1
   

Iraq Contra? Were Iraq Elections Free and Fair?

 
 
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:24 am
Hersh is at it again. Seems he may be uncovering some clandestine support of favored candidates in the Iraq elections, despite congress saying NO.

Quote:
Plan Called for Covert Aid in Iraq Vote


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President Bush approved a plan to provide covert support to certain Iraqi candidates and political parties, but rescinded the proposal because of Congressional opposition, current and former government officials said Saturday.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."


New York Times

Any bets on whether or not covert support took place?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,418 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:24 am
Quote:
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."


That certainly seems to one of those carefully worded statements. Between the lines it seems to be saying, "Yep, but we can't tell you." With an extra dig at Rove et al.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:15 am
Of course the Iraq elections were not "free and fair". I am not sure what the story is?

The elections took place under an occupation by a military power with a big stake in the results. The elections were coordinated by an "interim goverment" that was hand picked by the occupying power for expressly that purpose.

The selection of Allawi, and the frameworks set up for the consttution are obvious devices to influence the election to the US favor.

Important decisions like where the polling stations were set, what time the election took place, what news outlets were pressured or censored were all decided by a mechanism started by the occupation government.

The specific charges in this article are shades of gray... and perhaps articles like this are good to raise public awareness of what a political morass we have created (in addition to the military morass, the religious morass and the economic morass).

But asking if the Iraq Elections were free and fair is a kind of a silly question.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:09 am
Very Happy

Agreed, e-brown. I was asking in context of the possible illegal financial support of favored candidates.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:44 am
I guess you guys don't really feel happy for these people that they have switched from Hussein to periodic elections. In your mind, these elections are no improvement over having people carted off to the torture chambers for criticizing the government.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:46 am
ebrown_p wrote:
But asking if the Iraq Elections were free and fair is a kind of a silly question.

So you pretty much dismiss the possibility that our administration did its best to make the elections free and fair.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 02:58 pm
And I suppose you dismiss the possibility that they were not. I mean, think about the many different ways that meddling could occur.

And don't forget this little gem in the article:

Quote:
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."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:15 am
The Hersh article is now available.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact

Quote:
There's no doubt about it. The Americans, directly or indirectly, spent millions on Allawi." Atiyyah went on, "As an Iraqi who supported the use of force to overthrow Saddam, I can tell you that as long as real democratic practices are not adhered to, you Americans cannot talk about democracy."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:23 am
Of course they weren't fair. Saddam wasn't re-elected. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:53 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I guess you guys don't really feel happy for these people that they have switched from Hussein to periodic elections. In your mind, these elections are no improvement over having people carted off to the torture chambers for criticizing the government.


Ad Hominem Brandon. Not valid.

TTF
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:06 am
Quote:
" But it does not provide details and says, "the methods and the scope of the covert effort have been hard to discern."


I always believe, without reservation, articles that make charges and then throw in statements such as this. No details, hard to discern and then you even have the admin on record as stating the President decided not to try to influence the elections. But still the article does its best to say otherwise. Nothing but an attempt to denigrate this administration. Same old thing from the NYT.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:38 am
I dunno, Hersh has been right about a looooot of stuff in the past.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:16 am
Could be Cy. I'm open to believing just about anything where politicians are concerned. I just highly question things when an article claiming the government did something but then admits it has no details as to how and that the supposed actions are "hard to discern" (re: we need to believe the article cause such things are hard to prove, but the writer says it is so and we must take his word for it).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:46 am
Yeah, it's best to keep an air of healthy skepticism until more details can be uncovered.

I hardly need to remind anyone, however, that this wouldn't be the first time that a Republican-controlled WH has resorted to a secret, off-the-books intelligence agency who carries out missions independent of the rest of the chain of command; therefore, the idea isn't a crazy or outlandish one in the slightest, and bears further investigation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Scorpia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 01:17 pm
The only way for the elections to have been completely free and fair would have been for Iraq to free themselves - which they never chose to do.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 01:40 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I guess you guys don't really feel happy for these people that they have switched from Hussein to periodic elections. In your mind, these elections are no improvement over having people carted off to the torture chambers for criticizing the government.


Ad Hominem Brandon. Not valid.

TTF

Baloney. An argumentum ad hominem, literally "argument against the man" is normally invalid because you cannot disprove a logical point by impeaching its source.

That, however, is not what I am doing. I am actually talking about you folks. I am attempting to make the point that most of you liberals seem utterly indifferent to the possible transition of these people from the a very brutal dictatorship to a democratic republic, and seem willing to just yawn at that issue except for its value to you in harming the current American administration. Even if you believed that Bush is staging a fake election, and the election process there has a lot of things wrong with it, you might still be expected to say something indicating interest in the idea of giving these people a democracy. The fact is that as far as I can see, both in this post and others, most of A2K's liberals show no sympathy for these people whatever, except insofar as it has use to accuse Bush et al of something.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 02:05 pm
Brandon,

What would happen if Jafaari (or some other politically elected leader) get's up and says...

1) We want US troops out of Iraq by June 2006.
2) We want "peacekeepers" from Iran to help the Iraqi government keep security.
3) We want a parlimentary Islamic governemnt similar to Iran.

I am sure that many Iraqis... perhaps a majority would support this. This plan would certainly have success if Kurdish support could be bought with guarantees of autonomy. Everyone wants to screw the Sunni's, but they are a minority.

Would this be democracy-- if it was voted on by referendum?
Do you think the US should/would allow this even if it were the will of Iraqis?

The US is trying to push several things that are against the will of the Iraqi people. Doesn't pressure from an outside power go against the principles of democracy?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 02:11 pm
Quote:
you might still be expected to say something indicating interest in the idea of giving these people a democracy.


I am not interested in 'giving' democracy to these people in the slightest.

If they want a democracy they can damn well make their own, just as we did.

They deserve nothing more or less.

But none of that really matters, because 'democracy' is just the latest excuse for what we are doing over there. It is a false argument.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 02:33 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Brandon,

What would happen if Jafaari (or some other politically elected leader) get's up and says...

1) We want US troops out of Iraq by June 2006.
2) We want "peacekeepers" from Iran to help the Iraqi government keep security.
3) We want a parlimentary Islamic governemnt similar to Iran.

I am sure that many Iraqis... perhaps a majority would support this. This plan would certainly have success if Kurdish support could be bought with guarantees of autonomy. Everyone wants to screw the Sunni's, but they are a minority.

Would this be democracy-- if it was voted on by referendum?
Do you think the US should/would allow this even if it were the will of Iraqis?

The US is trying to push several things that are against the will of the Iraqi people. Doesn't pressure from an outside power go against the principles of democracy?

Today the Iraqi people choose leaders by secret ballot. In my opinion, this is a legitimate government of the people. If the duly constituted government were to issue the 3 statements in your list, I believe that we should express our opinion that it 's a bad idea, but, if that doesn't impress them, comply and leave. This is a democratically elected government, and we must respect the will of the people's elected representatives.

If, however, Iraq subsequently became a significant danger to us, then we would have the right to use force in our own defense, and it wouldn't have to be an absolutely imminent threat, just a clear threat. To give one possible example, if they asked us to leave, and we did, and subsequently Iraq (1) developed a cooperative relationship with terrorists, and (2) began developing WMD, we would be entitled to use force, if necessary, rather than sit back and let a possibly lethal threat take shape there.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 02:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
you might still be expected to say something indicating interest in the idea of giving these people a democracy.


I am not interested in 'giving' democracy to these people in the slightest.

If they want a democracy they can damn well make their own, just as we did.

They deserve nothing more or less.

Yes, you are re-stating my observation. You guys don't give a flying **** whether they move from dictatorship to democracy or not. As far as I can see, the only time you show any empathy for them is when it has some use in attacking the Republicans.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq Contra? Were Iraq Elections Free and Fair?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 08:13:42