The State Department continues every Wednesday to issue a 30-page public report that details exactly how the U.S. government is meeting the goals set forth in the president's now-abandoned plan. The report frames the data around Bush's storied eight pillars, which include such goals as "Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgents" (Pillar 1) and "Increase International Support for Iraq" (Pillar 7).
...
The report is prepared not by State Department officials but by a team of about 10 people hired by a management consulting firm. The firm, BearingPoint, has a $2 million contract to produce the report and to manage the process of running Iraq policy in the administration, the State Department official said.

Below the level of the top policymakers, working groups from across the government implement Iraq policy day by day. The BearingPoint employees, who work out of offices in the State Department, arrange the meetings, set the agendas, take notes and provide summaries of the discussions, the official said. They also maintain the Web site of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
...
The report seemed uncertain how to treat the release of a report by the Iraq Study Group, the independent bipartisan panel that criticized the administration's policy and spurred the White House to come up with a new plan. The earliest mention of the study group's report, in the Dec. 13 edition, came under Pillar 3, "Help Iraqis to Forge a National Compact for Democratic Government."

The headline said it all: "Iraqi Leaders Blast Iraq Study Group's Report." The State Department, perhaps in an effort to demonstrate the unity of Iraqi leaders, then devoted a whole page to negative quotes about the panel's recommendations.

The Dec. 20 report featured one curious item. Under the rubric of increasing international support, the report highlighted a visit to Damascus, Syria, by Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). The senators "arrived in Syria December 19 to discuss how Damascus could help bring stability and security in Iraq," the report said, noting that another senator, Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in early December.

The State Department had strongly discouraged the trips, saying Syria is a key source of problems in Iraq.

While President Bush offered a variety of reasons for invading Iraq, to find weapons of mass destruction or to spread democracy, he has been quite steadfast regarding the role of Iraqi oil. As late as this summer President Bush declared, “The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. It’s their asset.” A wonderful sentiment, though the Iraqi people view this a bit differently.

In a poll sponsored by the University of Michigan this summer, Iraqis gave as the reason behind the United States’ invasion as 1) To control Iraqi oil (76 percent), 2) To build military bases (41 percent) 3) To help Israel (32 percent). Only 2 percent of Iraqis thought we were coming to spread democracy. Politicians might offer benign statements, but the reality is on, or in, the ground. Very shortly we shall see who shall define the reality, and it sure looks like the oil men shall carry the day, at the expense of democracy and economic fairness.

While President Bush proclaims the oil belongs to the Iraqis, it turns out the U.S. State Department proposed the use of Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) for Iraq even before we invaded Iraq in 2003. Since then, the Coalition Provisional Authority, and the various interim Iraqi governments, all heavily influenced by the U.S., have sought to implement this type of agreement. In late summer it was reported “the administration and major oil companies reviewed and commented on a new law governing Iraq’s crucial oil sector, before it has even been seen by the Iraqi parliament.” Corporate lawyers and the oil industry are writing laws for the Iraqi government. The process is skewed to favor the oil industry and unfair to the Iraqi people. snip

Back in 1953 the United States and Great Britain sent Kermit Roosevelt to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran.

Why?

Because Iran’s Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, had the audacity to nationalize Iranian oil supplies, potentially threatening our energy security. Operation Ajax, as this illegal and covert CIA operation was known, cost less than $500,000, while setting the tone for a generation of subsequent covert operations. This time, a manipulative president deceived a pliant Congress and a gullible American public. In an illusionary grasp at energy security Iraq suffered a ‘shock and awe’ treatment.