Bush's secret plans for Iraq

[Sayhey]

On CBS' site there is a teaser for this Sunday's broadcast of 60 Minutes of a story on Bob Woodward's new book. It says,

(CBS)*Legendary journalist Bob Woodward discusses his new book, which reveals secret details of the White House’s plans to attack Iraq, for the first time on television in an interview with correspondent Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, Sunday, April 18, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Woodward interviewed 75 of the people who helped prepare for the war, including President Bush – the only source who speaks for attribution -- in the upcoming book, “Plan of Attack,” published by Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

In the interview, Woodward talked about how the administration was able to finance secret preparations for the Iraq war.

"President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?' What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret," says Woodward.

"...The end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. ...Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."



CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml)

Hmmm... taking not only troops from Afghanistan for Iraq, but taking money without Congress' knowledge or approval. Of course as they are saying over at the Daily Kos, Woodward is a no good liar, who is angry at the President for not doing (fill in the blank) and probably has a kinky private life. :mad:

Crank up the spin machine!

[Desertrat]

Dunno 'bout spin mosheens, but

""President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?' What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret," says Woodward. "

raises the simple question of, "How did Woody know?" Did Bush tell him? Did Rummy tell him?

Even without arguing the $700 Very Large and suchlike, I'm dubious about the factual nature of this sort of "I know!"

'Rat

[Sayhey]

raises the simple question of, "How did Woody know?" Did Bush tell him? Did Rummy tell him?

My guess is that one of them did. My bet is on Bush. Rummy is smart enough to know the implications of his story. Remember Woodward just got through writing a book in which Bush got extremely favorable treatment. He probably thought it would continue.

[Backtothemac]

Well I personally don't have a problem of having a plan, but you better have a good reason to put the plan into motion.

[SlyHunter]

I reveal that Chirac was defending something quite different when he sent his erstwhile foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, around the world to buy votes against America at the United nations. Chirac was determined to maintain Saddam Hussein in power so that two extraordinarily lucrative oil contracts, negotiated by the French, could go into effect. Very little has been written about this until now.

The deals were negotiated separately by CFP Total and by Elf Aquitaine during the mid to late 1990s. At the time, both companies were state-controlled. They have since been privatized and combined into the world’s second largest oil giant, TotalFinalElf.

Through my sources, I obtained a copy of one of these contracts. It spans 154 pages, and grants the French exclusive right to exploit one of Iraq’s largest oil fields at Nahr al-Umar for a period of twenty years. Under the deal, the French were given 75% of the revenue from every barril of oil they extracted – 75%! That is absolutely stunning. Not even during the pre-OPEC days were foreign oil operators granted such extravagant terms.

I discussed the contract with an independent oil analyst, Gerald Hillman, who estimated that during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That’s 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power.

FP: The contracts were dependent on Saddam?

Timmerman: That’s correct, although I am sure the French are trying to put pressure on the Iraqi Governing Council to honor these scandalously corrupt deals.

Because of the United Nations sanctions, the French were allowed to do some initial scoping out work on the oil fields, but they couldn’t begin actual production until the sanctions were lifted. So this was a clear quid pro quo. As Hillman told me, what the French were saying in this contract was very simple: “We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this.” And that is precisely what the French were trying to do at the UN. I’ve called these $100 billion deals from Saddam to Chirac the largest bribe ever paid in history. It was Chirac’s War for Oil.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021

[pseudobrit]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[Backtothemac]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

I had to ask that question as well. Could be an interesting new thread, but lets not hijack this one.

[SlyHunter]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
You are talking about Bush's secret plan with Iraq ignoring the possibility that he doesn't have one and the folks who were against removing Saddam might've been the ones who actually had the secret plan.

[SlyHunter]

I would not be surprised to find out we had secret plans to attack N. Korea, China, Syria, Iran or for that matter even England. The people in the Pentagon wouldn't be doing their jobs if we didn't so if we did have a plan for attacking Iraq its not that big of deal.

It wasn't oil for if it was he would've handled it differently. We could have bought the oil from Saddam cheaper then going to war with him. Saddam wouldn't of cared who he sold the oil to as long as they paid cash.

I would not be surprised if part of the reason for going after Saddam was to protect Israel. Everyone knows Saddam would've nuked Israel if he had any nukes. Also with the Israel Palestinian problem and it being a tough call whose side to officially take if any it would've solved a delimma of being forced to take Israel side if we could somehow figure out a way to have another "trusted" ally in the region. Nobody was volunteering and perhaps we could create one yes after he swore that he wouldn't build empires. I'm willing to consider he waffled on that one.

It also would relieve the expense of maintaining the military and buracracy that the sanctions created. They weren't working anyhow too many people were figuring out ways around it to insure it wouldn't work or simply to put money in their own pockets. Irregardless sanctions could not continue indefinitely they were shiphoning money that could've been spent elsewhere. I mean like the blockade we kept around him trying to prevent folks from sneaking supplies in and stuff.

I'm just glad Saddam is gone. I wish Bush had moved 12 months earlier and I'm glad his playing games with the UN for those 12+ months did not cost as many military lives as I thought it would be due to the increased time Saddam had to arm up and prepare for us. On another thread here I would deffinitely consider this a reason towards why Bush was a bad leader. He shouldn't of allowed the UN to stall him those 12 months. part of it was because he listened too much to Collin Powell. But still you got to consider the qualifications of those willing to do his job (bush's) and then he looks great.

[Sayhey]

I would not be surprised to find out we had secret plans to attack N. Korea, China, Syria, Iran or for that matter even England. The people in the Pentagon wouldn't be doing their jobs if we didn't so if we did have a plan for attacking Iraq its not that big of deal.

For those few who don't get the importance of what Woodward is alleging, the key is that the plan was secret from Congress and that money allocated for the war in Afghanistan (ie resources for finding bin Ladin and destroying al Qaeda) were secretly, again outside of Congress' knowledge and against Congress expressed authorization, used to plan for a war in Iraq. The existence a war plan is, in and of itself, not surprising in the least.

[Desertrat]

From the FWIW department: The Pentagon's War Gamers have plans for the invasion of danged near every country in the world. The "What if?" crowd has been doing that since way, way back in the early days of the Cold War. Back, I dunno, 20 or 30 years ago, somebody got all upset at finding out Canada was one of the countries.

But that's different from what Sayhey's talking about...

'Rat

[Backtothemac]

Well, I don't know if funds were diverted or not. If it was general pentagon budget, then no, it isn't a problem.

But, you are right Rat, we have plans to invade just about every country on the planet somewhere.

[Ugg]

every barril of oil

is barril french for barrel? If it is, I bet this article was written by a disgrunted Frenchmen because the French are now cracking down on speeding on the highways. He can no longer drive his Renault as fast as he wants and probably his investment in Elf Aquitaine is no longer worth the paper it was written on. Those Frenchmen :D

On topic, I'll bet we start seeing more revelations such as Woodward's now that the press is starting to realize that it is not a federal crime to be critical of the "War President". Let's hope so, another 4 years of gw and a couple more phony wars we'll be sitting in the poorhouse.

[Desertrat]

Ugg, do you think that Al Qaida will cease their efforts against us if we bailed out of Iraq and if we also told Israel to go it alone?

(It seems to me your view, there, sets the frame of any discussion about "phony wars" and my own view of the larger chess game of international relations in the middle east.)

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Ugg, do you think that Al Qaida will cease their efforts against us if we bailed out of Iraq and if we also told Israel to go it alone?

I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with all of the threads lately, so I might have missed something. Could you kindly point out where someone has advanced this as a plan?

[Ugg]

Ugg, do you think that Al Qaida will cease their efforts against us if we bailed out of Iraq and if we also told Israel to go it alone?

(It seems to me your view, there, sets the frame of any discussion about "phony wars" and my own view of the larger chess game of international relations in the middle east.)

'Rat

#1 You can't declare war, not that we did by the way, on an idea. Wars are fought between countries or factions, but "War on Terror" is a fiction and therefore phony.

#2 The war launched in Afghanistan was to rid the world of bin Laden and his followers and free the Afghanis from the Taliban. Both objectives failed. Al Qaeda is still operating, bin Laden is still at large and outside of Kabul, life is probably just as bad as it was during the reign of the Taliban. Another phony war.

#3 The war in Iraq. It's hard now to differenitate between the neocons' ideas, bad intelligence, gw wanting to avenge his daddy and the US "war machine" needing a boost by waging war. Maybe it's not important to do so but nonetheless this war has only succeeded in toppling SH but in doing so opened a Pandora's box that can never, ever be closed again. Another phony war.

We're in Iraq and Afghanistan and we need to finish what we started. There's no going back. I read recently a comment by a retired general who said that once we go in, we own the place and are responsible for everything that happens. To pull out now would be sheer folly and nobody that I know is advocating that.

Until the Sauds amongst others, allow their citizens a certain amount of freedom and stop supporting extreme elements of their society, al Qaeda will remain strong.

Israel is digging its own grave but gw's abandonment of the road map will only create more enemies for Israel and the US. Sharon is gw's biggest liability in the middle east. Let's hope he gets impeached over his "financial improprieties" then, maybe there is hope for a more moderate voice from Israel and less animosity from the Arab world.

Although their recent agreement got scant attention in the US, Europe and the Middle East realize that gw has abandoned the Arab world in favor of Sharon. They won't take it lightly and you can bet that the funding for al Qaeda will increase due to this.

[Desertrat]

The reason I asked is that folks ask, over and over, about why are we in Iraq. At this point, does it matter "why"? Stipulate the answer, really, is, "We screwed up." Okay, what do we do now? What would Kerry consider to be some sort of successful endpoint? What would anyone here consider to be a successful endpoint?

And, would that success end Al Qaida's efforts against us? They're a bunch of killers who've dedicated themselves to destroying our Evil Influence, right? Our cultural mores are anathema to them, so they say, right? If you're not Islamic, they want you to die. If you're Islamic but not fundamentalist in their style, they don't care if you're "collateral damage" as they carry out jihad against the infidel. And, so?

As to Israel: Folks seem to be wanting to play poker but not lose any money; if they do, it should be returned. The "Occupied Territories" came about as a result of Arabs losing a war they initiated against Israel. Well, tough. Israel kept damned little as a result of kicking the crap out of a bunch of bullies. Israel's getting out of Gaza strikes me as a rather generous concession. Until Arafat and the rest of his genocidal maniacs back off and quit murdering Jews, whatever the Israelis decide is fine by me. They've been tolerating a bunch of whiny schoolyard bullies in adult bodies for 56 years, and that's way too danged long. My suggestion is that folks oughta consider the mindset of a people who live by "Masada shall not fall again." The Israelis call themselves "Sabras". The sabra is a thorny cactus plant of the region. That in itself oughta be a warning.

'Rat

[Ugg]

The reason I asked is that folks ask, over and over, about why are we in Iraq. At this point, does it matter "why"? Stipulate the answer, really, is, "We screwed up." Okay, what do we do now? What would Kerry consider to be some sort of successful endpoint? What would anyone here consider to be a successful endpoint?

And, would that success end Al Qaida's efforts against us? They're a bunch of killers who've dedicated themselves to destroying our Evil Influence, right? Our cultural mores are anathema to them, so they say, right? If you're not Islamic, they want you to die. If you're Islamic but not fundamentalist in their style, they don't care if you're "collateral damage" as they carry out jihad against the infidel. And, so?

As to Israel: Folks seem to be wanting to play poker but not lose any money; if they do, it should be returned. The "Occupied Territories" came about as a result of Arabs losing a war they initiated against Israel. Well, tough. Israel kept damned little as a result of kicking the crap out of a bunch of bullies. Israel's getting out of Gaza strikes me as a rather generous concession. Until Arafat and the rest of his genocidal maniacs back off and quit murdering Jews, whatever the Israelis decide is fine by me. They've been tolerating a bunch of whiny schoolyard bullies in adult bodies for 56 years, and that's way too danged long. My suggestion is that folks oughta consider the mindset of a people who live by "Masada shall not fall again." The Israelis call themselves "Sabras". The sabra is a thorny cactus plant of the region. That in itself oughta be a warning.

'Rat

Will there ever be an endpoint? It's all good and well to speak of bringing "democracy" to a region that knows little of it but the reality is that these things by and large need to proceed at their own pace. With that lying thief, Chalabi at the healm of the provisional government in Iraq, there is little hope that there will be any truly representational govt. in Iraq for a long time to come. Add to the mix three groups who really don't see eye to eye and a bunch of religious fundamentalists and voila!, chaos reigns.

That is what I meant by a Pandora's box. We're stuck there for the next few years. There is no easy way out, there is no endpoint in sight. Look at the Balkans, it's not over yet, and it'll be another decade at least before things settle down. gw didn't have a plan for Iraq, other than to secure the oil fields and depose SH. What is needed is a realistic, all encompassing plan that lets the Iraqis decide for themselves in the long run what they want their country to be. June 30 is going to come and go and gw will keep saying that we need to stay the course and that evil will not triumph and all the other tripe that seems to slither out of his mouth. In the end he wants to get re-elected and really doesn't care what happens to the Iraqis. Kerry, would at least involve other countries and the UN and perhaps even other Arab nations in helping find a solution. Something gw has only done when he's realized he can't go it alone.

Iraq is not about al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are. Why aren't we doing anything there other than pulling out diplomats? Until the Arabians depose the house of Saud there's little hope for them, at least in Afghanistan we could make a difference if we wanted.

It's all fine and dandy to sit around and talk about Israel and the war and the territories, but it is another to have gw speak of a road map and then abandon it when he's lost his way. Talk about fuel for the al Qaeda fire. My god!, don't you think that this is going to piss them off even more than taking a moderate road in Iraq?!?!?

Sabras are a minority in Israel, it refers to those who were born there. The huge influx of russian, african, etc jews over the past decade has watered their number down substantially and more importantly created huge divisions within the country. The Palestinians predated the Jews of Israel, Israel would do well to remember that they are more accustomed to thorns than the Jews will ever be.

[SlyHunter]

It would be smarter and wiser to split Iraq into three different states but our hands are hancuffed. Turkey has already made a declaration that should there become an independant Kurdis state in Iraq that they would invade and destroy it for fear that the Kurds would want to join it and take some of Turkey's land with them. It is an honest fear considering Turkey was once The Ottoman Empire and they don't want to get any smaller than they already have. But they also don't want to give Kurds equal rights or protection over the law. Nothing is simple. Saddam needed to be removed, but who to replace him with is a huge question.

[takao]

the idea of splitting the country would a interesting solution but sadly it won't work because there are so many different groups and subgroups which all want something different even the religouis leaders are not united... i guess it will a lot of time for the country to calm down

under the regime of saddam hussein , iraq was like a steam engine under high pressure only hold together by force...then the force disapeared and iraq gone 'KABOOM'

[Desertrat]

From Ugg: "Kerry, would at least involve other countries and the UN and perhaps even other Arab nations in helping find a solution. Something gw has only done when he's realized he can't go it alone."

What do you think Kerry would do differently in the Iraqi future with UN support than Bush? If Bush has asked for UN support and not gotten it, why would Kerry get that support?

Separately, does anybody have a feel for a post-Saud government in Saudi Arabia? My impression is that it possibly would be more fundamentalist and anti-western in its views. Post-Shah Iran, revisited?

'Rat

[skunk]

What do you think Kerry would do differently in the Iraqi future with UN support than Bush? If Bush has asked for UN support and not gotten it, why would Kerry get that support?
If he went to them without the disinformation and bullying which Bush used, they might be better disposed to listen

Separately, does anybody have a feel for a post-Saud government in Saudi Arabia? My impression is that it possibly would be more fundamentalist and anti-western in its views. Post-Shah Iran, revisited?

'Rat
The Bushes should have been using their influence there to press for reform, instead of lining their pockets.

[numediaman]

By the way, SlyHunter, here is what your hero Clint Eastwood has said about Iraq:

Eastwood found himself fielding questions about the build-up to war in Iraq when Sean Penn, who'd just finished work on "Mystic River," decided to write an open letter to President Bush in the Washington Post. "I didn't mind that he wrote the letter," Eastwood said. "He asked me about it before and I said, `You can write two kinds of letters - one that's angry, or one that's statesmanlike.'"

Eastwood's own view of the Iraq invasion is that it was a mistake.

Source: Knight-Ridder

[skunk]

By the way, SlyHunter, here is what your hero Clint Eastwood has said about Iraq
Better change your sig...

[SlyHunter]

Better change your sig...
Guess so. I was speaking of the roles he's played not the person that he was but to prevent misunderstandings that part of my sig is gone.

[numediaman]

That was easy. Now if Apple would just release an updated G5 I'd change my signature, too.

[skunk]

Guess so. I was speaking of the roles he's played not the person that he was but to prevent misunderstandings that part of my sig is gone.
You've had one actor in the job already. Wasn't that bad enough? :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, could you please answer my question? Who exactly has proposed bolting from Iraq and letting Israel "go it alone"?

[Desertrat]

Sorry, IJ. Nobody has made those suggestions, SFAIK. To me, they rather seem like end points in the chain of reasoning for an end to Al Qaida hostility.

My view is this: So long as we're in Iraq, and so long as we support Israel in any way, Al Qaida will continue executing, and planning for further acts of, violence against us. I guess I could add that the presence of any of us other than our oil-buyers in any mideast country seems also to be anathema to them...

I'm just throwing out notions for my unanswered question of what it would take to get Al Qaida to "smile upon us in brotherhood", pardon my sarcasm.

:), 'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I see the problem. Al Qaida isn't like the Shriners or the Rotary Club. The number of people who sympathize with their agenda and are willing to die for their causes isn't fixed. It becomes larger or smaller depending on how the western nations are perceived in the Islamic world. The only way to defeat radical groups with messianic agendas is to choke them for members -- to alter the underlying conditions that allow them to recruit. Ironically, this is what Bush feels he is doing in Iraq. I happen to think he's doing just the opposite, and so does nearly everyone else outside of his neo-con circle.

In short, we are not negotiating with Al Qaida, and nobody is suggesting that we should. We should be trying to make them irrelevant in the minds of the vast majority of Muslims, who like most other people in the world, just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace and to have a chance at prosperity and self-determination -- if not for themselves, then for their children.

Your argument reminds me of conversations I've had about the weather. I gripe about the heat, and somebody replies, "Would you rather it be snowing?"

Broiling or freezing. Are those really my only choices?

[zimv20]

If Bush has asked for UN support and not gotten it, why would Kerry get that support?

i think bush's international standing is quite damaged. the question is: is the damage so extensive that it's tarnished the US as a whole?

[skunk]

i think bush's international standing is quite damaged. the question is: is the damage so extensive that it's tarnished the US as a whole?
I'm afraid so. It will take a long time and considerable effort to undo the damage. A resignation or two might help: it's a pity Powell didn't distance himself from the whole debacle. The Iraq saga has made people everywhere question whether the US is just fundamentally corrupt.

[SlyHunter]

Your right I moved it.

[Sayhey]

Back to the "secret plan" that Bush was in it for oil? I believe others were trying to prevent Saddams removal "for oil".

You need to read the original post. That isn't the point of this thread.

[Desertrat]

IJ, "Broiling or freezing. Are those really my only choices?" is a good question. For right now, "Yes." seems the answer. If skunk's answer to zimv20's question is correct, it might be longer than "for right now", even if Kerry's elected.

Again: Part of the core of Al Qaida's demands is our exit from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If they stay with those demands, I just don't see how things will get better.

I dunno. It's just that with WTC '93 and WTC '01 given us by OBL, plus the USS Cole and the (?) Towers in Saudi Arabia, and he's spoken of further dramatic "hits", I'd say he's earned some credibility.

I guess I'm like a lot of folks; all I can do is guess.

'Rat

[numediaman]

I don't know whether this will really be a "bombshell" or just another story. But your local alternative weekly may contain this story. I'll try and dig up a version of it in the morning to post:

AAN Promises Important Iraq Story Tomorrow

By E&P Staff
Published: April 19, 2004 2:10 PM EST

NEW YORK In an unusual move for the organization, the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) will release what it promises will be a bombshell article related to the Iraq conflict at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. It will be made available free of charge for publication on all AAN-member Web sites, as well as for print, and more than 60 members papers have expressed interest in using it, according to Executive Director Richard Karpel.

The 3,000-word story, embargoed until Tuesday but obtained by E&P today, is based on a "closely held" memo purportedly written by a U.S. government official detailed to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It was provided to writer Jason Vest by "a Western intelligence official." The memo offers a candid assessment of Iraq's bleak future -- as a country trapped in corruption and dysfunction -- and portrays a CPA cut off from the Iraqi people after a "year's worth of serious errors."

The article is titled, "Fables of Reconstruction," with a subhed, "A Coalition memo reveals that even true believers see the seeds of civil war in the occupation of Iraq."

Karpel commented, "We have no question that the memo is authentic." . . .

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000491093

[IJ Reilly]

Again: Part of the core of Al Qaida's demands is our exit from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If they stay with those demands, I just don't see how things will get better.

Again: We aren't negotiating with Al Qaida. They can demand all-expenses paid holidays in Acapulco for all I care. Their demands can be rendered meaningless if they can't recruit the warm bodies they need to carry out attacks. Over this we have more influence then you'd imagine, apparently.

[mactastic]

IJ, "Broiling or freezing. Are those really my only choices?" is a good question. For right now, "Yes." seems the answer.
'Rat

I think you're wrong here 'Rat. There ARE more choices than continuing the present course or turning around and high-tailing it out. A halt to the US arrogance in relation to the rest of the world would go a long way towards getting our allies back on our side again. A new approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue would be a good way to appeal to moderate muslims. That's just two things off the top of my head that could be done while we deal with the tar baby called Iraq that we've stuck our hands in. I can't believe you aren't able to think of a couple things that could be done differently while still maintaining our troop presence in Iraq. In case you hadn't noticed, I don't want our troops out of Iraq. You break it, you buy it. Americans have to take responsibility for their actions of their leaders, not get cold feet and leave. If that means we just bought ourselves a half-trillion dollar project that takes away from what we could have done at home then so be it. If it costs us thousands of American lives to make Iraq safe again, well that's the price of occupation. But lets do it right so we can get as many of our troops home safe as we can, and lets get some international help so we don't have to foot the bill alone. Shrub could'a learned a thing or two from his daddy about how to finance a war.

[zimv20]

You break it, you buy it.
a brilliant moment on al franken's show yesterday. he said he talked to the PR rep at Pottery Barn, who says PB does not, in fact, have such a policy. i laughed out loud.

[numediaman]

I don't know whether this will really be a "bombshell" or just another story. But your local alternative weekly may contain this story. I'll try and dig up a version of it in the morning to post:

AAN Promises Important Iraq Story Tomorrow

NEW YORK In an unusual move for the organization, the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) will release what it promises will be a bombshell article related to the Iraq conflict at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. It will be made available free of charge for publication on all AAN-member Web sites, as well as for print, and more than 60 members papers have expressed interest in using it, according to Executive Director Richard Karpel.


Well, as promised, here is the story. While important, I don't see it as the bombshell the AAN promised it would be. (Nice REM reference, though.)

Fables of the Reconstruction
Coalition memo reveals that even true believers see the seeds of civil war in the occupation of Iraq
by Jason Vest
April 20th, 2004 10:00 AM

As the situation in Iraq grows ever more tenuous, the Bush administration continues to spin the ominous news with matter-of-fact optimism. According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi uprisings in half a dozen cities, accompanied by the deaths of more than 100 soldiers in the month of April alone, is something to be viewed in the context of "good days and bad days," merely "a moment in Iraq's path towards a free and democratic system." More recently, the president himself asserted, "Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country."

But according to a closely held Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March, the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing democracy succeed, according to the memo's author--a U.S. government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a senior CPA director--have been severely imperiled by a year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and the CPA, the U.S.-led multinational agency administering Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the memo's author fears, U.S. efforts have created an environment rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil war. . .

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0416/vest.php