Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: BUSH ADMINISTRATION ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION COVER-UP IN IRAQ
Randi Rhodes Message Board > Main Forums > Focused Interests > Iraq / Afghanistan
bushwa
Ex-State officials allege corruption in Iraq

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees.

Arthur Brennan, who briefly served in Baghdad as head of the department's Office of Accountability and Transparency last year, and James Mattil, who worked as the chief of staff, told Senate Democrats on Monday that their office was understaffed and its warnings and recommendations ignored.

Brennan also alleges the State Department prevented a congressional aide visiting Baghdad from talking with staffers by insisting they were too busy. In reality, Brennan said, office members were watching movies at the embassy and on their computers. The staffers' workload had been cut dramatically because of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's "evisceration" of Iraq's top anti-corruption office, he said.

The State Department's policies "not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government," Brennan told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

The U.S. embassy "effort against corruption — including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency — was little more than 'window dressing,'" he added.

Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the administration takes the issue of corruption seriously and pointed to its recent appointment of Lawrence Benedict as coordinator for anti-corruption initiatives at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Benedict's appointment "is another demonstration that we are working at very senior levels to help the Iraqis deal with this issue," Casey said. "Any assertion that we have not taken this issue seriously or given it the attention it deserves is simply untrue."

The Office of Accountability and Transparency, or "OAT" team, was intended to provide assistance and training to Iraq's anti-corruption agencies. It was dismantled last December, after it alleged in a draft report leaked to the media that al-Maliki's office had derailed or prevented investigations into Shiite-controlled agencies.

The draft report sparked hearings in Congress and prompted a showdown between Democrats and senior State Department officials on whether the public has a right to know the extent to which al-Maliki was involved in corruption cases.

Brennan charges the State Department never responded to his team's report, which was retroactively classified because agency officials said it could hurt bilateral relations with Iraq.
Other recommendations by the group also were kept secret, including a negative assessment of Iraq's Joint Anti-Corruption Committee, Brennan said.

In July 2007, the OAT team concluded that the committee's only purpose was to provide a forum for complaints against Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, a top anti-corruption official in Baghdad whom many U.S. officials have hailed as the most effective in exposing fraud and abuse.

But information later released by the embassy ignored the team's assessment and ultimately "failed to even mention what a disaster" the committee "really was," Brennan said.

Brennan said he approved the embassy report against his better judgment but later regretted it.

Mattil, who worked with Brennan, made similar allegations. Specifically, he said the U.S. "remained silent in the face of an unrelenting campaign" by senior Iraqi officials to subvert Baghdad's Commission on Public Integrity, which had been led by al-Radhi. Then, the U.S. turned its back on Iraqis who fled to the United States after being threatened for pursuing anti-corruption cases, he said.

"Since we have done so little (to undercut corruption), it's easy to see why the government of Iraq has not done more," said Mattil, who left the accountability office last October after having served for a year as its chief of staff. "We have demanded no better."

Brennan was appointed as OAT director last summer and arrived in Baghdad in July. He left only a few weeks later after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. He stepped down from his position in August.

Iraqi government officials could not be reached for comment.
...
LINK TO REST OF THE ARTICLE
Libertas
related to this....

Former State Dept. Official: Amb. Crocker Is Either ‘Negligent’ Or ‘Intentionally Misleading’
Think Progress

Today, the Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq and corruption in the Iraqi government. Two former State Department employees testified, including Judge Arthur Brennan, the former director of the Office of Accountability and Transparency (OAT) in Iraq. He said that his office’s work “was ignored and demeaned by the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the government of Iraq.”

He also revealed the State Department completely altered a report he sent to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) that criticized an Iraqi watchdog agency as being a “disaster”:

MCCASKILL: And your testimony — I want to make sure that you have said the Department of State has negligently, recklessly and intentionally misled Congress, the American people and the people of Iraq. And you stand by that testimony, Judge?

BRENNAN: I stand by that testimony.

MCCASKILL: And so, what we’re learning today is that SIGIR, the information we’re getting from SIGIR is not, in fact, always factual, that sometimes it is being spun by Ambassador Crocker and that it is your testimony today that Ambassador Crocker knows the level of corruption in the Iraqi government and has failed to be honest with the American people about it.

BRENNAN: If he doesn’t know, then he’s negligent. If he does know, then he’s intentionally misleading Congress and the American public.
(video at link)
Libertas
who
Good thing congress is preparing to keep bankrolling this venture through summer 2009.


QUOTE
Congressional Democrats plan three-stage charade to pass Iraq war funds
By Bill Van Auken
13 May 2008

In order to once again approve hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while posturing as opponents of “Bush’s war,” the Democratic leadership in Congress has crafted an elaborate legislative charade that is set to begin unfolding this week.

The leadership’s scheme involves splitting contradictory measures contained within the massive spending bill and putting them to separate votes in an attempt to placate the divergent wings of an increasingly fragmented party.

The Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi of California, has promised to have a war funding bill on Bush’s desk before the end of this month. The House bill is to authorize $162.5 billion in war spending—nearly $100 billion to cover war costs for the current fiscal year, which goes through the end of September, plus tens of billions more to pay for the fighting into the summer of 2009, more than five months after the next president takes office.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat of Nevada) said on Monday that a war funding bill would be brought before the Senate on Wednesday. Reid, however, was less sanguine about the prospects of the legislation being passed before the Congress begins its Memorial Day break.

“We are not going to be panicked into completing this,” Reid said in remarks delivered on the Senate floor. “We know there is enough money to fund the troops for a considerable period after the Memorial Day recess,” he continued. “We’ll do our best to get that done, but we’re not going to be pushed into doing something we don’t think is appropriate.”

The administration has attempted to create a crisis atmosphere around the war funding debate, with the Pentagon warning that it may be forced to begin sending out temporary layoff notices to some of the Defense Department’s more than 200,000 civilian employees and halt pay checks to the troops if the measure does not pass before mid-June.

The aim of bundling money for fiscal 2009 with the appropriation for 2008 is to get the issue of Iraq off the table, politically speaking, before the height of the 2008 election campaign. The Democratic leadership has signaled its desire to place the war on the back burner, while concentrating its campaign on economic issues.

This strategy echoes that pursued by the Democrats in 2002, when the party supplied the votes needed to pass the measure granting Bush a blank check to invade Iraq on the theory that it could win the midterm congressional races that year by ceding the war issue to the White House and running on issues related to the economy. The result was a resounding defeat for the Democrats that left the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress for the next four years.

As the Wall Street Journal put it on Saturday, “Democratic leaders in the House have been hoping for quick passage of emergency funding for the Iraq war—an issue that splits their party and diverts valuable attention from the economic issues they think will help them win this year’s elections.”



"Here's the check, just fill in whatever amount you need."


bushwa
QUOTE (who @ May 13 2008, 06:53 AM) *
Good thing congress is preparing to keep bankrolling this venture through summer 2009. ...



Yes, because all of this is so very simple, and the Dem's have more than enough votes to change or kill the bill, and to override a veto of whatever they do pass, right?


who
QUOTE (bushwa @ May 13 2008, 11:54 AM) *
Yes, because all of this is so very simple, and the Dem's have more than enough votes to change or kill the bill, and to override a veto of whatever they do pass, right?


I don't know, let's check with Jack Murtha:
QUOTE

Murtha: We Have The Power of The Purse

By Paul Kiel - January 8, 2007, 6:48PM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ives/002301.php

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), appearing just now on Hardball and gifted as always with the ability to speak plainly, couldn't have been clearer on the controversial issue as to whether Democrats have the ability to restrict the Bush administration's funding of a troop increase in Iraq.

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) confused the issue by claiming that it was "constitutionally questionable" whether Congress could preempt funding of Bush's desired "surge."

"No, that's not true at all," Murtha said, adding "we have every ability."


Libertas
I mentioned this in another topic....

there's a couple of other things playing out in the background, behind the war bill.
for one thing, they're pushing this bill thru so they're not faced with fighting with republicans over another war funding bill in the fall... just before the elections.
Libertas
U.S.-Backed Head Of Iraqi Anti-Corruption Agency Now A ‘Destitute’ Undocumented Immigrant In U.S.
Think Progress

After the 2003 Iraq invasion, Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer created a major anti-corruption ministry in Iraq, the Public Integrity Commission (CPI). Last October, former CPI commissioner Judge Radhi al-Radhi, who was appointed by Bremer and whose work has been praised by top U.S. officials, told Congress about the “rampant” corruption in Iraqi ministries that had cost Iraq as much as $18 billion.

Radhi’s gripping account detailed how Prime Minister Maliki tried to subvert his commission and how nearly four dozen of his staff members were killed. Subsequently, he was forced to seek asylum in the United States.

But today, Radhi is living as an undocumented immigrant in Virginia. In a Democratic Policy Committee hearing yesterday, former State Department official James Mattil told Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) that Radhi has no “official status” in the U.S. Currently, only a group of Quakers and Arthur Brennan, the former head of the department’s Office of Accountability and Transparency, are funding Radhi, he said:

DORGAN: And where is Judge al-Radhi at the moment?

MATTIL: Living in an apartment in Springfield, maybe for the rest of the month if they can get it worked out that somebody is going to pay for it. But he’s not allowed to work. He has no official status, so he’s not — he’s undocumented — I don’t know what he is. I mean, he’s lost. He’s a person without a country.
(snip)
zatoichi
These clowns should be put in jail and hounded to poverty.
Libertas
QUOTE (zatoichi @ May 14 2008, 12:45 AM) *
These clowns should be put in jail and hounded to poverty.

not yet...

we still haven't heard anybody from the State Dept. testilie yet.
There's some serious 'splaining to do, its something I'm looking forward to.
zatoichi
QUOTE (Libertas @ May 13 2008, 07:34 PM) *
not yet...

we still haven't heard anybody from the State Dept. testilie yet.
There's some serious 'splaining to do, its something I'm looking forward to.


Maybe so.

But I submit that this is a reasonable longterm strategy.
Libertas
QUOTE (zatoichi @ May 14 2008, 01:34 AM) *
Maybe so.

But I submit that this is a reasonable longterm strategy.

oh sure, no doubt.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.