AV,
You must have been busy yesterday as I kept wondering how long it would take for you to post Hayden's comments. And yeah, I had also read the piece myself before I posted Scheuer's as it was a lead on Drudge for example. It also was making the rounds on many antiwar websites as well.
Hayden does portray a positive picture and even Scheuer in his op-ed that I linked said there were truths of positive news to be found but taking Hayden's comments, I'd like to focus on one statement he made from the piece. He said:
While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat
of course he went on to portray a positive picture and let me say I hope he's 110% right that Al Qaeda threat potential is growing smaller but his comments in the Post piece have me a bit puzzled. On March 30th he appeared with Tim Russert on Meet the Press (we're talking 2 months ago to the day) and the picture he painted then was not nearly as rosy. The discussion on Al Qaeda and Osama begin on page 3 of the program transcript.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866794/page/3/
Seems to me he was telling a different story somewhat to Russert and now 2 months later an
"ALMOST" ompletely different tune. Could we have been that successful over the last 2 months to have such a dramatic change? Oh sure, absolutely and I'd welcome the day and be the first one up to wave the pom-poms for our team on that day.
Hayden made another interesting point in the Post piece yesterday in which was said:
A landmark study last August by the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies described the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area as a de facto al-Qaeda haven in which terrorist leaders were reorganizing for attacks against the West. But Hayden said counterterrorism successes extend even to that lawless region. Although he would not discuss CIA operations in the area, U.S. intelligence agencies have carried out several attacks there since January, using unmanned Predator aircraft for surgical strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban safe houses.
I highlighted several points that were of interest to me. Obviously a study on summer of 07' bares importance and the reorganizing Hayden confirms on March 30th. But he talks about successes in the lawless regions but obviously no timeframe reference and in the case of all 3 comments above I have no doubt that they all have merit. I also understand that missions work in many different ways and like chess, it takes many moves to gain an obvious advantage and those moves take time. Sometimes even when you have an advantage, it's still important to make the opponent not realize what you know as fact. Keep him looking one place while you exploit weakness elsewhere.
But on March 30th, using the January quote as a time marker, this was over a 2 month period before the Meet the Press appearance, so why the gloom and doom so to speak from Hayden? I completely understand the need for hush! hush! on operations and even the Post piece yesterday Hayden maintained that stance, but that said, looking back over the last 2 months literally to the day since March 30th which now makes a nearly 6 month peirod since January, what dramatic news or reports have we gotten to suggest such a dramatic shift in the balance of power so to speak? For that matter, what's happened in the last 2 months?
OK, maybe I missed it but I'm pretty good about checking the news of not only international sources but I pretty much everyday hit FoxNews, Drudge, WorldNet Daily, etc. so if something that dramatic took place, I saw nothing in even so-called conservative press to suggest such a happening. This area of the press has been a constaint source feed for the adminstration to the public at large and I've not seen a story or even series of stories to suggest such a shift in balance.
I even go out to the ThinkTanks like Heritage, AEI, Rand Corp. and even the Council on Foreign Relations (BTW Rand and CFR are very good sources for Data mining as it pertains to gov't policy) and again, I've seen nothing to indicate a major change or shift. So that said, what major event has taken place recently where such news would be a major welcome and aid to the current strategy and policy of the current adminstration? What has happened in recent weeks or
even days that would IMO make Hayden change his story (March 30th) or the need to change from one of a worrisome problem with a large potential security concern to the US to one now (May 30th) of Al Qaeda being a vastly deminished and shrinking threat? What would cause such an example of the art of Clintonian Spin if you will?
Also if you look at my quote of Hayden above (the 1st one) from the May 30th Post piece, those words are what in the legal field they call a "qualifier" or what others might call a disclaimer. In other words, "in case I'm wrong, I still told you they are the same threat as I said they were on March 30th!" Why would Hayden or what would cause Hayden to come out yesterday and issue such a statement about Al Qaeda's threat and then in effect backtrack to cover himself? Does he have reason to fear that what he is saying is not completely true and that what he is saying may prove to not be accurate at some point?
Why would whoever in th gov't feel the need for Hayden or to have Hayden seem to contradict himself on the issue of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Geez, I can't believe I missed this. What could have happened that I missed? I know I'm getting old so maybe it's a good thing retirement is just around the corner for me!
I think I'll devote my retirement to fishing and
BAITING A HOOK!
< Republicans
< me
