Hear all evil, See all evil, Do all evil ... that's it, right?

US News & World Report publishes a daily synopsis of the political news from all the various outlets. Interesting that these two ran back to back today.

CIA Chief: Al Qaeda On Defensive Around World
The Washington Post reports on its front page, "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border." In "a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership."

US Officials Say Iran In Talks With Al Qaeda
In an exclusive Web report, ABC News reports "senior US officials" tell the network "that in recent months there have been secret contacts between the Iranian government and the leadership of al Qaeda," a "development that has caught the attention of top officials in the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence community." According to US officials "familiar with highly sensitive intelligence on this issue, the contacts are on the status of high-level al Qaeda operatives, including two of Osama Bin Laden's sons, who have been under house arrest in Iran since 2003." US officials "don't believe Iran will allow these operatives to go free, but said they don't know Iran's motivation for initiating the talks." One US official told ABC News, "Iran likely sees these individuals as major bargaining chips," but "how and when they're going to use those chips or whether they are going to keep them in the bank is part of an ongoing strategic discussion they are having internally."


At no time am I sticking up for Iran as being the model citizen of the Mid-East.
HOWEVER, the entire thing strikes me as typical of how powers-that-be choose to play us now through the media. Make sure that there are multiple conflicting assessments and opinions out there. That way, you can always point back to the one that ended up being true and claim prescience.
First of all, it's amazing that the CIA can claim such a turn around regarding al Queda in merely a year. However, it's also important in the next article to maintain the high evil quotient of Iran in the public's mind. And what better way than to point out that they are in communication (secretly, of course ... except that 'senior US officials' know .. they are soo crafty) with Al Queda.

Play it both ways ...the lesson of the past 8 years.

One outcome of the Bush Presidency is the complete skyrocketing of cynicism on the part of people. (as you can tell)

And one of the methodologies seems to be to obfuscate the masses by putting so much BS and conflicting opinion out there that we just get tired and nothing has any impact anymore. An example is the path of the Scott McClellan book the past few days. Former press secretary of the Administration comes out with a critical book. The administration has lower level "colleagues" voice their "disappointment and sadness" at his betrayal... as if he's now ill. They roll out the same responses that are always brought out when someone criticises them: "If they felt that way, why didn't they speak up when they were here?" etc... If you notice, there's NEVER any rebuttal to the actual accusations anyone makes.

If you fill up the cable "entertainment" shows for a few news cycles with a barrage of opposition and condescension, then people will get weary of all the crap and forget about the original accusations. No defense necessary.

Which reminds me of another thing ... (yes, I am on a rant). How come there are basically NO restrictions on what is "reviewable" regarding a political candidate as they are running for the presidency, yet once they are IN office, they apparently owe the citizens NO accountability.
The media will overturn every stone, relevant or not, in their supposed vetting of a potential president, but once they are elected, they can don't have to answer to anyone.

It annoys me to NO end that to question a leader's actions as head of government is basically labelled as unpatriotic or disloyal, or political maneuvering, yet there's no end to the search for juicy tidbits when they are running. Everything they did, anything they ate, who they played with in kindergarten, whether they mulch their lawn, and any other detail of their past and present is scrutinized. And each thing is turned into an extrapolation of how the pundits THINK they will act once elected. Yet after that, we are to take them at their word. How dare we question them? Even though COUNTLESS times they might be shown to have misled or even lied, we are NOT to question them, lest we be seen as all but treasonous....

Bitter? you bet.