« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rice: Yes, Corruption Money Funds Anti-U.S. Violence
Waxman asked the bottom line question: is corruption cash from the Iraqi government funding attacks on the U.S.? No more retreating behind requests for a closed session or pleas to request sources and methods.
Rice: "There are militias being funded by multiple sources, including people who are able to use the Iraqi system to bring funding to their militias, yes, especially in the south." She said, however, that it would get worse if Iran could fund Shiite militias unimpeded in the wake of a U.S. withdrawal.
Advertisement
Comments (13)
Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 11:49 AM:And it would be even worse if Iran gets a couple nukes.
moondancer wrote on October 25, 2007 11:56 AM:I watched that farce. You couldn't drag a honest answer out of that criminal with a waterboarding.
brian wrote on October 25, 2007 12:14 PM:The real question should be: Why are you pretending that Maliki heads a representative government?
We waste blood and treasure so a shia crime syndicate can consolidate power.
Note she is starting to align the Maliki government, which we now say is corrupt, with Iran.
This is how we are going to get rid of the representative, necessarily Shiite, government. Then we have to install a Sunni-led government.
The scheme will be presented to the American public in the usual way through the Right Wing Noise Machine. No debate will take place. Congress will do nothing to oppose it.
This scheme will extend well past the 2008 elections. In any event it will be another disaster.
wordvarc wrote on October 25, 2007 12:58 PM:.
And worse yet, our taxpayer money funds the immoral, unjust, deregulated US violence demanded by the GOP and WH in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world.
.
chisholm wrote on October 25, 2007 1:01 PM:Bush has proved that Congress doesn't matter.
biggerbox wrote on October 25, 2007 1:10 PM:Funding of Shiite militias by Iran might get worse in the wake of a US withdrawal, but the money wouldn't be funding attacks on US forces. We'd be gone. That's the idea.
cj wrote on October 25, 2007 1:23 PM:Hey Jake D.
If Iran ever gets Nukes I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were acquired in a deal with the same elements that traded arms in the Iran Contra scandal. Hmmm, if I remember correctly these same elements have been implicated in Pakistan's acquisition of the bomb. Blow back!
cj wrote on October 25, 2007 1:24 PM:Hey Jake D.
If Iran ever gets Nukes I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were acquired in a deal with the same elements that traded arms in the Iran Contra scandal. Hmmm, if I remember correctly these same elements have been implicated in Pakistan's acquisition of the bomb. Blow back!
Incompetence Incarnate wrote on October 25, 2007 4:06 PM:"Yes, it turns out that our incompetence and lack of oversight has enabled money you citizens paid in taxes to go to groups who have killed our troops, that we have kept in Iraq due to our incompetence."
"And we regret that happened (all by itself)."
Tim wrote on October 25, 2007 4:46 PM:OK...just so I have this clearly.
The SecState has stated, under oath, that the United States Government is and has, through misfeasance or malfeasance supplied material support to lawful enemy combatants in time of war.
Further, the SecState has stated, again under oath, that this situation is preferable to our withdrawing of forces in Iraq, because if we did not remain there (and underwrite the conflict), then a foreign power contrary to the interests of POTUS would be doing so.
In plain terms, it's better we give Iraqis money for IEDs to kill US troops than us leave and have the Iraqis have to borrow money from someone else to kill their own countrymen.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." - U.S. Constitution Article III.3
Don't think it's much more plain than that.
Tim wrote on October 25, 2007 4:47 PM:OK...just so I have this clearly.
The SecState has stated, under oath, that the United States Government is and has, through misfeasance or malfeasance supplied material support to lawful enemy combatants in time of war.
Further, the SecState has stated, again under oath, that this situation is preferable to our withdrawing of forces in Iraq, because if we did not remain there (and underwrite the conflict), then a foreign power contrary to the interests of POTUS would be doing so.
In plain terms, it's better we give Iraqis money for IEDs to kill US troops than us leave and have the Iraqis have to borrow money from someone else to kill their own countrymen.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." - U.S. Constitution Article III.3
Don't think it's much more plain than that.
Sarah Hurt wrote on October 26, 2007 1:49 PM:Please pay very careful attention how the Bush Administration is pulling attention away from Iraq by invoking Iran. It is so obvious that if I screamed it no one would hear. I don't know who can put the laser back on Iraq. But they'd better.
Sarah Hurt wrote on October 26, 2007 1:50 PM:Please pay very careful attention how the Bush Administration is pulling attention away from Iraq by invoking Iran. It is so obvious that if I screamed it no one would hear. I don't know who can put the laser back on Iraq. But they'd better.