The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) announced today that results from its investigation into allegations of voting fraud during the December 15 parliamentary elections will be announced tomorrow, but that voting results will not be released for two weeks, until the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, an independent group who agreed last week to review the results, is finished with their own fraud investigation.
Shortly after the vote took place, a group of Sunni Iraqis alleged the results were fraudulent and over 10,000 protesters in Baghdad claimed the vote was rigged by Shiite religious groups to gain power.
The UN refused to conduct their own fraud investigation after a coalition of Shiite and Sunni groups threatened to boycott future national assembly meetings, and demanded the dissolution of the IECI.
Quote:Iraq Vote Results May Not Come for 2 Weeks
Jan 3, 4:35 AM (ET)
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Final results from Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections may not be announced for another two weeks, a member of the country's election commission said Tuesday.
The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has completed its investigation of election complaints and will announce the findings on Wednesday, commission member Hussein Hindawi told The Associated Press.
But the commission will not announce final election results until an international team finishes its work, meaning results might not be ready for two weeks, said IECI member Safwat Rashid.
Officials had previously said final results would be announced in early January.
The international team agreed to review Iraq's elections after protests by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups that the polls were tainted with fraud.
Preliminary results give the governing Shiite religious bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, a big lead, but one which still would require forming a coalition with other groups.
The International Mission for Iraqi Elections includes two representatives from the Arab League, one member of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians and a respected European academic.
The independent group said it helped monitor the elections in Baghdad and was "assisted by monitors from countries of the European Union working under IMIE's umbrella."
The international team said it would review the election complaints although a U.N. observer has endorsed the vote. Craig Jenness said last week that his U.N.-led international election assistance team found the elections to be fair.
Hindawi said Tuesday some members of the international team were already at work, having arrived on Monday.
"Today the rest will come," he said Tuesday. "The IECI will provide everything they need to facilitate their work."
Rashid said that although his panel was separate from the international monitoring team, it would take into consideration the international team's findings before announcing results.
"If they work hard they might finish within a week," he said.
Military Times Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War
'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War
By E&P Staff
Published: January 02, 2006 5:45 PM ET
While President Bush remains more popular within the military than outside it, support for him, and for the war in Iraq, "has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military's professional core," according to the Military Times, analyzing its annual year-end poll.
The Military Times Media Group is made up of the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Times.
Approval of the president's Iraq policy fell 9% from 2004; a bare majority, 54%, now says they view his performance on Iraq favorably. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60%, among readers of the Military Times newspapers (85% of those polled are on active duty).
"Though support both for President Bush and for the war in Iraq remains significantly higher than in the public as a whole, the drop is likely to add further fuel to the heated debate over Iraq policy," the report continued. "In 2003 and 2004, supporters of the war in Iraq pointed to high approval ratings in the Military Times Poll as a signal that military members were behind President Bush's the president's policy."
Of the poll respondents, all active duty, about half had served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Only 13% called themselves Democrats. The poll was taken from about mid-November to mid-December, with 1,215 respondents.
Other findings:
Positive feelings about Congress, civilian and uniformed Pentagon leaders and the media all fell.
Opposition to the draft fell slightly, from 75 percent last year to 68 percent this year.
Nearly two-thirds said the military is stretched too thin to be effective, though that figure is down substantially from two years ago.
US Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding
US Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The Washington Post
Monday 02 January 2006
Documents show much of the funding diverted to security, justice system and Hussein inquiry.
Baghdad - The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.
Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated. When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people.
"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters at a recent news conference. In an interview this past week, McCoy said: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."
Since the reconstruction effort began in 2003, midcourse changes by U.S. officials have shifted at least $2.5 billion from the rebuilding of Iraq's decrepit electrical, education, water, sewage, sanitation and oil networks to build new security forces for Iraq and to construct a nationwide system of medium- and maximum-security prisons and detention centers that meet international standards, according to reconstruction officials and documents. Many of the changes were forced by an insurgency more fierce than the United States had expected when its troops entered Iraq.
In addition, from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost of every nonmilitary reconstruction project goes toward security against insurgent attacks, according to reconstruction officials in Baghdad. In Washington, the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction puts the security costs of each project at 25 percent.
U.S. officials more than doubled the size of the Iraqi army, which they initially planned to build to only 40,000 troops. An item-by-item inspection of reallocated funds reveals how priorities were shifted rapidly to fund initiatives addressing the needs of a new Iraq: a 300-man Iraqi hostage-rescue force that authorities say stages operations almost every night in Baghdad; more than 600 Iraqis trained to dispose of bombs and protect against suicide bombs; four battalions of Iraqi special forces to protect the oil and electric networks; safe houses and armored cars for judges; $7.8 million worth of bulletproof vests for firefighters; and a center in the city of Kirkuk for treating victims of torture.
At the same time, the hundreds of Americans and Iraqis who have devoted themselves to the reconstruction effort point to 3,600 projects that the United States has completed or intends to finish before the $18.4 billion runs out around the end of 2006. These include work on 900 schools, construction of hospitals and nearly 160 health care centers and clinics, and repairs on or construction of nearly 800 miles of highways, city streets and village roads.
But the insurgency has set back efforts across the board. In two of the most crucial areas, electricity and oil production, relentless sabotage has kept output at or below prewar levels despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of American dollars and countless man-hours. Oil production stands at roughly 2 billion barrels a day, compared with 2.6 billion before U.S. troops entered Iraq in March 2003, according to U.S. government statistics.
The national electrical grid has an average daily output of 4,000 megawatts, about 400 megawatts less than its prewar level.
Iraqis nationwide receive on average less than 12 hours of power a day. For residents of Baghdad, it was six hours a day last month, according to a U.S. count, though many residents say that figure is high.
The Americans, said Zaid Saleem, 26, who works at a market in Baghdad, "are the best in destroying things but they are the worst in rebuilding."
The Price of Security
In a speech on Aug. 8, 2003, President Bush promised more for Iraq.
"In a lot of places, the infrastructure is as good as it was at prewar levels, which is satisfactory, but it's not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is for the infrastructure to be the best in the region," Bush said.
U.S. officials at the time promised a steady supply of 6,000 megawatts of electricity and a return to oil production output of 2.5 million barrels a day, within months.
But the insurgency changed everything.
"Good morning, gentlemen," a security contractor in shirt-sleeves said crisply late last week, launching into a security briefing in what amounts to a reconstruction war room in Baghdad's Green Zone, home to much of the Iraqi government.
Other private security contractors hunched over desks in front of him, learning the state of play for what would be roughly 200 missions that day to serve the 865 U.S. reconstruction projects underway - taking inspectors to work sites, guarding convoys of building materials or escorting dignitaries to see works in progress, among other jobs.
A screen overhead detailed the previous day's 70 or so attacks on private, military and Iraqi security forces. The briefer noted bombs planted in potholes, rigged in cars, hidden in the vests of suicide attackers. There were also mortar attacks and small-arms fire. The briefer also noted miles of roads rendered impassable or where travel was inadvisable owing to attacks, and some of the previous day's toll in terms of dead and wounded.
Colored blocks on the screen marked convoys en route, each tracked by transponders and equipped with panic buttons.
To one side, a TV monitor scrolled out the day's news, including McCoy's remark to reporters that December was the worst month on record for Iraqi contractors working on reconstruction, with more killed, wounded or kidnapped than during any other month since the U.S. invasion.
"For every three steps forward, we take one step back. Those are the conditions we face," said Col. Bjarne Iverson, commander of the reconstruction operations center. He followed with a comment often used by American authorities in Iraq: "There are people who just want us to fail here."
The heavy emphasis on security, and the money it would cost, had not been anticipated in the early months of the U.S. occupation. In January 2004, after the first disbursements of the $18.4 billion reconstruction package, the United States planned only $3.2 billion to build up Iraq's army and police. But as the insurgency intensified, money was shifted from other sectors, including more than $1 billion earmarked for electricity, to build a police force and army capable of combating foreign and domestic guerrillas.
In addition to training and equipping police and soldiers, money has been spent for special operations and quick-response forces, commandos and other special police, as well as public-order brigades, hostage-rescue forces, infrastructure guards and other specialized units.
In the process, the United States will spend $437 million on border fortresses and guards, about $100 million more than the amount dedicated to roads, bridges and public buildings, including schools. Education programs have been allocated $99 million; the United States is spending $107 million to build a secure communications network for security forces.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were shifted to fund elections and to take Iraq through four changes of government. Funds were also reallocated to provide a $767 million increase in spending on Iraq's justice system. The money has gone toward building or renovating 10 medium- and maximum-security prisons - early plans called for four prisons - and for detention centers nationwide.
Tens of millions of dollars more are going to pay for courts, prosecutors and investigations. Millions are going to create safe houses for judges and for witness protection programs.
The criminal justice spending has been intertwined with the drive to try Hussein. The costs have been high, including $128 million to exhume and examine at least five mass grave sites.
A Gap in Perspective
The shifts in allocations have led Stuart Bowen, the inspector general in charge of tracking the $18.4 billion, to talk of a "reconstruction gap," or the difference between what Iraqis and Americans expected from the U.S. reconstruction effort at first and what they are seeing now.
The inspector general's office is conducting an audit to quantify the shortfall between expectations and performance, spokesman Jim Mitchell said.
McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander for reconstruction, cites a poll conducted earlier last year that found less than 30 percent of Iraqis knew that any reconstruction efforts were underway. The percentage has since risen to more than 40 percent, McCoy said.
"It is easy for the Americans to say, 'We are doing reconstruction in Iraq,' and we hear that. But to make us believe it, they should show us where this reconstruction is," said Mustafa Sidqi Murthada, owner of a men's clothing store in Baghdad. "Maybe they are doing this reconstruction for them in the Green Zone. But this is not for the Iraqis."
"Believe me, they are not doing this," he said, "unless they consider rebuilding of their military bases reconstruction."
U.S. officials say comparatively minor sabotage to distribution systems is keeping Iraqis from seeing the gains from scores of projects to increase electricity generation and oil production. To showcase a rebuilt school or government building, meanwhile, is to invite insurgents to bomb it.
If 2006 brings political stability and an easing of the insurgency, Americans say, the distribution systems can be fairly easily repaired.
"The good news is this investment is not in any way lost; they're there," said Dan Speckhard, the director of the U.S. reconstruction management office in Iraq. "They will pay off, they will be felt, if not this month, then six months down the road."
While the Bush administration is not seeking any new reconstruction funds for Iraq, commanders here have military discretionary funds they can use for small reconstruction projects. The U.S. Agency for International Development is expected to undertake some building projects, as it does in 80 other countries, with money from the foreign appropriations bill.
-----------------------------------------------
Special correspondent Naseer Nouri contributed to this report.
Mortkat, excellent posts!
Alas, those who are desperately seeking to establish that President Bush is guilty of some impeachable offense, feel justified in making false allegations about him.
The designation foreign intelligence is alleged by them to exclude intelligence gathering from communications involving Americans or other people located in the USA. As you know, the term foreign intelligence does not refer only to intelligence gathered about agents located outside the USA. It refers to intelligence gathered about foreign based organizations whose agents may be located anywhere in the world including inside the United States.
The anti-Bush-crowd will not give up this false allegation until they find an alternate allegation they can hope will lead to a Bush impeachment.
How do you tell Foriegn intelligence from Domestic Intelligence without an oversight committee?
What is to keep the wrong info (that never should have been spied/acted upon) from falling into the wrong governmental hands?
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo, We have also learned that this government calls legitimate peaceful organizations as "terrorist threats."
Cycloptichorn wrote:How do you tell Foriegn intelligence from Domestic Intelligence without an oversight committee?
What is to keep the wrong info (that never should have been spied/acted upon) from falling into the wrong governmental hands?
Cycloptichorn
The management of each intelligence service depends on its own internal expert oversight committee to tell by the content of the communications they wiretap whether central controllers of the enemy agents are located outside the USA or inside the USA. Then, they determine if these communications relate to what they have otherwise learned are threatening foreign enemy activities (e.g., al Qaeda). Next they trace such calls as they encounter them both forward to other enemy agents and backward through higher level enemy agents to their central controllers.
Keeping the foreign intelligence information from falling into the wrong governmental (or non-governmental) hands depends on the competence of each intelligence agencies' security people. More levels of oversight do not make security operatives more competent. Rather more levels increase the probability of security failures and their accompanying leaks.
Witness the latest security leak regarding foreign intelligence gathering. Such a leak rapidly decreases the effectiveness of intelligence gathering because our enemies are then alerted that they have to try other ways of communicating their plans and procedures to each other.
The same is true for domestic intelligence gathering.
More levels of bureaucracy are not an effective substitute for self-discipline and devotion to one's duty. After all, who shall we employ to oversee the extra level or levels of bureaucracy including the new levels.
There is much truth in "power corrupts."
We're making progress in Iraq:
US air strike hits Iraqi family
Several members of the same family, including women and children, have been killed in a US air strike that destroyed their home in northern Iraq.
There was confusion over the number of casualties, but local authorities in the town of Beiji, north of Tikrit, have confirmed at least six dead.
US forces said they acted after seeing three men suspected of planting a roadside bomb enter the house.
The raid has prompted anger among some local political leaders.
US military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson said the men, who ran into the house after digging a hole, were assesed as a threat to civilians and military forces.
"An unmanned aerial vehicle... observed the would-be attackers as they dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement," he told the AFP news agency.
Even if there had been, why didn't they surround the area and detain the terrorists instead?
Police Colonel Sufyan Mustafa
"The individuals left the road site and were followed from the air to a nearby building. Coalition forces employed precision guided munitions on the structure."
But he did not confirm the number of casualties or whether a roadside bomb has been found.
Local police chief Colonel Sufyan Mustafa said he believed there were no anti-US insurgents present in the house.
"Even if there had been, why didn't they surround the area and detain the terrorists instead?," he told the Reuters news agency.
'Historic crime'
Ghadban Nahd Hassan, 56, told AFP that 14 members of his family had been in the house when it was it bombed.
"I was with some friends in a small shop 100m away from the house when I heard the bombing at around 2130 (1830 GMT)," he said.
"I rushed over to see. My house was destroyed and there was smoke everywhere."
So far, the bodies of a nine-year-old boy, an 11-year-old girl, three women and three men have been found in the rubble, police said.
US forces frequently use air strikes in their battle against Iraqi insurgents, in an effort to minimise US casualties.
A local official of the biggest Sunni Arab political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, called for demonstrations.
"This is a historic crime and another catastrophe for the people of Baiji," he told Reuters.
"If there were gunmen or criminals in that house, is it right to blow up the whole family?"
Hussein al-Falluji, a lawyer and a national leader of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Accordance Front, said: "Once again the occupiers have shown their barbarism. They never learn from their mistakes... People's resentment is increasing."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4577578.stm
Published: 2006/01/03 17:50:27 GMT
Hey CI,
People die in a war, what's a lttle collateral damage among buddies??
Anon
Except for the fact that our "buddies" are beginning to resent the fact that they are dying in greater numbers as this war on terrorism goes onward - and defined as our president as a success.
You think maybe murdering 5,800 innocent civilians might be just a tad excessive? Oh well, success is at hand
Anon
Bush just can't tell us when that "success" will come about. All he can offer is "stay the course." We get what we vote for.
The USA should transfer all their responsibility to the Sunnis to satisfy critics back home in the USA. The Sunnis have proven themselves to be far more productive at killing people. They have demonstrated they know how to kill entire villages of people in less than an hour without resort to any aircraft whatsoever to spot their targets for them, and, more importantly, without incurring the villification of critics back home in the USA.
Until that transfer is completed, I'd advise all Iraqi civilians to themselves either kill or avoid the company of any actual or would-be roadside bombers. Merely being in proximity to these bombers is a clear and present danger.
cicerone imposter wrote:He told the BBC that he had received reports that some hunger strikers had had thick pipes inserted through the nose and forced down into the stomach.
This was allegedly done roughly, sometimes by prison guards rather than doctors. As a result, some prisoners had reported bleeding and vomiting he said.
"Roughly" was perhaps an understatement.
"Large tubes - the thickness of a finger - were viewed by detainees as objects of torture. They were forcibly shoved up the detainees' noses and down into their stomachs. ... No anesthesia or sedative was provided," Ms Tarver said in notes released by the CCR in a statement.
"In front of Guantanamo's physicians - including the head of the detainee hospital - the guards took NG (nasogastric) tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitisation whatsoever, reinserted (them) into the nose of a different detainee," the notes said.
"When these tubes were reinserted, the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from other detainees remaining on the tubes," the notes said.
[URL=http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16977750%255E23109,00.html]http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16977750%255E23109,00.html[/URL]
