Reality check: * did NOT want Iraqi election!!!

[VOX]

Going back over the sequence of events in Iraq, it's easy to see that * did NOT want the kind of election that was just held. Bear this in mind when you hear all the media cheerleading for the Chimp.

I'd add that his state of the union address is this Wednesday -- just how opportunistic is that? :grr:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/mixed-story-im-just-appalled-by.html
Informed Comment
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
Sunday, January 30, 2005
A Mixed Story

...the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution. They did their job and got what they wanted. But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.

<snip>

The Iraqis did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were supposedly voting. What kind of an election is anonymous! There were even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been included on lists without their permission. Al-Zaman compared the election process to buying fruit wholesale and sight unseen.
<snip>

[Tempest]

1. The elections Bush didn't want

As media coverage of today's elections in Iraq swims in phrases like "major test of President Bush's goal of promoting democracy," and as the Orwell Bush administration does everything it can to claim credit for their occurrence, it seems like a good moment to take a look back at how they really came about -- through a process in which Dubya and his crew were dragged against their will, kicking and screaming, every step of the way.

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043

[cthrumatrix]

24. I heard the same .... i heard the Shia demanded elections

[jojo54]

2. KrazyKat, how do you find this stuff?

I don't use Google anymore 'cause of all of the Repug relations. Do you have a secret that you want to share?

[VOX]

17. This site was linked by TomPaine.com, which is must-read for progressives!

Cheers -- :toast:

[BrotherBuzz]

3. Here's a compelling argument that Bush* got exactly what he wanted

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/oil/2805.html

Of Oil And Elections

If all goes according to the Bush plan, American investors and companies will soon begin to own chunks of Iraq’s national oil company.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/oil/2805.html

January 27, 2005

By Antonia Juhasz,

<snip

It turns out that Abdel Mahdi is running in the Jan. 30 elections on the ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading Shiite political party. While announcing the selling-off of the resource which provides 95 percent of all Iraqi revenue may not garner Mahdi many Iraqi votes, but it will unquestionably win him tremendous support from the U.S. government and U.S. corporations.

Mahdi's SCIR is far and away the front-runner in the upcoming elections, particularly as it becomes increasingly less possible for Sunnis to vote because the regions where they live are spiraling into deadly chaos. If Bush were to suggest to Iraq's Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that elections should be called off, Mahdi and the SCIR's ultimate chances of victory will likely decline.

Thus, one might argue that the Bush administration has made a deal with the SCIR: Iraq's oil for guaranteed political power.The Americans are able to put forward such a bargain because Bush still holds the strings in Iraq.

Regardless of what happens in the elections, for at least the next year during which the newly elected National Assembly writes a constitution and Iraqis vote for a new government, the Bush administration is going to control the largest pot of money available in Iraq (the $24 billion in U.S. taxpayer money allocated for the reconstruction), the largest military and the rules governing Iraq's economy. Both the money and the rules will, in turn, be overseen by U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals who sit in every Iraqi ministry with five-year terms and sweeping authority over contracts and regulations. However, the one thing which the administration has not (sic) been unable to confer upon itself is guaranteed access to Iraqi oil — that is, until now.
<more

on edit: a Bad speiling day

second edit: my computer is having a bad day :)

[gratuitous]

4. Well, at least what he wanted as of last Thursday

But Bush is a master at refining, revising, rehashing and refinishing his supposedly "permanent" pronouncements on any number of things, then pretending that whatever the result is exactly what he wanted all along. Oddly enough, for any other politician in the country, this sort of behavior would be called flip-flopping. Bush is still described as being of steely resolve, and steadfast vision. It's nonsense.

Another example would be the patients' bill of rights legislation that passed in Texas over Bush's veto. Bush wanted to service his medical and insurance industry buddies, but the Texas legislature overrode his veto. Bush then went on to trumpet his "accomplishment" in securing a patients' bill of rights all through Campaign 2000. While the mainsteam media mentioned the real facts in passing once or twice, Bush was largely successful in using the legislation to bolster his populist credentials.

[BrotherBuzz]

5. I don't disagree

The point of the article I posted was that Bush wants and desires chaos in Iraq so his agenda of ripping off Iraqi people of their natural resources and paying off his supporters goes forth. Damn the desires of Iraqi people, he's going to just take it.

The bush* plan in all things:

Socialize the costs, and Privatized the profits.

[gratuitous]

7. I didn't mean to disagree

And it appears from the article that Bush has once again found a way to turn adversity to his personal, political and economic advantage. Much as I dislike the man's rapacious policies, he rarely plays a losing hand for one minute longer than necessary, and is adept at running around the flow of events to make it look like he's leading the way.

[BrotherBuzz]

11. I agree....

and that's what's so frustrating. Taking him to task is as hard as nailing jello to a tree.

[Just Me]

20. He wants reason for permanent military presence BUT,...

,...he also wants to win the "perception manipulation" game in order to sell off the country of Iraq.

Problem is,...he, his cabal, can't have both.

I agree AND disagree with the original poster in this way: the mere "pretense" of an election was all that the neoCONs wanted to push "perception management" on both the populace and investors; however, the fact that Iraqis demonstrated an unexpected courage and unity was disappointing to the neoCONs' aim to divide, conquer and "justify" a continued occupation.

I wonder if they will anticipate the fact that, since the election went over "better than expected" (which obviously falls short of a free election for a "representative" governance - I mean, C'MON - 7,000 unnamed candidates UGH), the neoCONs will be verily disappointed in an even more UNITED force/rebellion/resistence against US occupation. Of course, the neoCONs can always call the whole of the Iraqi people "terrorists" and "insurgents".

Hell, it's all about propaganda, "perception management",...what the neoCONs fraudulently call a "war of ideas".

But,...that is just my take.

The only thing that makes me puke is how successful the neoCONs have been in "perception management" in our country. They've not only betrayed/deceived/manipulated the American people,...they've done so while facing their own dramatic failures in anticipating so many other outcomes/consequences. The psy-ops campaign against our own innocent people chaffs my ass the most. :mad: But, the destruction that these profitteering, power-mongering, self-proclaimed demi-gods are wreaking on human existence and possibility is truly a historical tragedy.

[w4rma]

6. He sure didn't. There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever that they

couldn't have had this election a year ago when Iraqis weren't as ticked off and Fallujah wasn't flattened.

[hector459]

8. This is Sistani's election quiet as it's kept. But Bush will take the

credit and I only hope he will take the heat when the outcome becomes something that he didn't bargain for.

[underpants]

10. This IS Mission Accomplished all over again

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read and it is TRUE!

Bush didn't want the elections. Once AGAIN Bush got played.

[underpants]

9. Hahaha OMG! I just printed the timeline out (LTTE's everyone)

That is too funny. I missed/forgot about all of that-even with the American press reminding me of it daily :eyes:- oh that is priceless.

[Disturbed]

12. Does anyone really believe that Shrub...

has a grasp of any of this?

I sure don't. His handlers manuever all of the complexities and tell him what to say. It is obvious that the people behind the scene play these things on a moment to moment basis. They institute each plan and when that plan doesn't work they make up another one. Anyone that believes that the Bush Junta wishes actual democracy for Iraq is either stupid or has not been paying attention to the real events.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

U.S. Edicts Curb Power Of Iraq's Leadership

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8665-2004Jun26.html

[underpants]

21. No one paid much attention to that

much at all. Bremer officially siezed Iraqi assets from the Iraqis.

[ComerPerro]

13. He didn't want the Dept. Of Homeland Security either

But you wouldn't think so now if you heard him tell it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. He didn't want an investigation into 9/11 either

Had to be shamed into that and dragged kicking and screaming. Won't even implement the security measures that the 9/11 committee strongly suggested be implemented.

[Zero Gravitas]

14. Indeed

Bush and co were forced into having even this pseudo election (lists of anonymous candidates is "democracy" ?) by Sistani. This was the price of keeping the Shia on board with the occupation. At some point they will either have to give the Ayatollah what he wants or risk violence on a much larger scale than we've seen so far.

[Karenina]

15. Ding...ding....ding...

Why does your post set off this ringing in my head? Ding...ding...

[VOX]

18. Here's the timeline of the fake election for anyone writing LTTEs...

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043
The elections Bush didn't want
By swopa
Jan 30 2005 - 11:56am
<snip>
June 2003: The original U.S. plan following the invasion was to ensure that we got the Iraq we wanted, and so elections would be held only after a new national constitution had been written by a handpicked, exile-led group. Indeed, our colonial provisional administration was so afraid of the people's will that we cancelled ad-hoc local elections all across Iraq in June of 2003. (Subsequent protests in Najaf, the home city of the Shiite religious establishment led by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, included banners that read, "Canceled elections are evidence of bad intentions.")

Perhaps not coincidentally, within days Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling for national elections as the only acceptable way to choose the assembly that would draft a constitution, specifically rejecting the U.S. plans to appoint a committee.

Fall 2003: As richly documented in this space, the American administration tried in vain to ignore or sidestep Sistani's decree for several months, until it became clear that the Iraqi would-be puppets on the so-called Governing Council were refusing to go along with the scam.

The U.S. solution, of course, was to come up with a new scam -- a complicated series of steps with "caucuses" (indirect elections, with participants vetted by the Americans) to choose an interim governmen that would be given nominal sovereignty, with Iraqis not allowed to vote directly for their own leaders until the end of 2005. Sistani's response was to say, in essence, "What part of 'elections' don't you understand?", demanding full national elections by June 2004.

January 2004: As the Bushites continued to dither and balk (including quashing a census plan that would have enabled faster elections), Sistani was forced to organize massive demonstrations in Basra and Baghdad (shown in the picture above) to make his growing impatience clear.

Seeing hundreds of thousands of Shiites in the streets of Baghdad, the denizens of Dubyaville promptly crapped their pants. Although still whining about infeasibility of elections, Bush and his appointed colonial ruler Jerry Bremer invited the UN to design a new transition, just as Sistani had demanded.

February-May 2004: The Bushites then did their best work behind the scenes, pressuring Kofi Annan to yield to an election date after the U.S. voting in November, pushing through a "transitional administrative law" intended to influence the eventual constitution, and promoting Iyad Allawi as temp prime minister over the UN's choice, Hussein Shahristani (an adviser to Sistani).

Nevertheless, Sistani came away with the bulk of the winnings -- not just direct elections for a government that would write the constitution, occurring at least a year earlier than the Americans originally envisioned, but UN involvement to at least partially minimize the threat of fraud by the interim regime. For good measure, he successfully lobbied the UN to ignore the transitional law written by the Americans, giving his allies the option to declare it a dead letter if they wish.

Pleased with his handiwork, Sistani issued a new fatwa, declaring voting in today's election to be a religious duty for his millions of Shiite followers. Not only that, he orchestrated the creation of a Shiite slate, and his picture has been the primary image on the campaign literature plastered nationwide by his network of loyalists. This unprecedented political involvement has been the driving factor behind the large Shiite turnout reported today.

So, whatever his ultimate intentions for Iraq are, you can thank Grand Ayatollah Sistani for these elections -- his determination made them happen, and his fervent endorsement of voting gave them whatever level of success they achieve. George Bush? He's claiming credit on the surface, but away from the cameras he's grimacing and scheming to keep Sistani from forcing any more unwanted democracy down his throat.
<snip>

[G_j]

19. how quickly we forget

reminds me that the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party (country)

or that Bush opposed a 9-11 investigation

[K-W]

22. He made it his election.

And I think its a happy accident for them because things didnt proceed as projected and Iraqization of the war has become priority #1

[bigtree]

23. Quite true

That's why we will see all sorts of backflips to grant the deposed Batthists and the Kurdish Sunnis power in the new government that will not be reflected in the vote totals to provide a buffer against the coming Shia majority which will certainly be sympathetic to the Shia dominated Iranians in any coming aggression. The connection is outlined in this blog article at Tom Paine.com:

"So now the Iraqi defense minister is the latest to say that Abdel Aziz Hakim and Ayatollah Sistani’s Shiite fascist party is a Trojan Horse for Iran.

>>>>The Sistani-backed Shiite party, organized by Hussein Shahristani, a Sistani acolyte, is the “Iranian list,” says Shalaan. “Iran is the big link in terrorism in Iraq. … I want to warn you that Iran is the most dangerous enemy to Iraq and to all Arabs. Shahristani went to Iran after 1991 and worked on building an Iranian nuclear reactor. We will not let him come back and become an Iraqi prime minister.” He warned that Iran and Sistani want “turbaned clerics to rule.”

>>>>Incredibly, SCIRI—the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdel Aziz Hakim, a semi-ayatollah—is leading the Sistani list, despite its official backing from Iran. And Al Dawa (The Call) is another Shiite fascist party. Its members actually blew up the American embassy in Kuwait in 1983, with Iranian help, and carried out hundreds of assassinations and terrorist acts in Iraq between 1969 and 2003, also backed by Iran. These are the parties that President Bush wants to rule Iraq? Their leaders ought to be arrested for espionage and put on trial for terrorism by the Iraqi authorities. Hopefully, Shalaan will do just that, but Prime Minister Iyad Allawi isn’t there yet.

Unraveling all this is too complicated for a blog entry. But the important thing to understand is that the forces in Iran supporting Sistani, Shahristani, Hakim and Al Dawa are a faction of Iranians amenable to collaboration with the United States, Israel and the neocons. They are still (of course) Islamic revolutionaries, but slightly more moderate than the hardest of hardliners in Iran. They are the faction of illusory moderates that Bill Casey, Ollie North and Michael Ledeen courted during Iran-Contra in the mid-1980s, and I believe that Hashemi Rafsanjani—who is now contemplating a run for the presidency of Iran—is one of them. As I reported in yesterday’s entry (see below), this is a Big Mistake by the neocons, who seem to relish making Big Mistakes."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/iranian_manchurian.php