On January 13, 2004, a congressional delegation composed of Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) and a three-member group from the House Defense Appropriations Committee visited Iraq. As described by Mr Bremer:

"At this meeting, political officer Judy Van Rest briefed them on our democracy-building effort, including plans to create grassroots democracy centers nationwide. Many centers were already up and running and drawing Iraqi men and women eager to learn a citizen's rights and responsibilities in a free, democratic society.

"'We're investing in Iraq's future,' Judy said. 'But I'm afraid you won't learn about that work in the news media. A car bombing is a lot more interesting than teaching women about voting...'

"'And you won't read much about the schools, the hospitals, and the irrigation canals we've rebuilt.' I added. 'The networks devote a lot of air time to the destruction connected to the insurgency but precious little to "good news" stories. It's really frustrating.' The relentless litany of negative news stories was steadily undercutting public support for our efforts to stabilize and rebuild post-war Iraq."

A political officer is typically a person who knows the local political situation in a foreign country and, when trouble flares, knows who to pay off, who to threaten, who to appease and who to ignore. The political officer's expertise is used to help the American presence avoid agitating the natives. A political officer may have an opinion about the political situation "back home," but the political officer's opinion has no more weight or insight than anyone else. So it is misleading for Mr Bremer to quote a political officer's opinion in a context where it is given some importance.

Even so, Judy Van Rest comes off sounding like a paid political advertisement. "We're investing in Iraq's future." Doesn't that read like a sound bite that some propaganda wonk thought up to paint the American occupation in as good a light as possible? "We're investing in Iraq's future." Come on. That sounds so glib and trite that it is hard imagining a serious foreign service officer even uttering the words.

Oh, and boo-hoo that the cruel and heartless media are only reporting on the bad things in Iraq. Of course, if there weren't so many bad things, it might be hard for the media to find them. Or if there were a lot of good things, it would be difficult for the media to ignore them. But in fact there are a lot of bad things and relatively few good things.

Think about this. If the successes of the American occupation were so obvious, then the situation in Iraq wouldn't be as dire. Generally when things are going well, people tend to go along with the status quo. Things were not going well in Iraq. Iraqis were dissatisfied. Does anyone really think Iraqis who need food, water and electricity are going to be joyfully flocking to "democracy centers" to learn how to be good democratic citizens?

And what makes media reporting in Iraq any different from anywhere else? Bad news leads in the media all the time—not just when it comes to Iraq. An experienced political officer would know that, and not unnecessarily personalize it in order to cover up local failures. Or maybe that's exactly what a political officer would do....

Like the rest of the Bush administration, Judy Van Rest is mistaking the continuing criticism of the lies and deceit that led to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq with "undercutting public support" for trying to undo that damage. What she and everyone else wants is for everyone to just forget about how we got in this mess and concentrate on fixing it. I think it is equally important to recognize and bring to account those responsible for the mess in order to prevent it from happening again.

It is getting harder and harder to read this book.