Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

More deep doo-do for Bush re: covert influencing the Iraq elections????

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 01:52 AM
Original message
More deep doo-do for Bush re: covert influencing the Iraq elections????
Edited on Sun Jul-17-05 01:56 AM by housewolf
This article is based on an upcoming New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh that raises a question about the admin ordering covert operations for the purpose of influencing the Iraq elections last January


Plan Called for Covert Aid in Iraq Vote

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

<snip>

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."

<snip>

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/17/politics/17elect.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Funds...not necessarily appropriated by Congress", usually means....
...funds that have been generated by the sale of weapons and/or drugs. They're not traceable by any budgetary oversight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Several billion missing $$ could have played a role as well. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Remember Hillary saying there were stacks of cash on board
the plane she took to Iraq--and they had absolutely NO idea what they were for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Interesting
I didn't know that. Very telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. I think so too
That was very strange of how that money went "missing." They claimed the money was laying in a backpack and it just disappeared. All that money in a back pack? Or maybe a check I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Lots of loose Iraqi money from before the invasion...
... and oil money afterwards floating around, and next to no accountability. Lots of possibilities there for funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. The CIA has a weird kind of permanent ongoing budgetary approval...
.... plus it has no official balance sheet. Meaning that it can accumulate commercial assets at will and never report them. It has had this status for several decades...

There is no effective financial oversight of the CIA. Period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carla in Ca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. Let's see, what could we call this...
Edited on Sun Jul-17-05 02:15 AM by Carla in Ca
How about this...

"We fix the elections over here so we don't have to fix the elections over there".
Bastards.





Mr. Dean, SRO in Utah...fabulous
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Good one!
That sums it up just about perfectly



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. Wow! This could be big! And what a surprise! Who would have thought
the Bush administration would do such a thing? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evermind Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's long been suspected that the January elections were cooked
with the help of the US - in particular I read that a lot of people doubted that the largest party did not win an outright majority.

The result as officially stated meant a much slower and more manipulable process was involved in selecting a president and ministers because everything had to be negotiated with the Kurdish representatives.

There were numerous stories of vote rigging at the time, but nothing that stuck in the international press.

If the story can be substantiated it should be really major because it totally undermines the sincerity of any WH claim to support democracy in Iraq (and, by implication, elsewhere).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yeah, Scott Ritter has made that accusation
Said that after the polls closed, there were irregular procedures (which I remember being reported, some kind of trouble with the count) and during this period there were votes switched or added to prevent the Shiites from gaining an outright majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. There is zero effective monitoring as I recall..... no real observers
...on the ground due to the insurgency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. They could've easily done it then
With nobody around to watch they could've easily done it. Why wasn't Jimmy Carter there to watch? His group does elections and I've heard alot of success stories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Of course
Don't the Shi'ites rule the majority in that country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Yeah, maybe "outright" was a poor choice of words
Edited on Sun Jul-17-05 02:20 PM by Boo Boo
The purported goal was to prevent the Shiites from gaining a majority above a certain percentage so that they would have to enlist the other factions in forming a government rather than simply taking complete control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 05:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. I wish Seymour Hersh would take on the Bush regime's "covert...
Edited on Sun Jul-17-05 05:23 AM by Peace Patriot
...election activities" in the U.S. of A.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. I wish he would too
Maybe if enough people pressure him and he talks to people who have been on the ground in Ohio? (Like Palast and Fitarkis)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. This article is based on one by Seymour Hersh coming out this week
in the New Yorker, on this very subject
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. He's always been
a foreign affairs guy. I doubt if he can change his stripes at this point in life. Besides what Hersh covers is just as important.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. Here's the problem with Sy Hersh...
Believe me, I KNOW how pretty much everything Sy has said has turned out to be absolutely true LONG before the rest of the media catches on. The problem is, most of my co-workers who know his name think he's just a muckraker because that's what the likes of HannityO'ReillyLimbaugh say. So, while Sy is out there fighting the good fight, * worshipers think he's a kook. It usually takes a while.

I say, keep at it Sy, eventually your words are heard by the masses, even if the rest of us have to sit on them for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellenfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
13. i don't remember where i heard it, but
Edited on Sun Jul-17-05 11:36 AM by ellenfl
i heard that bush tried but failed to influence the elections. you will remember that he opposed them initially . . . or at least the timing of them, possibly because he didn't have control yet.

ellen fl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
14. I have heard this
Edited on Sun Jul-17-05 11:39 AM by FreedomAngel82
If you haven't visit http://www.gregpalast.com and watch his documentary on Iraq and oil. It's VERY telling and it shows that the Bush group had someone already in mind for putting in the government. Another puppet. But Bush was under a lot of pressure to hold "elections". I remember in the beginning hearing that Allwai had 4% but then a few days later Bush cried "fraud!" and a few days or so later Allwai had 14%. Funny how Bush knows all about fraud, right? The Bush family has been stealing elections in third world countries for YEARS. 2000 was their test plan to see if they can make it through here. Then once they did 2002 was a test plan for the machine's and 2004 was the big show. If you haven't go to pbs.org and watch the documentary "The Arichtect" on Karl Rove. In the first segment it's about the last election and is VERY telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC