« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Allawi: Disclosing My Backers Will Mean Their Deaths
No wonder Ayad Allawi thinks he can get the Bush administration to propel him back to power in Iraq. The two men see eye to eye on the public's right to see into their operations.
Asked by Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek to disclose who's funding his $300,000-over-six-month lobbying effort by GOP firm Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, Allawi said:
“Of course not. They may be killed by the Iranians, they may be killed by the sectarian people … These are details I am not interested in answering.”
Shades of Mike McConnell's statement that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public Congressional debate over revising FISA!
Only Allawi's not alone. After Allawi's comment on CNN Sunday that he's getting funded by unnamed "supporters," Justice Department officials told BGR that it needed to be more forthcoming about who's paying Allawi's legal bills. BGR tells the magazine that it intends to fully comply with its legal obligations, but that may not mean much for actual disclosure. The firm has the option of changing its listed client from Allawi to his political party, the Iraqi National Accord: "Under the law, lobbying firms are usually permitted to list foreign political parties as their clients without identifying the financial sponsors of those parties."
Comments (13)
Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 2:11 PM:Well, we now know two facts that we didn't before.
First, Allawi and co were consciously choosing to hide the identity of their financial backer.
Second, Allawi and co may or not be lying about the "will be killed" part.
I'm not one to give them the benefit of the doubt on #2.
mbbsdphil wrote on August 30, 2007 2:15 PM:Tough. Lots of things could get them killed, just like our troops. It seems unlikely that Allawi's chief proponents are unknown ot his opponents. The disclosure would more likely undercut his credibility and that of his backers, which very likely include CIA front organizations (now that info could well get someone killed). If Mr. Allawi's exorbitantly expensive lobbying campaign is not paid for by him, his lobbyists are required to disclose who's paying - or stop lobbying, or pay fines, penalties and possibly go to jail.
"I want it, I need it, I have to have it, I'm too petulant to ask anybody" should no longer be acceptable excuses for serial violations of US law.
FMArouet wrote on August 30, 2007 2:16 PM:Hmmm. Might the U.S. Government (DOD, CIA, DOS, or OVP) be funneling funds to Allawi to...lobby the U.S. Government?
How symmetrical that would be: a perfectly closed loop.
Not that it makes any difference to the Bush/Cheney crowd, but is it legal for the U.S. to provide funds to a foreign entity for the purpose of influencing U.S. opinion and policy?
fuzz wrote on August 30, 2007 2:29 PM:What happened to "an Iraqi person"? Now it's "they"?
dee illuminati wrote on August 30, 2007 2:44 PM:Tell NID Mike McConnell whom donated the money and let him decide how to deal with it. Imagine a situation where we put the same restrictions on AIPAC, sarcasm off.... and really, the Registration as a Foreign agent laws are good, but never allow the 'intent' of the law get caught up in the 'spirit' of the law. Does Mike McConnell have a need to know? Yeah, does he have to disclose it?
Allawi is in a 'unusual circumstance' as far as politics goes, was the DOJ right in inquiring? yes. Does the NID have a veto on the disclosure? Yeah...
Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 2:46 PM:It is one thing to tolerate one's own government flouting the law.
But now we're apparently allowing foreigners to flout US law?
If this is the way we're going, then it's time to pack up the tent and hand the keys over to China.
There are not different shades of US law for "friends" of the regime.
Dee Illuminati wrote on August 30, 2007 3:16 PM:You have to keep in mind that in the 60's when blacks were made police officers after civil rights legislation mandated it, that they were loathe to fire upon or actively prosecute people of color whom were actively opposing the status quo (demonstrations and riots) which they had been enlisted to uphold and maintain as busing and civil rights acts were 'implimented'.
When you look at the Balkins, Kosovo, Albania, Croatia.. a significant 'balkinzation' occured where ethnic cleansing created a homogonized political concensus, unfortunately along the lines of religion. This post-ethnic homonization allowed on the one hand concensus and buy-in on the new governments, but leads easily to group think and 'non-secular' laws and beliefs. Even in the USA we speak of a christian nation, or other democracies, say Israel.. whom have haven laws for Jews only.
That said, and having never agreeing with an idea to invade, (the language issue being larger than a color divide) it may be that the desire to create three semi-autonomous regions seems appealing, however.. it allows concensus conducive to theocracies.
I was never a Chalabi supporter.. his "hero in error" statement reminding me of Hitler's beliefs that History would exonerate him as well.
I thought Allawi to have been a preferable leader over him, but now the die are cast after the election.. after the decision to invade, despite opines from Michael Scheuer that this was no cakewalk, opines from General Shinseki that more was needed, and my personal opine that allowing Sadam to go the route of Idi Amin (exile) and keeping the Bathist in control was 'really doing it on the cheap.'
I'm not sure that you can put a genie back in the bottle, anybody whom opined against what was conventional wisdom, or 'groupthink' classic from the Eric Hoffer True Believer was made an example of what 'not to be' financially and socially...
So Allawi assesing the circumstances, not liking what he doesn't see, and understanding how 'democracy works' in the USA can hardly be blamed for hiring a PR firm. I would rather see him go that process of trying to build concensus than spend an equal amount on 'fighters' and seek to carve a piece of that nation state to himself.
I feel as Christoper Hitchens does on religion and politics, with one exception.. the US civil rights era taught me a lesson of the rhetoric and reality of democracy and equal representation under the law, and the sticky path to implementing it!
Just let Dee Illuminati be understood.
I also for the record reject the idea that the 'army' failed in Iraq.. categorically reject it.. I think the idea was failed at inception, and still believe that no matter how damn unpopular it is.. and really get irritated with those 'heros in error' whom now seek to scapegoat Jr. Officers with Abhu-Graib and their ideas of nation building.
The army is a splendid hammer and a damn poor screwdriver.. wrong tool for the wrong mission..
Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 3:17 PM:Reveal the sources of money, and they'll die? From your mouth to God's ear...
rapt wrote on August 30, 2007 7:05 PM:How about this one Dee, the idea was a failed one from its inception, intentionally so. The plan, which worked and is still working, was to cause chaos, create a war that wouldn't end, and almost incidentally, dominate Iraqi oil fields.
I suspect that the war and oil people, (or beings masquerading as people) had a deal of sorts bringing them all into the same club. So now it is sink or swim together.
jimijazz wrote on August 31, 2007 10:26 AM:Sounds like shades of Iran-Contra. Don't be surprised if Elliot Abrams is involved in this along with the rest of his cronies.
jimijazz wrote on August 31, 2007 10:26 AM:Sounds like shades of Iran-Contra. Don't be surprised if Elliot Abrams is involved in this along with the rest of his cronies.
jimijazz wrote on August 31, 2007 10:26 AM:Sounds like shades of Iran-Contra. Don't be surprised if Elliot Abrams is involved in this along with the rest of his cronies.
jimijazz wrote on August 31, 2007 10:27 AM:Sounds like shades of Iran-Contra. Don't be surprised if Elliot Abrams is involved in this along with the rest of his cronies.