From the pure bs Dept. Of Unintended Consequences, comes this:

Al Qaeda Trying to Spark a 'Civil War' in Iraq, U.S. Says
Stirring of Ethnic Conflict Meant to Disrupt Transfer of Iraqi Sovereignty

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 9, 2004; 1:37 PM

The al Qaeda terrorist network has been trying to spark a "civil war" in Iraq among religious and ethnic groups in an effort to tear the country apart and prevent a transfer of sovereignty from U.S. occupation authorities to Iraqis, U.S. officials in Baghdad said today.

The officials said the plan was outlined in a 17-page letter that appealed to al Qaeda leaders outside Iraq for help in meeting the goals of the network's operatives inside the country. The letter was found in the possession of a "courier" who was trying to leave the country, the officials said. The existence of the document was first reported in today's New York Times.

The document outlines what is "clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come in this country and spark civil war, create sectarian violence [and] try to expose fissures in this society," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq. He told a news conference in Baghdad that U.S. authorities believe the document is "credible."

Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Washington that the letter shows anti-U.S. insurgents in Iraq "haven't given up." He told reporters, "They're trying to get more terrorists into Iraq and trying to create more terrorist organizations." He said the letter was "very revealing" about "the thinking of at least one part of the insurgency."

Kimmitt said the apparent author of the letter was Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who escaped from Afghanistan in 2001 after the fall of the radical Islamic Taliban government. Kimmitt said the author claims that he organized "25 operations" inside Iraq and may have been responsible for suicide bombings that have killed Shiite Muslim religious figures, ethnic Kurdish leaders, United Nations officials and Iraqi security forces and employees of the U.S.-led occupation authority.

"It is clear that the type of techniques that we have seen in certain of these attacks . . . have the fingerprints . . . of al Qaeda and other foreign fighters," Kimmitt said.

Much more at link

Huh. So, let me see if I have this straight. Prior to the overthrow of Saddam there was no established link between al Qaeda and the Ba'athist's. Now that we are running Iraq al Qaeda allegedly has enough influence to incite civil war? Hard to know what to say. "Oops" would be a good start.

Then again, I need to be shown that al Qaeda is involved. I need for a neutral source to confirm that this is indeed the case. Call me crazy for not believing this administration -- many people have -- but we know how documents can be forged. See Forged Niger Documents.

I have no idea whether or not there are any documents, and if they are forged or not. If al Qaeda is truly a bunch of cunning terrorists, they could simply plant some documents on a lackey, and get some effect.

The timing of this is reason to be skeptical. Just as the UN team arrives in Iraq to assess the feasibility of national elections this spring, up pops this 17 page letter.

Just yesterday, Bush was on national television. Here's the pertinent bit:

Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

I remember speaking to Mr. al Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you would be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? And he said, it's going to be a free society where you can worship freely. This is a Shiia fellow.

This is what I referred to yesterday as 'conditional democracy.' No one knows what kind of governing system the common Iraqi would choose except for the common Iraqi. I'm reasonably sure that Bush hasn't walked around Fallujah for instance. and asked any of the locals what form of government that they would choose.

I ask myself who has the most to gain from an Iraqi civil war? I would answer that question with either of two groups. Al Qaeda, or 'al Qaeda-esque' groups, or the clerics who want unconditional sovereignty.

Then I ask myself who stands to gain from generating the appearance that civil war is at least a possibility if the election process doesn't go according to plan? Then the answer is pretty much the U.S. and the IGC.

I have nary a clue at this juncture if any of these scenarios are what is playing out in Iraq. The U.S. government's history hasn't been one of impartiality when there is so much at stake. I am not suggesting anything. I am merely conducting a thought experiment. Only time will tell. If we are trusted enough to know the truth.

On Edit: I just watched PBS' News Hour and I am inclined to believe that the letter is legit. However, I am left with more questions than answers.