My brother-in-law, Zarq, posted about the following WaPo article:

Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision

"When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say."

The article is a complete re-writing of history. First, to claim that the Bush administration envisioned some quick exit after installing a puppet governemt is the exact opposite of what the President had said would happen. (Never mind the fact that the very idea hints at a "plan" which I thought the Bushies didn't have.)

"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed World War II. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies; we left constitutions and parliaments." - President Bush's weekly Radio Address, March 1 2003 (2 weeks before invasion)

The President made numerous statements to this effect in the run-up to the war which can be found on the official White House website. In other words, Bush's commitment from the get-go was long term, and the goal was to help Iraqis build democratic institutions.

Also, the wording of the beginning of the article is terrible by making it seem that the irony was that Iraqis went to the polls at all (against the administration's desire to leave a puppet government?), when the Bush administration were the ones demanding that the Iraqi elections be kept on schedule, insurgency be damned!

The whole point about the newly elected Iraqi parliament being more pro-theocracy than pro-democracy is highly debateable, but that's another story. To claim that we thought that in free elections, the majority Shiites wouldn't pick Shiite rulers seems silly on it's face.