminiscent of the Arab chauvinism of Saddam Hussein's regime. "We are sorry to hear such statements, which are close to Baathist ones," it said, referring to the Baath party of the ousted dictator. Regarding the minister's comments on preventing oil being exported, the statement said: "Who said we are exporting oil? We said we signed oil contracts to explore and produce oil -- we know that there must agreement with the federal government on the issue of exporting oil." The regional government says the contracts will benefit all Iraqis as 85 percent of the returns from the deals would be for Iraq and the rest would go to the contractor. Iraq's oil and gas bill is stalled in the national parliament amid bitter differences between rival factions. When approved, the new law will open up Iraq's long state-dominated oil and gas sector to foreign investment. It will also stipulate that receipts be shared equally between Iraq's 18 provinces, a key concern for the Sunni Arab minority that Washington says has fuelled the anti-American insurgency. Iraq's oil reserves -- the world's third largest -- lie in the Kurdish north and Shiite south and the Sunnis fear the two communities could monopolise future income check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

What foreign fighters? by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 22, 2007

To the Editor, New York Times Re: your Nov. 22 front page hede "FOREIGN FIGHTERS IN IRAQ ARE TIED TO ALLIES OF THE U.S." Having been under the impression that, except for token contingents of the "Coalition of the Willing," almost all foreign fighters in Iraq are from the U.S. itself, I was alarmed that you were reporting a new invasion. But I was soon relieved that the hede referred only to a tiny handful of some 700 foreigners the U.S. military claims have come to Iraq mainly from Saudi Arabia and Libya to help the Iraqis resist the occupation. Michael Munk

US stonewalls UN request to back up Iran nuke charges by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 17, 2007

From the otherwise anti-Iran NYTimes article on the UN report. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16nuke.html?pagewanted=2 "One of the officials close to the [UN] agency said that even if all other issues of Iran's past activities were resolved, a sticking point could be the refusal of the United States to turn over classified documents Iran is demanding that involve a suspected Iranian entity called the Green Salt Project. All officials spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules. The project is said to have worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design, and the agency suspects links between Green Salt and Iran's ostensibly peaceful nuclear program. If that evidence were substantiated, it would undercut Iran's claims that its program is aimed solely at producing electrical power. Iran, while dismissing the existence of such a program, wants to take possession of the documents that the United States uncovered on a stolen laptop, which it says pertain to Green Salt. Iran could cry foul unless the Americans turn over the documents, which Dr. ElBaradei said Iran had a right to." check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

NYT ignores UN distorts UN findings on Iran nukes by Michael Munk Sat, Nov 17, 2007

I made this pont to the NYTimes editors and reporters but, as is often the case, they fail to respond. Cheers, Mike check out my website www.michaelmunk.com Prof. Juan Cole writes: November 17, 2007 Farhi: IAEA Finds Iran did not Divert Material to Weapons Some Saturday reading: At our Global Affairs group blog, Farideh Farhi takes a closer look at the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran. This issue may be the most important one in world politics today, on which war and peace hang. Farhi shows that the IAEA is saying that Iran has satisfactorily answered questions about its past nuclear energy research, and that the international body can certify that Iran has not diverted nuclear material to weapons purposes. Farhi points out that the NYT did not report either of these important findings. The IAEA is clearly frustrated with Iran for a) continuing to enrich uranium (the Iranians say it is for fuel and international law allows them to do this), and for not being 100% transparent about their energy research program. But it finds no evidence that Iran even has a weapons program, and finds a consistency between Iranian statements and IAEA findings. Farhi doesn't bring this point up, but the Israeli government is trying to get the IAEA head, Mohammed Elbaradei, fired, because he is not producing the reports that the Kadima and Likud parties want him to produce. The Israeli government had also been a big proponent of the theory that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2002, with Efraim Halevy, the head of Mossad [Israeli intelligence], making wild charges that he may have known were not true. Ironically, Israel is the country that broke the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in the Middle East and introduced nuclear weapons into the region, kicking off an arms race with Iraq that in many ways led to the Iraq War. US and American complaints about Iran's civilian energy research program never acknowledge Israel's own outlaw status with regard to nonproliferation.

Bush defies UN again on Iran by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 15, 2007

The regime in Washington (and its enablers--especially the hysterical Israelis who are calling for the UN's El ebrian's scalp) reaction to this significant report is almost identical with its response to UN inspectors in Iraq. Remember that, despits the ofuscation of this fact in the MSM, Iraq turned out to be truthful in denying it had any WsMD and Bush was exposed as the liar. IAEA: Iran generally truthful on nukes By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago VIENNA, Austria - A report from the U.N nuclear watchdog agency on Thursday found Iran to be generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history, but it warned that its knowledge of Tehran's present atomic work was shrinking. The White House said it would continue to push for a third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran despite the findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency report. The IAEA report, released to its 35 board members, also confirmed that Tehran continued to defy the U.N. Security Council by ignoring its repeated demands to freeze uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms. White House press secretary Dana Perino said the report indicated that Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities and continues to defy the international community. "We believe that selective cooperation is not good enough," she said. "Iran continues to walk away from a deal that has been offered to them. We said they can have a civil nuclear program if they'll just suspend their current activities." But top Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili said the report shows that new sanctions would be "illegal action," adding that Iran has answered all the questions by the IAEA and made "good progress" in cooperating with it. In light of the IAEA report, "many accusations are now baseless," Jalili said, referring to U.S. assertions that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons. "Those powers who base their accusations on this I hope will reconsider what they say," he said. If new U.N. sanctions are approved, "you should be asking what is the logic in this," Jalili told reporters in Tehran. Britain's Foreign Office also said it would pursue further sanctions from the Security Council and the European Union. "If Iran wants to restore trust in its program, it must come clean on all outstanding issues without delay," the statement said. It also said Tehran must restore broader and stronger inspection rights to IAEA teams and mothball its enrichment activities to avoid such penalties. Much of the 10-page report made available to The Associated Press focused on the history of Iran's black-market procurements and past development of its enrichment technology - and the agency appeared to be giving Tehran a pass on that issue, repeatedly saying it concludes that "Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency." A senior U.N. official said that language did not mean that the IAEA's investigation into past enrichment activities was "closed," even though a work plan between the agency and Tehran set November as the deadline for clearing up the issue. In Washington, the State Department suggested that China was blocking plans for a new meeting, tentatively set for Monday, of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany to discuss a new sanctions resolution. "Frankly, what we need now is for the Chinese to play a constructive role in scheduling the meeting, but also to have constructive, effective conversations about the elements of the resolution," spokesman Sean McCormack said. "We're looking for them to play a constructive role," he said. "They have in the past and we're looking for them to again take up a constructive role in scheduling the meeting and once we have the meeting coming to agreement on the elements and language of the resolution." McCormack declined to comment specifically on what China had told the other members of the group about the meeting to be held at the political directors level. Jalili insisted Iran has an irrefutable right to its nuclear program. "Iran has shown it is working within the framework of the law but at the same time, we want our (nuclear) rights," Jalili said. "We have done everything to have a peaceful nuclear program." He said the IAEA report listed a "number of articles that refer to Iran's cooperation with the agency" and that this shows claims of nuclear material being used for a military program have been false. Jalili insisted Iran was enthusiastic about continuing talks with the IAEA, which he said now has "complete supervision" of Iran's uranium enrichment program. Last week, Iran said it stepped up uranium enrichment activities by fully running 3,000 centrifuges at its nuclear plant in the central city of Natanz. It would take some 54,000 centrifuges to fuel a reactor. Two rounds of U.N. sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to halt the uranium enrichment, a technology that check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Un Sec Council to extend Bush's occupation by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 12, 2007

Iraqi Government to UN: 'Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation' /////////////////////////////////// by Joshua Holland & Raed Jarrar AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/story/67383/?page=entire November 9, 2007 The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It's an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it's in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq's nascent democracy (which needs all the legitimacy it can get). While the Bush administration frequently invokes sunny visions of spreading democracy and "freedom" around the world, the fact remains that democracy is incompatible with its goals in Iraq. The fact remains that the biggest headache supporters of the occupation of Iraq have to deal with is the fact of the occupation itself. As far back as the middle of 2004, more than nine out of 10 Iraqis said the U.S.-led forces were "occupiers," and only 2 percent called them "liberators." Things have only gone downhill since then, and any government that represents the will of the Iraqi people would have no choice but to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. This fact poses an enormous problem, as the great triumph of the Bush administration and its supporters has been in their ability to convince a much of the Americans population that Iraqi interests and Washington's interests are in harmony, even when they're diametrically opposed. Crucial to this fiction is a U.N. mandate that confers legal cover on the so-called "multinational" forces in Iraq. The mandate is now coming up for renewal, and a majority of Iraqi legislators oppose its renewal unless conditions are placed on it, conditions that may include a demand for a timetable for the departure of American troops. Full story: http://www.alternet.org/story/67383/?page=entire Cheers, Mike check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dem whip enables regime in Washington by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 12, 2007

Deputy Democratic Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20th, mainly Broward Co) is carrying water for the regime in Washington. Her office is 202.225-7931. House Dem Defends Leadership Decision to Quash Impeachment //////////////////////////////////////////////// by Nick Juliano RAW STORY (via Cord Meyer) http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_Dem_defends_leadership_decision_to_1109.html November 9, 2007 A House Democratic leader defended the party's decision not to pursue the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, saying an effort to oust the man who is among the most vocal pushing for war with Iran is "not even in the top 10" of voters' priorities and would benefit Republicans at the polls next year. In a heated exchange Thursday with liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the deputy Democratic whip, said the party, which dramatically swept into power last year, was more focused on other priorities. Voters asked Congress "to focus on withdrawing our troops from iraq, on expanding healthcare access. ... They did not ask us to spend any time on the impeachment of the vice president," Wasserman Schultz insisted. Impeachment would prevent Congress from addressing issues like the war in Iraq, healthcare, renewable energy and the environment. "That is all the media would focus on. ... And to what end?" she asked, arguing that Bush was the real problem and removing Cheney wouldn't make a significant difference with only a year until the next election. "We need to tough out the next 12 months and focus hard on the results-oriented Democratic Congress that we know we are," she said. Schultz argued that results were precisely what was lacking -- especially Democrats' inability to force a change in course in the president's war in Iraq. "This president has gotten everything that he's wanted from the Democratic Congress since the day you folks took power," the host charged. Schultz said Democrats need to stand firm and refuse to pass any more funding for the war in Iraq; he said Cheney's impeachment might be the country's best hope to avoid war in Iran. This week, Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought a privileged resolution to the House floor that would have impeached Cheney. Republicans foiled an attempt by Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to kill the motion, and the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Wasserman Schultz voted for Hoyer's motion to table the impeachment bill, and she was defending that vote on Schultz's show Thursday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Conyer's committee would not begin impeachment hearings, although several members of the committee are co-sponsors of Kucinich's impeachment resolution. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who's district neighbors Wasserman Schultz's, called for the committee to "schedule impeachment hearings immediately". "I believe Robert Wexler is off base," Wasserman Schultz said. *** Audio clip: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_Dem_defends_leadership_decision_to_1109.html

Tom Hayden to Barack Obama by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 12, 2007

The six torture Dems by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 9, 2007

What Greenspan really wrote about oil and Iraq by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 6, 2007

The November Monthly Review's "Notes from the Editors" reveals for those of us who haven't read his book what Greenspan really wrote about oil and the invasion of Iraq. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan's new book The Age of Turbulence (Penguin 2007)set off a firestorm in mid-September with its dramatic statement on the Iraq War: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: that the Iraq war is largely about oil" (p. 463). The fact that someone of Greenspan's stature in the establishment-one of the figures at the very apex of monopoly-finance capital-should issue such a twenty word statement, going against the official truths on the war, and openly voicing what "everyone knows," was remarkable enough. Yet, his actual argument was far more significant, and since this has been almost completely ignored it deserves extended treatment here. Greenspan's statement came in a chapter entitled "The Long-Term Energy Squeeze." Here he argues that "as long as the United States is beholden to potentially unfriendly sources of oil and gas, we are vulnerable to economic crises over which we have little control." This is the product, he claims, of an overriding fact of today's global economy: "[W]orld growth over the next quarter century at rates commensurate with the past quarter century will require between one-fourth and two-fifths more oil than we use today" (p. 462). Moreover, Greenspan insists that: the intense attention of the developed world to Middle Eastern political affairs has always been critically tied to oil security. The reaction to, and reversal of, Mossadeq's nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil in 1951 and the aborted effort of Britain and France to reverse Nasser's takeover of the key Suez Canal link for oil flows to Europe in 1956 are two prominent examples. And whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy....[P]rojections of world oil supply and demand that do not note the highly precarious environment of the Middle East are avoiding the eight-hundred-pound gorilla that could bring world economic growth to a halt. (p. 463) Greenspan thus historically connected the U.S. invasion of Iraq to the CIA's overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq and his government in 1953 and the placing of the Shah in power and to Britain and France's invasion (along with Israel) of Egypt in 1956-after which the United States took over the role of the leading imperialist power in the region. Greenspan's explanation for the war, which sees it as part of the Western search for "oil security"-not on behalf of the "world economy" as a whole, as his statement might suggest, but on behalf of the dominant interests in a hierarchical world economy-is thus not far removed from the account that first appeared in these pages in December 2002 before the Iraq War began. There we said "Military, political, and economic aspects are intertwined in all stages of imperialism, as well as capitalism in general. However, oil is the single most important strategic factor governing U.S. ambitions in the Middle East....The U.S. Department of Energy projects that global oil demand could grow from the current 77 million barrels a day to as much as 120 million barrels a day in the next twenty years....For this reason the security and availability of oil supplies has become a growing issue for U.S. corporations and U.S. strategic interests" (pp. 9-11; see also John Bellamy Foster, Naked Imperialism, pp. 92-93). After the release of his book Greenspan was pressed by the Bush administration to say that it had not gone to war over oil. Greenspan cagily responded with a Hegelian ruse of history (wherein the real logic operates behind the backs of the actors): "I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out of there." For Greenspan it was all about oil and the capitalist world economy, and the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was therefore justified, in his eyes, in order for the United States to gain control of the world oil supply on behalf of the "developed world"-in line with a long history of economic empire. There could hardly be a better statement on economic imperialism by a person better positioned to know. As Robert Ebel, senior adviser in the Energy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has worked with the CIA and the State Department's "Future of Iraq Project," explained: "When we went into Iraq, I said it's about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Once we got rid of Saddam Hussein, then the day after it would be about oil" (UPI, "Analysis: Iraq, Oil, and Greenspan's Gospel," September 19, 2007, http://www.upi.com). This whole dynamic might be given a name "The Greenspan Oil Doctrine." check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

US grabs Russian Iraq oil deal by Michael Munk Sun, Nov 4, 2007

Iraq, With U.S. Support, Voids a Russian Oil Contract /////////////////////////////////////////// by Andrew E. Kramer New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/middleeast/04oil.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin November 4, 2007 BAGHDAD - Guided by American legal advisers, the Iraqi government has canceled a controversial development contract with the Russian company Lukoil for a vast oil field in Iraq's southern desert, freeing it up for potential international investment in the future. In response, Russian authorities have threatened to revoke a 2004 deal under the Paris Club of creditor nations to forgive $13 billion in Iraqi debt, a senior Iraqi official said. The field, West Qurna, has estimated reserves of 11 billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven oil reserves of Exxon Mobil, America's largest oil company. Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, said in an interview that the field would be opened to new bidders, perhaps as early as next year. The contract, which had been signed and later canceled by the Saddam Hussein government, had been in legal limbo since the American invasion. But the Kremlin remained hopeful it could be salvaged until this September, when Mr. Shahristani traveled to Moscow to inform officials there that the decision to cancel it was final, he said. The Russian government, newly emboldened in international affairs by its expanding oil wealth, is still backing Lukoil's claim and protesting what it considers selective enforcement of contracts in Iraq. "We will defend our interests," Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said in a telephone interview. "It is the government's obligation to defend the interests of our companies in foreign countries." One Iraqi official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a confidential diplomatic exchange, described Russia's response as, "If you do the deal, we can muster the political muscle to forgive the debt." West Qurna, mapped by Soviet geologists in the 1980s but mostly untapped, is one of a dozen or so supergiant oil fields in the world. They are known in the industry as "elephants," fields so large they can tip the fortunes of companies or countries. The field will produce one million barrels of oil a day after four to five years of development, according to both Iraqi oil officials and Lukoil; that is the approximate equivalent of the current output of the North Slope in Alaska. In Lukoil's 1997 production-sharing agreement, Saddam Hussein's government awarded the company development rights to the 11 billion barrels of oil for a paltry signing bonus of $10 million. The deal, concluded when Iraq was seeking Russian support in a failed effort to lift United Nations sanctions, allotted 9.6 percent of the output to Lukoil. The contract presented a quandary for the United States, which has been accused by some critics of invading Iraq for its oil. There is little evidence to date that the war effort has given American oil companies an inside track to Iraq's reserves, and the Lukoil deal is the only one involving a major oil company to be reversed since the start of the war. But as a cornerstone of its foreign policy, the United States has argued vigorously for countries to honor petroleum contracts. In that light, condoning the cancellation of the Lukoil contract could be seen in some quarters as evidence of a double standard. "From the Russian government perspective, Iraq is seen as occupied and its administration directed by Washington, particularly when it comes to oil," Vladimir I. Tikhomirov, chief economist at the Russian bank UralSib, said in a telephone interview. "The Russians see the cancellation of their contract in Iraq as part of the U.S. drive to keep control over the major oil fields there," he said. The Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, has raised the issue with President Bush several times since the 2003 invasion. In an interview with the BBC in June 2003, Mr. Putin said Mr. Bush had gone as far as offering assurances. "At our last meeting," Mr. Putin said, "Bush directly and clearly said, 'We do not have any goals of pressuring Russian companies out of Iraq and we are ready to create the conditions for working together there.' I have no reason not to believe him." The legality of the Lukoil contract remains murky. It is Iraq's stated policy, as laid out in a draft oil law now before Parliament, to honor contracts signed by the Saddam Hussein government. It is doing just that with contracts with Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian and Indian oil companies. But the Iraqis note that it was the Saddam Hussein government that canceled the Lukoil contract. The government's spokesman, Tariq Aziz, said at the time that the government believed the Russians were negotiating with the Americans to secure the contract in event of an invasion. Early in the American occupation, the question arose whether the Hussein government's decision was valid, said Michael Stinson, the former chief adviser to the Iraqi Oil Ministry. The answer was supplied by the principal American legal adviser to the ministry at the time, Robert Maguire, who Mr. Stinson said was then working for the Defense Department. Mr. Maguire drew on pre-Hussein-era law to justify the cancellation, Mr. Stinson said.

NYT ignores UN vote against blockade by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 1, 2007

When the NT times buried the almost unanimous UN vote against the US blocakde of Cuba (only the US dependencies of the Marshall Islands, Israel and Paula voted with the regime in Washington), I protested to Warren Hoge, the writer of the brief notice. I wrote: "Remarkable! The minimuim possible space you devoted to what was headline news in most of the rest of the world." His response: "the space decision was not mine (it was the editors') but i had no quarrel with it. the vote was entirely predictable (in fact it was identical to the vote the year before) and therefore not very competitive with other news. the editors' decisions each night depend upon what is happening around the world and what will fit into the allotted space, and to make the un vote larger, they would have had to throw something else out of the paper. also, the times had devoted space the week before on two consecutive days to the cuban embargo when president bush said it would be maintained so the arguments both pro and con had been completely rehearsed in the paper. thank you for your message. warren hoge " On Cuba, the U.S. is an island The president's hard-line anti-Castro policy is costing him international support. By Paolo Spadoni Los Angeles Times, October 31, 2007 In an emotional speech last week before government officials, prominent Cuban exiles and families of jailed Cuban dissidents, President Bush unveiled new U.S. initiatives aimed at hastening a democratic transition in Cuba. He also ruled out any detente with the communist nation even if interim President Raul Castro were to permanently succeed his brother, Fidel, and enact substantial economic reforms. Stressing that an eventual transfer of power from Fidel to Raul would simply amount to "exchanging one dictator for another," Bush announced the creation of a multibillion-dollar international "freedom fund" that would help pay for infrastructure improvements and other programs in Cuba after the island's citizens rid themselves of their "tropical gulag." Furthermore, Bush declared that the United States is willing to offer scholarships to students in Cuba and to license religious groups and nongovernmental organizations to provide computers and Internet access to the Cuban people, "but only if the Cuban regime, the ruling class, gets out of the way." Leaving aside Bush's archaic rhetoric and his dangerous message for the Cuban people to "rise up to demand their liberty," one cannot avoid wondering how he can realistically seek financial contributions from other countries to support U.S. pro-democracy efforts in Cuba. These are the same countries that have repeatedly condemned Washington's hostile policy toward Havana and told the U.S. to change its unilateral approach. Indeed, coming from a leader who has neglected the will of the international community for years, Bush's calls for a Cuba democracy fund will likely fall on deaf ears. The U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday held its annual vote on U.S. economic sanctions with respect to Cuba, and it overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for an end to the 45-year-old embargo and objecting to U.S. laws and regulations compelling other countries to adhere to it. Before Congress' passage of the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992, Cuba had not been able to obtain a General Assembly resolution against the U.S. embargo. That law, among other things, prevents cargo vessels from third countries from docking in U.S. ports if they visited Cuba in the previous six months. In November 1992, because of international concern regarding the extraterritorial character of the U.S. legislation, the United Nations condemned the embargo by a vote of 59 to 3 (with 71 countries abstaining). Since then, the vote has become more lopsided. In 1998, 157 governments expressed disapproval of U.S. sanctions (with 12 abstentions). Bush's tougher stance on Havana and his pressure on other countries to curtail their business relationships with the Castro regime have just galvanized the international community even more and isolated the U.S. further. The number of countries opposing the embargo in the U.N. peaked at 184 this year, with only Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau siding with the United States. It is worth mentioning that several European and Latin American governments have voted in favor of U.N. resolutions criticizing the human rights situation in Cuba. The reality is that many countries share U.S. hopes for democratic changes on the island, but they disagree with Washington over the best course of action to stimulate those changes. Even close U.S. allies (and perhaps likely contributors to the proposed freedom fund) such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- touted by Bush as "vital sources of support and encouragement to Cuba's brave democratic opposition" -- rejected U.S. sanctions in the United Nations. In short, if the White House is serious in its attempt to reach out to other countries on Cuba, it needs to devise a foreign policy that is more in line with the position of the rest of the world and less driven by domestic political considerations. When a billboard war between Cuba and the U.S. broke out in early 2006 in Havana, one of the messages displayed on a huge electronic sign at the U.S. Interest Section was a famous quote by former Polish President Lech Walesa: "Only in totalitarian societies do governments talk and talk at their people and never listen." As the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, Bush should stop pandering to a shrinking group of Cuban American hard-liners and start listening to that world he claims to represent. Paolo Spadoni is a visiting assistant professor in the department of political science at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla.

It's about oil but not in the MSM by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 12, 2007

This worthy article reflects what is received wisdom in the rest of the world. It also suggests that when Clinton talks those "vital US interests"--code words for what will compel any new president to stay in Iraq-- this is what she's talking about. Buit you have to go to the London Review of Books for it: the NYTimes even censored Greenspan's quote(see below) http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html It's the Oil London Review of Books Oct. 18, 2007 Jim Holt writes for the New York Times Magazine and the New Yorker. So how come he didn't publish this in the US? Iraq is 'unwinnable', a 'quagmire', a 'fiasco': so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be 'stuck' precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no 'exit strategy'. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world's oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today's prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion. Who will get Iraq's oil? One of the Bush administration's 'benchmarks' for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest - including all yet to be discovered oil - under foreign corporate control for 30 years. 'The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy,' the analyst Antonia Juhasz wrote in the New York Times in March, after the draft law was leaked. 'They could even ride out Iraq's current "instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.' As negotiations over the oil law stalled in September, the provincial government in Kurdistan simply signed a separate deal with the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, headed by a close political ally of President Bush. How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient 'super-bases' are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions. (It takes a brave reporter to leave the Green Zone without a military escort.) In February last year, the Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks described one such facility, the Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad. A piece of (well-fortified) American suburbia in the middle of the Iraqi desert, Balad has fast-food joints, a miniature golf course, a football field, a cinema and distinct neighbourhoods - among them, 'KBR-land', named after the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the construction work at the base. Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world's busiest. 'We are behind only Heathrow right now,' an air force commander told Ricks. The Defense Department was initially coy about these bases. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said: 'I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting.' But this summer the Bush administration began to talk openly about stationing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades, to come. Several visitors to the White House have told the New York Times that the president himself has become fond of referring to the 'Korea model'. When the House of Representatives voted to bar funding for 'permanent bases' in Iraq, the new term of choice became 'enduring bases', as if three or four decades wasn't effectively an eternity. But will the US be able to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule that conveniently brands itself as 'al-Qaida' is exterminated. The civil war may gradually lose intensity as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds withdraw into separate enclaves, reducing the surface area for sectarian friction, and as warlords consolidate local authority. De facto partition will be the result. But this partition can never become de jure. (An independent Kurdistan in the north might upset Turkey, an independent Shia region in the east might become a satellite of Iran, and an independent Sunni region in the west might harbour al-Qaida.) Presiding over this Balkanised Iraq will be a weak federal government in Baghdad, propped up and overseen by the Pentagon-scale US embassy that has just been constructed - a green zone within the Green Zone. As for the number of US troops permanently stationed in Iraq, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, told Congress at the end of September that 'in his head' he saw the long-term force as consisting of five combat brigades, a quarter of the current number, which, with support personnel, would mean 35,000 troops at the very minimum, probably accompanied by an equal number of mercenary contractors. (He may have been erring on the side of modesty, since the five super-bases can accommodate between ten and twenty thousand troops each.) These forces will occasionally leave their bases to tamp down civil skirmishes, at a declining cost in casualties. As a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times in June, the long-term bases 'are all places we could fly in and out of without putting Americans on every street corner'. But their main day-to-day function will be to protect the oil infrastructure. This is the 'mess' that Bush-Cheney is going to hand on to the next administration. What if that administration is a Democratic one? Will it dismantle the bases and withdraw US forces entirely? That seems unlikely, considering the many beneficiaries of the continued occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of its oil resources. The three principal Democratic candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - have already hedged their bets, refusing to promise that, if elected, they would remove American forces from Iraq before 2013, the end of their first term. Among the winners: oil-services companies like Halliburton; the oil companies themselves (the profits will be unimaginable, and even Democrats can be bought); US voters, who will be guaranteed price stability at the gas pump (which sometimes seems to be all they care about); Europe and Japan, which will both benefit from Western control of such a large part of the world's oil reserves, and whose leaders will therefore wink at the permanent occupation; and, oddly enough, Osama bin Laden, who will never again have to worry about US troops profaning the holy places of Mecca and Medina, since the stability of the House of Saud will no longer be paramount among American concerns. Among the losers is Russia, which will no longer be able to lord its own energy resources over Europe. Another big loser is Opec, and especially Saudi Arabia, whose power to keep oil prices high by enforcing production quotas will be seriously compromised. Then there is the case of Iran, which is more complicated. In the short term, Iran has done quite well out of the Iraq war. Iraq's ruling Shia coalition is now dominated by a faction friendly to Tehran, and the US has willy-nilly armed and trained the most pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi military. As for Iran's nuclear programme, neither air strikes nor negotiations seem likely to derail it at the moment. But the Iranian regime is precarious. Unpopular mullahs hold onto power by financing internal security services and buying off elites with oil money, which accounts for 70 per cent of government revenues. If the price of oil were suddenly to drop to, say, $40 a barrel (from a current price just north of $80), the repressive regime in Tehran would lose its steady income. And that is an outcome the US could easily achieve by opening the Iraqi oil spigot for as long as necessary (perhaps taking down Venezuela's oil-cocky Hugo Chávez into the bargain). And think of the United States vis-à-vis China. As a consequence of our trade deficit, around a trillion dollars' worth of US denominated debt (including $400 billion in US Treasury bonds) is held by China. This gives Beijing enormous leverage over Washington: by offloading big chunks of US debt, China could bring the American economy to its knees. China's own economy is, according to official figures, expanding at something like 10 per cent a year. Even if the actual figure is closer to 4 or 5 per cent, as some believe, China's increasing heft poses a threat to US interests. (One fact: China is acquiring new submarines five times faster than the US.) And the main constraint on China's growth is its access to energy - which, with the US in control of the biggest share of world oil, would largely be at Washington's sufferance. Thus is the Chinese threat neutralised. Many people are still perplexed by exactly what moved Bush-Cheney to invade and occupy Iraq. In the 27 September issue of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Powers, one of the most astute watchers of the intelligence world, admitted to a degree of bafflement. 'What's particularly odd,' he wrote, 'is that there seems to be no sophisticated, professional, insiders' version of the thinking that drove events.' Alan Greenspan, in his just published memoir, is clearer on the matter. 'I am saddened,' he writes, 'that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.' Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney's 2001 energy task force? One can't know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of 'executive privilege'. One can't say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards 'nation-building' has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades - a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics - dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final 'surge' that has hastened internal migration - could scarcely have been more effective. The costs - a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) - are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success. Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.

Challenging Humanitarian Intervention by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 9, 2007

Permanent US bases in Afganistan, too. by Michael Munk Sat, Oct 6, 2007

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C80825.58BEA380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 6 years later, US expands Afghan base=20 By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer=20 Oct 6,2007 =20 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006/ap_on_re_as/afghan_six_years_later_1;= _ylt=3DAr.OS82ZN3iceybZJiLH2M0E1vAI BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) - Six years after the first U.S. bombs began = falling on Afghanistan's Taliban government and its al-Qaida guests, = America is planning for a long stay.=20 Originally envisioned as a temporary home for invading U.S. forces, the = sprawling American base at Bagram, a former Soviet outpost in the shadow = of the towering Hindu Kush mountains, is growing in size by nearly a = third. Today the U.S. has about 25,000 troops in the country, and other NATO = nations contribute another 25,000, more than three times the number of = international troops in the country four years ago, when the Taliban = appeared defeated. The Islamic militia has come roaring back since then, and 2007 has been = the battle's bloodiest year yet. Barnett R. Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan at New York University, said = U.S. leaders in Washington "utterly failed" to understand what was = needed to consolidate that original Taliban rout, which started with = airstrikes on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks = in Washington and New York. "The Bush administration did not see Afghanistan as a long-term = commitment, and its leaders deceived themselves into thinking they had = won an irreversible victory. They did not consider Afghanistan important = and always intended to focus on Iraq," he said. "Now the U.S. and international community have fallen way behind, and = the Taliban are winning strategically, even if we defeat them in every = tactical engagement," he added. At Bagram, new barracks will help accommodate the record number of U.S. = troops in the country. "We've grown in our commitment to Afghanistan by putting another brigade = (of troops) here, and with that we know that we're going to have an = enduring presence," said Col. Jonathan Ives. "So this is going to become = a long-term base for us, whether that means five years, 10 years - we = don't know." Insurgents have launched more than 100 suicide attacks this year, an = unprecedented pace, including a bombing in Kabul on Saturday against a = U.S. convoy that killed an American soldier and four Afghan civilians - = the third suicide blast in Kabul in a week. More than 5,100 people - mostly militants - have died in insurgency = related violence so far this year, according to an Associated Press = count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials. That far = outpaces last year's violence, when the AP count topped 4,000 for the = entire year. Some 87 U.S. troops have also died so far this year, also a record pace. = About 90 U.S. servicemembers were killed in all of last year. Wide areas of the south - in Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces - = are controlled by the Taliban, and the fighting is migrating north, into = Ghazni province - where 23 South Koreans were kidnapped in July - and = Wardak, right next door to Kabul, the capital. Osama bin Laden, whose presence here was a trigger for the U.S.-led = attack, is still at large, possibly hiding in the mountains along the = Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And Afghan farmers this year grew a record amount of opium poppy, = prompting officials to draw up plans to use the military in drug = interdiction missions against traffickers. Rubin said Washington ignored how difficult the fight would be and = wanted to prevent U.S. forces from being tied down in nation-building = exercises as in the Balkans. "Since 2005, U.S. generals have told me (former Defense Secretary Donald = Rumsfeld) was drumming his fingers on the table trying to find out when = he could take the troops out," Rubin said. "Now the administration has = completely reversed itself, but of course without ever admitting it was = wrong and still without a strategy that has a serious chance of = success." Still, U.S. commanders point out that military operations have killed = more than 50 mid- and high-level Taliban commanders this year, causing = at least a temporary disruption in the militants' abilities. The Afghan = army participated in its first jointly planned and executed operation, = in Ghazni province, earlier this summer.=20 Originally, Pentagon planners thought Bagram would be a "temporary" = camp, Ives said, but an increased U.S. commitment to Afghanistan means = Bagram needs to grow.=20 "Where we designed a base around 3,000 (troops), it quickly moved to = 7,000 and now we're housing about 13,000, so just in a very short period = of time you've grown not necessarily exponentially but you've definitely = doubled just about every two years," Ives said.=20 A new runway accommodates heavier C-5 cargo planes and Boeing 747s. New = soldiers' barracks - safer and more comfortable than the wooden = structures that dot Bagram - are being built. And more workers are = flowing in. Two years ago, some 1,500 Afghans worked in support roles at = Bagram; today 5,000 walk through its front gates daily.=20 Six years after CIA agents and Special Forces soldiers helped the = Northern Alliance swoop down from their northern stronghold toward = Taliban-controlled Kabul, President Hamid Karzai is increasingly asking = that Taliban militants join the government through peace talks. And the = U.N. has said an increasing number of fighters want peace.=20 But the Taliban and factional warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the = militant group Hezb-i-Islami, have rejected those offers, saying that = international troops must first leave the country.=20 Although the Taliban seems to have an endless recruiting base in the = ethnic Pashtun heartland in southern and eastern Afghanistan and the = Pakistan border region, some fighters are laying down their arms and = joining the government.=20 Officials in Ghazni province on Saturday said some 50 militants from = Andar District - a Taliban stronghold where some of the Korean hostages = were held - will join the government's reconciliation process.=20 But the U.S. will mentor Afghanistan's military for years to come, Ives = said. He said America's military and aid commitments to Afghanistan are = "speaking volumes."=20 "Our commitment to them is really saying we will be here until you have = the security and stability that allows you to be a developing country on = your own, and if that's 10 years then it's 10 years," he said. "But I = think the thing is we're looking to help them as much as we can." ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C80825.58BEA380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  6 years = later, US=20 expands Afghan base   By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press = Writer Oct=20 6,2007  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2= 0071006/ap_on_re_as/afghan_six_years_later_1;_ylt=3DAr.OS82ZN3iceybZJiLH2= M0E1vAI BAGRAM, Afghanistan (AP) - Six = years after=20 the first U.S. bombs began falling on Afghanistan's Taliban government = and its=20 al-Qaida guests, America is planning for a long stay.=20   Originally envisioned as a temporary = home for=20 invading U.S. forces, the sprawling American base at Bagram, a former = Soviet=20 outpost in the shadow of the towering Hindu Kush mountains, is growing = in size=20 by nearly a third.   Today the U.S. has about 25,000 troops = in the=20 country, and other NATO nations contribute another 25,000, more than = three times=20 the number of international troops in the country four years ago, when = the=20 Taliban appeared defeated.   The Islamic militia has come roaring = back since=20 then, and 2007 has been the battle's bloodiest year yet.   Barnett R. Rubin, an expert on = Afghanistan at New=20 York University, said U.S. leaders in Washington "utterly failed" to = understand=20 what was needed to consolidate that original Taliban rout, which started = with=20 airstrikes on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks = in=20 Washington and New York.   "The Bush administration did not see = Afghanistan as=20 a long-term commitment, and its leaders deceived themselves into = thinking they=20 had won an irreversible victory. They did not consider Afghanistan = important and=20 always intended to focus on Iraq," he said.   "Now the U.S. and international = community have=20 fallen way behind, and the Taliban are winning strategically, even if we = defeat=20 them in every tactical engagement," he added.   At Bagram, new barracks will help = accommodate the=20 record number of U.S. troops in the country.   "We've grown in our commitment to = Afghanistan by=20 putting another brigade (of troops) here, and with that we know that = we're going=20 to have an enduring presence," said Col. Jonathan Ives. "So this is = going to=20 become a long-term base for us, whether that means five years, 10 years = =97 we=20 don't know."   Insurgents have launched more than 100 = suicide=20 attacks this year, an unprecedented pace, including a bombing in Kabul = on=20 Saturday against a U.S. convoy that killed an American soldier and four = Afghan=20 civilians =97 the third suicide blast in Kabul in a week.   More than 5,100 people =97 mostly = militants =97 have=20 died in insurgency related violence so far this year, according to an = Associated=20 Press count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials. That far = outpaces last year's violence, when the AP count topped 4,000 for the = entire=20 year.   Some 87 U.S. troops have also died so = far this=20 year, also a record pace. About 90 U.S. servicemembers were killed in = all of=20 last year.   Wide areas of the south =97 in Helmand, = Kandahar and=20 Uruzgan provinces =97 are controlled by the Taliban, and the fighting is = migrating=20 north, into Ghazni province =97 where 23 South Koreans were kidnapped in = July =97=20 and Wardak, right next door to Kabul, the capital.   Osama bin Laden, whose presence here = was a trigger=20 for the U.S.-led attack, is still at large, possibly hiding in the = mountains=20 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.   And Afghan farmers this year grew a = record amount=20 of opium poppy, prompting officials to draw up plans to use the military = in drug=20 interdiction missions against traffickers.   Rubin said Washington ignored how = difficult the=20 fight would be and wanted to prevent U.S. forces from being tied down in = nation-building exercises as in the Balkans.   "Since 2005, U.S. generals have told me = (former=20 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) was drumming his fingers on the table = trying=20 to find out when he could take the troops out," Rubin said. "Now the=20 administration has completely reversed itself, but of course without = ever=20 admitting it was wrong and still without a strategy that has a serious = chance of=20 success."   Still, U.S. commanders point out that = military=20 operations have killed more than 50 mid- and high-level Taliban = commanders this=20 year, causing at least a temporary disruption in the militants' = abilities. The=20 Afghan army participated in its first jointly planned and executed = operation, in=20 Ghazni province, earlier this summer.   Originally, Pentagon planners thought = Bagram would=20 be a "temporary" camp, Ives said, but an increased U.S. commitment to=20 Afghanistan means Bagram needs to grow.   "Where we designed a base around 3,000 = (troops), it=20 quickly moved to 7,000 and now we're housing about 13,000, so just in a = very=20 short period of time you've grown not necessarily exponentially but = you've=20 definitely doubled just about every two years," Ives said.   A new runway accommodates heavier C-5 = cargo planes=20 and Boeing 747s. New soldiers' barracks =97 safer and more comfortable = than the=20 wooden structures that dot Bagram =97 are being built. And more workers = are=20 flowing in. Two years ago, some 1,500 Afghans worked in support roles at = Bagram;=20 today 5,000 walk through its front gates daily.   Six years after CIA agents and Special = Forces=20 soldiers helped the Northern Alliance swoop down from their northern = stronghold=20 toward Taliban-controlled Kabul, President Hamid Karzai is increasingly = asking=20 that Taliban militants join the government through peace talks. And the = U.N. has=20 said an increasing number of fighters want peace.   But the Taliban and factional warlord = Gulbuddin=20 Hekmatyar, leader of the militant group Hezb-i-Islami, have rejected = those=20 offers, saying that international troops must first leave the country.=20   Although the Taliban seems to have an = endless=20 recruiting base in the ethnic Pashtun heartland in southern and eastern=20 Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region, some fighters are laying = down their=20 arms and joining the government.   Officials in Ghazni province on = Saturday said some=20 50 militants from Andar District =97 a Taliban stronghold where some of = the Korean=20 hostages were held =97 will join the government's reconciliation = process.=20   But the U.S. will mentor Afghanistan's = military for=20 years to come, Ives said. He said America's military and aid commitments = to=20 Afghanistan are "speaking volumes."   "Our commitment to them is really = saying we will be=20 here until you have the security and stability that allows you to be a=20 developing country on your own, and if that's 10 years then it's 10 = years," he=20 said. "But I think the thing is we're looking to help them as much as we = can." ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C80825.58BEA380--

Helen Thomas blasts Dems by Michael Munk Sat, Oct 6, 2007

The Democrats who enable Bush By HELEN THOMAS Seattle PI Oct 4, 2007 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/334324_thomas05.html> WASHINGTON -- President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party's leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war. Last week at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it? When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting." Obama dodged, too: "I think it would be irresponsible" to say what he would do as president. Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: "I cannot make that commitment." They have left the voters little choice with those answers. Some supporters were outraged at the obfuscation by the Democratic front-runners. On the other hand, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., are more definitive in their calls for quick troop withdrawals. But Biden wants to break up Iraq into three provinces along religious and ethnic lines. In other words, Balkanize Iraq. To have major Democratic backing to stay the course in Iraq added up to good news for Bush. Now comes a surprising Clinton fan. President Bush told Bill Sammon -- Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled "The Evangelical President" -- that Clinton will beat Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination because she is a "formidable candidate" and better known. Sammon says Bush revealed that he has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to "maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq." The author said Bush contends that whoever inherits the White House will be faced with a potential vacuum in Iraq and "will begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy." Bush ought to know about campaign rhetoric. Remember how he ridiculed "nation building" in the 2000 presidential campaign? Now he claims he is trying to spread democracy throughout the Middle East. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another Democratic leader who has empowered Bush's war. Pelosi removed a provision from the most recent war-funding bill that would have required Bush to seek the permission of Congress before launching any attack on Iran. Her spokesman gave the lame excuse that she didn't like the wording of the provision. More likely, she bowed to political pressure. Is it any wonder the Democrats are faring lower than the president in a Washington Post ABC approval poll? Bush came in at 33 percent and Congress at 29 percent. Members of Congress seem to have forgotten their constitutional prerogative to declare war; World War II was the last time Congress formally declared war. Presidents have found other ways to make end runs around the law, mainly by obtaining congressional authorization "to do whatever is necessary" in a crisis involving use of the military. That's the way we got into the Vietnam and Iraq wars. So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle? Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2007 Hearst Newspapers. On Nov. 3 Thomas will be the guest speaker at the ACLU of Washington's Bill of Rights Celebration Dinner; for details, contact aclu-wa.org.

Not for dissemination in the US by Michael Munk Thu, Oct 4, 2007

Attention Business Editors:http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2007/02/c7256.html Heritage Oil awarded production sharing contract in Kurdistan Region of Iraq THIS PRESS RELEASE IS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES via: clg_news@legitgov.org CALGARY, Oct. 2 /CNW/ - Heritage Oil Corporation (TSX: HOC) ("Heritage" or "the Company") today is pleased to announce that it has executed a Production Sharing Contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) over Miran Block in the south-west of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and that Heritage will be operating as a 50/50 partner with the KRG to create a 20,000 barrel per day oil refinery in the vicinity of the licence area. Under the terms of the agreement, Heritage Energy Middle East Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Heritage, will serve as operator. Heritage will join the existing and increasing presence of international oil exploration, development and production companies operating in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The licence area is 1,015 square kilometres and encompasses the very large Miran structure. This structure, as expressed at surface, constitutes an area of approximately 500 square kilometres and appears to have three separate culminations. Reservoir potential exists at numerous zones that management estimate could contain in excess of 1 billion barrels of oil. Recent drilling results have demonstrated the enormous potential of this region. In addition, Heritage has also entered into a strategic agreement with the KRG to establish a 50/50 joint venture company which shall build, own and operate an oil refinery in the vicinity of the licence. The refinery, which should have a capacity of 20,000 barrels of oil per day, is scheduled to be operational to design specification within approximately two years. Heritage is especially pleased to be part of this extremely exciting and profitable project that will create value added petroleum products for the region and all of Iraq. Heritage will commence geological work immediately, having established its local office in Erbil in 2005, and aims to commence a high-impact exploration drilling program in 2008. Heritage has assembled a highly experienced technical team with considerable experience of the regional geology. The total contractual financial commitment for the Miran Licence is estimated to be less than US$40 million distributed over the first five year term, which can be extended for a further two years thereafter. The exploration licence will be automatically converted into a development licence on a commercial discovery. Mr. Tony Buckingham, CEO, stated: "We are delighted to be among the first international companies to be awarded a licence in the Kurdistan Region subsequent to the approval of the Oil and Gas Law in August 2007. We consider this licence to be one of the most prospective blocks in this until now under-explored region, with billion barrel oil potential. This licence can become a world-class asset which would generate significant additional shareholder value for Heritage. Our long-term commitment to the oil industry and further economic development in the Kurdistan Region is demonstrated further by our winning the right to build and operate a refinery in the vicinity of the Miran licence in a joint venture with the Kurdistan Regional Government." << - Notes to Editors: Heritage is an international oil and gas corporation with a diversified portfolio of properties, including a producing property in the Sultanate of Oman, a development property in Russia and exploration projects in the Republic of Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq - Heritage's management team has a proven track-record of finding new large oil discoveries, including the new hydrocarbon system in Lake Albert, Uganda and the M'Boundi field in the Republic of Congo - A location map of the Miran licence is available on Heritage's website at www.heritageoilcorp.com If you would prefer to receive press releases via email contact Kelly Cody (kelly@chfir.com) and specify "Heritage press releases" in the subject line. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: Except for statements of historical fact, all statements in this news release - including, without limitation, statements regarding production estimates and future plans and objectives of Heritage - are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate; actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from anticipated results include risks and uncertainties such as: risks relating to estimates of reserves and recoveries; production and operating cost assumptions; development risks and costs; the risk of commodity price fluctuations; political and regulatory risks; and other risks and uncertainties as disclosed under the heading "Risk Factors" in its AIF and elsewhere in Heritage documents filed from time-to-time with the Toronto Stock Exchange and other regulatory authorities. Further, any forward-looking statement is made only as of a certain date and the Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement or statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made or reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required by applicable securities laws. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management of the Company to predict all of these factors and to assess in advance the impact of each such factor on the Company's business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. %SEDAR: 00010129E For further information: Investors Relations Contacts: CHF Investor Relations, Cathy Hume, Tel: (416) 868-1079 x231, Email: cathy@chfir.com; Kelly Cody, Tel: (416) 868-1079 x223, Email: kelly@chfir.com; Heritage Oil Corporation, Tony Buckingham, Paul Atherton, Tel +41 91 973 1800, +44 870 011 5555, (403) 234 9974, Email info@heritageoilcorp.com

US Iraq casualties rise to 60,546 by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 2, 2007

Unless you are already on my "military list" to receive these weekly casualty updates, this is the last one I will send to your address. If you want on that list, you can reply to me directly or to my new website at www.michaelmunk.com. You can also use this opportunity to remove your address from all my contact lists. Cheers, Mike US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 92 combat casulties in the week ending Oct. 1, as total casualties reached at least 60,546*.The total includes 31,200 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 29,346 (not updated since August 31) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,808 as of Oct 1) and rarely mentioning the 28,093 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 28,645 (as of August 31)** military victims of as accidents and illness serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,808 reported deaths include 701 (up two last week) who died from those same causes, including 122 suicides (as of Aug 31). Although not defined as "casualties" since they have been discharged from active duty, as of the end of 2006 more than 180,000 U.S. military veterans of Iraq and Afganistan had filed disability claims. The LA Times recently estimated that the number of employes of the US military contractors (182,000--not including all mercenaries) exceeds the number of the US troops in Iraq (160,000). It broke down that number as 118,00 Iraqis and 64,000 foreigners, including 21,000 Americans. Reuters reports that these contractors had suffered 11,502 contractor casualties (933 dead as of June 30; 10,569 wounded as of March 31).About 200 of the dead were Americans. *This total includes 515 Iraq combat casualties as of August 31 with homes of record in Oregon. Another 51 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. Reported monthly by the Penatgon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf ** The number of wounded is updated weekly by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are from Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** The number of injured is updated monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf

Down to 15 of 535 by Michael Munk Sat, Sep 29, 2007

Only Feingold in the senate, and 14 in the House stood up against throwing away more taxpayer dollars into the occupation. The 14 included Oregon's Earl Blumenauer, one Republican, Ron Paul of Texas, and 12 other Democrats: Missouri's William Clay, Minnesota's Keith Ellison, California's Bob Filner, Massachusetts' Barney Frank, New York's Maurice Hinchey, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, Washington's Jim McDermott, New Jersey's Donald Payne, California's Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey. Where the hell is the rest of the 72 member "Get Out of Iraq" caucus? By the way, I have a new website at www.michaelmunk.com

What the war is STILL about by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 27, 2007

Hunt is a Bush bagman and sits on Haliburton Board. Note that the US has (for about the 10th time) kicked the oil giveway target date can down the road to "before the end of the year." Hunt oil deal creating tension in Iraq: US Sept. 27, 2007 http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXtQstIhz0ZCqIQVOZLiFhqayA8g BAGHDAD (Agence France-Presse) - A US official on Thursday criticised an oil deal between Texas-based Hunt Oil Company and Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), saying it had "needlessly elevated tensions" in Iraq. Hunt had been advised by the US State Department not to enter the deal before the Iraqi parliament passed a national oil bill that will share out the country's lucrative oil revenues but it went ahead anyway, a US embassy official in Baghdad told reporters. The contract signed earlier this month was declared "illegal" by Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani, sparking a war of words with the KRG, which told him to stop meddling in its affairs and said he should be sacked. The KRG passed its own oil law in August and immediately entered into the exploration deal with Hunt. The US embassy official, who would not be named, told a media briefing the signing of contracts by the KRG while a controversial national oil bill is still before parliament was undermining national unity. "We think that these contracts have needlessly elevated tensions between the KRG and the Iraqi government," said the official. "Both parties share a common interest in the passage of a national law on hydrocarbons and energy sharing. We are pushing all parties to negotiate in good faith and knock off the things that will undermine national unity." The official said the future of the contract signed for Hunt to prospect for oil in Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdish region was far from certain. "We advise companies that they could incur significant political and legal risk by signing contracts with any party before the national law is passed," said the embassy official. Iraq's oil infrastructure has been hit by decades of under-investment as a result of successive Gulf wars, 13 years of UN sanctions and the rampant insecurity that followed the US-led invasion in 2003. The Hunt contract is the first major deal since UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. No details of the contract have been released but the Dallas company, which has links with the White House, has said it would begin its geological survey work in the province of Dahuk, near Iraq's northwestern border with Turkey, by the end of this year and would begin drilling in 2008. Washington regards passage of the oil legislation as key to efforts at national reconciliation in the country which is wracked by an insurgency and sectarian violence. The draft law was passed by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's national unity cabinet in July but faces tough passage in the 275-seat legislature, where the Kurdish bloc has 53 seats. The US official said there was strong expectation that the law would pass through parliament before the end of the year. "Provided it has the support of the Kurdish parties, it could be adopted fairly quickly," he added.

Bollinger's bizarre behavior by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 26, 2007

President Lee Bollinger Columbia University bollinger@columbia.edu As a retired academic in your former state of Oregon, I was shocked by your introduction of the Iranian president. You presented yourself as a screaming head on Fox news and embarrased a great University. I suspect that if you felt free to follow your personal instincts, you would behaved with more dignity. But, especially after the economic threats made against the University by leaders of the New York legislature, the kindest explanation of your bizarre behavior was your fear of the Likudniks among your contributors. In sorrow, Michael Munk

NYTimes sticks to Wipe off the map by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 26, 2007

The NYTimes editorial "Mr. Ahmadinejad Speaks" (Sept 25) repeats the Grey Lady's dogged insistence that it uses an accurate translation when it claims the Iranian president pledged to "wipe Israel off the map." Journalists from less prestigious media perform a far better service to their readers. For example, it would behoove the Times to adopt its own version of the Associated Press's formula, as set out by their correspondent Nahal Toosi in his report from Columbia University yesterday: "Ahmadinejad has in the past called for Israel's elimination. But his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but others say that would be better translated as "vanish from the pages of time" - implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed."

Rightwing pundit celebrates Clinton by Michael Munk Tue, Sep 25, 2007

In his "The Center Holds" column in the NYT today, David Brooks confirms that what I called the Centrist/DLC faction of the Dems are hawks on foreign policy, doves on domestic policy. Excerpts from his celebration of its dominance at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/opinion/25brooks.html? _r=1& n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/David%20Brooks& oref=slogin follow: "...Obama and Edwards get most of their support from the educated, affluent liberals. According to Gallup polls,Obama garners 33 percent support from Democratic college graduates, 28 percent from those with some college and only 19 percent with a high school degree or less. Hillary Clinton's core support, on the other hand, comes from those with less education and less income - more Harry Truman than Howard Dean... Clinton has relied on Mark Penn, the epitome of the sort of consultant the netroots reject, and Penn's approach has been entirely vindicated by the results so far.In a series of D.L.C. memos with titles like "The Decisive Center," Penn has preached that while Republicans can win by appealing only to conservatives, Democrats must appeal to centrists as well as liberals. Democratic domestic policy is now being driven by old Clinton hands like Gene Sperling and Bruce Reed... On "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Clinton could have vowed to vacate Iraq. Instead, she delivered hawkish mini-speeches that few Republicans would object to. She listed a series of threats and interests in the region and made it clear that she'd be willing to keep U.S. troops there to handle them... The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don't blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.... You have to be moderate on social issues, activist but not statist on domestic issues and hawkish on foreign policy..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My recent rant "Why Dems won't stop the occupation" picked out NW Dems "Why do congressional Dems keep declaring: "No more blank checks" to the regime in Washington for the Iraq occupation--and then keep voting for them--so far over $600 billion! An answer emerges from an understanding that the 238 congressional Dems are not one party but more accurately three parties (at least on "national security" issues)--each of whom calls itself "Democrat." The majority of the first and all of the third vote consistently for the war. Together with almost all of the 201 Republicans, they have easily approved the war budgets and "supplements." (1) the Centrist/DLC party led by the weakened Clintonite Democratic Leadership Council)/Israeli Lobby coalition that is probably the largest of the three parties with about 130 members, and includes local Dems like Hooley and Wu (who refused to sign a pledge to vote against another black check for the war). (2) the Left/Antiwar party with at most 60-70 members who reflect the most committed grassroots opposition to the war. It includes most members of the established "Progressive Caucus" and the 70+ of the" Out of Iraq"caucus--including local members Blumenauer and Defazio. (3) are the 44 "Blue Dogs" (or more accurately "Bush Dogs"),Republican wanabees and deadender supporters of the war. Over a dozen were elected in '06 with the help of Israel Lobbyist Rahm Emanuel. Local Brian Baird, while not formally a member, has recently joined them as their poster child on the war issue. Obviously, it would be difficult to find many Congressional Dems who always vote as disciplined members of any of the three parties. But a national political party seriously fractured into three incompatable factions on "national secirity" issues helps explain why Americans continue to suffer and pay for an occupation they don't support. Practical politics suggest Senate Dems are the more likely tragets for any serious defunding of the occupation. A recent FAIR analysis http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3177 finds that only 41 Senators (not 60 or 67 as the media daily misinforms us) can block more money. Northwest Senators Wyden, Cantwell and Murray are candidates for three of those 41 votes and even Smith-- if pushed really hard-- is a potential fourth.