Imagine that the U.S. administration deliberately hid money from Congress to invest in a war in the Middle East, potentially crafted secret deals with an oil-rich Middle Eastern country that has ties to terrorism, and appointed ideologues to be the key diplomatic emissaries to a war-torn region. Think you are
href="http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/ui--C7C529ECF1BD4B59B1FD28A804BF2CC4/PD--10039368/MiamiVice.asp">back in the 1980s living through the Iran-Contra scandal? Think again. Over the last two days, new revelations by journalist Bob Woodward and actions by President Bush have evoked memories of a previous scandal and an old foreign policy/national security strategy gone wrong. Yesterday, new details emerged about the Bush administration's deliberate circumvention of Congress to
href="http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8471692.htm">divert $700 million into a secret war plan, and about the potential
href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040419/dcm081_1.html">manipulation of U.S. elections by the Saudi Arabian government. Meanwhile, President Bush nominated
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,539429,00.html">key Iran-Contra figure John Negroponte as the new
href="http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~24533~2094607,00.html">Ambassador to Iraq.
IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES - HIDING MONEY FROM CONGRESS:
href="http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0419-11.htm">U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-WI) became the first lawmaker to "demand to know whether the Bush administration transferred $700 million to Iraq war planning efforts out of counterterrorism funds
href="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/8469815.htm?ERIGHTS=-2662278581855801767kansascity::[email protected]&KRD_RM=9ppprxpvwyvtwpptqvsppppppp|David|Y">without informing Capitol Hill." According to Woodward, the $700 million came out of a supplemental Appropriations bill meant for Afghanistan operations. And a close look at the two supplemental Appropriations bills that passed between 9/11 and July 2002 when the secret transfer took place shows that both bills mandate the White House to inform Congress if money is moved. The Emergency Supplemental Act passed on 9/14/01 specifically instructs the president to "
href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ038.107">consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. The president actually told the American public that the money would be used for those purposes, saying the bill would be used "
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010919-8.html">to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military" in its operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He said nothing about Iraq. Similarly, while the summer 2002 supplemental bill allows the administration to transfer "up to $275 million" in unused money within the Pentagon budget,
href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:7:./temp/~c107arQ48F:e46641:">it requires the president to notify Congress within 15 days of moving money. So far, the administration has not produced a shred of evidence that it followed these laws and informed Congress. As Woodward said, "Congress, which is supposed to control the purse strings, had no real knowledge or involvement, had
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/20/politics/20SPEN.html">not even been notified that the Pentagon wanted to reprogram money."
IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES – LYING TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT MILITARY FOCUS: According to a new AP report, "Following an important meeting on Iraq war planning in late 2001, President Bush told the public that the discussions were about Afghanistan. He made no mention afterward about Iraq even though that was the real focus of the session at his ranch." "
href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0418bush-iraq18.html">I'm right now focused on the military operations in Afghanistan," Bush told reporters after talks on Dec. 28, 2001, with top aides and generals.
IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES – SECRET DEALS WITH COUNTRY TIED TO TERROR?: The Saudi Arabian government, which has ties to terrorism yet maintains
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/images/20020425-4-515h.html">close ties to the Bush administration, continued to deny Woodward's charges that its U.S. Ambassador Prince Bandar promised an increase in oil supplies to coincide with the November presidential election to help President Bush's campaign. Mounting a Saudi defense, Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir deflected the questions by claiming, "Over the past 30 years, the kingdom has sought to
href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/politics/main612741.shtml">ensure adequate supplies of crude at moderate price levels." Of course, al-Jubeir did not explain why the Saudis had
href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-02-oil-prices_x.htm">led the recent charge within OPEC to reduce oil supplies and artificially
href="http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/136344-2960-031.html">inflate the price of gasoline in the U.S. to record levels. Woodward remained steadfast in his reporting, saying the Saudi's definitely made a "pledge." He said, "over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly." Author Craig Unger points to a possible motive for the alleged Saudi pledge. In his book "House of Bush, House of Saud," he says Bush presidencies "
href="http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/16/unger_4/">strengthen Bandar's position in Saudi Arabia. During the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush era, Bandar had enjoyed unique powers - partly because of his close relationship to Bush...But during the Clinton era, Bandar had lost clout. [He was] never an insider in the Clinton White House."
IRAN-CONTRA ECHOES – THE IMPORTANCE OF NEGROPONTE'S RECORD: Negroponte, who has no prior experience in the Middle East and does not speak Arabic, is sure to face new questions about his Iran-Contra past, given the circumstances of his Iraqi post. As the LA Times reports, human rights advocates charged that during his tenure as Ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s, "
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-negroponte20apr20,1,1870992.story?coll=la-home-headlines">Negroponte underplayed human rights abuses by death squads to ensure that the country would continue to serve as a base for U.S.-backed Contras." Negroponte denies this, but according declassified documents, "U.S. officials knew what was happening in Honduras and engaged in a
href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-negroponte5,0,2446240.story">willful deception to avoid confronting Congress with the truth." As Molly Ivins notes, this record is important because Negroponte was a key player in a "plot that sold U.S. arms to Iran" in its war against Iraq. That means "our first ambassador will be
href="http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04192004/commenta/158546.asp">a man who armed Iraq's enemy" – a fact that might not be lost on local Iraqis with whom he must work closely. Negroponte will also be charged with convincing U.S. allies to desist from removing troops from Iraq. The problem is some of these key allies are from Central America, where Negroponte's sordid record is well-known and where his name might not be well-received. In fact, just yesterday Honduras – the country where Negroponte made his most indelible mark – said it was planning to
href="http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq20_20040420.htm">remove its troops from Iraq. Finally, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights watch notes the "serious unanswered questions about Negroponte's complicity with the atrocities in Honduras" are important as the issue of "U.S.-sponsored forces avoiding complicity in atrocities" could arise in Baghdad.
