'Classified' Iraq Corruption Report Online

[questionmark]

'Classified' Iraq Corruption Report Posted Online

September 27, 2007 10:51 AM

The State Department thinks the Iraqi government is larded with corrupt officials who protect their own at the expense of their country. But they don't want you to know they think that.

Amid a clash with Congress over details on the problem of corruption in Iraq, the State Department classified a previously unclassified new report which details the pervasiveness of fraud, intimidation and misdirection within Iraqi ministries.

However, the "Secret" stamp appears to have come down too late: a watchdog group obtained an early version of the report, stamped "Sensitive but Unclassified," and published it online.

Iraqi officials' malfeasance undermines the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and hamstrings its anti-corruption efforts, according to the version of the State Department report posted by the Federation of American Scientists, the group which made the document public.

"Currently, Iraq is not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anti-corruption laws," it states.

How bad is it? The anti-corruption advisor to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to disclose his own financial holdings, the report says. Routine investigative reports by government anti-corruption watchdogs "cannot be trusted to truthfully reveal criminal activity against anyone protected by the violent or the powerful."

The report, which was first disclosed by the Nation magazine, details problems in nearly two dozen Iraqi government ministries as well as nongovernmental organizations.

Source : ABC news

[Atheist God]

Of course Iraq's government is corrupt I've been saying this for a long time. The US knows this as well but actively denies it and you really don't hear much talk of it either.

[Lt_Ripley]

of course the Iraqi government is corrupt.

and this was just funny -

The State Department thinks the Iraqi government is larded with corrupt officials who protect their own at the expense of their country. But they don't want you to know they think that

substitute Iraqi government with American and you have our latest government too.

[Bill Hill]

Can't be anymore corrupt than the EU.

Why does everyone have to be so negative... doesn't The Democratic Republic of Iraq sound good?

Too many good people have fought and died for this cause.

[Guardsman Bass]

Can't be anymore corrupt than the EU.

Why does everyone have to be so negative... doesn't The Democratic Republic of Iraq sound good?

Too many good people have fought and died for this cause.

It's a legitimate criticism; if the Iraqi government is preposterously corrupt, then it's a huge indictment on the US government's capabilities in terms of regime-building. It also means that the problems of Iraq go beyond "we're not trying hard enough!"

[Atheist God]

Can't be anymore corrupt than the EU.

Why does everyone have to be so negative... doesn't The Democratic Republic of Iraq sound good?

Too many good people have fought and died for this cause.

Of course it sounds good but thats not really the point. The US picked the candidates that were elected, they built this government in their image and a severely corrupt ineffective Iraq government that thus far has not been able function due to sectarian rifts and outside influences in the region reflects bad on the United States.

As for being negative people should be, if even more people expressed negativity perhaps something would be done. I personally don't think Iraq is so far gone that the situation can't be fixed but for example when the US places a for example a 24 year old in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi stock exchange and other young inexperienced people in other such jobs alarm bells should ring off for people.

WP

As opposed to focusing on building a strong Iraq government, infrastructure and using diplomacy to end the sectarian civil war and ethnic cleansing. I normally don't support conspiracy theories but it almost appears to me as if it is being set up so both sides simply obliterate each other in a massive civil war, you know the old divide and conquer technique. There is simply no real effort being made to rebuild Iraq and end the violence and there never was. This I attribute to not only a lack of understanding of the culture but I attribute this to corrupt contractors and a severely crippled Iraq government.

As for the military they should be withdrawn, of course they aren't to blame for the mess they were simply doing their jobs. The Bush administration and other officials in the US gov who in my opinion are also corrupt should also take the blame. The Iraq government has made it clear that they don't care about Iraq the US government has made it clear that they don't care either.

In my opinion this war is being raged in the name of contractors such as Halliburton and other defense contractors now privatizing the military and the real reason why the war is so expensive that it cannot be sustained. It is important to note here that everyone Bush brought in with him to the White House, like him also have ties to defense contractors and oil giants.

End the war and put these corrupt officials in jail for stealing almost a trillion dollars from you and giving it to he contractors who they will end up working for again after a new president is elected.

[Lt_Ripley]

Nation Building and the War in Iraq

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

Secondary source: "President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief" ( September 2, 2004, Updated)

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263 ://http://www.americanprogressaction.o...H&b=118263 ://http://www.americanprogressaction.o...H&b=118263

[More on the nation building flip-flop: Nation building: During the 2000 campaign, Bush called for a “humble” foreign policy and disparaged President Clinton’s interventions to bring stability to international hot spots as fuzzy-headed “nation-building.”

Here's what Bush said about nation building during the October 3, 2000 debate with Gore:

"MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. "

Source: Transcript of October 3, 2000 debate http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

Bush did none of what he spoke about here . not a damn word of it. it was all lip service.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Lt_Ripley