But I have to give him some credit now that we see more of what Alberto did. That man was a walking play toy for the extreme right. Addington & Cheney had their way with him every which way.

The story of this reversal perhaps began in January 2004, when the spiritual leader of the Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, announced his opposition to an indecipherably complex American plan to hold eighteen regional caucuses, which would then choose a national assembly. Sistani demanded direct elections for the assembly instead. He may or may not have been a true believer in democracy, but he certainly understood that in any democratic vote Shiites would win power, reversing several centuries of rule by the Sunni Muslims, who make up only about 20 percent of Iraq's population.

The Bush Administration balked. Sistani insisted.

more

Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

and more

Al-Sistani demanded Sunday that the provisional assembly, which would pick an interim government, be chosen by national elections.

and more.

Got it yet? The Whitehouse had no interest in elections it was Sistani who pushed for them and eventually got them over Bush's objection.

I would challenge you on the credibility of this source, however in this case there is no need since even this source admits what I said was true.

The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.

...

An additional commission would write a new constitution, although officials emphasized that they would not expect to "democratize" Iraq along the lines of the U.S. governing system. Instead, they speak of a "representative Iraqi government."

This describes exactly what happened. Every bit of this describes the plan that was put in place and then executed step by step. As I DO recall the liberals were complaining that they elections would never be held on schedule and then they were and the liberals went on to make fun of all the purple fingers.

So how does that line up with my statement?

Funny, I don't remember that part about Chalabi ... at least not in any permanent sort of way. There was always the intention of having election so you reversing course comment is bogus on its face.

The sad part is that you probably actually think that your reference here supports YOUR side of this discussion. It doesn't. Not even close.

not in any permanent sort of way = indeterminate amount of time

always the intention of having election = representative Iraqi government

Every one the the steps described in your text occurred exactly as it was planned and executed. If you can't see that for what it is then you are beyond help.

Besides, where is the discussion of Chalabi in your reference? I explicitly talked about Chalabi and challenged your assertion that we had explicit plans to install him permanently, right?

Okasan said: "they're all about the punitive -- punish everybody, except the terrorists! lol"

the analogy here really isn't that difficult.

that you have to destroy the village to save it.