I would think this is the first bit of GOOD news to come out of the Bush Administration.

I have to disagree with almost every assertion made by Joe. This is a case of the Administration(JOE) taking the facts and making a story to fit HIS conclusion.

I’d rather hear the hard truth, that he’s untouchable because his anti-American stance has made him an icon in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan, than hear a lot of tough cowboy rhetoric that’s hollowness reveals our innermost weaknesses.

1. This provides more evidence of what a bad idea it was to invade Iraq, because regional consequences were so poorly assessed. Pakistan has always been a shaky, and, in many ways unreliable, ally.
Wih Mushraf’s regime now tottering, we haven’t seen the worst of that yet. Particulary worrisome is the rise of the extremists in a country with nuclear power.
I’ve heard allegations (so far heavily disputed) that some extremist have infiltrated Pakistan’t army, which is in charge of sageguarding nuclear facilities.
Then, too, there is something schizpphrenic about paying off one despot in order to topple another

2. The amount of false messaging all through this period to do with Iraq has resulted in a situation where one can’t be sure if anything at all we hear and read is true.
The administration makes statements.
The Democrats make other statements,
Then a news story like this comes out.
We’ll have 5 different interpretations withing hours.

This is by far the worst effect of this whole misuadventure. We’re living in an all spin zone, and the idea of an informed public making rational judgments and political choices is disappearing by daily increments.

Here, the CIA and military have great skill in conducting wars and engaging in covert operations. If Rumsfeld had redesigned their operation to fit his own ideas, then he should be doubly criticized. However, it sounds as if what he did was decide the possible benefits of the operation were not worth risking the relationship with Pakistan over. Managing a relationship with another state is not a skill that the CIA or military has any particular ability with. That is the sort of decision that a civilian should make. (Though it sounds like something that the NSA, state dept, or Prez should be at least involved in more than Rumsfeld.)

It’s also not clear that distraction over the Iraq operation is to blame, since the Pakistan relationship is not particularly important to that operation.

In short, I think that Rumsfeld can be legitimately criticized for the decision not to perform a raid in Pakistan’s territory, but Iraq is not necessarily to blame for the bad decision nor is it a case of Rumsfeld making a decision that only the military is qualified to make.

Didn’t you get the memo?