Forums

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have no idea what that's coming from in what I said. Did Paigow get into you?

Let's see what happened:

1. Goss makes a cryptic statement about bin Laden
2. I asked why he made it, speculating that it seemed odd.
3. You said it could have a strategic/intelligence purpose.
4. Accordingly, any questioning of it was misplaced an unwise.

Now, 3 I could see, but seems pretty thin, as there are plenty of ways to reach bin Laden through less public channels of communication (e.g., unnamed sources, counterintelligence "chatter"). Likewise for any diplomatic issues. If there truly is a problem with sovereignty issues, why is Goss making public statements about it as opposed to having Condi Rice make the proper inquiries? If someone's dicking you over, and you want them to change, you don't say it in public.

As for 4, why bother with a politics board if not? For that matter, why bother with debate and dissent in Congress?

Did paigow get to you over the weekend?

Why not say it publicly if there is some perceived strategic value? And doesn't it make sense that if there is a perceived strategic value that the administration would keep the strategy private, for obvious reasons? Why doesn't this make sense?