THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

It's only money. Besides it's ours. Why are you concerned about it?

CIA abandons prewar opinions

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

WASHINGTON - In a formal acknowledgment of the obvious, the CIA has issued a classified report revising its prewar assessments on Iraq, intelligence officials say.

The document concludes that Baghdad abandoned its chemical weapons programs in 1991.

The report marks the first time the CIA officially has disavowed its prewar judgments. The report is one in a series of updated assessments the agency is producing as part of a belated effort to correct its record on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, officials said.

The CIA's decision to distribute the document in classified channels underscores the awkwardness the agency faces as it continues to reconcile its prewar reporting to postwar realities in Iraq.

It's only money. Besides it's ours. Why are you concerned about it?

Come on, all you vociferous critics of the UN oil-for-food scheme, you've been silent on this. Give us an answer please.

This reminds me of a right- winger remark I saw quoted last week

"Now that we own Iraq, I expect the price of gasoline to come down 50%"

Evidently not everyone agrees that the US went there to spread "democracy and freedom".

Analysis:

Chalabi's magical comeback

By CLAUDE SALHANI

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- If U.S. foreign policy planners were Machiavellian enough, one could be led to believe that they planned the whole affair surrounding former Pentagon golden boy Ahmed Chalabi, the man most likely to become the new prime minister of Iraq. But their track record -- and history -- has proven otherwise.

Chalabi, a long-time Iraqi exile who initially based himself in London, was at first supported by Richard Perle, a neo-conservative policy-setter.

Chalabi first came into the limelight over his debacle in Jordan in 1992, when his Petra Bank went bust leaving more than $300 million in debts. The Jordanians sentenced him in absentia, and a court in Amman found him guilty of 31 counts of embezzlement and bank fraud. He was given 22 years in hard labor. Chalabi, however, never served any time.

He was helped out of Jordan in a car provided for by Prince Hassan, the brother of then King Hussein. He made his way to London, where he survived on the monthly stipend of $340,000 allocated by the Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency. Chalabi claims he is innocent. He says he was framed by Saddam Hussein and King Hussein, who connived to put an end to his anti-Saddam activities. Chalabi maintains that he is in possession of documents proving his innocence.

He founded the Iraqi National Congress -- an opposition group of Iraqi exiles. Chalabi and some of his associates were at times dubbed by their critics as "the Rolex Revolutionaries" due to accusations of extravagant lifestyles.

Chalabi was instrumental in convincing the Bush administration to topple Saddam, prompting one high-ranking American official to say that anyone who can get the United States to invade Iraq on his behalf must be a "very clever politician."

But soon after the fall of the Baathist regime, Chalabi quickly fell out of favor with the Pentagon when it was alleged that he funneled sensitive documents to Iranian intelligence -- an accusation also denied by him. Last May American troops and Iraqi police stormed into his Baghdad home ransacking through his belongings as Chalabi was reported to lament, "Why, Bush? Why? Is this your freedom and democracy for Iraq?"

Since his return to Iraq following the removal of Sadddam, Chalabi had received permission to open an office in Tehran, a country he has visited on a number of times. Journalists who traveled with Chalabi to Iran reported that he was received in the Islamic Republic with full honors and given the red carpet treatment -- literally.

Since his fall from favor with the U.S. administration, Chalabi, a Shiite, re-aligned himself with Iraq's most revered Shiite religious authority, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. It was undoubtedly one of his smartest moves. Again, analysts remarked that if U.S. intelligence was Machiavellian enough, they would have orchestrated the whole episode. What better way to give Chalabi credibility among many Iraqis, particularly among those opposed to the U.S. occupation, than to make him appear a pariah to the United States?

Since parting ways with the Pentagon, Chalabi spent time winning favors and cultivating support with Tehran's mullahs and convinced Sistani to include him on his electoral slate.

Iraqis who voted Sunday chose a slate rather than a candidate. Given that the names of most candidates were not revealed due to security concerns, many Iraqis voted for the slate their religious leaders told them to vote for. Chalabi was the lead candidate on Sistani's slate. If Sistani's slate wins, Chalabi will most likely become the next prime minister of Iraq.

Sunday's vote was hailed as historic around the world, as indeed, it was. However, what was largely overlooked in the euphoria of "bringing democracy" to Iraq is the new geo-political reality this vote has created.

President Bush was quick to declare another mission accomplished even though it may be somewhat premature to think that democracy prevailed. The reality of Sunday's election is that it helped create the first Arab Shia state -- something Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had tried to do since the 1979 Islamic Revolution but never succeeded.

"I firmly planted the flag of liberty for all to see that the United States of America hears their concerns and believes in their aspirations," said Bush last week.

Iraq's move toward democracy should without the shadow of a doubt be applauded, and it is to be wished that it spreads to the rest of the Middle East. But anyone who has spent any time in the Middle East will counsel extreme caution and tell you that nothing ever goes according to plan.

The elections were a step in the right direction, but they also took Iraq a step closer to Iran. With any luck -- and some U.S. coaching -- the Iraqis will take a good hard look at Iran's theocratic system and shy away.

Sistani has repeatedly voiced his intention not to turn Iraq into another Islamic republic, opting instead for a more secular approach.

Nevertheless, the result of Sunday's election gives the Shiites a second foothold in the Middle East, a move that will encourage their coreligionists in nearby Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, where they constitute important -- if at times somewhat turbulent -- minorities. Shiites also comprise the majority in Lebanon, and Syria's minority Alawis, though not considered Shiites, originate from Shiism. Syria's ruling Assad family is Alawi.

Bush's opponents have criticized Iraq's balloting as a means of justifying the U.S. invasion and occupation when weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize. On the other hand, the election was hailed by the president's supporters as a giant step for freedom and democracy. The reality of Iraq's vote, however, is that it has introduced a new political reality in the Middle East. Time will tell how Machiavellian that was.

Tens of Thousands of Iraqis May Have Missed Vote

1 hour, 27 minutes ago

By Lin Noueihed

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Iraqis, notably in restive Sunni Arab areas, may have been denied their right to vote on Sunday because of insufficient ballots and polling centers, officials said.



Iraq (news - web sites) began compiling election results from around the country on Tuesday after a barrage of election day attacks by Sunni militants failed to deter millions from voting.


But officials said many Iraqis arrived late to find ballot sheets had run out, possibly skewing results for the already disgruntled minority.


Iraq's interim president Ghazi al-Yawar said extra ballots had to be supplied to Iraq's third city of Mosul, which is mainly Sunni Arab, after twice running out on election day.


"Also, tens of thousands were unable to cast their votes because of the lack of ballots in Basra, Baghdad, and Najaf," said Yawar, a Sunni Arab with a large tribal following.


Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission acknowledged that some Iraqis were unable to vote because pre-election intimidation in two Sunni Arab provinces hampered preparations.


"The elections took place under difficult conditions and this undoubtedly deprived a number of citizens in a number of areas from voting," said Hussein al-Hindawi, who heads the Commission that organized the poll.


"The security situation was difficult in these areas and there may have been a shortage of materials in this area or that... Some centers were opened quickly, at the last moment."


Hindawi said the Commission was setting up an external committee comprising of three Iraqi lawyers to investigate all complaints. Each case would be explained in a detailed report.


BALLOTS OUT


Although Iraqis braved insurgent threats and streamed to the polls in many places, particularly the Shi'ite south and Kurdish north, turnout was low in the central Sunni heartland where the guerrillas are strongest -- highlighting the dangerous sectarian divisions facing the new government.


Mishaan Jibouri, a candidate and national assembly member, accused the Commission of deliberately supplying insufficient materials in some Sunni areas, believing few would vote.


Arab voters who initially intended to boycott the polls in the ethnically-mixed city of Kirkuk had apparently changed their minds after realizing they would lose to Kurds. But by the time they arrived to vote, ballot sheets were gone, he said.


"I think the decision came from Baghdad. They were concerned with keeping Sunnis out of the game," he said.


Jibouri said ballot sheets were 36,000-40,000 short in Hawija, a largely Sunni Arab area southwest of oil-rich Kirkuk, where Kurds say they were targeted by a campaign of killings.


He estimated a shortfall of 28,000 ballot papers in Baiji, a northern Sunni city, and 6,000 in nearby Shirqat.


"I had a large number of voters in these areas. I am sure we will be in parliament, but if these people had been able to vote we would have won more seats," he said.


Of 5,244 polling centers planned, 28 had not opened, many in western Baghdad, due to poor security, the Commission said.

While there were 63,000 polling booths across Iraq, there were just 33,763 independent local monitors and 622 international monitors, it said.

Hussein al-Mousawi, an official of the Shi'ite Political Council running on the main Shi'ite ticket that is expected to have won most votes, said the longer results took the more he suspected foul play to curtail his list's predicted dominance.

Final results are not expected for up to another week.

McTag wrote:

This reminds me of a right- winger remark I saw quoted last week

"Now that we own Iraq, I expect the price of gasoline to come down 50%"

Evidently not everyone agrees that the US went there to spread "democracy and freedom".

I don't know who was the "right winger" you quoted or who, besides himself, he speaks for. The U.S. government does not believe it owns Iraq, and is certainly not behaving as did Britain when it tried to really steal the country and its resources earlier in the last century. Certainly we have made no attempt to seize or control the natural resources of that country.

Do you doubt our intentions yourself, have evidence that would call our announced intentions into question, or are you merely repeating things you have heard?

Sounds like Aesop's sour grapes to me.

For new readers:

Yes I think the reasons for the invasion were not the official ones given.
The reasons were to take pressure off the Saudi regime by shifting military bases into Iraq, to bolster Israeli security by virtue of the new bases, and to pay for the whole thing using Iraqi oil revenues.

What do you consider were or are "your intentions"? i.e. the intentions of the likes of Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz?

and they will be required only as long as the insurgency demands.

georgeob 1 wrote:

Quote:

and they will be required only as long as the insurgency demands.

So, you think that we will simply leave all the newly built bases that we built when things quiet'n down?

I would like to know more about new US bases in Iraq, necessary or not. I read that there were five large new bases being constructed, and I read later that this number could be as many as fourteen. No doubt some of these will be temporary.

What does not seem to be temporary is the new "embassy" for 3000 souls, the biggest anywhere in the world I hear.
The cynical, and that includes me, consider that that sounds more like an administrative centre.