Bush Lied To Congress On Iraqi Elections

As we know, Bush wanted to provide covert support to Iraqi candidates, undercutting that country's burgeoning democracy and endangering the long-term faith of the Iraqi people in their government. (Time magazine first reported on this in October of 2004.) Bush was stymied by Congress, which strongly objected.

But did Bush go ahead and do it anyway? The New Yorker has the expose.

A State Department official confirmed that there was an effort to give direct funding to certain candidates. “The goal was to level the playing field, and Allawi was not the sole playing field,” he said. Warrick was not operating on his own, the State Department official said. “This issue went to high levels, and was approved”—within the State Department and by others in the Bush Administration, in the late spring of 2004....

At least one Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, strongly protested any interference in the Iraqi election. An account of the dispute was published in Time last October.... The essence of Pelosi’s objection, the recently retired high-level C.I.A. official said, was: “Did we have eleven hundred Americans die”—the number of U.S. combat deaths as of last September—“so they could have a rigged election?”

But then Bush went ahead and did it anyway.

Sometime after last November’s Presidential election, I was told by past and present intelligence and military officials, the Bush Administration decided to override Pelosi’s objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election. A former national-security official told me that he had learned of the effort from “people who worked the beat”—those involved in the operation. It was necessary, he added, “because they couldn’t afford to have a disaster....”

I was informed by several former military and intelligence officials that the activities were kept, in part, “off the books”—they were conducted by retired C.I.A. officers and other non-government personnel, and used funds that were not necessarily appropriated by Congress. Some in the White House and at the Pentagon believed that keeping an operation off the books eliminated the need to give a formal briefing to the relevant members of Congress and congressional intelligence committees, whose jurisdiction is limited, in their view, to officially sanctioned C.I.A. operations.

So Congress has oversight on covert operations, objects to a plan and Bush assures them it has been scuttled. Then he goes ahead and does it anyway.

The New York Times reports that Bush's people are lying in response to questions about this revelation.

Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said that "in the final analysis, the president determined and the United States government adopted a policy that we would not try - and did not try - to influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office."

The statement appeared to leave open the question of whether any covert help was provided to parties favored by Washington, an issue about which the White House declined to elaborate.

In other words, Bush tried to stonewall and issued a denial that actually confirms what he likely did. Members of Congress are rightfully angry about this abuse of power -- consulting with Congress and then lying to them and cutting them out of the loop on covert operations.

Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, issued a statement saying that she could not discuss classified information, noting: "Congress was consulted about the administration's posture in the Iraqi election. I was personally consulted. But if the administration did what is alleged, that would be a violation of the covert action requirements, and that would be deeply troubling."

In short, Bush lied to the world when he pledged to keep the elections free and fair and then he lied to Congress about it as well. Was Iran interfering with the elections? It surely was trying. Does that mean the US should try and interfere as well? Maybe in real politik -- or maybe they could speak openly and honestly about that interference and keep their word and not do the same -- fight corruption and influence instead of joining in. The article goes on to detail convincing evidence of ballot box stuffing.

Think about it: Bush's biggest accomplishment -- the image of Iraqis exercising their right to vote and getting that purple mark on their finger -- is abjectly mocked by Bush thwarting Congress, feeding funds to parties he liked and ballot box stuffing on the day of the election. Some triumph...if you're Boss Tweed.

But don't get caught up in a debate on the best way to micromanage Iraq. Bush lied to the world when he said he wanted free and fair elections. And then Bush lied to Congress.