It's always good to wake up and hear how your government is planning to corrupt another. The Whitehouse came up with a plan to use the CIA to assist candidates favored by the United States in the upcoming Iraqi election. Why? According to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice spokesman Sean McCormack we're concerned the infant democracy might be influenced by governments who are not part of the Coalition of Freedom.
Uh, hello? We're the largest outside influence in Iraq and the Middle East — rolling tanks through the streets and buzzing neighborhoods with attack helicopters. It's hard to imagine how we, the biggest outsider of them all, are not affecting elections. Now I'm not going to sympathize for Iran or Syria any time soon, but let's at least be honest with ourselves.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
The Bush administration's credo: Do as I say, not as I do.
We could sell them the US electoral college system at a discount. Here in Florida we've got plenty of voting machines with low mileage.
Democracy is an exercise in mob rule. They should set up a constitutional Republic with check and balances for individual rights. After WWII, the US imposed Japan's new constitution, and it turned out pretty good, if you ask me.
I'm with Rob. How about trying popular elections for once. The original intent of the EC was to keep stupid people from messing up the vote. With this last election it seems they figured a way around it.
When Bush ran for office, he didn't seem to mention that his credo is IRONY.
Joe, the intent of the EC is to prevent politicians from solely focusing on population centers like the northeast and ignoring rural areas like WIsconsin and Iowa.
They should just open up another branch of the News Election Service to control the voting process over there. Then all the Yale kids can get their friends "elected" and get oil kickbacks. Yeah... I'm not cynical.
The Whitehouse came up with a plan to use the CIA to assist candidates favored by the United States in the upcoming Iraqi election.
No shit! How else will the US take advantage of Iraq's natural resources if the people decide to elect an "unfriendly-to-the-US leader."
Frankly, I'm glad they are concerned about nearby dictatorships who will have no qualms whatsoever about going into Iraq and trying to directly influence the elections. Furthermore I'm comforted by the fact that they made what I think we can all agree is the right decision.
I don't believe there's any pretense that our influence won't be felt there.
Phoat - I fail to understand why, if it was our intent to take advantage of Iraqi resources, that part of Bush's Iraq budget bill contained mostly grants rather than loans. You'l have to double-check me on the percentages, but I do seem to remember that John Kerry famously voted against that bill because he wanted more loans - to make sure Iraq payed us back - presumably with their most valuable resource - oil.
In other news, Chrenkoff's latest supplement to Iraq news is out today...
As infuriating as all this is, it doesn't surprise me.
Let's be honest: We -- by we, I mean Americans -- are currently living in a secular oligarchy -- to my mind, as long as the EC exists, America will never be a true democracy -- looking to establish what will inevitably become a secular oligarchy. (Ouch. Don't trip on all that emdashing.)
What makes me sad, and furious, is that this is all happening with minimal checking and balancing from the international community. (I'm lookin' at you, Chirac et al.) I keep hoping that the UN jumps into the fray to make sure the promise made by BushCo. is kept. They haven't kept any of their other promises...
Max the grants are paid by you and me and other tax paying americans to help Iraq reconstruct. That means companies like Haliburton ( our VP's cronies ) make a killing when they get the contracts that are being paid for by the american public. I'd rather have our western blue bloods get richer using the Iraqi oil dollars rather than pay for it with my taxes.
And Im not so sure we can all agree that they made the right descision.
An incredible double standard.
History will judge Bush and his cronies. Hopefully the American voters can be encouraged to judge them much sooner.
dangRabbit - Don't think I haven't noticed what's missing from my paycheck. And, actually - I'm with you - I'd rather not have to fund all of it with taxpayer money. The point I was trying to make was - that would have been a good place to turn Iraq into our own personal BP station as so many leftists claim is the real reason for going to war - but we didn't.
And fair enough, perhaps I was too presumtious in saying we all can agree America shouldn't covertly rig the election.
Speck - America was never intended to be a true Democracy. It is a Federal Republic. Perhaps you could explain your theory to me a little more, because I don't see how our government/society resembles an oligarchy.
Hi. What's the beef with fostering a democracy? We did this in Japan and in Afganistan too. This is usually the job of the UN, but they are MIA at this moment in history. Oh, what's up with them anyway? Aren't they completely useless or what? What do they do again? Take money for food? Oh, I'm sure those are just rumors not fit for this forum.
k thanks
The UN was fostering away in Iraq, thanklessly&mash;certainly with no assistance from us—when our superb occupation security forces allowed a truck bomb to detonate right in front of their headquarters 13 months ago, killing over 20 staffers including Kofi Annan's successor Sergio Vieira de Mello. The dismal (and deteriorating) security situation in Iraq makes elections a sham, and little more than a snake oil show for the Bush Cheney campaign. Do you really think the average Iraqi will consider these quislings legit? We'd do better fostering a little democracy in Florida first—where today the Carter-Ford commission on elections declared that "basic international requirements for a fair election are [still] missing" despite recommendations made after the 2000 fiasco.
Florida is in a state of disaster right now, and that silly Carter is criticizing its readiness for elections. Gee thanks.
I understand that Iraq is not completely safe. But like I said, when the going got tough, the UN went MIA ASAP. I want to like the UN, really I do.
Also, a car bomb going off does not mean the security situation in Iraq is not detoriorating. Again, Terrorism 101: Believe the Hype.
Hey Mike,
Jump off the partisan bandwagon over there. Last I checked, it was the Carter/Ford commission, and Ford was a Republican. Silly Carter. How dare he.
And gee, maybe they should have postponed releasing the results of the study until AFTER the election, so as to give Florida time to recover from their natural disasters. But no, I bet Carter planned this date specifically to take advantage of the chaos in FL, and poor lil old Ford could do nothing to stop those mightly librul powers. Good point there Mikey.
Hmmm, what else. Oh yeah, I seem to remember that WE told the UN they weren't welcome in Iraq, then begged them to help out. And when they did show up, we were supposed to help protect them, and look how well that turned out. Yep, those damn UNers, turning and running when most of their coalition gets killed. Not like we are turning and running from the areas in which we are getting killed. Oh wait, we are.
And I can't even begin to know what you meant in that last sentence. Double negative there buddy. And yes, the security situation IS deteriorating. That is, unless you're getting the current state of affairs from Allawi and Bush, the only two people who seem to think Iraq is a rosy place to be right now...
You've got to laugh haven't you. Fostering democracy by trying your hardest to influence who's going to be elected. Democracy's fine as long as they choose who we want!
As for the UN's involvement, UN weapons inspectors were working away but not producing the results the US and UK we wanted, so rather than let them do their job, we decided to invade. Using all their political power the US coerced various foreign nations with development aid to help push through a resolution that mentioned 'serious consequences' but nothing about an invasion, even stooping so low as to bug the UN.
Because the US didn't manage to carte blanche from the UN for an invasion, they spent the next few weeks completely slagging off the UN. Hardly a surprise the the UN want no involvement.
Personally I would like to see the UN more involved but the US aren't willing to let go of control of the situation. The reason the US armed forces are in so much trouble at the moment is that the local population don't trust their motives. If the UN were in charge, this may possibly change. However the US armed forces refuse to be under UN control so even if the UN were involved it wouldn't help the situation. The US also refused to engage in UN peacekeeping operations unless their troops are immune to war crimes charges which the UN (and the rest of the world bar the UK) aren't really happy about.
Hi Andy. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the new government in Iraq has officially adopted a constitution yet. Or have they? I really don't know. But if they dont, then the US assisting in any elections would certainly be justified. We've done it in Afganistan, why not in Iraq?
The UN, what purpose does this governing body serve? And why should the US (or any nation) observe its authority? Feel free to answer either.
I never said I had a problem with fostering a democracy in Iraq, but using the CIA to do so? That's not fostering democracy, that's rigging an election.
Yes, simply said, having the CIA working covertly for certain candidates is not fostering democracy. If left to have 'free' elections, it's extremely likely that the 80% Shia majority will freely elect a threocratic Iranian style leadership more friendly to Iran than America. Let's get honest, we're not fostering democracy, we're installing a government sympathetic to our interests and we'll do what it takes to make it happen.
when our superb occupation security forces allowed a truck bomb to detonate right in front of their headquarters 13 months ago
Where was the UN's security that day? How can the UN expect to be of any military use when it has no effective force of its own? It should have had security there as well.
Umm, the American command not allowing the UN to have it's own force in the occupied territory, m'friend. Do a little Google and learn a little about the facts of the situation.
There are so who go so far as to suggest that United Nations criticism of the American invasion let the occupying forces to shirk the responsibility for their security. Sergio Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian, had been a forceful voice reminding the US of an obligation to respect the rule of law, condemning practices such as the legal black hole at Guantanamo Bay and the Bush rush to war. I'm sure there are those in the administration who believe he got what he deserved. Sad.
joshua - In response to "And when they did show up, we were supposed to help protect them, and look how well that turned out." That is not the case at all. From this cnn distpatch:
"Pentagon officials said the United Nations had not requested that coalition forces provide security and said the organization had its own security forces at the compound."
The U.N. believed themselves to be above the fray and untouchable.
Furthermore, in response to: "Not like we are turning and running from the areas in which we are getting killed. Oh wait, we are."
Perhaps you should read the news today.
Hi Mikey
What's having a constitution got to do with it? The UK doesn't have a constitution, but I'm sure the majority of Brits would cry foul if the CIA tried to influence the outcome of our up and coming election. Tom is right when he says that given a free and fair election, Iraq would probably vote for a theocratic leadership less than friendly to the US.
That sounds good. Can I vote for a theocractic leadership that is less than friendly to Washington insiders and lifer politicians in November?
In the midst of all this, I hope we can all acknowledge the repugnant sludge of irony that oozes from any sentiment of the current US government posing to reflect a genuine interest in fair government.
:rolleyes:
And why should the US (or any nation) observe its authority?
Umm...because we all share the same planet?
I'd rather any election anywhere be influenced by the CIA than by Syria or Iran. If the CIA is trying to prevent such countries from influencing an election, well I think that's just fine. Why should I be afraid of the CIA protecting me and my interests? If the CIA were to let other countries influence an election, then I'd be concerned.
Since my other post asking for intelligence in responding to alternate viewpoints was deleted, and before responding in an incredulous tone and referring to me as 'Mikey' (...Joshua):
Under the Post Button, please read: Please use your head when responding, don't be an asshat. Knee jerk comments, crass language, and anonymity will surely get your response deleted. Above all else, be mature.
k thx
Sorry about that Mike, I missed the part where Joshua started this. I really should switch back to caffeine.
Oh yeahy — bad, bad Joshy! No more calling people by their childhood name diveratives.