bush gave covert aid to selected Iraqi candidates ...

[welshTerrier2]

oh how bush and his republicans love to tell the world about our democracy ... we are the shining light of democracy for the rest of the world to envy ... we believe so strongly in the idea that each citizen should have an equal say in who their elected leaders are that we are willing to spill American blood overseas to help others fight for their freedoms ... makes a great story, doesn't it?

but what if the candidates running for office in Iraq weren't acceptable to bush and the neo-cons? what kind of democratic electoral process would Iraq have if powerful US interests and billions of dollars were used to corrupt the integrity of the election? and what if this were done after Congress specifically rejected this plan?

i can't imagine anything that could do greater damage to US calls for democracy than the very subversion of that democracy ...

here's an article that discusses bush's involvement in approving the funneling of aid to the "bush approved candidates" in Iraq ... at some point, it appears bush may have rescinded the order ... what's not clear is who got the aid, how much aid was provided and for how long ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0717-04.htm

The New Yorker article, by Seymour M. Hersh, reports that the administration proceeded with the covert plan over the congressional objections. <skip>

The article cites unidentified former military and intelligence officials who said the administration had gone ahead with covert election activities in Iraq that "were conducted by retired CIA officers and other nongovernment 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." <skip>

Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials 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 such as the International Democratic Institute. <skip>

Officials and former officials familiar with the debate inside the White House last year said that after considerable debate, Bush's national security advisers recommended that he sign a secret, formal authorization for covert action to influence the election, called a finding.

They said that Bush either had already signed it or was about to when objections were raised in Congress. Ultimately, he rescinded the decision, the officials said. <skip>

[FloridaPat]

1. US military was flying Alawai around the country to campaign. I hope

no one thought that was the end of the help. Is our MSM really that stupid?

[Kool Kitty]

2. Yes, our MSM are that stupid.

And afraid to open their collective mouths and ask a REAL question and a REAL follow-up. I love the way that they are oh-so-shocked that they were lied to about the Plame leaking, but I sense no outrage from them about the fact that they were lied to about this war.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. The original article by Hersch is now up on the New Yorker website

"...Sometime after last November’s Presidential election, I was told by past and present intelligence and military officials, the Bush Administration decided to override Pelosi’s objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election. A former national-security official told me that he had learned of the effort from “people who worked the beat”—those involved in the operation. It was necessary, he added, “because they couldn’t afford to have a disaster.”

A Pentagon consultant who deals with the senior military leadership acknowledged that the American authorities in Iraq “did an operation” to try to influence the results of the election. “They had to,” he said. “They were trying to make a case that Allawi was popular, and he had no juice.” A government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon’s civilian leaders said, “We didn’t want to take a chance.”

I was informed by several former military and intelligence officials that the activities were kept, in part, “off the books”—they were conducted by retired C.I.A. officers and other non-government personnel, and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress. Some in the White House and at the Pentagon believed that keeping an operation off the books eliminated the need to give a formal briefing to the relevant members of Congress and congressional intelligence committees, whose jurisdiction is limited, in their view, to officially sanctioned C.I.A. operations. (The Pentagon is known to be running clandestine operations today in North Africa and Central Asia with little or no official C.I.A. involvement.) ..."

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