Altho the writer has an obvious pro-USA bias, he explains the issues better than anywhere else I have heard.
And more or less lets slip the reasons we were occupying Iraq for so long after Hussain.

I was shocked that nearly every comment mentioned that he selected Maliki, in spite of many things that suggests he would become just what he did become. He pushed to Bush to back him and Bush essentially gave him his position.

It is clear that everyone blames Maliki - no matter what else their position was. This guy, who was Maliki's BFF, is out claiming that he told Obama, Biden et al that Maliki should be pushed out in 2010. However, by that point, the US was not suppose to pick the leaders. Where he claims the US "backed" him, a more honest comment is that the US did not do what was needed to FORCE Iraq to pick another government. The fact is that even when the US ambassador tried to get Maliki to not ban Baathist linked candidates, he was ignored.

By 2010, Iraq was supposed to be governed by the Iraqis. It is not clear - short of threatening force - how he thought the US could force them to pick the government more like the one we would have wanted. Consider that even as Maliki desperately needs help now, he is unwilling to really create the inclusive government that the US has said is needed before we do much of anything. Even though we had 50,000 troops in Iraq then, it might be we have more leverage now --- though it might be that in both times are leverage is miniscule.

This is just another in what likely will be many articles trying to cast blame for "losing Iraq" on others. It is easier to argue that this man, by pushing Maliki as someone to achieve Bush's goals was one of the people who set up the failure of the political/diplomatic effort. It might be that after Bush, who made the decision to invade, and the advisers who pushed that, this guy deserves the most blame.