The Election in Iraq: A Tale Told By an Idiot

Here, my friends, is what I would call the real truth about the election in Iraq as reported by Ramsey Clark's organization, the International Action Center. I'm sure you have taken all the propaganda today in the press with a proverbial grain of salt as I have. Bush is, as this article below says, in high gear. Bush in high gear is not easy to take, especially when we know he is celebrating his own craftiness, not the new democracy in Iraq, as he wants us to believe.


A Statement from the International Action Center


The Election in Iraq:

"a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing."
-William Shakespeare


The media and the Bush Administration are in high gear,
trumpeting this weekend's election as a victory for
democracy. However, this election changes nothing on the
ground in Iraq. On Monday, January 31, the day after the
election, the people of Iraq woke up with 150,000 U.S.
troops occupying their country, CIA asset Ayad Allawi the
appointed head of state, and the Pentagon's plans to build
14 permanent military bases still proceeding.

Democracy means, "rule of the people." What happened on
Sunday merely continues rule by military occupation and an
appointed government.


This was a meaningless election.

This piece of political theater can't even be accurately
described as an election. In an election, voters get to
choose candidates who will then hold office and exercise
some measure of power.
In this election, voters didn't get to vote for a
candidate, or even for a political party. Instead, they
were allowed to vote for a list, which may include several
parties or individuals--there was no way to know. These
lists were approved by the Bremer-appointed High
Commission for Elections. The names of the 7,700
candidates were not publicly available, so there was no
way to know who was actually being voted for.

The candidates who are eventually selected by this process
will exercise no executive or legislative authority. They
will form a transitional national assembly, which will
draft a constitution under the supervision of the
occupiers.

The people of Iraq were not given the opportunity to vote
against the occupation--they were allowed to vote for
anonymous lists, representing U.S.-approved candidates
that will not have the power to alter U.S. plans to
colonize Iraq.

Of course, the people of Iraq want to vote in free and
open elections to determine their own future, but the
occupation was not on the ballot, rendering any pretense
at an election meaningless.

The more than 100,000 people who were killed by the U.S.
during this war were not given the opportunity to vote.
Nor were the prisoners in the torture chambers of Abu
Ghraib.


Returning Iraq to 1955.

It is telling that the Bush Administration is claiming
this is the first democratic election to be held in Iraq
in fifty years. The election referred to as the last
democratic election was held under a U.S. & British
appointed monarchy to select an advisory body that had no
executive or legislative power. Its only function was to
provide a façade of legitimacy to the puppet regime; the
election did not change the fact that the people of Iraq
were under the thumb of U.S. and British oil companies.
Less than 3 years later, a massive popular revolutionary
upheaval overthrew the corrupt monarchy and, since that
time, the U.S. and Britain have been trying to return Iraq
to the same semi-colonial status. This election is part
of their plan.

The U.S. government has never demonstrated any interest in
bringing democracy to the Middle East. Former U.S.
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger outlined U.S. policy in
the region when he said, "Middle East oil is too important
to be left to hands of the Arabs." The U.S. has made no
effort to bring democracy in any of the nations in the
region where it has maintained troops-the people of
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all
live under feudal monarchies, without free elections,
civil liberties, civil rights, union rights, or rights for
women.


This was an election under occupation.

It is important to emphasize the circumstances under which
this election was held. More than 150,000 U.S. troops
occupy the country, patrolling the streets with guns
trained on the Iraqi people. Throughout Iraq, the U.S.
occupation forces imposed an unprecedented series of
security measures - including shoot-on-sight curfews,
closed borders, and a ban on cars and travel restrictions
within Iraq.

This election was held under the supervision of U.S.
Ambassador John Negroponte. Negroponte served as U.S.
Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985 and was involved
with Contra terrorists and death squads. While he was
Ambassador, Honduras was the launching pad from which the
Reagan administration conducted its violent attacks on the
people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

Negroponte's predecessor, Paul Bremer, set up the rules
for this election. The organization that ran the
election, the High Commission for Elections, was appointed
by Bremer, and had the authority to disqualify any party
that did not meet with Washington's approval. Before he
left his post, Bremer issued a series of articles which
cannot be reversed by any election. Many of these
articles, which are in violation of international law,
have to do with the plundering of Iraq's resources and
control of the economy by U.S. corporations. No matter
what list the Iraqi people voted for, decisions that
affect their future are being made by the occupation
government under orders from Wall Street.

Assisting Negroponte were two U.S.-funded organizations
with long records of manipulating overseas elections on
behalf of U.S. corporate interests, the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and
the International Republican Institute (IRI). Both
organizations work closely with the National Endowment for
Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International
Development, long used by the CIA for covert operations
abroad. They were, for example, involved in orchestrating
the failed coup and recall referendum in Venezuela in an
attempt to remove the democratically-elected and popular
President Hugo Chavez. Both were involved in manipulating
the election in the Ukraine to ensure that a pro-U.S. head
of state would be installed.

Similar elections were held during the U.S. war against
the people of Vietnam. They were conducted under military
occupation, administered by the U.S., and in no way
allowed for any real self-government. None of the
U.S.-managed elections in Vietnam succeeded in conferring
legitimacy on the occupation government or in ending the
resistance. Likewise, this election was conducted at
gunpoint, administered by a war criminal, and
stage-managed by CIA front companies. To pretend that this
has anything to do with democracy is outrageous.


This election has no credibility.

This election was almost unique in that it had no
international observers. There was no outside source to
monitor the voting, the integrity of the ballots, or the
counting. The only monitoring was by observers trained by
groups like the National Democratic Institute--in other
words, by the CIA.

With no international observers monitoring the election
process, the elections are only as credible as the people
running it--the Bush Administration, who lied about
weapons of mass destruction, lied about ties between Al
Qaeda and Iraq, lied about everything associated with this
war and occupation.


This election was a public relations campaign.

Opposition to the occupation has been growing in the U.S.
Many people, including members of Congress, have begun to
demand an end to the occupation.

The election was staged to create the illusion of
progress, much like the phony transfer of power held on
June 28 of last year. The idea is to create a new fiction
to legitimize the occupation. The lies about weapons of
mass destruction have been exposed. The lies about the
people of Iraq being involved in the attacks on September
11 have been refuted. So now, the Bush Administration is
taking up the cause of democracy to justify the ongoing
occupation.

The claim that the U.S. needs to bring democracy to Iraq,
that the country would descend into civil war without the
U.S. presence, is pure racism. It is a rehash of the
arguments used by the British Empire and other empires to
justify the colonization of entire nations.

Many of those who did vote, took part in the election
thinking that it would be part of a process that would
lead to ending the occupation of their country. All polls
indicate that an overwhelming number of Iraqis want an
immediate end to the occupation. Once they realize that
the election serves only to justify further occupation and
plundering of their country, this will give rise to a new
level of outrage and resistance.


The myth of high turnout.

Despite the media's claim that turnout was overwhelming,
in many areas, polling centers were closed or deserted.
Only a handful of people voted in Fallujah, Samarra and
Ramadi. Among Iraqis living abroad, 80% of eligible
voters did not vote. This dispels the myth that low
turnout was due to security concerns. Turnout was low
because the people oppose occupation and recognized that
the election was a public relations effort by the occupier
of their country.


The Iraqi people want the occupation to end now.

Any real interest in democracy would lead us to recognize
that the Iraqi people are opposed to the occupation.
Polls have repeatedly shown that the people of Iraq want
the troops to leave now--not after they have stage-managed
an election and installed a puppet regime.

The growing resistance throughout the country demonstrates
how the Iraqi people feel about the occupiers. The
occupiers are not there to bring democracy--they have
instead brought death, destruction, and torture. The
Iraqi people and a growing number of people worldwide want
it to end.



March 19
Troops Out Now!
March on Central Park in NYC!
Regional Demonstrations Across the U.S. & Worldwide


The International Action Center
http://www.iacenter.org
mail to:iacenter@iacenter.org
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Anyone can subscribe.
Send an email request to
Action.News-subscribe@organizerweb.com

Bush's Feeble Attempts To Appear Sad

At his press conference the other day, George Bush came to the podium (you can watch it on c-span if you have the stomach for it) and began to make a few comments about his second term and then said he would be happy to take a few questions. Not once did he make any reference at all to the tragedy which had just occurred in Iraq- the helicopter crash which had killed 37 Americans. He didn't want to bring it up I guess. Not until a press person asked about it did he acknowledge that he was even aware it had happened. Then he said this accident would be very discouraging to the American people. Discouraging? Is that the main objective to make sure we don't all get discouraged? I would say many of us are beyond discouragement and have been for months. We are in utter despair over what is happening in Iraq. Bush then said we "weep and mourn" for those lost in this war for freedom. As he said this his open hand pounded on the lectern several times (for emphasis I would imagine). But this was an eerie gesture to accompany words of grief. There must be a disconnect there somewhere. Would one normally pound on a lectern while telling everyone how sad we are, how much we weep? The gesture and sentiment do not go together. His body language belies his words of supposed sadness. He is not sad. He can't even act sad so as to be believable. Unlike Ronald Reagan, Bush is no actor. Bush is a callous man who has no feeling for the agony he is causing. There is no hope for him. I pray there is hope for the rest of us who do have hearts and who are weeping for real.

[Click on the bloc title to read an article from Common Dreams.]

Friday "Mad as Hell" Post

Hi, everybody! It's Friday, and I'm mad as hell. Maybe this should be a regular feature on this blog. It wouldn't be hard to choose a maddening topic every Friday. That's for sure.

Former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, also former head of the EPA just prior to Leavitt, has written a book, "It's My Party Too." In it she tells us about an outrage which should energize us to get rid of a few congress people in 2006. Republicans, sorry to say, if you're a republican. Ms. Whitman reports that she and Tom "Color-coded Alert Man"Ridge of Homeland Security put together some rules after the 9/11 attacks, requiring some 15,000 high-risk chemical plants to "take reasonable steps to address the vulnerabilities" of these in the event of another attack. (I didn't realize how many chemical plants there must be in the US.) The targeted chemical plants were to report to the EPA after they had complied with these safety measures. However, Congressional republicans, Sen. Inhofe (OK) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (LA), in particular, led a strong opposition to this modest legislation and made it difficult for these measures to be required. Gov. Whitman became so frustrated that she formally asked the White House to "relieve EPA of this responsibility for reducing the vulnerability of the chemical sector to attack." Industry lobbtists and key republican lawmakers sabotaged new security regulations.

There are hundreds of chemical plants which could release toxic clouds that could kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of people in case of an attack or a major malfunction. Congress failed to pass legislation to protect us. And they were at the same time assuring us all that they were, of course, doing all they could to make us safer. They were lying to the American people.

There are still no federal regulations requiring chemical facilities to gird against attack, according to an article by Alexander Lane of the Star-Ledger. Earlier this month, a derailed train car in South Carolina released noxious chlorine gas, killing nine people in a nearby town and injuring 250 people. 5,000 were evacuated. So this is a real threat to all of us, and our Congress sits by and does nothing even when confronted with serious problems relating to our safety. Kuehne Chemical Company in New Jersey told government officials in 1999 that one- just one- of its railroad tank cars could produce a chlorine cloud that "would be immediately dangerous to both life and health for a distance exceeding 14 miles." Fourteen miles.

When President Bush smiles and tells us we are safer today than we were in 2000, he is telling us a boldfaced lie. We are not as safe as we were then. The opposite is true. Bush lies to us. The Congress neglects its job on a regular basis. They have big salaries, staffs, health insurance, and a comfortable retirement waiting for them, to say the least. Yet they do nothing to deserve these benefits if they are not being vigilant and responsive to the critical issues affecting our daily lives. You know who those senators and representatives are who are really putting us in danger. I hope many of these pro-corporation/industry congress people will be defeated in 2006. It should be a privilege to represent the American people in Washington. It is not to be taken lightly. Why do so many in Congress shirk their duties?

[Click on the blog title to read the article from the Star-Ledger.]

Inflammatory Rhetoric, Mr Lugar?

There are still many Bush enthusiasts who think we should all just put the 2004 election behind us and move on. Easy for them to say, of course. Hard for the rest of us who know what struggles lie ahead for us and the whole world in the next four years until our war criminal president steps down. The only good thing about Bush's faint victory is that he cannot do this to us again. He is only allowed two stolen elections.

The chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, R-Ind., continues to receive bipartisan accolades for his role as chair. I don't know why. He is, I suppose, not as offensive as many republicans. But I don't think he needs to be overly encouraged. Yesterday, as the Senate debated the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, he stood up and cautioned against "inflammatory rhetoric that is designed merely to create partisan advantage or to settle partisan scores." Just this morning minutes ago, I heard Sen. George Allen of Virginia attempting the oft-used tactic of the republicans to frame the debate as inappropriate because we have soldiers fighting overseas for our freedom. To George Allen, debate has no place in our democratic government during war time. As they say, debate will demoralize our military and comfort the terrorists.

Since when is asking legitimate, well-documented, questions a form of inflammatory rhetoric? Since when does pointing out blatant contradictions and outright lies constitute partisan score settling?

Attempts to shame those who would question the President and the republican majority in Congress must not deter those of us who still see the immense problems which our foreign policies are causing daily. If we pray for anything, let us pray that the voices of sanity will not be silenced. Pray that the voices of caring and peaceful co-existence will not cease.

As a principal architect of the Iraq invasion and the administration's war on terrorism, Rice is a terrible choice to be our Secretary of State. Bill Frist, Majority leader, says, in a fatherly tone as if speaking to first graders, "I was disappointed that we are having to march through the debate today." Well, poor Dr. Frist will have to be patient and let the democratic process happen. We're really sorry if democracy disappoints him. May Frist encounter many such disappointments in the next four years. Our goal must be: Disappoint Frist!

[Click on the blog title to read the AP article relating to this blog.]

Healing Balm in Times of Distress

Let Robert Frost give you a respite from the cares of our times. If we are to survive the next four years, we must allow ourselves periodic breaks to look around us and see the good. A poem for you................


The Way a Crow
Robert Frost



The way a crow
Shook down on me
The dust of snow
From a hemlock tree

Has given my heart
A change of mood
And saved some part
Of a day I had rued.

Call Me a Party Pooper

The Washington Post printed an article today written by retired Washington lawyer, Bernard Ries. In the article Ries expresses his utter dismay at the prospect of George Bush putting on an excessively lavish and expensive inaugural bash, costing more than 40$ million, to celebrate his second term as President. The whole idea is unseemly, wrote Ries, at a time when so many Americans and countless Iraqis are dying and suffering horrific injuries on a daily basis in Iraq, not to mention the unfathomable tragedy in Southest Asia on December 26th.

Historically, there have been times when inaugural events have been appropriately curtailed in wartime. Lincoln (1865) and FDR (1945) both had very simple inaugurals. In 1945, FDR made a short speech at the White House, had a buffet luncheon of chicken salad and pound cake, and that was all. No parade, not a single ball. He knew something about propriety, says Ries. Of course, it goes without saying, that George Bush has no such good judgement. And he is apparently surrounded by hundreds of others who are similarly afflicted with lack of sensitivity and grace. The Bush mentality is to just have a great time at everyone else's expense. For example, who do we think will be paying for the DC police during the inaugural activities? We, the taxpayers, of course. In 1985, Reagan cancelled his parade due to weather, thus saving us $15 million for District police security. Bush would do well to curtail his merriment this year. After all, he has already had his inaugural party in 2001 which cost $40 million. Reis asks, "How many $40 million fetes is one man entitled to...?" The self-indulgence is sickening.

We could do without the nine official balls, fireworks, and, oh, yes, the white chocolate cowboy boots at the Ritz-Carlton, could we not?

Reis concludes, "...what is required is a sign of true respect and sorrow, of sacrifice of a national symbol, that will acknowledge and honor both our fighting forces and the calamity of the tsunami." We will instead have the opposite, thus further demonstrating to the world by this embarrassing spectacle our utter lack of caring and our enormous capacity for having fun while others suffer unimaginable agonies. We should be hanging our heads right about now.

[Click on the blog title to read the WaPo article in full.]

Today Was a Good Day

Let light shine upon America. On this Feast of the Epiphany, something important happened in the Congress which will go down in history as a shining moment. No, we're not in Camelot. But today the light of democracy peeked out from backstage. May we continue to see the light more and more.

William Rivers Pitt was in Washington this week and blogged before, during, and after the Joint Session of Congress today, January 6. This was the day the electoral college vote was to be certified. It was certified, but not before the EC vote was successfully challenged by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the courageous congresswoman from Ohio, and an equally, if not more, courageous senator from California, Sen Barbara Boxer. I am not sexist, but I do call attention to the fact that two woman made the difference. Of course, there were good men, too, especially Rep. John Conyers of Michigan whose efforts to bring this day to fruition were crucial. Thank you to these leaders in Washington who have shown their love of country and democracy and have stuck their necks out. That is more than can be said for most members of Congress, including the ones I usually agree with and respect. There should have been more voting for the challenge, but in the end, the process did proceed and the goal was accomplished.

Will Pitt had this to say:

Today was a good day

Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 06:05
I can't recall a day in the last several years when the efforts of citizens yielded fruit in the Senate. Didn't work with the Patriot Act vote. Didn't work with the Homeland Security Act vote. Sure as hell didn't work with the Iraq war vote.It worked today. Voices were heard, and something we haven't seen since 1877 took place today. This is what Congress exists for, and for once, they responded.The rest is up to the same people who got this ball rolling. Today was a beginning, an introduction into the national dialogue of the fact that lots and lots and lots and lots of Americans get jobbed out of their right to vote every election.We can fix that. We should fix that. Today, the task was well begun.

List of House members who voted 'Yea'

Revised down to 31: Brown, Corrine, Carson, Clay, Clyburn, Conyers, Davis (IL), Evans, Farr, Filner, Grijalva, Hastings (FL), Hinchey, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH), Kilpatrick (MI), Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), Markey, McKinney, Olver, Owens, Pallone, Payne, Schakowsky, Thompson (MS), Waters, Watson, Woolsey

We are all indebted to these congressional leaders who stood up and were counted today because they value every American's right to have all the votes counted.

In the Senate only Barbara Boxer voted for the challenge. And where are Clinton (NY), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), and all the other senators and congress members who chose to put something else above this fundamental matter? Many of them spoke in support of Ms. Boxer's challenge, but then voted against it. In effect, they said, "We know our election system is broken and that many people were disenfranchised on Novemebr 2nd. However, we vote NO." There is something wrong with that. Congress can't have it both ways.

[To check out William Rivers Pitt and his Truthout blog, go to www.truthout.org/fyi.]