Still the more confusion over <$NoAd$>Allawi.
The latest from Reuters
appears to directly contradict the report from the New York Times
From the Times
, filed two hours ago
The decision to name Dr. Allawi was made by Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy, and the governing council was then summoned to be informed of the choice. The council more or less showed its approval, some officials said, with one member saying the decision was unanimous. But other people said a vote did not really take place, because the decision had already been made.
, posted 30 minutes ago
The United Nations, called in by Washington to help shape the new interim government, was caught off guard when the Governing Council announced Allawi had been chosen, but said it respected the decision.
"It's not how we expected it to happen," chief U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said in New York.
"(U.N. envoy Lakhdar) Brahimi respects the decision and is prepared to work with this person on the selection of the other posts in this interim government," said Eckhard.
An official in President Bush's administration said: "We thought (Allawi) would be an excellent prime minister. ... I think that this is going to work."
How do we square these two stories?
Late Update: Not only does the center not hold. Dexter Filkins doesn't either. Here's the revised version of that graf from the Times story ...
The decision to name Dr. Allawi was made with the approval of Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy, though it was unclear how enthusiastic his support was. At United Nations headquarters in New York, officials contended that they were caught unawares by the announcement but said that they endorsed the choice.
So this was foisted
on Brahimi, though he seems to have consented to it.
So whose idea was this? Where did the push come from? And who are the sources for the multiple conflicting stories?