Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditCorruption in the Iraqi government--it's classified information. So says the State Department.
In preparation for a September 27 hearing on corruption within the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Representative Henry Waxman, who chairs the House government oversight and reform committee, sent a request--and then a subpoeana--to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for documents and witnesses. He wanted the State Department to turn over various documents, including a copy of a secret report prepared by the Baghdad embassy that details rampant corruption within the Iraqi government. He also demanded that the State Department make available to his investigators three officials in the department's Office of Accountability and Transparency who have worked on the issue of Iraqi corruption. [UPDATE: The hearing has been postponed until October 4.]
The State Department refused to turn over the documents and said no to the interview requests. Then it slightly changed its tune. Joel Starr, the deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, notified Waxman that his committee could interview the State Department officials, but anything they had to say about corruption within the Iraqi government would be classified--meaning Waxman could not disclose that information to the public.
How can information about criminal waste and fraud in another government be considered a state secret in the United States?
On September 25, an irritated Waxman fired off a letter to Rice, detailing his exchange with her department:
The State Department is taking the position that investigators for the Committee may speak with these individuals, but the investigators may not ask them questions that could embarrass the Maliki government unless the Committee agrees to refrain from any public discussion of their answers. State Department officials explained that any information about corruption within the Maliki government must be treated as classified because public discussions could undermine U.S. relations with the Maliki government.
This absurd position was confirmed in an e-mail sent to Committee staff....In the e-mail, the State Department provided a description of the "redlines" that its employees may not cross in unclassified interviews scheduled....According to the State Department, the following information is now classified:
Broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons;
Statements/allegations concerning actions by specific individuals, such as the Prime Minister or other GOI [Government of Iraq] officials, or regarding investigations of such officials.
The scope of this prohibition is breathtaking. On its face, it means that unless the Committee agrees to keep the information secret from the public, the Committee cannot obtain information from officials in the Office of Accountability and Transparency, about whether there is corruption within the Iraqi ministries, how extensive the corruption is, or whether the corruption is funding the insurgency and undermining public confidence in the Iraqi government. The Committee also cannot obtain information about whether Mr. Maliki himself has been involved in corruption or has intervened to block corruption investigations of Iraqi officials close to Mr. Maliki.
There is already plenty of information on the public record about corruption within the Maliki government. I first disclosed that secret embassy report in this column. And former Iraqi Judge Radhi al-Radhi, whom Maliki forced out as chief of Iraq's lead anticorruption agency, has said in an exclusive interview with me that Maliki thwarted many of his anticorruption investigations and that the Maliki administration is so rife with corruption it ought to be scrapped. Radhi also pointed out that corruption within the Iraqi government has produced funding for insurgents.
The State Department--which has abandoned Radhi, whom it once supported--is trying to prevent Radhi's charges from receiving wider notice. It obviously does not want its own records and officials to be used publicly to confirm his claims. (Radhi will be a featured witness at the Waxman committee's hearings.)
In his letter to Rice, Waxman complained that when his staff conducted a phone interview with Vincent Foulk, one of the Office of Accountability and Transparency officials, Foulk was not permitted by other State Department officials on the call to say whether there is extensive corruption in Iraq, whether Maliki and other Iraqi ministers have blocked corruption probes, and what impact corruption within the Iraqi government is having on U.S. efforts. Foulk told Waxman's staff that he had never previously heard of a State Department official being prevented from talking about corruption in Iraq.
During this interview, Waxman's staffers read Foulk a statement Rice had made in October 2006 praising Maliki for taking action against corruption. Foulk was asked if he agreed with Rice's remarks. Foulk replied he could not answer the question because his opinion is classified information. In his letter to Rice, Waxman griped, "Your position seems to be that positive information about the Maliki government may be disseminated publicly, but any criticism of the government must be treated as a national security secret...If there is widespread corruption within the Maliki government, this is information that both Congress and the public are entitled to know."
The Bush administration apparently believes otherwise. It's holding on to documents; the State Department retroactively classified the embassy report on corruption. It has essentially imposed a gag order on State Department officials knowledgeable about corruption in Iraq. In doing so, it has stretched--and possibly abused--its power to classify information. Why go to such lengths? Because George W. Bush's Iraq policy--at least for the moment--depends on the Maliki government. But if that government is thoroughly corrupt and dysfunctional, Bush's policy doesn't make sense. And that's the real secret the Bush administration wants to keep.
classified...
a designation that means either...
1. sensitive information the making public of which endangers the country, or mor commonly in recent years...
2. information that is potentially embarassing to the powers that be and is only dangerous to their corrupt, incompetant asses...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/26/2007 @ 12:15pm
Waxman sent another letter to Rice demanding that the OAT documents be handed over today
---"ms. rice, when did you receive mr. waxman's letter? "i don't recall........."----
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 2:00pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2007 @ 12:18pm
That is SO like Rice's office to order subordinates not to tell the truth, in writing. Apparently she hasn't noticed that there's been a bit of a regime change here at home. But since she likes to point out that the slaves were freed by a Republican, I guess it's no surprise she's a few years behind the times.
But she's a sister, and you can't actually say the obvious, which is that she's the absolute worst official in the Bush administration. She screws up everything. She makes Bush look good by comparison. But that's her job, isn't it, to make Bush look good?
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/26/2007 @ 12:19pm
Seems like if the BA opened up and made public everything about the corrupt Maliki govt, the press would grill him and the people would view it as another Bush failure. Since clamming up is the MO anyway, there's no news to inundate the public with, and no one pays attention to what's otherwise more Waxman and Democratic allegations in the "Bush witch hunt."
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/26/2007 @ 12:32pm
Radhi al-Radhi came over here to enlighten us with his findings, then was abandoned by the State Department.
He recently had to check out of the hotel he was staying in because he ran out of money.
He cannot go back to Iraq; he is stranded without resources.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Posted by drhammer at 09/26/2007 @ 1:19pm
Any of the right, "non-loonies" out there ever bother to watch the Charlie Rose Show? Last night he interviewed the Saudi Foreign Minister. If any of you upright individuals want to truly understand what is going on over there you should watch this interview. The Foreign Minister was candid; he expressed views that are not discussed in the media over here.
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/26/2007 @ 1:21pm
Posted by MASK 09/26/2007 @ 12:05pm
Preemptive non sequitur?
Posted by drhammer at 09/26/2007 @ 1:22pm
The spectacle of airing Iraqi dirty laundry in the cesspool of the US Congress....No, thanks! Hardly promote the greater goal of Iraqi soverignty (not that its there yet)!
Posted by HAPPY
That's our tax dollars that are being squandered! All those soldiers and Marines dying are supposedly there to provide support for a government that will eventually be able to take care of itself.
The reports of corruption reveal the administration's lies and serve to demonstrate--unmistakably--that he is just treading water, waiting to dump this mess on the next White House (which, if it is a Dem, all the Repubs can blame for losing Iraq).
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/26/2007 @ 1:40pm
Mask, don't you ever get appalled by the way this administration continously limits the transparancy of its governance and the freedoms of the people in the name of "national security"? About 75 years ago in a European democracy, its elected government used the same tactics to turn the country into a fascist dictatorship...
Posted by whingo at 09/26/2007 @ 3:11pm
Posted by MASK 09/26/2007 @ 3:38pm And no....that's not going to happen.
Why not? It happened in Rome (Caesar), France (Napoleon), Italy (Mussolini) and Germany. And now in US the government can pick ANYONE off the streets without any accusations and send to prison without telling anyone about it. How this law was passed remains a mystery of the universe. Take a Zonax and open your eyes.
Posted by whingo at 09/26/2007 @ 3:56pm
Come now, this is the the guy who Bush put in power and his job is to get the oil law signed so the looting can start. He can't be made to look like a crook, although he needs to be one.
Posted by kbilly at 09/27/2007 @ 02:40am
mask..
I'm just interesting in your arguments in favor of the acts of the administration. So far I see none, just attempts to diminish my arguments as "paranoia".
A dictatorship may function really well if the leader is a servant of the people. There are a lot of examples of that in the european history of kings. That doesn't mean that anyone in Europe is prepared to turn back the clock to those days
Posted by whingo at 09/27/2007 @ 04:53am
How in the hell does the Bush administration justify telling the American tax payer that what he's blowing our tax dollars on is non of our business?! This is complete horseshit.
Even the rethugs should be up in arms on this. It's U.S. tax dollars propping up a corrupt government that in turn is taking our money and blowing it. Hell, half the money is probably funding the insurgents which is the reason we need to stay in Iraq.
I sometimes wonder if Bush and Cheney are actually fueling both sides of the battle just so their oil buddies can get their rigs all set up. I mean, Bush really doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself let alone some Iraqi folks.
So, why not just throw some dollars out there to fund the "terrorist" side just to make it look like we are needed over there.Meanwhile, the U.S. builds bases, rigs and infrastructure to protect the very oil production that they set out to get on line in the first place.
Of course, this is all at tax payer expense, not the oil industry. But, the oil produced ty our tax dollars will yield oil industry profits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. What a friggin bargin.
Any of you people out there backing Bush now, are either completely out of your minds, or just plain stupid.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/27/2007 @ 07:14am
What a friggin bargin.
Woops, should be bargain.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/27/2007 @ 07:27am
I think the problem you need to concentrate on is....How do we get HILLARY to give up said powers that Bush has invested in the Executive!
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 09:22am
That is a good question, especially considering the fact that she will continue the occupation of Iraq. What I don't get is, what is damned big secret that they are doing over there that they can't come out and level with the American people.
This country is addicted to oil. If they (Bushco) came out and said, we are taking the oil from Iraq because we can, they would probably still get the go ahead from around half the country.
It isn't right, but it would be a breath of fresh air in honesty compared to this lying, flag waving,lame WMD excuse, democracy pushing, religious dogma etc. being dumped on us as the reason for attacking a country.
If they stated the case that the U.S. demands for oil aren't being met and that China and India are a threat to the U.S. 20 years from now if we don't get that oil, then they'd probably face a hell of a lot less resistance. But if this is just about oil profits, then we need to get the hell out of Iraq.
Nobody, at least U.S. citizens, want the U.S. to fall as a country. But the people of this country deserve to know why they are fighting and paying for wars period. You can't protect people from the truth. It's best to just be up front about it and see if the country follows that truth. If it doesn't, then you (the president of that country) need to listen to your country and follow their order (We the people are Bush's boss whether he likes it or not).
One man doesn't know best for millions of people. That's why a democracy exists. So that one asshole doesn't make up his mind to drive a country into the ground.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/27/2007 @ 1:28pm
Time to tell the State Department and Bushites that their paychecks come from the US Public. We order them not the other way around.
Posted by Isador at 09/27/2007 @ 3:26pm
Wolfgang: The reason there is a supposed gas shortage and rising rates. Is BECAUSE the US Military and Armed Services are using up such a massive volume that US Refineries cannot keep up. Oil refinery companies are having to up production on crapped out plants and cannot or refuse to build any new ones or reactivate old ones. Some of the closed refineries maybe too old and may require a leveling and a new build.
BUT think about this paradigm or paradox. If the war in Iraq is WON. Whatever the Hell the term winning is? That would mean a potential for over capacity, and OPPS..That could lead to lower prices....again...Oh my!! All of a sudden SUV's will no longer be the whipping boy and blame for the fuel shortage.
Posted by Isador at 09/27/2007 @ 3:37pm
The spectacle of airing Iraqi dirty laundry in the cesspool of the US Congress....No, thanks! Hardly promote the greater goal of Iraqi soverignty (not that its there yet)!
Posted by HAPPY 09/26/2007 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person
Happy would have you believe dirty little secrets like corrupt government officials are best left in the dark. To the conrtary, people who risk everything to bring these corrupt government criminals to account and those who help them, deserve kudos and substantive support, not petty political gamesmenship. Here's a topic: Happy is either a fraud or just dumb as a doorknob. Discuss among yourselves.
Posted by NeilSagan at 09/28/2007 @ 01:54am
Here's a topic: Happy is either a fraud or just dumb as a doorknob. Discuss among yourselves.
Posted by NEILSAGAN 09/28/2007 @ 01:54am
NEILSAGAN, Since he's making money hand over fist, or so he says he is, he would have to be fraud because he knows how to use a corrupt system to his advantage.
There lies the problem. People who can manipulate even a corrupt system to their advantage don't want the system to change even though they know it to be corrupt.
The only way to get that sort to change their minds would be for them to loose their shirts. Their loyalty lies only to themselves and no one else...well, I'll take that back, they can be loyal to their families and friends and pretty much hold the view to hell with everyone else.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/28/2007 @ 07:08am
"Happy is either a fraud or just dumb as a doorknob. Discuss among yourselves."
You can always tell how insecure a person is by how much and how often they tell you how smart, successful and genius they are. Happy played that out at DavidCorn.com and everybody eventually just ignored him - funny thing - ignore for a short while and they mindless will fade away.
Just another knucklehead.
Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/28/2007 @ 10:23am
they mindless
SB
the mindless
Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/28/2007 @ 10:28am
"Nobody wants to know what my hunch is!"
How perceptive! (and correct)
Seems nobody wants to know what the happy hunch is, for people to care, happy would have to have some cred.
OW
Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/28/2007 @ 10:31am
The Bu ssssh secret government at work.
Posted by Hernova at 09/28/2007 @ 2:40pm
What's matter, Capt? Feeling lonely, unloved & USELESS? Tired of Gerald? Saladin? Haji? TRH? Micki? Carol? Lost your `MASK' role at Corn.com? Want my pity? Since the stock market had a great Sept. Run, I'll be generous, You've got it!
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 11:34am | ignore this person
I had a neighbor who frequently mentioned his financial success in conversation in an off-handed way, not just with me but also with everyone in the neighborhood. It was some weird ego-gratification thing. People would be civil and polite to his face and say "good for you" and when he wasn't around, they'd say what they really thought "what a self-centered dick" behind his back.
He became the butt of a joke and he never outlived it because he never gave it up. Some people are more than happy to make an ass of themselves repeatedly thinking all the while they're held in high regard.
Posted by NeilSagan at 09/28/2007 @ 5:06pm
"He became the butt of a joke and he never outlived it because he never gave it up."
Seems like Happy has attained the same status with the same results.
Still - there is no real reason or justification for being a jerk - it is just the happy way.
He did not remember to add O'Rielly to the Gerald? Saladin? Haji? TRH? Micki? Carol? list.
HA! I never tire of good posts. I just find the happy posts to be too inane to be considered substantial.
Like the bleating of a goat - happy just spews - no reason to take anything from those quarters seriously.
capt
Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/30/2007 @ 11:33am
Posted by HAPPY 10/01/2007 @ 11:58a
wow...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/01/2007 @ 12:03pm
mr. corn...please continue posting as MASK fro time to time here...lol
best of luck, best wishes.
you are indeed a class act - thanks for the great reporting.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/01/2007 @ 12:04pm
"ignore this person"
Wowser, thanks - neat feature.
Posted by CaptainKirk at 10/01/2007 @ 2:58pm
you are indeed a class act - thanks for the great reporting.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/01/2007 @ 12:04pm
seconded, thirded and 17,345,879th'd by moi, fz
AMERICA SHALL BLESS YOU, FOR YOU HAVE BLESSED AMERICA
i bet you'll "cob"ble together some great work at the new gig you've "stalk"ed out at MJ.
'scuse the "corn"y humour, but i bet you're used to it.
are you from iowa?
:+]
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/01/2007 @ 6:40pm
our classification system has really gone to shit under the hamsters
Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2007 @ 10:38pm