SO MUCH FOR A DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

[Left of Larry]

BUSH IS A FUCKING LIAR..BUT OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THIS..

FROM THE NYTIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/polit ... ?th&emc=th


By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 16 - In the months before the Iraqi elections in January, President Bush approved a plan to provide covert support to certain Iraqi candidates and political parties, but rescinded the proposal because of Congressional opposition, current and former government officials said Saturday.

In a statement issued in response to questions about a report in the next issue of The New Yorker, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said that "in the final analysis, the president determined and the United States government adopted a policy that we would not try - and did not try - to influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office."

The statement appeared to leave open the question of whether any covert help was provided to parties favored by Washington, an issue about which the White House declined to elaborate.

The article, by Seymour M. Hersh, reports that the administration proceeded with the covert plan over the Congressional objections. Several senior Bush administration officials disputed that, although they recalled renewed discussions within the administration last fall about how the United States might counter what was seen as extensive Iranian support to pro-Iranian Shiite parties.

Any clandestine American effort to influence the Iraqi elections, or to provide particular support to candidates or parties seen as amenable to working with the United States, would have run counter to the Bush administration's assertions that the vote would be free and unfettered.

Mr. Bush, in his public statements, has insisted that the United States will help promote conditions for democracy in the region but will live with whatever governments emerge in free elections.

The article cites unidentified former military and intelligence officials who said the administration went ahead with covert election activities in Iraq that "were conducted by retired C.I.A. officers and other non-government personnel, and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress." But it does not provide details and says, "the methods and the scope of the covert effort have been hard to discern."

Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, issued a statement saying that she could not discuss classified information, noting: "Congress was consulted about the administration's posture in the Iraqi election. I was personally consulted. But if the administration did what is alleged, that would be a violation of the covert action requirements, and that would be deeply troubling."

Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials on Saturday, others who took part in or were briefed on the discussion said they could not rule out the possibility that the United States and its allies might have provided secret aid to augment the broad overt support provided to Iraqi candidates and parties by the State Department, through organizations like the International Democratic Institute.

They said they were basing their comments primarily on the intensity of discussions within the administration about the potential adverse consequences of a victory by Iraqi parties hostile to the United States.

Officials and former officials familiar with the debate inside the White House last year said that after considerable debate, the president's national security team recommended that he sign a secret, formal authorization for covert action to influence the election, called a "finding." They said that Mr. Bush either had already signed it or was about to when objections were raised in Congress. Ultimately, he rescinded the decision, the officials said.

Among those who discussed the matter in interviews on Saturday were a dozen current and former government officials from Congress, the State Department, intelligence agencies and the Bush administration. They included some who said they had supported the idea of a covert plan to influence the Iraqi elections, and some who had opposed it.

None would speak for the record, citing the extreme sensitivity of discussing any covert action, which by design is never to be acknowledged by the United States government.

The current and former officials said the debate was likely to resurface within the administration in advance of the next round of Iraqi elections, scheduled for January.

Time magazine first reported in October 2004 that the administration had encountered Congressional opposition over a plan to provide covert support to Iraqi candidates. The New Yorker account detailed more elements of that debate.

The current and former officials interviewed Saturday amplified how Mr. Bush had initially approved the plan, and how the White House met objections as it notified Congressional leaders, as required by law.

Mr. Bush's precise reasons for rescinding the plan are not clear.

Among those whom Time and The New Yorker cited as raising objections was Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader. The Time report said Ms. Pelosi had had "strong words" with Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser.

A spokeswoman for Ms. Pelosi, Jennifer Crider, said Saturday that Ms. Pelosi could "neither confirm nor deny" that she objected. "Leader Pelosi has never publicly spoken about any classified information and would never threaten to take any classified information public," Ms. Crider said. "That is against the law."

Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, in words that echoed a statement the White House issued to Time in October, said in a telephone interview on Saturday, "I cannot in any way comment on classified matters, such as the existence or nonexistence of findings."

"But there were concerns about efforts by outsiders to influence the outcome of the Iraqi elections, including money flowing from Iran," he said. "This raised concerns about whether there would be a level playing field for the election. This situation posed difficult dilemmas about what action, if any, the United States should take in response. In the final analysis the president determined and the United States government adopted a policy that we would not try - and did not try - to influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office."

[mediasyko]

Of course they are going to put who they want in charge of Iraq, just like they do over here. And they aren't going to admit it because it looks to purposely like we went to war to take over. If the public found out about it and questioned Bush, would you expect him to do anything else other than deny it or say they rejected the idea?

[Ry]

Iraq is on the verge of a Civil War.

clap clap good job W.

I swear I may just stop voting it's not like it matters.

[Guest]

Iraq is on the verge of a Civil War.

clap clap good job W.

I swear I may just stop voting it's not like it matters.

All the easier for Israel to conquer...

[Dilapidated Nation]

Another victory for American Democracy

July 21, 2005
Off Course in Iraq

Most of the Bush administration's justifications for invading Iraq have turned out to be wrong. But the one surviving argument for overthrowing Saddam Hussein has been an important one: it was a chance to bring freedom and equality to the citizens suffering under a brutal dictatorship. For those of us holding onto that hope, this week brought disheartening news on multiple fronts.

Most chilling of all are the prospects for Iraqi women. As things now stand, their rights are about to be set back by nearly 50 years because of new family law provisions inserted into a draft of the constitution at the behest of the ruling Shiite religious parties. These would make Koranic law, called Shariah, the supreme authority on marriage, divorce and inheritance issues. Even secular women from Shiite families would be stripped of their right to choose their own husbands, inherit property on the same basis as men and seek court protection if their husbands tire of them and decide to declare them divorced.

Less severe laws would be imposed on Sunni women, but only because the draft constitution also embraces the divisive idea of having separate systems of family law in the same country. That is not only offensive, but also impractical in a country where Sunnis and Shiites have been marrying each other for generations.

Unless these draft provisions are radically revised, crucial personal freedoms that survived Saddam Hussein's tyranny are about to be lost under a democratic government sponsored and protected by the United States. Is this the kind of freedom President Bush claims is on the march in the Middle East? Is this the example America hopes Iraq will set for other states in the region? Is this the result that American soldiers, men and women, are sacrificing their lives for?

Women are not the only ones facing big losses in the new Iraq. The Sunni minority continues to be treated with contempt and suspicion because it enjoyed a privileged position under the old Baathist dictatorship. It took considerable American pressure to get a fair share of Sunnis, as members and consultants, added to the committee working on the new constitution. Two of those appointed Sunnis were assassinated by insurgents this week, and yesterday the others temporarily suspended their participation, citing security concerns.

In considering whether to put their lives on the line again, these Sunnis will not be encouraged by the latest destructive antics of Ahmad Chalabi, the former American favorite who is now a powerful deputy prime minister. Mr. Chalabi, who has long advocated barring even low-level former Baathists from official employment, has now succeeded in disrupting and discrediting the judicial tribunal preparing for the trial of Mr. Hussein. He is pressing for the dismissal of senior staff members, including a top judge, because of former Baathist associations.

The single most crucial requirement for Mr. Hussein's trial is preserving the appearance of impartial justice in the name of the whole Iraqi nation. Mr. Chalabi's actions, which his nominal boss, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, seems powerless to oppose, risk turning the proceedings into a tawdry spectacle of sectarian revenge, which would only fuel divisive and deadly hatreds.

Mr. Bush owes Americans a better explanation for what his policies are producing in Iraq than tired exhortations to stay the course and irrelevant invocations of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Most days, the news from Iraq is dominated by suicide bombers and frightening scenes of carnage. Occasionally, the smoke clears for a day or two to reveal the underlying picture. That looks even scarier.

[Ry]

Ry wrote:
Iraq is on the verge of a Civil War.

clap clap good job W.

I swear I may just stop voting it's not like it matters.

All the easier for Israel to conquer..

.

Israel gets it main support from Christian groups in the US and our privitized central banking system, the govenment is in third place. Me not voting for two zionist Kerry and Bush was not going to matter. I proudly voted for Nader but I contend that I just as well could have not voted. If enough of us did not vote if like 75 to 80 % of us did not vote we would get the same bullshit people we have anyway, but it would show our distrust and disgust for the entire process.

[Dilapidated Nation]

Iraq is on the verge of a Civil War.

clap clap good job W.

I swear I may just stop voting it's not like it matters.

on the verge? it is civil war, American and Iranian (thats gotta piss Bush off) backed Shiites against the Minority Sunnis.

clap clap, way to empower the Fundamentalists such as Zarqarwi