You know, the CIA has performed so many illegal activities over the years, it wouldn't surprise me if they were involved in this. The CIA is not to be trusted in anything they do.

Democracy style elections will never work in Iraq so soon, at least not until that country goes through a civil type war and some minorities are eliminated.

The Bush Admin was naive to think the Iraq war agenda would be achieved, naive not to take al-qaeda security warnings in 08/01 seriously, naive to establish a coalition without substance, naive to invade Iraq without UN support, naive to draft up ridiculus foreign policies, naive in neglecting enviromental issues, the list goes on! oh, and naive to think that the American people will accept the reinstatement of the Draft (if re-elected i'm sure thats tops on the "to do" list)

On top of that, i laugh at how American citizens are so quick to defend and prepared to vote Bush, completely neglecting their track record over the past 4 yrs.

Don't forget, the largest province of Iraq is not going to be allowed to vote for they are anti-invasion of their home land.

Originally posted by mrmulder
You know, the CIA has performed so many illegal activities over the years, it wouldn't surprise me if they were involved in this. The CIA is not to be trusted in anything they do.

Read the article again. The Bush administration is responsible for formulating that idea (and it was just an idea), not the CIA.

The CIA is tool of the excutive branch and is subject to oversight by Congress. Chalk this up to another dirty job that the Administration dumped on the Agency. Congress had the good sence to nix it. The CIA does not create foreign policy - it is only an extension of foreign policy.

I don't think that there has been anything covert about the plan to support a U.S.-backed candidate. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on when they are trying to force democratic elections three months from now in a country where many voters will be dienfranchised--coincidently, those voters are the same voters that don't support the "CIA man" (Allawi is CIA-trained) or rule by the "exiles"--the heavily-financed politicos that lived outside of Iraq and supported the U.S. invasion.

Would we call an election in the United States democratic if a majority of voters were disenfranchised? Would would place any credibility in the winner of such an election? (everyone in Florida, stop laughing!)

Seriously, the Shiite majority will be disenfranchised because they are located in the part of the country that can't be secured in time for the election, not to mention that Sistani, who initially supported early elections, is now considering a boycott because he feels that the process is underrepresenting Shiites and unfairly benefitting the "exiles." The Sunnis have already announced that they will boycott the vote because they feel that it is being rigged. So that will automatically put a political party favorable to the U.S. in power after the elections. Coincidence? I don't think so.