"...derailed in part by the intervention of Democratic Minority Leader in
the House, Nancy Pelosi...."

So Pelosi wants the Iranian candidates to win the Iraqi election?

That could
make it easier for her candidate (Lurch Kerry) to sell out Iraq to Al Queda
if he ever does win our presidential election?

What other reason could Pelosi have for undermining her own country's safety
by abetting Lurch in the enslavement of thirty five million Iraqis to
Iranian mullah masters?

WDA

end


"GW *AWOL* Chimpzilla" <patriot-for-cash@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Vh6d.64980$wV.20830@attbi_s54...

Time Magazine reports that the Bush administration had had a plan to use
the
Central Intelligence Agency to funnel money to candidates it favored in
the
forthcoming Iraqi elections. The rationale given was that Iran was
bankrolling
its own candidates.

This plan was apparently derailed in part by the intervention of
Democratic
Minority Leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, who remonstrated with National
Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice about it.

I'd like to make three comments on this story. The first is to point out
that
this sort of behavior by the Bush administration fatally undermines the
ideal
of democracy in the Middle East. If Muslims think that "democracy" is a
stalking horse for CIA control of their country, then they will flee the
system
and prefer independent-minded strongmen that denounce the US. The
constitutional monarchies established in the Middle East by the British
were
similarly undermined in the popular imagination by the impression they
gave of
being mere British puppets. This was true of the Wafd Party in Egypt in
the
1940s and early 1950s, which the Free Officers overthrew in 1952 in the
name of
national indepencence. It was also true in Iraq, where in 1958 popular
mobs
dragged the corpse of the pro-British Prime Minister Nuri al-Said through
the
streets and finished off the British-installed monarchy.

Second, I found the Time magazine diction about Pelosi sexist. The article
described her as having "come unglued" on hearing of the plan. "Coming
unglued"
is the wrong image here. She didn't go hysterical and fall apart. If you
were
going to be glib, you could have described her as "livid" or "going
ballistic."
But such journalistic buzzwords for alarm and anger are reserved for men
(no
doubt the phallic connotations of intercontinental ballistic missiles help
gender the image). Pelosi did not become "unglued." Rather, she intervened
forcefully and effectively. She appears to have mobilized a bipartisan
"powerful women" network with Rice, whom she strong-armed (another simile
not
usually used of women). Of course, she also was in a position to mobilize
the
Democrats in Congress across gender boundaries.

The ultimate Congressional check on presidential abuse is not mentioned in
the
Constitution. It is the Leak to the Press, with Time cooperating. Although
the
story suggests that the battle was fought and won by Pelosi months ago, in
fact
the leak at this point in time is designed to forestall the Bush
administration
from reverting to plan A if it wins the November election.

The other corner of the story is Iran. The scheme to influence the
elections is
justified with reference to Iranian funding of candidates.

But is this charge plausible? The pre-picked slates of candidates for the
January elections will run on a handful of party tickets-- including the 2
Kurdish ones, Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, Allawi's Iraqi National
Accord, the Shiite al-Da`wa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution
in
Iraq. I don't know for whom the Sunni Arabs are supposed to vote if these
are
the choices.

So to whom might Iran give money? It has a tight alliance with Jalal
Talabani,
the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. But then so does the US,
and
has had for two decades.

Iran might give money to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in
Iraq,
which was based in Tehran for over 20 years. But SCIRI has complained
bitterly
in recent months that Iran's Arabic-language satellite television channel
declined to criticize Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army for their
thuggish
behavior in Najaf. Iran and SCIRI no longer seem on very good terms. In
2003,
the Iranian hardliners had warned the al-Hakim family that leads SCIRI not
to
ally with the Americans in overthrowing Saddam. It was Rumsfeld who
negotiated
with SCIRI and brought them to Iraq and gave them a seat on the Interim
Governing Council, and then gave them the Finance Ministry in the current
caretaker government. This is a party that the CIA needs to counteract?
The
Bush Administration practically installed it in Iraq!

The Iranians might give money to al-Da`wa, another Shiite party. But
al-Da`wa
cooperated with the US invasion and rule of Iraq, and members or
ex-members
were given several seats on the Interim Governing Council. Iraqi Vice
President
Ibrahim Jaafari is a leader of al-Da`wa. He was appointed by the UN in
consultation with the United States. So, now, the US has to give money to
other
people to keep Jaafari out of office? What sense does that make? Nor is
the
London branch of al-Da`wa, from which Jaafari comes, very close to the
hardliners in Iran. It is more lay than clerical, and rejects the
Khomeinist
theory of clerical rule.

As for the Iraqi National Congress, Rumsfeld practically turned Iraq over
to it
in summer of 2003, and would have completely done so if Colin Powell and
Tony
Blair hadn't stopped him. So now CIA black money has to be used to block
it
because of its ties to Tehran--ties that Rumsfeld knew all about all
along?

I confess to not being able to understand the US-inspired scheme for the
elections, with a limited number of party slates, or how independent
candidates
could run in such a system. It appears to me that the Sadrists are
effectively
excluded under this system (which may suit them-- see below). If this
exclusion
is already built into the system, then Iran could hardly change anything
by
giving the Sadrists money. The evidence is that anyway to top leaders of
Iran
are nervous about Muqtada al-Sadr being a loose cannon, and it is not at
all
sure that they would fund him even if he were running, which he is not. He
complains bitterly about Iranian influence on Iraqi Shiism, for his part.

So, the "cover story" of forestalling "Iranian influence" doesn't hold
water.
Bush just wanted to buy himself an election, in the Bush tradition.
(Bush's
grandfather Prescott, a US senator, probably made much of the pile on
which he
ran by investing in Nazi companies).

Pelosi did not come unglued. It was this tawdry plot against democracy,
which
undermines the very ideal of it in the region, that came unglued.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109634909186321803
--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas -- that says,
fool
me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
http://www.diymedia.net/audio/mp3/tdntb-bushwack2.mp3

"...derailed in part by the intervention of Democratic Minority Leader in
the House, Nancy Pelosi...."

So Pelosi wants the Iranian candidates to win the Iraqi election? That could
make it easier for her candidate (Lurch Kerry) to sell out Iraq to Al Queda
if he ever does win our presidential election?

What other reason could Pelosi have for undermining her own country's safety
by abetting Lurch in the enslavement of thirty five million Iraqis to
Iranian mullah masters?

"...derailed in part by the intervention of Democratic Minority Leader in
the House, Nancy Pelosi...."

So Pelosi wants the Iranian candidates to win the Iraqi election? That could
make it easier for her candidate (Lurch Kerry) to sell out Iraq to Al Queda
if he ever does win our presidential election?

What other reason could Pelosi have for undermining her own country's safety