Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to the president of the United States 1977-1981

adviser in the Carter administration,
to present talk on campus
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to the president of the United States 1977-1981, will speak on campus on Thursday, March 25, as a guest of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.

His talk will take place at 4 p.m. in the Luce Hall auditorium, 34 Hillhouse Ave. It is free and open to the public.

Brzezinski will be introduced by Ernesto Zedillo, director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law, will provide his reflections on the presentation.

The statesman's new book, "The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership," was published last month. In it, Brzezinski writes that today's overwhelming reality is that in the opening years of the 21st century, the United States finds itself not only the most powerful nation on earth but the most powerful nation that has ever existed. He argues that, given the contradictory roles it plays in the world, the United States is fated to be the catalyst for either a new global community or for global chaos. America needs to lead rather than merely dominate by force, Brzezinski contends, as he argues for a more complex and sophisticated view of the U.S.'s global role than much of the media and political leadership are willing to entertain.

As national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Brzezinski focused on East-West relations, emphasized the further development of the U.S.-China relationship, favored a new arms control agreement with Moscow and shared Carter's and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's view that the U.S. should seek international cooperation in its diplomacy instead of going it alone.

Brzezinski was the first director of the Trilateral Commission, a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics from the United States, Western Europe and Japan that seeks to strengthen relations among the three regions. In 1981 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role in the normalization of U.S.-China relations and for his contributions to the human rights and national security policies of the United States. His publications include "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" and "Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century."

Brzezinski is currently with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and is the Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization is devoted to examining the impact of the increasingly integrated world on individuals, communities and nations. For more information about the center or Brzezinski's talk, call (203) 432-1900.

INTERVIEW WITH INTERVIEW WITH DR ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI-(13/6/97)

INTERVIEW WITH INTERVIEW WITH DR ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI-(13/6/97)

(Preliminary talk)

INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much for being willing to do an interview. I'll start by asking about arms control: what were the Administration's arms control objectives when they came into office?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It was essentially to limit, first of all, the arms race, and then, if possible, to scale it down. I remember vividly how committed the newly elected President was to the idea of a significant cut in the nuclear weapons on both sides. That was kind of a central goal of his.

INT: How were these ambitions received by the Soviets?

ZB: Hah, with some ambiguity. They, I suspect in retros...

INT: Can you say "the Soviets" in your answer, because you'll never hear my question?

ZB: All right. And the Soviets received these proposals with some ambiguity and indeed suspicion. I suspect myself that they felt that Carter was not sincere, that he was merely trying to put them on the defensive, and that he was trying to back out of the earlier Vladivostok agreement that had been concluded between President Ford and Mr. Brezhnev. This, incidentally, was not Carter's inten(tion) - he really was very sincere; if anything, he was over-ambitious.

INT: Can you describe Brezhnev's response to the proposals, the letter that he sent in February of 1977, what your own reaction was to that?

ZB: I thought Brezhnev's letter was excessively negative, close to hostile, somewhat patronizing.

INT: The next thing I want to ask you about is SS-20s, and how much of a threat to the security of Europe was the Soviet deployment of SS-20s.

ZB: The Soviet deployment of the SS-20s worried the Europeans - frankly, initially more than us. I remember being somewhat startled when Chancellor Schmidt started making a big issue out of the SS-20s, but then I came to realize that in a sense he was right: namely that the SS-20, while perhaps not a decisive military weapon, posed the risk of de-coupling Europe's security from America's; namely, of posing before us the dilemma that maybe Europe was threatened by nuclear devastation, but that we were not, and therefore, should we risk the devastation of our own people and our own cities in order to protect Europe? That was the element of potential de-coupling involved in the Soviet deployment, and in that sense it posed a serious challenge to NATO, to which we had to respond, and to which we did respond.

INT: How?

ZB: By deploying the Pershings and the ground-launch cruise missiles, which put the Soviets very much on the defensive, and the Pershings particularly gave us the capacity to devastate the Soviet command and control centers in the very first few minutes of any conflict.

INT: What was your response to Chancellor Schmidt when he accused the Americans of not taking sufficient account of the Europeans' fears?

ZB: I think it's an exaggeration to say he accused us. I think he posed the dilemma, the possibility of a de-coupling of American and European security. And as I said earlier, after initially thinking that perhaps this was not a real issue, we came to the conclusion that indeed it was and that we should respond to it seriously. So we did. The President sent me to Europe; I talked to Chancellor Schmidt at length, and we came up with a formula: namely, that we would deploy the Pershings, which were theatre missiles, shorter range but very fast, very accurate, and the ground-launch cruise missiles - slower, but extraordinarily accurate: we could put one right through a window in the Kremlin, and if it had a nuclear tip on it, it would make a bit of a bang.

(Request in b/g re: next question)

INT: Yes. Could you reflect on the dual-track policy of NATO for us?

ZB: Well, essentially our position was that if the Russians want to discuss it, we will discuss; if not, we'll deploy.

INT: The neutron bomb - why did President Carter decide to cancel the project of the neutron bomb?

ZB: The President decided to cancel the neutron bomb, I think for two reasons, though one was emphasized. First, there wasn't sufficient support in Europe for it, and there was a great deal of reluctance in Europe to it. But secondly, I think the President personally found it morally abhorrent.

INT: SALT II - there was a lot of opposition to SALT II. Can you explain why opposition built up to SALT II?

ZB: The opposition in the United States to SALT II was the result both of serious concerns over some of the technicalities, specifics of the agreement - it was a very complicated agreement - and therefore some feeling that perhaps we weren't getting as good a bargain as we should; and maybe also of a more pervasive suspicion within some quarters that President Carter wasn't tough enough with the Russians. So these two things kind of coalesced and built up a degree of opposition to SALT II that shouldn't have been there. Now, in addition to that, before too long there was a third factor at play: namely, the Soviets started acting in a way that made movement forward on SALT II very difficult, culminating eventually in the occupation, invasion of Afghanistan.

INT: That leads on to the Soviet expansionism. How far did you believe the Soviets were becoming an expansionist threat and were undermining American influence, really from '77 onwards?

ZB: The Soviets at that time were proclaiming over and over again that the scales of history were tipping in the favor of the Soviet Union: the Soviet Union would outstrip us in economic performance, the Soviet Union was getting a strategic edge, the Soviet Union was riding the crest of the so-called national liberation struggles. The Soviet Union was moving into Africa, it had a foothold in Latin America; it was using that foothold, and particularly Castro himself, to see if something couldn't be done on the mainland of [the] Southern hemisphere. So all of that made it quite essential, in my view, to demonstrably show that these analyses were false: that the scales of history were not tipping, that Soviet assertiveness will not pay, that we can compete effectively, eventually put the Soviets on the defensive, if necessary.

INT: What was your view, particularly in Africa...? I'm thinking of the arc of crisis and your response to that.

ZB: My view of Soviet activities in the arc of crisis in Africa, so to speak, was that it was incompatible with the notion of détente to which we were subscribing, to which we thought the Soviets had subscribed in the course of their negotiations with Presidents Nixon and Ford; that you can't have your cake and eat it too. And that if that's what they were going to be doing, then clearly we are entitled to play the same game, wherever we can, to their disadvantage. But then we'll not have détente: we'll have competition across the board. So there is a real choice: either détente across the board, or competition across the board, but not détente in some areas and competition in those areas in which we were vulnerable.

INT: Moving on to Poland, what support you could give to Solidarity from 1980 onwards?

ZB: We gave them a great deal of political support. We encouraged Solidarity as much as we could. We made it very clear as to where our sympathies are. We of course had certain instruments for reaching Poland, such as Radio Free Europe; we had a very comprehensive publication program; we had other means also of encouraging and supporting dissent. And when the critical moment came in December of 1980, when the Soviets were poised to intervene in Poland, we did everything we could to mobilize international opinion, to galvanize maximum international pressure on the Soviets, to convince the Soviets that we will not be passive. And by then we had some credibility, because the Soviets knew that already for a year we were doing something that we had never before been done in the entire history of the Cold War: we were actively and directly supporting the resistance movement in Afghanistan, the purpose of which was to fight the Soviet army. So the notion that we wouldn't be passive, I think had somcredibility by then.

INT: How important was the Iran hostage crisis to Carter's prestige?

ZB: I think it was devastating. I think the Iran hostage crisis was one of the two central regions for Carter's political defeat in 1980, the other reason being domestic inflation. Iran and inflation - both were politically devastating.

INT: The downfall of the Shah and the Iranian hostage crisis - how much did they influence Americans' reaction to Soviet policy in Afghanistan?

ZB: I think the crisis in Iran heightened our sense of vulnerability in so far as that part of the world is concerned. After all, Iran was one of the two pillars on which both stability and our political preeminence in the Persian Gulf rested. Once the Iranian pillar had collapsed, we were faced with the possibility that one way or another, before too long, we may have either a hostile Iran on the northern shore of the Persian Gulf facing us, or we might even have the Soviets there; and that possibility arose very sharply when the Soviets marched into Afghanistan. If they succeed in occupying it, Iran would be even more vulnerable to the Soviet Union, and in any case, the Persian Gulf would be accessible even to Soviet tactical air force from bases in Afghanistan. Therefore, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was viewed by us as of serious strategic consequence, irrespective of whatever may have been the Soviet motives for it. Our view was the objective consequences would be very serious, irrespective of what may or may not have been the subjective motives for the Soviet action.

INT: Before the actual invasion, how much do you think the exit of the Shah affected Soviet plans for that area of the world?

ZB: The collapse of the American position in Iran had to have a rather strikingly reinforcing impact on Soviet expectations. This was a major setback for the United States. There's no doubt that from the standpoint of the Soviet analysis of the situation, the collapse of the regime in Iran meant that the position of the United States north of the Persian Gulf was disintegrating.

In Speech Today, Obama Will Slam D.C. Pundits And Pols For Supporting Invasion

In Speech Today, Obama Will Slam D.C. Pundits And Pols For Supporting Invasion
By Greg Sargent - September 12, 2007, 7:21AM
This is interesting: In a major speech in Iowa today, Barack Obama will ratchet up his criticism of the Beltway pundit and political establishment for supporting the invasion of Iraq, according to advance excerpts of Obama's remarks.

Obama will also take aim at the notion that D.C. "experience" is a quality that should be desired in the next President, saying that such "experience' perversely left pundits and politicos in thrall to the conventional wisdom that to oppose the war would leave them "looking weak."

"Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war," Obama will say. "The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite -- or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.”

Note Obama's interesting formulation here: That "despite -- or perhaps because of" their Washington experience, pundits and politicos made the wrong choice to support the war. Obama, clearly, is seeking to expand his indictment of the D.C. political and foreign policy establishment, amplifying his argument that for all their Washington experience, many Beltway elite figures were unable to exercise sound judgment and oppose the Iraq folly. Also noteworthy and unusual in a Presidential candidate: Obama's direct targeting of the D.C. punditry.

Obama will also propose that withdrawal from Iraq begin immediately, to be completed by the end of next year, as well as proposing a new constitutional convention in Iraq, to be convened with the United Nations.

More speech excerpts after the jump.

“Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite – or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.”
“There is something unreal about the debate that’s taking place in Washington… The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand. The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We’ve had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We’ve had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We’ve had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.”

"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.”

“Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.”

“Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn’t solve the problem…The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached.”

“The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject this choice... It’s time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations…. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven. …. Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq.”

“I’m here today because it’s not too late to come together as Americans. Because we’re not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn’t ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled."

bring the country back together, Senator Obama

Barack Obama will be good for America.


Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where he grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British.

Barack's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in small-town Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression, and then signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, where he marched across Europe in Patton's army. Her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved west to Hawaii.

It was there, at the University of Hawaii, where Barack's parents met. His mother was a student there, and his father had won a scholarship that allowed him to leave Kenya and pursue his dreams in America.

Learn more about Barack's life, family, and accomplishments.; Barack; Barack Obama; Barack TV; Obama; Speeches; This appears on the "Meet Barack Page" http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452323111http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=353512430



Barack's father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University in 1983.

Remembering the values of empathy and service that his mother taught him, Barack put law school and corporate life on hold after college and moved to Chicago in 1985, where he became a community organizer with a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment.

The group had some success, but Barack had come to realize that in order to truly improve the lives of people in that community and other communities, it would take not just a change at the local level, but a change in our laws and in our politics.

He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Soon after, he returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law. Finally, his advocacy work led him to run for the Illinois State Senate, where he served for eight years. In 2004, he became the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

It has been the rich and varied experiences of Barack Obama's life - growing up in different places with people who had differing ideas - that have animated his political journey. Amid the partisanship and bickering of today's public debate, he still believes in the ability to unite people around a politics of purpose - a politics that puts solving the challenges of everyday Americans ahead of partisan calculation and political gain.

In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.

As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.

Whether it's the poverty exposed by Katrina, the genocide in Darfur, or the role of faith in our politics, Barack Obama continues to speak out on the issues that will define America in the 21st century. But above all his accomplishments and experiences, he is most proud and grateful for his family. His wife, Michelle, and his two daughters, Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6, live on Chicago's South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.

Zbigniew Brzezinski on IRAQ,IRAN and 4 Presidents.

Zbigniew Brzezinski on IRAQ,IRAN and 4 Presidents.


Born on March 28, 1928, in Warsaw, Poland, the future national security adviser to President Carter and son of a Polish diplomat spent part of his youth in France and Germany before moving to Canada. He received a B.A. and M.A. in political science from McGill University, in 1949 and 1950 respectively, and in 1953 earned his doctorate in political science from Harvard. He taught at Harvard before moving to Columbia University in 1961 to head the new Institute on Communist Affairs. In 1958 he became a U.S. citizen. During the 1960s Brzezinski acted as an adviser to Kennedy and Johnson administration officials. Generally taking a hard line on policy toward the Soviet Union, he was also an influential force behind the Johnson administration's "bridge-building" ideas regarding Eastern Europe. During the final years of the Johnson administration, he was a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Hubert Humphrey and his presidential campaign.

In 1973, Brzezinski became the first director of the Trilateral Commission, a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. Its purpose was to strengthen relations among the three regions. Future President Carter was a member, and when he declared his candidacy for the White House in 1974, Brzezinski, a critic of the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy style, became his adviser on foreign affairs. After his victory in 1976, Carter made Brzezinski national security adviser.

Aiming to replace Kissinger's "acrobatics" in foreign policy-making with a foreign policy "architecture," Brzezinski was as eager for power as his rival. However, his task was complicated by his focus on East-West relations, and in a hawkish way -- in an administration where many cared a great deal about North-South relations and human rights. On the whole, Brzezinski was a team player. He emphasized the further development of the U.S.-China relationship, favored a new arms control agreement with Moscow and shared the president and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's view that the United States should seek international cooperation in its diplomacy instead of going it alone. In the growing crisis atmosphere of 1979 and 1980 due to the Iranian hostage situation, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a deepening economic crisis, Brzezinski's anti-Soviet views gained influence but could not end the Carter administration's malaise. Since his time in government, Brzezinski has been active as a writer, teacher and consultant
The Lobby
by David Remnick
September 3, 2007 Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text Print E-Mail Feeds Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer

Keywords
“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”; Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen M.; Israel; Lobbyists; Foreign Policy; Iraq War Last year, two distinguished political scientists, John J. Mearsheimer, of the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, published a thirty-four-thousand-word article online entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a shorter version of which appeared in The London Review of Books. Israel, they wrote, has become a “strategic liability” for the United States but retains its strong support because of a wealthy, well-organized, and bewitching lobby that has a “stranglehold” on Congress and American élites. Moreover, Israel and its lobby bear outsized responsibility for persuading the Bush Administration to invade Iraq and, perhaps one day soon, to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran. Farrar, Straus & Giroux will publish a book-length version of Mearsheimer and Walt’s arguments on September 4th.

Mearsheimer and Walt are “realists.” In their view, diplomatic decisions should be made on the basis of national interest. They argue that in the post-Cold War era, in the absence of a superpower struggle in the Middle East, the United States no longer has any need for an indulgent patronage of the state of Israel. Three billion dollars in annual foreign aid, the easy sale of advanced weaponry, thirty-four vetoes of U.N. Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1982—such support, Mearsheimer and Walt maintain, is not in the national interest. “There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence,” they write, but they deny that Israel is of critical strategic value to the United States. The disappearance of Israel, in their view, would jeopardize neither America’s geopolitical interests nor its core values. Such is their “realism.”

The authors observe that discussion about Israel in the United States is often circumscribed, and that the ultimate price for criticizing Israel is to be branded an anti-Semite. They set out to write “The Israel Lobby,” they have said, to break taboos and stimulate discussion. They anticipated some ugly attacks, and were not disappointed. The Washington Post published a piece by the Johns Hopkins professor Eliot Cohen under the headline “Yes, It’s Anti-Semitic.” The Times reported earlier this month that several organizations, including a Jewish community center, have decided to withdraw speaking invitations to Mearsheimer and Walt, in violation of good sense and the spirit of open discussion.

Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists. They are serious scholars, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. They are right to describe the moral violation in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. (In this, most Israelis and most American Jews agree with them.) They were also right about Iraq. The strategic questions they raise now, particularly about Israel’s privileged relationship with the United States, are worth debating––just as it is worth debating whether it is a good idea to be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. But their announced objectives have been badly undermined by the contours of their argument—a prosecutor’s brief that depicts Israel as a singularly pernicious force in world affairs. Mearsheimer and Walt have not entirely forgotten their professional duties, and they periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities. But their conclusions are unmistakable: Israel and its lobbyists bear a great deal of blame for the loss of American direction, treasure, and even blood.


from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisIn Mearsheimer and Walt’s cartography, the Israel lobby is not limited to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is a loose yet well-oiled coalition of Jewish-American organizations, “watchdog” groups, think tanks, Christian evangelicals, sympathetic journalists, and neocon academics. This is not a cabal but a world in which Abraham Foxman gives the signal, Pat Robertson describes his apocalyptic rapture, Charles Krauthammer pumps out a column, Bernard Lewis delivers a lecture—and the President of the United States invades another country. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Exxon-Mobil barely exist.

Where many accounts identify Osama bin Laden’s primary grievances with American support of “infidel” authoritarian regimes in Islamic lands, Mearsheimer and Walt align his primary concerns with theirs: America’s unwillingness to push Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. (It doesn’t matter that Israel and the Palestinians were in peace negotiations in 1993, the year of the first attack on the World Trade Center, or that during the Camp David negotiations in 2000 bin Laden’s pilots were training in Florida.) Mearsheimer and Walt give you the sense that, if the Israelis and the Palestinians come to terms, bin Laden will return to the family construction business.

It’s a narrative that recounts every lurid report of Israeli cruelty as indisputable fact but leaves out the rise of Fatah and Palestinian terrorism before 1967; the Munich Olympics; Black September; myriad cases of suicide bombings; and other spectaculars. The narrative rightly points out the destructiveness of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and America’s reluctance to do much to curtail them, but there is scant mention of Palestinian violence or diplomatic bungling, only a recitation of the claim that, in 2000, Israel offered “a disarmed set of Bantustans under de-facto Israeli control.” (Strange that, at the time, the Saudi Prince Bandar told Yasir Arafat, “If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime.”) Nor do they dwell for long on instances when the all-powerful Israel lobby failed to sway the White House, as when George H. W. Bush dragged Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid peace conference.

Lobbying is inscribed in the American system of power and influence. Big Pharma, the A.A.R.P., the N.R.A., the N.A.A.C.P., farming interests, the American Petroleum Institute, and hundreds of others shuttle between K Street and Capitol Hill. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national-security adviser, recently praised Mearsheimer and Walt in the pages of Foreign Policy for the service of “initiating a much-needed public debate,” but he went on to provide a tone and a perspective that are largely missing from their arguments. “The participation of ethnic or foreign-supported lobbies in the American policy process is nothing new,” he observes. “In my public life, I have dealt with a number of them. I would rank the Israeli-American, Cuban-American, and Armenian-American lobbies as the most effective in their assertiveness. The Greek- and Taiwanese-American lobbies also rank highly in my book. The Polish-American lobby was at one time influential (Franklin Roosevelt complained about it to Joseph Stalin), and I daresay that before long we will be hearing a lot from the Mexican-, Hindu-, and Chinese-American lobbies as well.”

Taming the influence of lobbies, if that is what Mearsheimer and Walt desire, is a matter of reforming the lobbying and campaign-finance laws. But that is clearly not the source of the hysteria surrounding their arguments. “The Israel Lobby” is a phenomenon of its moment. The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it. ♦

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski likened U.S. officials' saber rattling about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to similar statements made before the start of the Iraq war.


Machines use yellow cake to produce uranium hexafluoride near Tehran in February.

1 of 3 "I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq," Brzezinski told CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.

But Henry Kissinger, the former national security adviser and secretary of state under President Nixon, appeared not to doubt Iran's alleged ambitions.

"I believe they are building a capability to build a nuclear bomb," Kissinger told CNN. "I don't think they're yet in a position to build a nuclear bomb, but they may be two or three years away from it."

Earlier this month during a televised speech asserting that U.S. troops should not be immediately withdrawn from Iraq, President Bush said, "Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."

However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" that "insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests."

Ahmadinejad landed in New York on Sunday to attend the U.N. General Assembly session, which opens Monday. Watch New Yorkers prepare for Ahmadinejad »

Brzezinski also disapproved of Bush's statement.

"When the president flatly asserts they are seeking nuclear weapons, he's overstating the facts," he said. "We are suspicious. We have strong suspicions, but we don't have facts that they are."

Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, said he is not sure how to interpret Iran's intentions. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes.

"I think it's quite possible that they are seeking weapons or positioning themselves to have them, but we have very scant evidence to support that," he said. "And the president of the United States, especially after Iraq, should be very careful about the veracity of his public assertions."

Brzezinski, who is advising the Democratic presidential campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, urged American officials to be patient, whatever Tehran's intentions may be.

Don't Miss
Ahmadinejad eager to educate U.S.
Iraqi president urges release of Iranian detainee
Iran's president says he won't insist on ground zero visit
Rice tells nuke watchdog to butt out of Iran diplomacy
"If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war, which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us," he said.

"And just think what it would do for the United States, because it would be the United States which would be at war. We will be at war simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we would be stuck for the next 20 years."

Kissinger said the international community should enlist support from countries opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power.

"The current objective has to be to unite the countries that will suffer directly from Iranian nuclear weapons, the members of the Security Council and other countries in a program of diplomacy," he said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated last week that Bush was committed to diplomacy when dealing with Iran, but has not taken any options off the table.

"We believe the diplomatic track can work," she said. "But has to work both with a set of incentives and a set of teeth."

During the "60 Minutes" interview, Ahmadinejad denied claims by the administration that Iranian weapons are being used against American troops in Iraq.

"We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity [in] Iraq."

Ahmadinejad said U.S. officials are blaming his country for problems caused by the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"American officials, wherever around the world that they encounter a problem which they fail to resolve, instead of accepting that, they prefer to accuse others," he said. "I'm very sorry that, because of the wrong decisions taken by American officials, Iraqi people are being killed and also American soldiers."

Ahmadinejad also said Iran has no use for an atomic bomb.

"If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union," he said. "If it was useful, it would [have] resolved the problem the Americans have in Iraq. The time of the bomb is passed."

The International Atomic Energy Agency said last week it has verified that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful uses, though inspectors have been unable to reach conclusions about some "important aspects" of Iran's nuclear work.

Kissinger and Brzezinski also disagreed over whether Columbia University in New York should have offered to present a lecture by Ahmadinejad, scheduled for Monday.

Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust happened and has made statements suggesting that Israel be politically "wiped off the map," though he insists that can be accomplished without violence.

Kissinger said Sunday on CNN that Columbia's invitation to the Iranian president to speak was not "appropriate."

Kissinger clarified, "I do not oppose his speaking. I oppose its sponsorship by Columbia University."

Brzezinski said Ahmadinejad should be able to speak.

"It seems to me a university's a place where ideas, issues -- very controversial issues -- should be discussed, can be discussed," Brzezinski said.

"Look, if his views are odious, we can say so, but we have a society of openness," he said. "If we start censoring in advance what it is we like to hear and what we don't hear, we're on a slippery slope."


Prior to departing Tehran, Ahmadinejad called his planned address to the General Assembly "a good opportunity for presenting the Iranian people's clear views regarding the problems of the world and materialization of peace and tranquility," IRNA, Iran's state-run news agency, reported Sunday.

Some students and Jewish leaders planned to protest at the Ivy League school, which last year withdrew a speaking invitation it had extended to the Iranian president after citing security concerns

Polish Gen. Casimir Pulaski Father of the American Cavalry

Polish Gen. Casimir Pulaski Father of the American Cavalry

General Pulaski Memorial Day Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation




I came here, where freedom is being defended,
to serve it, and to live and die for it.
General Casimir Pulaski in a letter
to General George Washington

Every year, on October 11, we honor the memory of Brigadier General Casimir Pulaski, a courageous soldier of liberty who bravely gave his life 222 years ago fighting for America's independence. The stories of General Pulaski's heroism during the Revolutionary War have been a source of inspiration for many generations of Americans, and his gallant sacrifice serves as a poignant reminder of the price patriots paid to obtain our liberty.

Pulaski, who was born in Poland in 1745, joined his first fight against tyranny and oppression at age 21, defending his beloved Poland against Prussian and Imperial Russian invaders. In numerous battles, Pulaski achieved fame as a calvary officer, earning promotion to commander of an army of Polish freedom fighters. But the aggressors ultimately overcame the Poles, and Pulaski was forced into exile. In 1777, Pulaski offered his services to America's fight for freedom and set sail from France to join the war for independence.

Far from his native land, Pulaski showed the same courageous combativeness on American soil that had gained him fame at home. Distinguishing himself in battle after battle, Pulaski earned a commission from the Continental Congress as a Brigadier General, and he was assigned by General Washington to command the Continental Army's calvary. In 1779, during the siege of Savannah, General Pulaski made the ultimate sacrifice, giving his life in battle so that our Nation might win its freedom. General Pulaski's valiant leadership earned him recognition as the "Father of the American cavalry".

Ever since his heroic death, America has honored General Pulaski's memory in many ways, including the naming of counties, towns, and streets after him. Since 1910, a statue of General Pulaski has stood in Washington, D.C., permanently memorializing his patriotic contributions and noble sacrifice. Today, as we respond to the atrocities committed against the United States on September 11, we have been deeply moved by the tremendous outpouring of sympathy, support, and solidarity from our Polish friends, from the highest levels of the government to the thousands of Poles who placed flowers and candles at our Embassy gate. Our two nations, united by the virtues and ideals that General Pulaski embodied, will always remain friends and allies.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, October 11, 2001, as General Pulaski Memorial Day. I encourage all Americans to commemorate this occasion with appropriate programs and activities paying tribute to Casimir Pulaski and honoring all those who defend the freedom of our great Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

GEORGE W. BUSH
Group blames Congressman King for blocking citizenship for Polish General
Sunday, September 30, 2007, 10:13 AM
By O.Kay Henderson
A group pushing for special recognition of the man who's considered the father of the American cavalry says there's one "obstacle" to their goal: Iowa Congressman Steve King. The Polish Legion of American Veterans has gotten the U.S. Senate to pass a resolution that would grant honorary U.S. citizenship to a Polish man who came to this continent in 1777 to help fight the Revolutionary War.

Casimir Pulaski was named a general by George Washington. He died of wounds suffered in a Revolutionary War battle in Georgia. The bid by the Polish veterans group to get Pulaski declared an American citizen has stalled in the U.S. House, though.

The group blames Congressman King for blocking a vote on the measure in the House Judiciary Committee. The Polish veterans group calls King's action "puzzling" and "political." King's spokesman says King doesn't have the power to block a vote and the resolution would pass if a majority of members on the committee wanted to vote for it.

Congress has bestowed honorary U.S. citizenship on six people. In 1963, Winston Churchill was named an honorary American citizen. In 1981, a Swedish diplomat who rescued Jews in the Holocaust earned the designation. Three years later, William Penn and his wife were similarly honored. Penn, as you may know, was the governor of the American colony of Pennsylvania.

In 1996, congress gave honorary American citizenship to Mother Teresa and then in 2002 bestowed it upon a Frenchman who served as another one of George Washington's generals in the American Revolution.
Gen. Pułaski honorowym obywatelem USA


Fot. Archiwum
Jestem pewien, że polski generał, który przyczynił się do uratowania życia George Washingtona w pełni zasługuje na przyznanie mu honorowego obywatelstwa naszego kraju, powiedział na spotkaniu z chicagowską Polonią oraz przedstawicielami lokalnych mediów senator z Illinois Dick Durbin. Gdyby Senat przychylił się do wniosku Durbina, Pułaski byłby siódmą osobą, która w historii Stanów Zjednoczonych otrzymała honorowe obywatelstwo tego kraju.

Jednocześnie wywodzący się w Partii Demokratycznej polityk zapewnił, iż już w najbliższym czasie złoży do Izby Wyższej odpowiedni wniosek o pośmiertne przyznanie Kazimierzowi Pułaskiemu honorowego obywatelstwa USA.
Durbin przypomniał, że każdego roku w pierwszy poniedziałek marca z chęcią i radością przyjeżdża do Muzeum Polskiego w Chicago, gdzie mają miejsce oficjalne obchody Dnia Pułaskiego. – Rezolucja, która trafi do Senatu, przyznająca Pułaskiemu pośmiertne honorowe obywatelstwo uhonorowałaby człowieka, który zapłacił był najwyższą cenę za wolność Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki Północnej – uzasadniał Durbin. – Postawa Pułaskiego jest wciąż doskonałym przykładem dla innych, również obywateli innych krajów, którzy na przestrzeni wieków walczyli i walczą do dziś w szeregach armii amerykańskiej o demokracje i prawa obywatelskie.
Pod odpowiednim wnioskiem podpisało się także 22 innych polityków i liderów lokalnych społeczności. Wśród nich Dan Lipiński, Rahm Emmanuel i Luis Gutierrez.
Pamięć po bohaterskich czynach gen Pułaskiego jest wciąż bardzo żywa w USA. We wrześniu 1929 roku kongres Stanów Zjednoczonych przyjął proklamację prezydencką ustanawiając 11 października Dniem Pułaskiego. Prawie 50 lat później – w 1973 roku władze stanu Illinois, chcąc zaznaczyć, jak wielkie znaczenie mają dla lokalnych samorządów mieszkający tu Polacy, ustanowiły pierwszy poniedziałek marca dniem pamięci Pułaskiego. Od 1986 roku Dzień Pułaskiego jest oficjalnym świętem stanowym.
Przypomnijmy, że do dziś honorowe obywatelstwo USA otrzymali: Winston Churchill - 1936 r.; Markiz de la Fayette – 2002 r. (Francuz walczący w czasach rewolucji amerykańskiej; Raoul Wallenberg – 1981 (szwedzki dyplomata i bohater holocaustu); William Callowhill Penn – 1984 r. (gubernator Pensylwanii oraz jego żona i ówczesna administratorka stanu Hannah oraz Agnes Gonxa Bojaxhiu - Matka Teresa – 1996 r.
"Rycerz Wolności - Generał Kazimierz Pułaski"

Rokrocznie dzień 11 października obchodzony jest w całych Stanach Zjednoczonych jako pamiątkowy Dzień Generała Kazimierza Pułaskiego (Pulaski Day), jednym z akcentów tego święta jest uroczysty korowód, festyny i wiele imprez kulturalno oświatowych i estradowych organizowanych przez Polonię i nie tylko. Oddanie w ten sposób czci polskiemu bohaterowi z Amerykańskiej Rewolucji jest ukoronowaniem wysiłków, przeprowadzonych w Kongresie, a w których szło o danie odpowiedniego uznania organizatorowi Legionu Pułaskiego, który oddał życie za wolność Stanów Zjednoczonych podczas oblężenia pod Savannach, Georgia.
Kazimierz Pułaski, najstarszy syn hrabiego Józefa Pułaskiego, urodził się na Podolu, w marcu 1748r. Polska wówczas była arystokratyczną republiką z królem na czele, wybieranym przez szlachtę. Rosja i Prusy wtrącały się do wewnętrznych spraw państwa polskiego, wpływając na wybór królów. Przeciwko temu protestowali zwolennicy niezależnych rządów parlamentarnych. W roku 1763 caryca rosyjska, Katarzyna Wielka, przeprowadziła wybór Stanisława Poniatowskiego, jako króla polskiego. Niedługo potem wybuchło powstanie i hrabia Józef Pułaski był jednym z jego organizatorów. Kazimierz Pułaski będąc wówczas młodym oficerem, walczył przy boku swego ojca. Powstańcy odnosili zwycięstwa początkowo, ale po paru latach siły i ich zasoby wyczerpały się na skutek czego zostali pobici i rozproszeni. Nastąpił pierwszy rozbiór Polski w roku 1772 i następnie Polska utraciła zupełnie swą niepodległość i została skazana przez zaborców na blisko półtorawiekową niewolę polityczną.
Po powstaniu, które zakończyło się klęską, młody Pułaski zmuszony był wyjechać za granicę, a majątek jego został skonfiskowany. Uciekł do Turcji, gdzie starał się bezskutecznie zainteresować rząd turecki losami Polski i nakłonić go do nowej wojny z zaborczą Rosją, która na skutek rozbiorów otrzymała ogromną część Polski.
W roku 1775 Pułaski przybył do Paryża. Dowiedział się, że amerykańscy koloniści powstali przeciwko Anglii i że rewolucjoniści z wielu krajów zaciągają się jako ochotnicy w ich szeregi i walczą razem z nimi. Niedługo potem porozumiał się z Benjaminem Franklinem, który wówczas reprezentował Amerykę na francuskim dworze królewskim. W maju 1777 roku Franklin napisał list polecający do Jerzego Washingtona, opisując Pułaskiego, jako "oficera sławnego w całej Europie ze swej odwagi i działalności jaką wykazał w obronie wolności swego kraju w walce przeciwko trzem zaborczym potęgom Rosji, Austrii i Prus". Pułaski, naznaczony losem uciskanej Polski, był uczulony na wolność narodową, sprawiedliwość, suwerenność, demokrację, był orędownikiem tych spraw. Do Bostonu przybył w lipcu 1777 roku i spotkał się z Washingtonem następnego miesiąca. Washington w liście do John Hancock'a podał sugestię, by Pułaskiemu oddać dowództwo nad całą kawalerią. Do tego jednak nie doszło i Pułaski przyłączył się jako ochotnik do armii Washingtona. Brał udział i odznaczył się w bitwie pod Brandywine i walczył także w kilku innych bitwach jako dowódca kawalerii. W dniach krytycznych, gdy armia Washingtona wycieńczona z głodu obozowała w zimie pod Valley Forge, Pułaski objeżdżał okolice w poszukiwaniu zapasów. W kilku listach do Kontynentalnego Kongresu Pułaski skarżył się na brak sprawności i na objawy zazdrości wśród niższych oficerów, co często trzymało go w bezczynności, zapewniając mu "tylko walkę z niedźwiedziami". W końcu pozwolono polskiemu rewolucjoniście zorganizować niezależny oddział kawalerii. Oddział ten miał się składać "z 68 jeźdźców i 200 piechurów. Kawalerzyści byli uzbrojeni w lance na sposób lekkiej piechoty". W niezwykle krótkim czasie Pułaski potrafił wysłać swój oddział na pole walki. Wybrał pewną liczbę Polaków i Francuzów na kierownicze stanowiska, większość jednak zwykłych kawalerzystów i szeregowców składała się z rodowitych Amerykanów. Michał de Kowatz (Kowatsch), który miał być węgierskiego pochodzenia, miał najwyższą komendę po Pułaskim, piastującym rangę generała brygadiera. Hrabia Julius de Mountfort służył w randze majora, a John de Zielinsky (Jan Zieliński), który uciekł ze Syberii, dokąd był skazany na wygnanie, był kapitanem ułanów. John Seydelin, Maurycy Bieniowski, Adam Melchair, hrabia Kolkowski, Nicholas Ryland, Joseph Baldesque, Chares Paron de Bose, Mateusz Rogowski, Charles Litomski, Paul Bentalon i Gerard de St. Elme należeli do Europejczyków, którzy zaciągnęli się na listę Legionu Pułaskiego. W jesieni 1779 roku Pułaski połączył się z generałem Lincolnem, który wspomagany przez francuską flotę przygotował atak na Savannah. Dnia 9 października Pułaski zaatakował brytyjski front, jadąc na czele swej konnicy. W boju padł raniony postrzałem. Przeniesiono go rannego na okręt wojenny "Wasp", gdzie lekarze nadaremnie starali się wyjąć kulę i uratować jego życie. Zmarł na pokładzie okrętu. Nie sprawdzono jeszcze, czy pochowany był na morzu, czy pod dębami na wyspie Św. Heleny, czy też w Greenwich, w stanie Georgia. Był najznamienitszym dowódcą, strategiem, człowiekiem miłującym wolność i demokrację, był wielkim Polakiem!, bohaterem Polski i Stanów Zjednoczonych. Poeta Longfellow w poetycznej dedykacji otoczył nimbem romantyzmu i piękna sztandar, pod którym walczył Legion Pułaskiego. Według tradycji sztandar uszyły Morawskie siostry w Bethlehem, Pa., Sztandar ten jest obecnie drogocenną pamiątką w posiadaniu Historycznego Towarzystwa Maryland. Razem z Tadeuszem Kościuszko, Marquis de Lafayette, Baronem von Steuben i z wielu innymi europejskimi ochotnikami, którzy przekroczyli ocean, aby pomóc kolonistom w ich walce o wolność i niepodległość oraz demokrację tego kraju. Pułaski czczony jest w Stanach Zjednoczonych jako prawdziwy rycerz wolności. Jego imieniem nazwane są liczne instytucje, fundacje, place, ma wiele pomników, tablic i swoje piękne miejsce w amerykańskiej historii po wieczne czasy.

Edward Poskier

P.S. Mam żal, że polskie media i polscy nauczyciele historii tak mało miejsca w swoich programach poświęcają Kazimierzowi Pułaskiemu. Czyżby miał się stać bohaterem wyłącznie Stanów Zjednoczonych?. Zapytałem ostatnio kilku młodych ludzi z czym im się kojarzy postać Kazimierza Pułaskiego - kilku odpowiedziało... z piwem browaru Warka !, (przyp. red. - browar ten ma w logo podobiznę Kazimierza Pułaskiego)
autor

Casimir Pulaski belongs to that select group of heroes, including the Marquis de Lafayefte, Thomas Paine, Giuseppe Garibaldi, and Pulaski's fellow countryman, Thaddeus Kosciuszko, who opposed tyranny not only in their homelands, but wherever they found it. We especially honor Pulaski because he paid the ultimate price, having sustained a mortal wound while fighting for American independence at the battle of Savannah in 1779. Today he remains a symbol of the ideal of valiant resistance to oppression everywhere in the world.



The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Pulaski was born on March 4,1747, in Winiary, some 40 miles outside of Warsaw. His family belonged to the minor Polish nobility, and his ancestors fought with King Jan Sobieski against the Turks at the siege of Vienna in 1683. His father Jozef successfully built up the family fortune and deeply involved himself in politics. But the vast Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had fallen on hard times. No longer the military power of Sobieski's day, it came increasingly under the domination of its aggressive neighbors, particularly Tsarist Russia. Russia demonstrated its influence over the Commonwealth's affairs when in 1764 Empress Catherine the Great imposed her candidate Stanislaus Poniatowski, as the Commonwealth's next elected monarch. Poniatowski sought to carry out much needed reforms, but aroused the suspicion of the nobility who feared the establishment of a royal despotism. Moreover, the Russian ambassador regularly interfered in the Cornmonwealth's domestic affairs, in 1767, even using Russian troops to coerce its parliament into passing legislation that ended the privileged position of the Catholic Church. In these circumstances, in 1768, Jozef Pulaski joined with others in initiating an insurrection known as the Confederation of Bar, a town in the Ukraine, where it was formed. Under the motto, "For Faith and Freedom," the elder Pulaski assumed the military leadership of the confederation, and Casimir on his 21st birthday took command of a detachment of partisans. For the next 3 1/2 years, in military campaigns against Russian forces that sought to put down the rebellion, the young commander proved his valor and genuine military talent in more than a dozen major action and numerous skirmishes.



Exile

In October 1771, Pulaski undertook one last major expedition as part of a plot to abduct the king. The plot misfired, but it led to the young Casimir being unjustly accused of attempted regicide and later, after he left the country, to a death sentence. When in 1772, Russia, Prussia, and Austria began negotiations to partition the Commonwealth, he and the other confederates saw the futility of continuing the struggle. In the face of the charges against him, he was forced to flee his homeland, never to see it again. Within months of his departure, the Commonwealth's aggressive neighbors agreed to divide over a quarter of its territory among themselves. The effort to defend the Commonwealth had failed, but the heroism of Pulaski and other confederates would inspire future generations of their countrymen. Meanwhile, Pulaski faced a difficult exile. After two years in western Europe, he again joined battle against Russia, this time, on the side of the Turks. Their defeat forced him to return to France where, in the summer of 1776, he learned of America's war for independence and sought permission from the Americans to join their forces. Most American colonists were not yet enthusiastic in the support of the war, and George Washington, a commander-in-chief, needed battle-tested officers like Pulaski. Finally, in May 1777, Pulaski received a letter of recommendation from Benjamin Franklin, the American commissioner in Paris, and left for America, landing near Boston in July. In August, he reported to Washington's headquarters near Philadelphia.



The American Revolutionary War

On Washington's recommendation, the Continental Congress appointed Pulaski general of the cavalry on September 15, 1777. But even before his formal appointment, he demonstrated his value. At the battle of Brandywine Creek, where Washington's forces suffered a defeat, Pulaski led a counterattack that covered the retreat of the Americans and helped prevent a military disaster. Pulaski spent the winter of 1777 training his soldiers at Trenton, not far from Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge. He introduced new battle drills in an effort to transform them into a highly mobile force. But, realizing that the Americans did not share his conception of the cavalry as a separate combat force, Pulaski asked to be relieved of his position and allowed to form a special infantry and cavalry unit capable of more independent action. With Washington's support, Pulaski gained the consent of Congress on March 28, 1778. It took Pulaski, regarded as "the father of the American cavalry," another five months to form his legion at his headquarters in Baltimore, where he recruited Americans, Frenchmen, Poles, Irishmen, and especially Germans; mainly deserters from the Hessian mercenaries employed by the British. But for some time the American command could not find a suitable role for Pulaski's legion, leading him again to request reassignment. Finally, on February 2,1779, he received orders to proceed to South Carolina to reinforce the southern American forces under British attack. Now Pulaski began his most active period of service in the war with the front line combat he sought. At the head of a troop of some 600, Pulaski arrived in Charleston in May 1779, just in time to contribute to its successful defense against a much larger British force, which after occupying Georgia was steadily advancing northward. This victory proved pivotal in the war in the South as it broke the British momentum and boosted American morale. What remained was to win back the territory that the British had occupied. Savannah became the fateful goal. Newly arrived French forces under Admiral Charles Henri d'Estaing together with the Americans planned a risky all out assault on the heavily fortified town. The siege began on October 9. The mission of the Pulaski Legion was to follow in behind the French infantry and break down the enemy's line of defense. But the French got caught in a cross fire, and d'Estaing himself was wounded. Awaiting the proper moment for his cavalry to enter the battle, Pulaski could see the infantry breaking ranks under heavy fire. To try to save the situation, he charged forward into the battle only to be grievously wounded himself. Carried from the battlefield, he was put on a ship to be taken back to Charleston, but never regained consciousness. On October 11, 1779, the 32 year old Polish commander died at sea, where he was buried.



In Honor of Pulaski

Americans have always recognized Pulaski's heroism and the price he paid for their freedom. Shortly after his death a solemn memorial service was held in Charleston, and, before the end of 1779, the Continental Congress resolved that a monument should be erected in his honor, though a statue was not put into place in Washington, D.C., until 1910. Over the years Americans have kept alive his memory naming many countries, towns, streets, parks, and squares after him. Among those of Polish descent, his fame rivals that of Kosciuszko, who, after his service in the American Revolutionary War, returned to his homeland, where, in 1794, he led an insurrection against the same Russian domination that Pulaski had fought before coming to America. In his first letter to Washington, after arriving in America, Pulaski wrote, "I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it." He proved true to his word. For this, we honor him as a soldier of Liberty for all.


Source: Casimir Pulaski 1747-1779: A Short Biography
Written by and reprinted with permission of: John J. Kulczycki, Professor of History, University of Illinois at Chicago; Published by the Polish Museum of America, 984 N. Milwaukee Ave., Chicago, IL 60622;


Sunday, October 7, 2007

By JENNIFER H. CUNNINGHAM
HERALD NEWS


WALLINGTON -- Local officials, members of the clergy and other supporters converged at a statue of Gen. Casimir Pulaski for a ceremony honoring his achievements during the Revolutionary War.

About 50 people gathered at Main Avenue near the Eighth Street Bridge Saturday afternoon to commemorate the Pole known as the "Father of the American Cavalry."


"He came from Poland to fight for freedom," said Mark Zawisny, grand marshal of today's Pulaski parade in New York City. "To me, he's like my parents when they left communist Poland for a better life. He died for our country."

Pulaski -- whose name is immortalized in the Pulaski Skyway that runs from Newark to Jersey City -- is considered a hero in the Polish-American community for his bravery and sacrifice, said Dariusz Pawluczuk, president of the Wallington Pulaski Memorial Association. Wallington -- where more than half of its residents claim Polish ancestry, according to the 2000 Census -- is home to one of two known statues of Pulaski in the country.

"He is a very important person to our history," Pawluczuk said. "It's the same as Columbus Day for Italians."

Saturday's ceremony began with the laying of a wreath of flowers at the statue's base, and was marked by songs, prayers and appearances by Miss Polonia 2007, Sylwia Solpys, and Wallington's Pulaski parade marshal, Theresa Wygonik.

The ceremony is a prelude to today's 70th Annual Pulaski Day Parade, which marches along Fifth Avenue between 29th Street and 53rd Street in Manhattan.

Casamir Pulaski was born into the Polish nobility in 1747. A military man before coming to the United States, Pulaski led Polish troops to battle the Russians, who occupied Poland during the 1700s.

However, he was forced to flee the country after being falsely accused of plotting to assassinate the king. In Paris, Benjamin Franklin recruited him to fight for the United States' independence, and he arrived in Boston in summer 1777.

In a letter to Washington, Franklin wrote of Pulaski as "an officer famous throughout Europe for his bravery and conduct in defense of the liberties of his country against ... great invading powers," according to the Polish American Cultural Center in Philadelphia.

He became a brigadier general and raised his own cavalry of 600 men, which fought in several battles in New York and New Jersey. But Pulaski is also known for protecting Charleston, S.C., from advancing British forces. He was fatally wounded while trying to reclaim Savannah, Ga., from British troops in 1779.

Pawluczuk said he hadn't heard of Pulaski until he arrived in the U.S. from Poland in 1981. At the time, Poland's communist government suppressed Pulaski's accomplishments, he said.

"My grandmother and my mother told me about him," he said. "When I came to the U.S., for the first time in my life I saw the Pulaski Parade (in New York City.) I was like, 'Oh, my god!' It's not something you'd see in Poland."

Two years ago, President Bush proclaimed Oct. 11 as Gen. Pulaski Memorial Day, and said Pulaski exemplified "the spirit and determination of Polish immigrants to America," and "embodied our nation's highest ideals."

Reach Jennifer H. Cunningham at 973-569-7162 or Cunningham@northjersey.com

A Chronology of Casimir Pulaski's Life 1745-1779


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1745
6 March Kazimierz is born in Warsaw at the Pulaski residence on the corner of Nowy Swiat and Warecka Streets. He is the second son (of three) born to the starosta of Warka, Józef Pulaski and Marianna Zielinska his wife . A priest, Father Krzysztof Faltz was called to the house to administer baptism because of the child's debility.
14 March a grand completion of the baptismal ceremonies at the Holy Cross Church in Warsaw
1762 leaves the Theatine School in Warsaw which he had attended (most likely after getting an elementary education at the parish school in Warka) and becomes a page at the courts of Prince Charles of Courland [Kurlandia]; and Semigallia, son of King Augustus III.
1763 gains his first military experience during a six month long stay at Prince Charles' military camp, where he lived through the siege by the Russian army of the capital of the Kingdom of Courland - Mitava (now Jelgava in the Latvian Republic).
1764
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September Józef Pulaski and his three sons take part in the election of Stanislaus Augustus Poniatowski as King of Poland in Warsaw
1767
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December Józef Pulaski and his three sons leave Warsaw for Winiary, and start organizing an armed uprising in south-eastern Poland
1768 the eldest sons of Józef Pulaski, Franciszek and Casimir, travel along the Dniestr River recruiting for the confederation whose political side was being prepared at that time in Lvov by Józef Pulaski
29 February the establishment of the Bar Confederation in Podole with the Chamberlain from Rozan, Michal Krasinski, at its head
4 March the establishment of the military arm of the confederation with Józef Pulaski at its head with the title of Marshal of the Union; among the commanders of the regiments were his three sons, Franciszek, starosta of Augustów; Casimir, starosta of Zezuliniec; and Antoni, starosta of Czeresz
around 20 April Casimir Pulaski leads his first skirmish with the vanguard of the Russian troops which had been sent to Podole to put down the uprising
23 April defends Starokonstantynów
May fights defensive actions near Chmielnik and Winnica and then fortifies Berdyczów
13 June after a two week long siege he capitulates along with his troops and is taken prisoner by the Russians
20 June the Russian army takes the town of Bar, the second important insurgent stronghold; Józef Pulaski crosses the Dniestr River with the rest of his troops and takes refuge on Turkish soil
17 July Casimir Pulaski is freed by the Russians and goes to the Bar Confederation camp at Chocim
September - October he and his brothers carry out raids along the northern bank of the Dniestr River
December Józef Pulaski is arrested by the Turks as a result of intrigues in the confederate camp
1769
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winter the Pulaski brothers at the head of their troops occupy and fortify Zwaniec and the Holy Trinity Trenches on the Dniestr River
February Casimir Pulaski carries out a reconnaissance raid toward Zaleszczyki and fights a skirmish near Tluste; at the same time receives a declaration from the confederates of western Little Poland (Malopolska) to join them
early March the youngest of the sons, Antoni, falls into Russian captivity
8 March the Russian army takes Zwaniec and the Holy Trinity Trenches; Franciszek and Casimir take refuge along with the survivors on the southern shore of the Dniestr River, on Turkish soil
end of March Casimir Pulaski crosses the frontier in Kuty and marches through Czarnohora and Gorgany towards the Kraków region

3 April in a letter written from Radoszyce (near the Lupków Mountain Pass) he reports to Prince Marcin Lubomirski, a leader of the confederates in Little Poland
mid April the main organizer of the Bar rising, Józef Pulaski, dies in a Turkish prison as a result of a raging epidemic
late April Franciszek Pulaski returns with his units to Poland and appears in eastern Little Poland
around 13 May the Pulaski brothers meet in Sambor and decide to operate in unison
22 May Franciszek Pulaski is named marshal of the confederated Przemysl region
end of May the Pulaski brothers take part in an unsuccessful attempt to occupy Lvov
late June arriving in the Lublin area and reaching Polesie, the brothers organize a rising in Lithuania;
6 July Casimir Pulaski commands in victorious battle at Kukielki
12 July he commands in victorious battle at Slonim
3 August Casimir Pulaski is named marshal of the confederation forces in the Lomza region
13 September the detachments led by the Pulaski brothers are defeated at Orzechów and Franciszek is killed in battle
in September Casimir Pulaski takes part in the war council at Zborov in Slovakia which precedes the establishment of the General High Board of the Confederation called the Generality which becomes the chief insurgent authority
October-December he stays with his troops in the Dukla region near Grab at the source of the Wisloka River.
1770
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 January his hand is wounded during a skirmish near Grab
February - March is stationed in the Nowy Targ region
in April is stationed in the Nowy Sacz district
15 May loses a battle near Pilzno during a raid in the direction of Kraków
mid June while at Presov in Slovakia where the Austrian authorities had granted asylum to the Generality, Pulaski met with the Austrian Emperor Joseph II who visited the confederates
3 August he loses a battle at Wysowa with Drewitz's army, and later takes shelter on Austrian soil
7 August meets in Zborov with Charles Dumouriez, the new French government emissary and military adviser to the Generality
25 August is in Nowy Targ with his army

1 September organizes a night raid on Kraków after which he retreats toward Czestochowa
9 September he occupies the monastery at Jasna Góra (Czestochowa)
29 September organizes a raid from Zarnowiec through Jedrzejów to Koniecpol
19 October organizes a raid from Czestochowa towards Poznan
in November prepares Jasna Góra for a siege; the Russian army approaches Czestochowa twice in this period
31 December the beginning of the siege of Czestochowa by the army of General Drewitz, supported by Prussian artillery
1771
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 January Casimir Pulaski organizes a raid from the monastery and destroys an enemy battery
9 January all-out attack is repulsed
15 January Drevitz's army leaves Czestochowa
around 1 March Pulaski stages a raid from Czestochowa toward Krasnik
in April Casimir Pulaski takes part in a council in Biala concerning the attack on Little Poland (Malopolska)
21 May he starts a raid through Tymbark, Limanowa, Nowy Sacz, Debica, Zamosc (skirmishing along the way in Kolbuszowa, Debica, Mielec);
2 June Pulaski's units fight battle with a Russian army corps at Zamosc after which they retreat towards Tarnów and Lanckorona
18 June Casimir Pulaski is back at Jasna Góra which is again threatened with a siege by Drewitz and the Polish Royal Army under the command of Branicki
in September he proposes a plan to reorganize the high command (five general commanders) at a council in Presov in Slovakia, the idea is not accepted
20 October he leaves Czestochowa for a diversionary raid in the direction of Warsaw; meanwhile a group commanded by Strawinski was to make an attempt to abduct King Stanislaus August Poniatowski
31 October he loses a battle at Skaryszew near Radom; is wounded in the arm and his scattered units retreat towards Czestochowa
3 November the abduction of King Stanislaus August Poniatowski proves unsuccessful, Pulaski is implicated as an instigator of the scheme
30 November the Austrian authorities forbid Pulaski entry into Austria as one of the organizers of the attempted abduction of the king
1 December he returns to Jasna Góra.
1772
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

around 20 February stages a raid from Czestochowa towards Kraków
31 May Pulaski leaves the Jasna Góra fortress and takes refuge in Prussian Silesia
end of June he arrives in Dresden
in August he visits AItwasser in Silesia under the assumed name of Rudzinski to see Franciszka Krasinska and then surreptitiously watches the maneuvers of the Prussian troops near Nysa

in September he leaves Germany and stops in Nancy, France.
1773
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in March he moves to Paris
beginning of May he goes to Dresden to be nearer Poland while the trial of the participants in the abduction attempt is being held
7 June the beginning of the trial (which lasts until 28 August) with Casimir Pulaski sentenced in absentia to beheading for attempted regicide
25 September under the assumed name of Korwin he meets with the leaders of the Generality in Strassburg and announces that he will take part in the war between Turkey and Russia, after which he travels to Paris
1774
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in March he leaves Paris and with a group of companions goes to Turkey
12 April he sails from Venice to Ragusa (Dubrovnik) in order to reach the Turkish army which is fighting the Russians at the mouth of the Danube River
around 20 June he reaches the Vizier's camp near Shumen west of Varna where he takes part in the defeat suffered by the Turkish forces
around 15 October after the unsuccessful Turkish expedition and a three month long journey (Adrianople, Constantinople, Izmir) he returns to France and stops in Marseilles
20 December this is the date of the memorial written to the French authorities by Józef Zajaczek in order to obtain financial aid for Pulaski
1775
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in Marseilles living from an allowance and loans
October spends a short time in debtors' prison
1776
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 August he appeals to the Sejm (Polish Parliament) in Warsaw to be allowed to return to Poland but there is no reply; at this time that he makes efforts to be accepted into the American Revolutionary Army
1777
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March - April he arrives in Paris after obtaining permission to go to America
29 May he receives a letter of recommendation from Benjamin Franklin addressed to George Washington
6 June he writes a letter of farewell to his sister Anne in Warsaw and sails on the ship Massachusetts from Nantes to America
23 July he lands in America at Marblehead near Boston
in August after a short stay in Boston he reports at the headquarters of the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army George Washington located in Moland House in Warwick Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
24 August he offers his military services to Congress
11 September he takes part in his first battle on American soil, on the Brandywine Creek between Chester and Philadelphia
15 September he is named a general of cavalry

3 October he fights at Germantown and covers Washington's retreat after the battle is lost
in the winter Pulaski patrols the area around Valley Forge where Washington's army takes up winter quarters; his own quarters are in Devault Beaver's house
1778
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 January moves with his unit to Trenton where he organizes and trains the troops
end of February
- start of March he joins General Wayne in the fighting against the British in New Jersey; a skirmish at Haddonfield
mid March while in Valley Forge Pulaski asks Washington to release him from his post as the commander of cavalry and puts forward a plan for an independent detachment which he would command
19 March while in Yorktown he presents his plan of forming a Legion to Congress
28 March he receives Congressional permission for the scheme
late April he establishes the headquarters of the Legion in Baltimore
18 May Pulaski's Legion receives its banner; embroidered by the Moravian Order of Nuns of Bethlehem
15 September Pulaski reports to Washington that the Legion is ready for action
8 October Pulaski's Legion arrives at Egg Harbor where a week later it was surprised by a British night attack and suffered serious losses
24 October the Legion arrives at Trenton, then relocates to Sussex Court House and finally to Minisink where it is ordered to defend the colonists against the Indians
15 November Pulaski asks Washington to be released from his post and writes of his intention to return to Europe
1779
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in January while in Philadelphia he withdraws the resignation he sent to Congress
8 February Washington orders the Legion to march south from Yorktown in the direction of Savannah
8 May the Legion arrives in Charleston where it takes part in the fighting for the town
19 August Pulaski's last letter to Congress
14 September Pulaski's Legion arrives at Savannah, to take part in taking the town
9 October Pulaski is mortally wounded in the attack on Savannah
15 October he dies on board the brigantine Wasp while it is still anchored near Savannah; his body is taken to nearby Greenwich Plantation and buried there in a torchlight ceremony

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 October a symbolic funeral of the hero in Charleston
1793 through the efforts of Antoni Pulaski the Sejm (Polish Parliament) revokes the sentence from the trial held in 1773 (in absentia) which found Pulaski guilty of attempted regicide and condemned him to death
1825 A corner stone is laid for Casimir Pulaski's monument by Lafayette in Savannah's Chippewa Square.
1855 A monument to Pulaski designed by Robert Launitz is finally erected in Monterey Square in Savannah. The corner stone from Chippewa Square and Pulaski's remains from Greenwich Plantation are placed in its underground brick lined crypt.
1910 Casimir Pulaski's monument in Washington is unveiled
1929 A monument to Pulaski is unveiled in Krynica, Poland; it is the first monument to Pulaski built on Polish soil
1967 the Casimir Pulaski museum in Warka-Winiary, Poland opens
1979 the 200th anniversary of Pulaski's death, a statue by Kazimerz Danilewicz, a gift of the Polish nation to the United States, is dedicated in Buffalo, and a copy placed in the park near the Pulaski museum in Warka.
1996 the Pulaski Monument in Savannah is taken down for renovation, the underground crypt is uncovered and found to contain two cornerstones and an iron box. The box bears a plate "Brigadier General Casimer Pulaski" and contains the bones of a man matching Pulaski in stature and physical characteristics.
1997 a conference is convened on Pulaski at the Museum in Warka, Poland; among those delivering papers is Edward Pinkowski
Kazimierz (Casimir) Pulaski, military man, Confederate of Bar, hero of American Revolution

Born: March 6, 1745, Warsaw, Russian partition of Poland (presently Poland)

Died: October 15, 1779, at sea, (buried in Savannah, USA)

Early days. Father – Jozef Pulaski, mother - Marianna Zielinska. His family belonged to the minor Polish nobility, and his ancestors fought with King Jan Sobieski against the Turks at the siege of Vienna in 1683. His father Jozef successfully built up the family fortune and deeply involved himself in politics. But the vast Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had fallen on hard times. No longer the military power of Sobieski's day, it came increasingly under the domination of its aggressive neighbors, particularly Tsarist Russia. Russia demonstrated its influence over the Commonwealth's affairs when in 1764 Empress Catherine the Great imposed her candidate Stanislaus Poniatowski, as the Commonwealth's next elected monarch.
First military experience.In 1762 Kazimierz leaves the Theatine School in Warsaw which he had attended (most likely after getting an elementary education at the parish school in Warka) and becomes a page at the court of Prince Charles of Courland (Kurlandia) and Semigallia. In 1764 he gains his first military experience during a six month long stay at Prince Charles' military camp, where he lived through the siege by the Russian army of the capital of the Kingdom of Courland - Mitava (now Jelgava in the Latvian Republic). Poniatowski sought to carry out much needed reforms, but aroused the suspicion of the nobility who feared the establishment of a royal despotism. Moreover, the Russian ambassador regularly interfered in the Commonwealth's domestic affairs, in 1767, even using Russian troops to coerce its parliament into passing legislation that ended the privileged position of the Catholic Church.
Joining the Confederation of Bar. In these circumstances, in 1768, Jozef Pulaski joined with others in initiating an insurrection known as the Confederation of Bar, a town in the Ukraine, where it was formed. Under the motto, "For Faith and Freedom," the elder Pulaski assumed the military leadership of the confederation, and Casimir on his 21st birthday took command of a detachment of partisans. For the next 3 1/2 years, in military campaigns against Russian forces that sought to put down the rebellion, the young commander proved his valor and genuine military talent in more than a dozen major actions and numerous skirmishes. In October 1771, Pulaski undertook one last major expedition as part of a plot to abduct the king. The plot misfired, but it led to the young Casimir being unjustly accused of attempted regicide and later, after he left the country, to a death sentence.
Fleeing Poland. When in 1772, Russia, Prussia, and Austria began negotiations to partition the Commonwealth, he and the other confederates saw the futility of continuing the struggle. In the face of the charges against him, he was forced to flee his homeland, never to see it again. Within months of his departure, the Commonwealth's aggressive neighbors agreed to divide over a quarter of its territory among them. The effort to defend the Commonwealth had failed, but the heroism of Pulaski and other confederates would inspire future generations of their countrymen. Meanwhile, Pulaski faced a difficult exile. After two years in Western Europe, he again joined battle against Russia, this time, on the side of the Turks.
Leaves for America.Their defeat forced him to return to France where, in the summer of 1776, he learned of America's war for independence and sought permission from the Americans to join their forces. Most American colonists were not yet enthusiastic in the support of the war, and George Washington, a commander-in-chief, needed battle-tested officers like Pulaski. Finally, in May 1777, Pulaski received a letter of recommendation from Benjamin Franklin, the American commissioner in Paris, and left for America, landing near Boston in July. In August, he reported to Washington's headquarters near Philadelphia.
Appointed general.On Washington's recommendation, the Continental Congress appointed Pulaski general of the cavalry on September 15, 1777. But even before his formal appointment, he demonstrated his value. At the battle of Brandywine Creek, where Washington's forces suffered a defeat, Pulaski led a counterattack that covered the retreat of the Americans and helped prevent a military disaster. Pulaski spent the winter of 1777 training his soldiers at Trenton, not far from Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge. He introduced new battle drills in an effort to transform them into a highly mobile force. But, realizing that the Americans did not share his conception of the cavalry as a separate combat force, Pulaski asked to be relieved of his position and allowed to form a special infantry and cavalry unit capable of more independent action.
Forming his own unit.With Washington's support, Pulaski gained the consent of Congress on March 28, 1778. It took Pulaski, regarded as "the father of the American cavalry," another five months to form his legion at his headquarters in Baltimore, where he recruited Americans, Frenchmen, Poles, Irishmen, and especially Germans; mainly deserters from the Hessian mercenaries employed by the British. But for some time the American command could not find a suitable role for Pulaski's legion, leading him again to request reassignment. Finally, on February 2,1779, he received orders to proceed to South Carolina to reinforce the southern American forces under British attack. Now Pulaski began his most active period of service in the war with the front line combat he sought. At the head of a troop of some 600, Pulaski arrived in Charleston in May 1779, just in time to contribute to its successful defense against a much larger British force, which after occupying Georgia was steadily advancing northward. This victory proved pivotal in the war in the South as it broke the British momentum and boosted American morale. What remained was to win back the territory that the British had occupied.
Battle of Savannah.Savannah became the fateful goal. Newly arrived French forces under Admiral Charles Henri d'Estaing together with the Americans planned a risky all out assault on the heavily fortified town. The siege began on October 9. The mission of the Pulaski Legion was to follow in behind the French infantry and break down the enemy's line of defense. But the French got caught in a cross fire, and d'Estaing himself was wounded. Awaiting the proper moment for his cavalry to enter the battle, Pulaski could see the infantry breaking ranks under heavy fire. To try to save the situation, he charged forward into the battle only to be grievously wounded himself. Carried from the battlefield, he was put on a ship to be taken back to Charleston, but never regained consciousness. On October 11, 1779, the 32 year old Polish commander died at sea, and was buried in Savannah.
America's recognition.Americans have always recognized Pulaski's heroism and the price he paid for their freedom. Shortly after his death a solemn memorial service was held in Charleston, and, before the end of 1779, the Continental Congress resolved that a monument should be erected in his honor, though a statue was not put into place in Washington, D.C., until 1910. Over the years Americans have kept alive his memory naming many countries, towns, streets, parks, and squares after him. Among those of Polish descent, his fame rivals that of Kosciuszko, who, after his service in the American Revolutionary War, returned to his homeland, where, in 1794, he led an insurrection against the same Russian domination that Pulaski had fought before coming to America. In his first letter to Washington, after arriving in America, Pulaski wrote, "I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it." He proved true to his word. For this, we honor him as a soldier of Liberty for all. In 1855 a monument to Pulaski designed by Robert Launitz is erected in Monterey Square in Savannah. In 1929 a monument to Pulaski is unveiled in Krynica, Poland; it is the first monument to Pulaski built on Polish soil. In 1967 the Casimir Pulaski museum in Warka-Winiary, Poland opens.

Source:
Casimir Pulaski 1747-1779: A Short Biography Written by, copied and modified with permission of: John J. Kulczycki, Professor Emeritus of History, University of Illinois at Chicago; see

Kissinger talks again New world order

This is a video response to Rabbi Marvin Hier on the Jew-Hating Father Rydzyk

Trojaczki z Gorzyc założyły wojskowe mundury

Trojaczki z Gorzyc założyły wojskowe mundury



Sztafeta: Co czuje matka, gdy syn idzie do wojska? Tęskni bardzo. A jak bardzo tęsknić musi matka trojaczków, którzy jednego dnia pakują się i wyjeżdżają setki kilometrów od domu, by założyć mundur i służyć ojczyźnie... – To potrójna tęsknota, ale i potrójna duma – mówi pani Elżbieta Czerepak z Gorzyc. Przed dwoma tygodniami jej synowie rozpoczęli służbę wojskową w Kazuniu Nowym pod Warszawą. W ciągu kilku dni stali się najsłynniejszymi żołnierzami w kraju.


Jednakowe mundury, takie same zielone berety, identyczne uśmiechy. Szeregowy Karol Czerepak, szeregowy Wojtek Czerepak, szeregowy Marek Czerepak. Podobni jak krople wody. Trojaczki z Gorzyc od dwóch tygodni służą w szeregach 2. Mazowieckiej Brygady Saperów w Kazuniu Nowym pod Warszawą. – To było olbrzymie zaskoczenie dla dowództwa. Bliźniacy owszem, ale trojaczki chyba jeszcze w żadnej jednostce nie służyły – przyznaje kapitan Paweł Kulawiak, oficer prasowy 2. Mazowieckiej Brygady Saperów w Kazuniu Nowym. Wieść o gorzyckich trojaczkach lotem błyskawicy obiegła media. O kazuńskiej jednostce, a raczej o braciach w niej służących zaczyna być coraz głośniej...

Opustoszały dom
– Zawsze swym synom wpajałam, że nie mogą być egoistami, że nie żyją tylko dla siebie – mówi pani Elżbieta Czerepak, mama żołnierzy. I chociaż tęskni bardzo, wie, że tak być powinno. Tylko tak pusto się zrobiło w domu, tak cicho... – Przecież nagle połowa domowników ubyła – mówi pani Elżbieta. – Niby mniej pracy teraz, bo i gotowania mniej, i sprzątania, prasowania, ale tak nieswojo. Brakuje tego rozgardiaszu, jaki przy tylu dorosłych osobach mieszkających w jednym mieszkaniu jest nieunikniony.
Liczyła się jednak z tym, że kiedyś dzieci odejdą od rodziców, będą mieć swoje życie. Przygotowała ją do tego służba wojskowa starszego syna. 22-letni Sebastian jeszcze do końca października służy w jednostce w Nisku. – Nie od początku był tak blisko domu, więc nie mieliśmy możliwości częstego kontaktu – wspomina pani Elżbieta jak tęskniła. Teraz, gdy niebawem mogła mieć wszystkie dzieci w komplecie, do wojska poszły trojaczki. – Nie lamentowałam jednak, nie broniłam. Wiem, że dzieci wychowuje się nie dla siebie. Syna dla innej kobiety, ale i dla narodu, dla ojczyzny – tak dojrzale jak pani Elżbieta niewiele osób postrzega rodzicielstwo. Tata chłopców przytakuje: – Wojsko jest potrzebne każdemu chłopakowi – mówi pan Zbigniew Czerepak.
Wychowywani w takim przeświadczeniu Karol, Wojtek i Marek nie mieli oporu przed odbyciem zasadniczej służby wojskowej. Nawet nie myśleli, by unikać tego obowiązku. Mało tego, jeden z nich poszedł niemal na ochotnika. Wezwanie dostał pierwszy z trojaczków, kilka dni później listonosz dostarczył wezwanie dla drugiego z braci. Nie czekali na trzeci polecony. Do Wojskowej Komendy Uzupełnień w Nisku pojechali we trzech. Wrócili z biletami.

Potrójne szczęście
Trojaczki zawsze wzbudzają żywe zainteresowanie. Do wózka z bliźniakami zagląda niemal każdy, a co dopiero, gdy kwili w nim trójka identycznych maleństw... Gdy przed dwudziestu laty na świat przyszedł Karol, chwilę po nim Wojtek, tuż po nim Marek Czerepak, gmina Gorzyce, z której pochodzą, nie posiadała się z dumy. Do szczęśliwych w trójnasób rodziców z gratulacjami śpieszyli bliscy, sąsiedzi, a nawet obcy ludzie. Pofatygował się nawet przedstawiciel ówczesnej władzy państwowej, sam sekretarz gminy. – Wtedy o naszych chłopcach było głośno, potem już tyle emocji nie wzbudzali – mówi pan Zbigniew.
Chłopcy rośli, a gorzyczanie zdawali się już nie zwracać uwagi na trzech podobnych do siebie braci. Chociaż czasem niejednemu przez myśl przeszło „zaraz, zaraz, ten, który się ukłonił, to Marek czy Karol? Nie, chyba jednak Wojtek...” Identyczne postury, te same zawadiackie uśmiechy – niemałym problemem było odróżnienie braci Czerepak. Jednak nie dla najbliższych. – Żadna matka chyba nigdy nie ma z tym problemów. Zresztą cała rodzina doskonale rozróżnia, który jest który – przyznaje pani Elżbieta. – Mimo że podobni fizycznie, różną się charakterami – dodaje Dominika, o trzy lata starsza siostra trojaczków.

Potrójna tęsknota
Chłopcom, chociaż niemal identyczni, nie w głowie było podmieniać się, czy to w szkole – chociaż wywołany do tablicy mógł iść akurat ten przygotowany – czy podczas koleżeńskich spotkań. Problemów nie sprawiali. – Może gdy byli mali, płatali różne psikusy. Potem już nie wykorzystywali swojego podobieństwa. Być może bali się konsekwencji? Głupio to zabrzmi, ponieważ jestem ich matką, ale to są bardzo dobre i grzeczne dzieci – zapewnia pani Elżbieta.
Zdaniem taty, obowiązkowość i zdyscyplinowanie chłopaków to zasługa sportu. Od lat bracia zakochani są, wszyscy trzej oczywiście, w piłce nożnej. Grali w parafialnym klubie sportowym „Emaus”, występowali w barwach Ludowego Zespołu Sportowego „Nowiny”. – Radzili sobie bardzo dobrze i nie żeby to była tylko moja opinia. Sport to doskonała szkoła dla każdego – zapewnia pan Zbigniew. Dziś to, że chłopcy znosili trudy treningów i potrafili się poddać sportowej dyscyplinie, utwierdza rodziców w przekonaniu, że poradzą sobie i w wojsku. – Są bardzo pracowici, wytrwali, wysportowani. To pozwoli im przetrwać te miesiące wojskowego szkolenia – w takim przeświadczeniu przed dwoma tygodniami swych synów, ocierając łzy, żegnała pani Elżbieta. – Wojsko to szkoła życia. Każdemu pozwala zmężnieć – mówi dumny z synów pan Zbigniew.

Dumni z żołnierzy
Że rodzice powinni być dumni z takich synów przekonują też przełożeni młodych żołnierzy. – Mimo że trojaczki są w naszej jednostce od niespełna dwóch tygodni, dowódca już zdążył wyrobić sobie zdanie na ich temat. Bardzo dobre dodam. W jego ocenie to znakomici żołnierze i wartościowi ludzie o bardzo dużej kulturze osobistej – mówi kapitan Paweł Kulawiak, oficer prasowy 2. Małopolskiej Brygady Saperów w Kazuniu Nowym. Jak zaznacza, dla jednostki to też duma mieć takich wspaniałych żołnierzy.
Chociaż... nie obyło się bez, na szczęście maleńkich, problemów. Olbrzymie zaskoczenie, gdy okazało się, że w kazuńskiej jednostce służyć będzie nie tyle trzech braci, co braci trojaczków, przerodziło się bowiem w zakłopotanie – jak ich rozróżniać? Wojskowi nie ukrywają, że na początku mieli z tym kłopot, teraz z każdym dniem jest coraz lepiej. Poradzono sobie też z wydawaniem komend. W tym wypadku bowiem standardowe „Szeregowy Czerepak, wystąp” nie sprawdziłoby się. – Komendy wydawane są po imieniu. Inaczej za każdym razem powstawałoby małe zamieszanie – przyznaje kapitan Kulawiak. Takie imienne komendy chyba nawet raźniej wykonywać. Z tym jednak Czerepakowie, tak czy inaczej, nie mieliby problemu. Już bowiem dali się poznać z jak najlepszej strony. – Są bardzo sumienni i pracowici – mówi oficer prasowy 2. MBS w Kazuniu Nowym. – A tego tu potrzeba, w saperach ciężko się służy.
O tym, że lekko nie będzie, bracia wiedzieli. Nie narzekają. Jedyne co im doskwiera, to odległość dzieląca od rodziny. – Martwią się o rodziców, jak sobie poradzą bez nich, o chorego dziadka. Marek zawsze się nim opiekował. Teraz wie, że obowiązki te spadły na barki mamy – wyznaje kapitan Paweł Kulawiak. Dowództwo kazuńskiej jednostki zdaje sobie sprawę, co znaczy dla rodziny jednoczesna służba aż trzech (w tym przypadku w wojsku jest też czwarty) mężczyzn. – Dołożymy wszelkich starań, by już po złożeniu przysięgi szeregowi ci jak najczęściej mogli odwiedzać swych bliskich – zapewnia rzecznik jednostki.

Mama na medal
Wielki dzień Karola, Wojtka i Marka już 7 września. Na przysięgę na pewno przyjedzie cała rodzina. Pani Elżbieta, chociaż podobne przeżycie – przysięgę starszego syna Sebastiana – ma już za sobą, gdy słowa Roty „Ja, żołnierz Wojska Polskiego, przysięgam służyć wiernie Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, bronić jej niepodległości i granic. (...) Tak mi dopomóż Bóg” wypowiadać będzie trójka jej najmłodszych dzieci, wzruszy się do łez. – Dla matki to największa nagroda za trud wychowania, gdy widzi, że ten trud nie poszedł na marne – przyznaje skromnie mama żołnierzy.
Jej i jej męża trud docenią także i inni. Gdy wszyscy synowie państwa Czerepak zakończą służbę, Wojskowa Komenda Uzupełnień w Nisku, pod którą podlegali, wystąpi do ministra obrony narodowej o przyznanie państwu Elżbiecie i Zbigniewowi Czerepakom srebrnego medalu „Za zasługi dla obronności kraju”. – Ten przyznaje się rodzicom, których przynajmniej trzech synów wzorowo odbyło służbę wojskową. Warunek odnośnie ilości dzieci w wojsku ci państwo już spełniają, pozostaje tylko poczekać do zakończenia służby przez chłopców, by można było ocenić, czy wzorowo wywiązali się z tego obowiązku – tłumaczy mjr Krzysztof Jasiński, szef wydziału poboru i uzupełnień WKU w Nisku. Tymczasem, przynajmniej jeden z trojaczków na dobre z wojskiem nie zamierza się rozstawać. Karol wyraża olbrzymie zainteresowanie wojskiem zawodowym. Pozostali dwaj? Żartują, że trojaczki w wojsku zawodowym to już za dużo. A poza tym, kto by się dziadkiem opiekował...

Joanna Rybczyńska
Trojaczki z Gorzyc założyły wojskowe mundury. Co czuje matka, gdy syn idzie do wojska? Tęskni bardzo. A jak bardzo tęsknić musi matka trojaczków, którzy jednego dnia pakują się i wyjeżdżają setki kilometrów od domu, by założyć mundur i służyć ojczyźnie...

- To potrójna tęsknota, ale i potrójna duma - mówi pani Elżbieta Czerepak z Gorzyc. Przed dwoma tygodniami jej synowie rozpoczęli służbę wojskową w Kazuniu Nowym pod Warszawą. W ciągu kilku dni stali się najsłynniejszymi żołnierzami w kraju.

Jednakowe mundury, takie same zielone berety, identyczne uśmiechy. Szeregowy Karol Czerepak, szeregowy Wojtek Czerepak, szeregowy Marek Czerepak. Podobni jak krople wody. Trojaczki z Gorzyc od dwóch tygodni służą w szeregach 2. Mazowieckiej Brygady Saperów w Kazuniu Nowym pod Warszawą. - To było olbrzymie zaskoczenie dla dowództwa. Bliźniacy owszem, ale trojaczki chyba jeszcze w żadnej jednostce nie służyły - przyznaje kapitan Paweł Kulawiak, oficer prasowy 2. Mazowieckiej Brygady Saperów w Kazuniu Nowym. Wieść o gorzyckich trojaczkach lotem błyskawicy obiegła media. O kazuńskiej jednostce, a raczej o braciach w niej służących zaczyna być coraz głośniej...