How short is the
article? The headline should answer that question:
"White House Defends Iraq Postwar Planning"
As you can imagine, there wasn't much to say in that regard, but seeing the White House having to publicly defend itself against the DSM? That's sweet:
The White House took exception Sunday to the reported characterization of a British memo questioning the adequacy of U.S. planning for a postwar occupation of Iraq.
"There was significant post war planning," said spokesman David Almacy. "More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began; there was significant post war planning in the time that elapsed."
Apparently they are forgetting the final briefing the night before the war started when Phase IV, the post-war plan, was addressed...it simply said, "To be provided."
More...
And what does the White House say went wrong despite their "significant" planning?
"Some things we prepared for did not happen, like large numbers of refugees needing humanitarian assistance, and others we did not expect, such as large numbers of regime elements fleeing the battlefield only to return later," said Almacy. "Anytime you go to war you have to be flexible to adapt to the unexpected. That is why we gave our commanders the flexibility to do so."
What in the hell does this mean? That the administration planned for refugees that didn't materialize and that caused the insurgency? </sarcasm>
The ongoing idiotic ramblings of the White House aside, it is good to see the DSM getting more and more significant coverage. And I liked how the article ended:
...the so-called Downing Street Memo that raised questions about how intelligence was used to justify the war.
The more that is repeated, the more it will seep into the consciousness of Joe and Jane Six-Pack.