Ten Months
There are days when, despite my dislike for conspiracy theories, it's hard not to think the blackest thoughts about our President and the motives behind this administration.
Ten months ago, on Sept. 2, 2006, I wrote a post for this blog about the Pakistani regime striking a truce with Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Waziristan. Now, I don't have access to classified intelligence, just good reporting like that of McClatchy's Jonathan Landay, but it seemed like a bad idea, and it worried me. And I was struck by the hypocrisy of Bush defenders who did nothing about it, being too busy calling Democrats "appeasers".
So, for ten months now, I've been wondering why the adminstration seemed unconcerned about this, and why they were spending so much time fighting over whether there should be 'timetables' or 'benchmarks' or 'mumbledypegs' for our stay in Iraq. Why were we surging into Baghdad, but doing nothing in Waziristan?
Then today, the White House released a summary of the new NIE. Observers are suggesting that the timing of the release was intended to bolster the administration's position in the face of tonight's Senate debate on Iraq, and that this is part of a new "be afraid!" media offensive, along with Chertoff's gut.
And I'm forced to wonder. Here it is that, 10 months ago, a guy who just pays attention to the news could see that al Qaeda was only going to get stronger and more dangerous if we did nothing. (You'd think that the people at the top of our multi-billion-dollar intellgence community had even more information.) Nothing happened. No bombing raids, no UN presentations with satellite photos of training camps, no dramatic action against our supposed existential threat. And today, the White House is pointing to the fact that al Qaeda is stronger and more dangerous to strengthen its rhetorical position in the debate in DC. Hmm.
Sometimes, it's really hard to believe it's just incompetence, you know?
Ten months ago, on Sept. 2, 2006, I wrote a post for this blog about the Pakistani regime striking a truce with Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Waziristan. Now, I don't have access to classified intelligence, just good reporting like that of McClatchy's Jonathan Landay, but it seemed like a bad idea, and it worried me. And I was struck by the hypocrisy of Bush defenders who did nothing about it, being too busy calling Democrats "appeasers".
So, for ten months now, I've been wondering why the adminstration seemed unconcerned about this, and why they were spending so much time fighting over whether there should be 'timetables' or 'benchmarks' or 'mumbledypegs' for our stay in Iraq. Why were we surging into Baghdad, but doing nothing in Waziristan?
Then today, the White House released a summary of the new NIE. Observers are suggesting that the timing of the release was intended to bolster the administration's position in the face of tonight's Senate debate on Iraq, and that this is part of a new "be afraid!" media offensive, along with Chertoff's gut.
And I'm forced to wonder. Here it is that, 10 months ago, a guy who just pays attention to the news could see that al Qaeda was only going to get stronger and more dangerous if we did nothing. (You'd think that the people at the top of our multi-billion-dollar intellgence community had even more information.) Nothing happened. No bombing raids, no UN presentations with satellite photos of training camps, no dramatic action against our supposed existential threat. And today, the White House is pointing to the fact that al Qaeda is stronger and more dangerous to strengthen its rhetorical position in the debate in DC. Hmm.
Sometimes, it's really hard to believe it's just incompetence, you know?
posted by Paul at 5:13 PM |
|
email this
