CIA asked to fix Iraqi election???

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Or maybe I did. Sorry, its just that darn conspiracy theorist coming out again!

Democracy? We don't need no stinking democracy!!!

Don't people vote before the winner is decided?

[Captain Sensible]

zing!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 04:22 AM
Or maybe I did. Sorry, its just that darn conspiracy theorist coming out again!

Democracy? We don't need no stinking democracy!!!

Don't people vote before the winner is decided?

So . . . . the administration comes out and makes a public statement saying it won't influence the Iraq elections and Mr. Conspiracy jumps up and down saying: "HOLY CRAP!! Lookee here Festus!!"

This from an administration you say has a secret agenda and you compare to Nazi's? NOW you believe them?

What's next? You're going to accuse the American government of the crime of honesty?

And you're believing a government controlled mainstream media source, TIME, which you've told us earlier can't be trusted?

By the way, the first story you provided is quite the little re-write of the actual TIME story:

But U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates — whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran — but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections.

Kind of shoots down the purpose of this thread doesn't it?

The lead article in TIME on this as well, reflecting on the perils of having elections versus delays, pretty much as discussed last week on this board:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...702949,00.html

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

But lawmakers from both parties raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill.

Checks and balances. That's why they are there.

You can bet your hiney that Iran will (as if they're not already in the process) have their dirty little hands all over things come election time. They'll also be trying to eliminate Al-Sistani.

[CaramonLS]

Cow you missed the big word in there.

but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections

What that says to me is that the CIA is going to "assist" the US favored Candidates, but if things get too out of hand and Saddam Hussian part 2 comes in to power they are probably going to do something about it.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 28 2004, 11:06 PM
What that says to me is that the CIA is going to "assist" the US favored Candidates, but if things get too out of hand and Saddam Hussian part 2 comes in to power they are probably going to do something about it.

I don't mind that at all. What I do mind is how Bush says he's going to bring democracy to Iraq, like Iraq will become the new pinnacle of democracy worldwide, when really there are some strings attached. It should be more like "We will bring democracy to Iraq.*"


* Some restrictions apply

Again, though, if some lunatic looks like he's going to take power then they have to do something. That'd mean they have a more serious problem with the Iraqi people though...

[Reggie Dunlop]

Well, wasn't the American election rigged too?

What's everyone complaining about?

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Reggie Dunlop@Sep 28 2004, 11:44 PM
Well, wasn't the American election rigged too?

What's everyone complaining about?

Lol, good one.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 05:22 AM
Democracy? We don't need no stinking democracy!!!

If you are a libertarian as you claim, that is what you should be thinking as well...

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 28 2004, 10:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 28 2004, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 04:22 AM
Or maybe I did. Sorry, its just that darn conspiracy theorist coming out again!

Democracy? We don't need no stinking democracy!!!

Don't people vote before the winner is decided?

So . . . . the administration comes out and makes a public statement saying it won't influence the Iraq elections and Mr. Conspiracy jumps up and down saying: "HOLY CRAP!! Lookee here Festus!!"

This from an administration you say has a secret agenda and you compare to Nazi's? NOW you believe them?

What's next? You're going to accuse the American government of the crime of honesty?

And you're believing a government controlled mainstream media source, TIME, which you've told us earlier can't be trusted?

By the way, the first story you provided is quite the little re-write of the actual TIME story:

But U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates — whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran — but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections.

Kind of shoots down the purpose of this thread doesn't it?

The lead article in TIME on this as well, reflecting on the perils of having elections versus delays, pretty much as discussed last week on this board:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...702949,00.html

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Uhhh Cow, it never said the admin came out and told the truth, but the that House MINORITY leader started the process. I'm not sure I would call the minority leader part of the administration. They also cited 'U.S. officials'. We have no idea on who they are, (at least from these reports) only that it's a good thing that they came forward. They could be AGAINST the administration for all we know.

As DFF mentioned below you, it's about the checks and balances, one of the things I DO appreciate in the American governmental system over the Canadian one. Better checks and balances.

Instead of rigging something 'covert' though, wouldn't it just be better to stop the flow of Iranian dollars? I guess for some reason they can't do this and are trying to level they playing field, but I wonder just what 'covert' means. Is it mearly providing financial support to even the playing field? Or is it something more?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Aww Cow, don't cry. Just another instance of you being WRONG and the wacky "conspiracy theorist" being RIGHT. I'm still surprised you didn't see the Americans stopping to this level to install the government they NEED in the area. It wasn't exactly a leap of faith based on historical patterns and the beliefs of the neo-cons.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Sep 29 2004, 07:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Sep 29 2004, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 05:22 AM
Democracy? We don't need no stinking democracy!!!

If you are a libertarian as you claim, that is what you should be thinking as well... [/b][/quote]
My friend, you need to learn something about the Libertarian movement. It is not anti-democracy. It is the most pro-democracy of any party. The founding fathers of the United States were Libertarians and the party believes strongly in those same core values. Personal freedom, liberty and individual responsibility are at the center of the belief structure. A strong free-market economy (not capitalism, as there are huge differences) is the engine to make country work. And a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace and free trade is the final tenet which the party bases its beliefs on. Government is to be small, effective, representative and non-intrusive. I'm not sure how this is "anti-democracy"?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 12:15 PM
Aww Cow, don't cry. Just another instance of you being WRONG and the wacky "conspiracy theorist" being RIGHT. I'm still surprised you didn't see the Americans stopping to this level to install the government they NEED in the area. It wasn't exactly a leap of faith based on historical patterns and the beliefs of the neo-cons.

So, you take a news story with phrases and words like "a secret finding" and "a "proposal" and " . . but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections" and turn it into yet another vast conspiracy theory?

That's called "grasping at straws."

What you've done is laid in front of us an excellent example of checks and balances in the American political system, apparently, unbelievably, working as it should.

Without a doubt, somewhere in the vastness of the system, are "secret findings," and "proposals" for military action against North Korea, Iran and Syria as well.

That doesn't mean they'll see the light of day either.

If anything, this goes to my original premise that it would be monumentally stupid and against USA interests to do anything but offer free and fair elections in Iraq, which, contrary to your own hopes, appears to be the majority opinion among representatives of both political parties in the USA.

You're something else man!!

My friend, you need to learn something about the Libertarian movement.

Now you've done it. Flame of Liberty is going to be all over you like a cheap tent at midnight.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Cow, do you need a tissue?

Wasn't it you who said that the elctions would be on the up and up and that there was no way that the Americans would stand in the way of "fudging" the results in their favor? But now we have a cooberated story that the CIA does have plans to do just that, and that someone in the government outside of the Bush Administration leaked the story. Seesm to point to the fact that you were extremely naive in your understanding of how the US likes to make sure "peace and stability" in a region is attained through "diplomatic elections".

You'll notice that in the Time story no where does it say the plan got killed, only that the Administration is taking heat for the plan. As a matter of fact "A senior U.S. official hinted that, under pressure from the Hill, the Administration scaled back its original plans." The article goes on to say "Our embassy in Baghdad will run a number of overt programs to support the democratic electoral process," as the U.S. does elsewhere in the world." No mention of what the CIA will do, just the actions of the embassy. So a scaled back plan, and comments on what the embassy is going to do is now an abandonment of the plan all together? Not likely.

And please, don't sick Flame of Liberty on me! I may never sleep again. I'm trembling in my boots!
:biglaff:

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 02:07 PM

Wasn't it you who said that the elctions would be on the up and up and that there was no way that the Americans would stand in the way of "fudging" the results in their favor?# .

That's exactly what I said and . . . . that's exactly what they said yesterday as well. Obviously.

The article goes on to say "Our embassy in Baghdad will run a number of overt programs to support the democratic electoral process," as the U.S. does elsewhere in the world."

I think you're confusing "overt" with "covert."

Keep grasping for straws.

And please, don't sick Flame of Liberty on me! I may never sleep again. I'm trembling in my boots!

Oh, he'll show up sooner or later. He's the resident expert on Libertarianism, living and breathing it.

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Checks and balances? Geez guys talk about passing the buck here.

So a dumbass plan proposed by the Republicans gets killed by Capitol hill, does that make the plan any less stupid or the people any less wrong for proposing it? No of course not.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 29 2004, 02:14 PM
The article goes on to say "Our embassy in Baghdad will run a number of overt programs to support the democratic electoral process," as the U.S. does elsewhere in the world."

I think you're confusing "overt" with "covert."

Keep grasping for straws.

What part of the embassy did you miss? The embassy will be running a number of overt programs. Says nothing about what the CIA will be doing. Reading comprehension not up to snuff today Cow? What the embassy does and what the CIA does are two entirely different things. Or are you trying to get people to believe that the embassy and the CIA are the same thing? Its obvious that Bush admin is in damage control with this story, and they have added in another angle to confuse the unattentive. Introduction of the embassy, and stating that they would be running a series of "overt" programs, completely makes you forget that the CIA still exists and that a plan is in place, albeit scaled back, for them to affect the outcome of the election? How did you miss that while reading the article? Or are you so desperate to make your point that you will attempt to pull a Bush and float a lame smokesreen to cover your tracks?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 29 2004, 02:22 PM
Checks and balances? Geez guys talk about passing the buck here.

So a dumbass plan proposed by the Republicans gets killed by Capitol hill, does that make the plan any less stupid or the people any less wrong for proposing it? No of course not.

You think everyone in government is a brilliant bureaucrat and there has never been a stupid idea that didn't need a good killing?

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 29 2004, 02:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 29 2004, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 29 2004, 02:14 PM
The article goes on to say "Our embassy in Baghdad will run a number of overt programs to support the democratic electoral process," as the U.S. does elsewhere in the world."

I think you're confusing "overt" with "covert."

Keep grasping for straws.

What part of the embassy did you miss? The embassy will be running a number of overt programs. Says nothing about what the CIA will be doing. Reading comprehension not up to snuff today Cow? What the embassy does and what the CIA does are two entirely different things. Or are you trying to get people to believe that the embassy and the CIA are the same thing? Its obvious that Bush admin is in damage control with this story, and they have added in another angle to confuse the unattentive. Introduction of the embassy, and stating that they would be running a series of "overt" programs, completely makes you forget that the CIA still exists and that a plan is in place, albeit scaled back, for them to affect the outcome of the election? How did you miss that while reading the article? Or are you so desperate to make your point that you will attempt to pull a Bush and float a lame smokesreen to cover your tracks? [/b][/quote]
It looks like you're so desperate to make your own point that, as usual, you're weaving "fact" out of a "finding" and a "proposal" that would have fallen short of "rigging the elections."

And I'm sure there are no CIA agents operating out of the embassy in Baghdad!!

What's next? You're going to complain if the embassy hands out leaflets telling people where to vote?

Desperation is written all over you. . . . as usual.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

What ever Cow. I'm not the one who said last week that the Americans would never consider attempting to impact the out come of the election, only to have a report come out to say that they have and indeed will. Desperate? Hardly. I'm right on this (as usual). You're wrong. The proof is right there in black and white. Accept your lumps like a man and move along.

:P