« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
State Dep't Official: OK, OK, Iraq Is Corrupt
David Satterfield, reality. Reality, David Satterfield. Glad you could meet one another.
After weeks of silence and obfuscation on the extent of corruption in Iraq, Satterfield, one of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top Iraq advisers, finally admitted what has been clear to unbiased observers for a long time: Iraq is really, really corrupt. Satterfield bowed to the unfortunate fact of corruption in Iraq during a conference call with reporters yesterday.
"Corruption is a reality in Iraq," the department's Iraq policy coordinator, David M. Satterfield, said. "Iraqis at every level have failed to put the nation's interests ahead" of their own and those of their religious, ethnic and tribal affiliations, he said.
State's refusal to discuss corruption in Iraq has reached absurdity in recent weeks. First, House oversight committee chairman Henry Waxman accused State's inspector-general, Howard "Cookie" Krongard, of scuttling corruption investigations. Then he accused Krongard of retaliating against some of the whistleblowers in Krongard's office who alerted his staff to the alleged malfeasance. State also took the weird step of reclassifying a publicly available documents from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad running down the list of corrupt institutions in and around the Maliki government. And for good measure, at a hearing that featured a former Iraqi corruption judge describing how his colleagues have been tortured and murdered for their work, a State official meekly commented that he would rather discuss Iraqi corruption in a closed session.
But don't expect a new era of openness from State over the corruption problem. According to Satterfield, secrecy is integral to State's anti-corruption strategy. That's what led to the reclassification of the embassy document:
The analysis, initially labeled "sensitive," has been widely available on the Internet since early last month. Satterfield said it had been "mis-classified" and was unavailable for public distribution. In general, he said, such "internal working papers" and others containing "sensitive information" have to be protected.Some of them, he said, include "anecdotal accounts of an individual's view of what they believe may be going on with respect to corruption" that had been provided to the embassy "in many cases, completely uncorroborated by us or the Iraqis." He said that sources had to be sheltered and information verified.
"What we wish is to preserve our ability to combat this issue, not to hide it, but to fight it," Satterfield said. "To believe the U.S. government is concealing vital information, some smoking gun . . . is simply not correct."
Comments (10)
anonymouse wrote on October 16, 2007 12:14 PM:This is getting sickening...
"We the People" are paying all the salaries, the benefits, the offices... everything else connected to these crooks. We then have to pay for the attorneys who represent them when they lie and steal from us.
After that, we have to pay for further education to train them that they are not supposed to lie to their employers.
After a week or so, we have to repeat the entire process again.
Give us some laws allowing us to FIRE the crooks and put them in jail!!
Oh, I keep forgetting... they're all self employed, now...
thanks Congress...
footsore wrote on October 16, 2007 12:30 PM:"Ok Ok Iraq is corrupt" Hey look they are becoming just like US.
1oldlady wrote on October 16, 2007 1:09 PM:footsore
When is someone going to JAIL!? The only thing this crowd hasn't done is right out hold a gun in their personal hand and use it! Everything else under criminal law they have, they just put the guns in someone else hand! Oh, OJ Simpson might be convicted on such charges...he didn't hold the gun, but had others do it for him!!!
When is congress going to do something...How much evidenced does congress need to convict? I am going crazy!!!!
Saint Augustine wrote on October 16, 2007 1:16 PM:1oldlady: Given that the feebleminded president would probably pardon anyone convicted now, we must wait until Bush is out of office.
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 1:20 PM:If you are looking for more evidence on the state department's attitude toward reporting on corruption in Iraq, their annual report on global corruption was just released last month. The official state department report, brought to you by Transparency International, is available on the at http://www.transparency.org/publications/publications/gcr_2007.
The corruption report mentions Iraq only four times: two times referencing public perceptions of corruption in the United Kingdom (?!); once in a list of countries passing laws to regulate the internet; and the last time in a chart of least (perceived) corrupt countries in the world, where it was ranked third from the bottom.
The report breaks out numerous analyses focusing on corruption in countries around the globe. Notably, while judicial corruption in Iraq was not covered, a chapter is devoted to allegations of corruption in the decision regarding the 2006 national soccer team in Italy. France also made the tsk-list with their own chapter.
Iraq? which one is Iraq again?
P.S. If American companies are using taxpayer dollars to pay off US officials in Iraq, is that still technically corruption in Iraq?
W Action wrote on October 16, 2007 1:48 PM:Is anyone else concerned about all the ex-military making a new career track for themselves as mercenaries? The real number of these substitute troops is so scary that it's classified info. What do you suppose "security" personnel will do for a living when they return stateside?
We know contractor corporations are all Republicans. Now that they've assembled cadres of loyalists, their mission is to assure more long-term jobs with good pay and benefits. Security is not covered under campaign finance limits; it's a party activity, not a campaign activity.
lurker wrote on October 16, 2007 1:51 PM:I'm concerned that we're mere months away from GOP roll-out of a private homeland security project, in time for their national convention. It fits the true neocon agenda--not exporting democracy but importing theocracy. Coming soon to a city near you: The Private Militia!
Hmmm. Couldn't his definition of corruption be applied to a rather more local bunch of politiians ?
"[Insert name here] at every level have failed to put the nation's interests ahead of their own and those of their religious, ethnic and tribal [Party] affiliations"
Nah. I must have read it wrong.
GreatAuk wrote on October 16, 2007 3:35 PM:If you are looking for more evidence on the state department's attitude toward reporting on corruption in Iraq, their annual report on global corruption was just released last month. The official state department report, brought to you by Transparency International, is available on the at http://www.transparency.org/publications/publications/gcr_2007.
The corruption report mentions Iraq only four times: two times referencing public perceptions of corruption in the United Kingdom (?!); once in a list of countries passing laws to regulate the internet; and the last time in a chart of least (perceived) corrupt countries in the world, where it was ranked third from the bottom.
The report breaks out numerous analyses focusing on corruption in countries around the globe. Notably, while judicial corruption in Iraq was not covered, a chapter is devoted to allegations of corruption in the decision regarding the 2006 national soccer team in Italy. France also made the tsk-list with their own chapter.
Iraq? which one is Iraq again?
P.S. If American companies are using taxpayer dollars to pay off US officials in Iraq, is that still technically corruption in Iraq?
Robert Mendez wrote on October 16, 2007 5:20 PM:Since they were appointed by the Bush cabal, what else would you expect? Were there U.S. taxpayers out there who actually believed that the group of puppets the Bushies put in place would be beacons of integrity while their world was melting down around them? Are there still U.S. citizens out there who think Rice is trustworthy? Anyone holding out hope that the Stanford professor would do anything to instill honesty in this flunkie government? Bush et al constitute a criminal enterprise and those who want to buy into it, deserve what they get. HOpefully, all who are part of this criminal enterprise will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Just Joe wrote on October 16, 2007 5:40 PM:The AP news story you have posted on your site by Anne Gearan is a perfect example of the bias of the press. After listing Waxman's comments and mentioning he was the initiator of the proposal the piece goes on to mention what senate republicans have to say, then 3 paragraphs by Rices adviser and then ends with further comments by state department officials.
Not another reference to anyone who supports the resolution even though well over 300 members of congress have voted for it. This is the "liberal" media??? right
State is most corrupt of all federal agencies and so suppressing corruption in Iraq and hiding it from the American public's view is second nature to them.
Letting Americans know that Iraq politicians have been robbing us blind at every opportunity and the millions in kick backs from our contractors and how American contractors are also milking us with the full knowledge of the state department (this does not even get into the drug money from Afghanistan's poppy production) would be extremely embarrassing to the WH who has just been allowing it for 5 yrs now. We've come to the point of not believing anything that comes out of Rice's mouth and this mixed with the uncaring incompetence of state department employees, who for the most part don't even speak the language, would necessitate State department's silence and cover up. No doubt all this information would be classified for no other reason than to cover their own ass.
We need a team of special prosecutors for this administration...not just one.