CIA asked to fix Iraqi election???

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 02:54 PM
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

I said it was reasonable to assume, weighing all the factors, that it would be against their national interests to rig the Iraqi election and therefore unlikely that they would do . . . . which apparently is quite true as we can see from the story.

A contingency plan that never saw the light of day is hardly "proof" of anything, including intent. As I pointed out earlier, there are contingency plans in the Pentagon for blowing up Iran, Syria, North Korea and for all I know, Canada as well.

When and if they actually rig the election, get back to us with the boasting and I will grovel at your feet willingly. Seriously. Because then you would be right. Finally.

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 29 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 29 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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 [/b][/quote]
Uhh Cow you are still continuing to pass the blame.

Pass a freaken opinion on the matter instead of saying checks and balances are good for the system, of course they are, but the moron who proposes this crap should have his balls cut off none the less and should be treated as such.

[transplant99]

"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 take this to mean that they will have undercover operatives watching out all over the polling stations to make sure no one is threatened to vote a certain way and that places arent getting blown up during the day of elections.

Seems like a good idea to me. This happens all over the world with UN pacekeeping forces as well as election observers from many a country. CAnada is one of the leaders in this field IIRC.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 29 2004, 02:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 29 2004, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 29 2004, 02:54 PM
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

I said it was reasonable to assume, weighing all the factors, that it would be against their national interests to rig the Iraqi election and therefore unlikely that they would do . . . . which apparently is quite true as we can see from the story.

A contingency plan that never saw the light of day is hardly "proof" of anything, including intent. As I pointed out earlier, there are contingency plans in the Pentagon for blowing up Iran, Syria, North Korea and for all I know, Canada as well.

When and if they actually rig the election, get back to us with the boasting and I will grovel at your feet willingly. Seriously. Because then you would be right. Finally.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Last time I checked military plans vs. rigging elections are 2 completely different things.

If the US was to rig the Elections in Iraq it would fly in the face of just about everything they have been harping about "bringing democracy to Iraq".

Military plans are Military plans - and thats a BIG difference.

[Lurch]

Damn, you're both right!! Of course, the US will try to 'influence' the election. It does not take a conspiracy theorist to see this. I mean, merely by appointing a provisional gov't they have already given these guys a huge leg up by putting them in a prominent, publicly visible position. If the US can improve conditions between now and January, they will of course let the provisional leaders take the credit, and voila, electoral influence. If you want to see a conspiracy in this, every announcement any government makes about positive news is an attempt to 'fix' the election b/c the announcement is clearly intended to influence voters.

OTOH, it is nuts to think that a position paper from the Pentagon 'proves' anything. There are people who are paid to think up plans, strategies, etc. around basically every contigency. In fact, if you dug deep enough, I bet you would find a paper somewhere in the Pentagon archives outlining what to do in the event the Iraq invasion resulted in a lot a political instability and Iraqi anger. Would this 'prove' that Bush adequately planned for the aftermath?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 29 2004, 03:06 PM
Last time I checked military plans vs. rigging elections are 2 completely different things.

Better tell Lanny that. He thinks military action to put in place a favourable government is the same thing for a neo-con as fixing an election . . . . both with the same end result.

If the US was to rig the Elections in Iraq it would fly in the face of just about everything they have been harping about "bringing democracy to Iraq".

That's what I've said all along.

Quite frankly, unlike my principled foe, I'd quite cheerfully fix a foreign election - The Bill Maher Method of securing slavouring allies - if I thought it would help.

I just don't see it in the obvious interests of the USA to do so in this particular situation. Quite the opposite. There's rarely been better reasons for The Ugly American to step aside and let this one fall where it may. Which is the only thing I've argued. And . . . it looks like that will be the decision in the end.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Does anyone else remember months ago, perhaps more than a year, when Rumsfeld was up at the podium doing his thing, and this exchange (roughly) took place?

Reporter: What if the Iraqi people elect a hardline Muslim regime?

Rumsfeld: We will not let that happen. Next question.

It was plain as day and it seems quite reasonable to me. We can have conspiracies and promises and obsfuscations about democracy, but at the end of the day, everyone knows that the Yanks aren't going to let Iraq turn into a radical theocracy. It's just the way it is.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2004, 06:09 PM
Does anyone else remember months ago, perhaps more than a year, when Rumsfeld was up at the podium doing his thing, and this exchange (roughly) took place?

Reporter: What if the Iraqi people elect a hardline Muslim regime?

Rumsfeld: We will not let that happen. Next question.

It was plain as day and it seems quite reasonable to me. We can have conspiracies and promises and obsfuscations about democracy, but at the end of the day, everyone knows that the Yanks aren't going to let Iraq turn into a radical theocracy. It's just the way it is.

It was a year and a half ago, immediately after the conclusion of the conflict when the flowers were raining on soldiers in the streets.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0...a05-146904.htm

That was then.

This is now.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

So you think things have changed and they would now allow that too happen?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2004, 06:25 PM
So you think things have changed and they would now allow that too happen?

Do you think they would be put out if they were asked to leave a quagmire by a legitimately elected government, even if its a theocracy?

It would be a legitimate escape hatch, even leaving them with the potential to declare a success (whether you wanted to interpret it that way is another matter).

Personally, judging by various opinion polls by reputable organizations of Iraqi public opinion, the possibility of Iraqi's electing a hostile theocracy seems unlikely since the more radical elements seem to be boycotting the thing.

Mucky al-Sadr, for instance, has already announced he won't participate in the electoral process until the Americans leave. Probably worried he'd get only eight per cent of the vote which is what a recent poll said he would get.

We'll see. Hopefully there's no delay and it happens in January.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 29 2004, 06:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 29 2004, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Sep 29 2004, 06:09 PM
Does anyone else remember months ago, perhaps more than a year, when Rumsfeld was up at the podium doing his thing, and this exchange (roughly) took place?

Reporter: What if the Iraqi people elect a hardline Muslim regime?

Rumsfeld: We will not let that happen. Next question.

It was plain as day and it seems quite reasonable to me. We can have conspiracies and promises and obsfuscations about democracy, but at the end of the day, everyone knows that the Yanks aren't going to let Iraq turn into a radical theocracy. It's just the way it is.

It was a year and a half ago, immediately after the conclusion of the conflict when the flowers were raining on soldiers in the streets.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0...a05-146904.htm

That was then.

This is now.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Yes, that was then and this is now. So when Wolfowitz developed the PNAC strategy document in 1992, and the Bush administration has executed that strategy a decade later, we should still just think, that was then, this is now? These guys don't take a dump without having a plan, so I can't believe they would have no plan for installing a favorable government, especially when its written right into their philosophy document. Come on Cow, just admit that it fits completely with their ideology and makes complete sense to do so. These guys are not interested in spreading "democracy". They are interested in spreading "their form of democracy" one that is willing to be subserviant to the United States. Why is this a stretch for you to inderstand when it is published by the wackos themselves?

[Lurch]

Yes, that was then and this is now. So when Wolfowitz developed the PNAC strategy document in 1992, and the Bush administration has executed that strategy a decade later, we should still just think, that was then, this is now? These guys don't take a dump without having a plan, so I can't believe they would have no plan for installing a favorable government, especially when its written right into their philosophy document. Come on Cow, just admit that it fits completely with their ideology and makes complete sense to do so. These guys are not interested in spreading "democracy". They are interested in spreading "their form of democracy" one that is willing to be subserviant to the United States. Why is this a stretch for you to inderstand when it is published by the wackos themselves?

I hate to wade into these types of discussions, but here it goes! Lanny, I don't understand your position - I was and am against the Iraq invasion b/c it sets a bad precedent for the world (unprovoked, contrary to world opinion and pre-emptive), increases Islamic anger IMO, and seems like a childish display of power from the US president. HOWEVER, now that the US has already lashed out, I don't see how they have any choice but to try and ensure a secular gov't of some sort, democratic or not. If Iraq was dangerous before, a hard-line Islamic state p*ssed at the US for ruining their country is certainly infinitely worse. The invasion is now a sunk cost - pragmatism demands from this point forward that we try to get the best possible solution given where we are. I generally enjoy your point of view (I don't think you are any more wingy than some of those on the right around here ) but I just can't see where you are coming from on this issue. What is it you are after? A mea culpa from GW and an invitation to the White House for Saddam?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 29 2004, 12:33 PM
Do you think they would be put out if they were asked to leave a quagmire by a legitimately elected government, even if its a theocracy?

It would be a legitimate escape hatch, even leaving them with the potential to declare a success (whether you wanted to interpret it that way is another matter).

Yes I do think they would be put out if a legitimately elected government told them to get lost.

I don't see it as a legitimate escape hatch either. An escape hatch that leads to a room full of snakes and fire maybe, but that's no fun. "Run away with lots more terrorists and a shiny new, angry Islamic theocracy behind me" is not a suitable endgame for this bunch. All the powers of the Illuminati and the Skull and Bones couldn't spin that scenario in America's favor.

Kind of moot anyway, for the reasons you stated -- they probably won't elect one. I don't think they'll have the chance though. The powers that be certainly aren't afraid to spin this Iraqi election in whatever direction (pro-America) they want it to go. Definitely not for some romantic notion of a perfect democratic election. Even if it looks like it stinks -- these guys have proven convincingly that they are not afraid to take things into their own hands, even if the rest of the world complains.

[Cowperson]

These guys are not interested in spreading "democracy". They are interested in spreading "their form of democracy" one that is willing to be subserviant to the United States. Why is this a stretch for you to inderstand when it is published by the wackos themselves?

If that's what you think, what makes these wacko's any different than any other meddling USA President since WWII?

At least they're looking at elections which is a lot different than much of what the USA has supported in the last 50 years (Japan and Germany excepted).

You know what's amusing? You seem to seriously think the USA meddling in the affairs of other nations in its national interest is substantially different from, say Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, etc.

Regarding PNAC, you've conceded yourself that PNAC would be an amusing footnote among the myriad of policy papers published by myriad numbers of policy wonks in various years if 9/11 hadn't come along.

Whether they were in government or not would have been largely irrelevant or certainly less violent without the catalyst of 9/11 so what they did or said in 1992 isn't particularly relevant without that event framing the picture.

As noted in our other debate on the matter, these people go in and out of favour depending on the regime and you can certainly find all sorts of policy papers on virtually anything.

You can find papers talking about Reagonomics before the term was even invented. Without doubt you can find policy papers written about many Clinton policies before they became fact or before he came to office. And without doubt, if John Kerry wins this election, we'll be able to look back and find his policies had origins in some think tank somewhere.

It's altogether common and their influence ebbs and flows with the times.

You may disagree regarding the philosophy of PNAC but you have to concede 9/11 made Afghanistan a given, regardless of the party in power, and Iraq is the only real situation you have which you can point to as evidence of their globe dominating sway.

And, as we stand right now, public pronouncements anchored by common sense and the fact both USA political parties are watching, suggest elections in Iraq will be as open and fair as they can be. If they happen.

By the way, in the same Rumsfeld story I provided also contained this comment:

"One thing is certain: We will not impose a government on Iraq," Bush said. "We will help that nation build a government of, by and for the Iraqi people."

Even if he was blowing smoke then, he probably means it now!!

These guys don't take a dump without having a plan, so I can't believe they would have no plan for installing a favorable government, especially when its written right into their philosophy document.

As I noted earlier, in all probability, they'll get the government they want legitimately. So why mess with the process?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

No Cow, you have minimalized the PNAC vision papers as being a footnote. What I said was that without 911 it likely would have taken a longer period to get into Iraq. I don't think for a minute that they would not be right where they are today, with or without Iraq. Richard Clarke has stated repeatedly that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were talking about getting into Iraq right after their appointments, well before 911. This was going to happen come hell or high water, it was just convient for them to have 911 to spin up their plans quicker.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that Iraqis would vote for anything that America put forward, in an up and up election. Given a chance to have a true democratic election where they pick their own representatives in each district and vote for those individuals accordingly, I don't think anyone associated with America would stand a chance of getting a nomination. This is a nation that was brought up to hate America and everything with it. They may be tolerant of the US at the moment (and that is a leap of epic proportions to say they are even being tolerated given the situation in the country) but given an opportunity they would toss them out in a heartbeat. You don't change your beliefs over night, no matter what the US is trying to get us to believe.

Frankly, because of the cultural slant that Iraqis would likely have, it would make complete sense for them to elect a theological government, one that would not be in favor of US activities in their country. This is why the mullahs would like to see a true election without American interference because they know they would very likely win and expunge their nation of the US. The Americans know this and will do everything in the power to ensure that the elction takes place by their schedule, by their rules and with their desired results. There is too much of a risk in letting the people practice real democracy.

[Cowperson]

No Cow, you have minimalized the PNAC vision papers as being a footnote. What I said was that without 911 it likely would have taken a longer period to get into Iraq. I don't think for a minute that they would not be right where they are today, with or without Iraq. Richard Clarke has stated repeatedly that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were talking about getting into Iraq right after their appointments, well before 911. This was going to happen come hell or high water, it was just convient for them to have 911 to spin up their plans quicker.

Talk is cheap. The end of every administration reveals the kooky things that were talked about. Truman was going to nuke China. Johnson was going to nuke North Vietnam. Did they? Not that I noticed.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that Iraqis would vote for anything that America put forward, in an up and up election.

Right now, Hamad Karzai seems to be the poll leader in Afghanistan, helped by some warlords who have apparently told their constituents if they don't vote Karzei they'll have their homes burned to the ground!! Now that's a campaign Aghan-style!!

I haven't seen a poll on Allawi but there are sufficient and credible polling services operating - including Gallup - that we should have a look at some numbers in the near future.

Before this conflict even started you knew this day would arrive - elections. No surprises in that regard at least. Bring it on!!

Frankly, because of the cultural slant that Iraqis would likely have, it would make complete sense for them to elect a theological government,

Why?

There's a declared Islamic party in power Turkey which doesn't appear to be broadly radical. It's not an issue of an Islamic government. Its an issue of whether one election is followed by another and another OR, the Islamic government seizes control for life as in Iran.

As I said earlier, in the last year we saw a poll of Saudi's showing a majority admired Osama Bin Laden but only about 8% would want him in charge. In Iraq, another poll found a majority admired Mucky al-Sadr but only about five to eight per cent would want him running things.

Small things like that can tell us something. So can the fact al-Sadr says he's not going to run for office.

Anyway, we're going round in circles yet again. You said your piece. I said mine.

Now we'll see.

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 29 2004, 07:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 29 2004, 07:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Reggie Dunlop@Sep 28 2004, 11:44 PM
Well, wasn't the American election rigged too?

What's everyone complaining about?

Lol, good one. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, except he was being sarcastic.

Woooooooosh!

[Resolute 14]

While I generally am not a conspiracy theorist (outside of game four of the finals...) I never thought for a second that Iraq's elections would be truely democratic.

The USA has fought too hard, and seen too many people die to allow anything but a USA friendly regime to be elected.

Do you really think that if a party were to promise an end to democracy, and to cut off all ties with the United States, that the Americans would allow it to happen?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Sep 29 2004, 11:34 PM
The USA has fought too hard, and seen too many people die to allow anything but a USA friendly regime to be elected.

Do you really think that if a party were to promise an end to democracy, and to cut off all ties with the United States, that the Americans would allow it to happen?

I've said from day one on this board if 24 million Iraqi's don't want Americans there, then all the guns in the world wouldn't be able to keep them there.

Therefore, let them vote in an unfettered manner, to judge which way the wind is truly blowing, just as the leaders of both USA political parties are apparently demanding given the premise of the story that started this thread.

In the end, this has to be about empowering Iraqi's to take over so American troop levels can recede and their presence can vaporize into a few isolated bases in the hinterland, similar to Afghanistan. Iraqi's have to assume ownership of this situation.

Fifty-six thousand or so Americans died in Vietnam. America left. Sooner or later they'll leave Iraq, one way or the other.

Rigging elections didn't work in Vietnam either.

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 30 2004, 12:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 30 2004, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Sep 29 2004, 11:34 PM
The USA has fought too hard, and seen too many people die to allow anything but a USA friendly regime to be elected.

Do you really think that if a party were to promise an end to democracy, and to cut off all ties with the United States, that the Americans would allow it to happen?

I've said from day one on this board if 24 million Iraqi's don't want Americans there, then all the guns in the world wouldn't be able to keep them there.

Therefore, let them vote in an unfettered manner, to judge which way the wind is truly blowing, just as the leaders of both USA political parties are apparently demanding given the premise of the story that started this thread.

In the end, this has to be about empowering Iraqi's to take over so American troop levels can recede and their presence can vaporize into a few isolated bases in the hinterland, similar to Afghanistan. Iraqi's have to assume ownership of this situation.

Fifty-six thousand or so Americans died in Vietnam. America left. Sooner or later they'll leave Iraq, one way or the other.

Rigging elections didn't work in Vietnam either.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Sure cow... when the offical Iraqi ballot is released we shall see how many of them are "extremists" and "not US friendly".

And when the next leader is elected whether by the CIA or the people... we will see.

Sorry but to be quite honest I don't think the US is going to pack up and leave, especially with all the money they are putting into constructing ways to get the Oil out of the ground.