I guess what has come to astonish me is the way that the 'debate' or 'issue' has been clouded by so much mis-information and pre-assumptions that the 'report' or assesment is interpreted in such a variety of ways.

As an example, for two nights in a row I have seen CNN have Michael Scheuer on, and his comments and his statements now twice that "all the politicians both democratic and republican" are lying to the American people, and his interpretation of the video differed from what was offered as internal public consumption news.

Now when I use the term, 'internal public consumption news' I recall a time early on the internet when news feeds were labled, for "internal public consumption only" and how those feeds differed from the other written feeds along side them, and how the press mooo'd the IPC feeds, as an example from last night, the news reporter tried to explain away the dispute with POTUS Bush and the S. Korean leader as both sides playing to 'internal public consumption.' Though she did not use the actual term.

What I have found refreshing was the latest Amanpour series on the religous zealouts of all faiths, or the Eric Hoffer True Believers, the procurring of Michael Scheuer as an analyst, the serendipity that Michael Scheuer was mentioned by name in the OBL tape, and that Michael Scheuer
categorically disagreed on live TV with the internal public consumption message! And I might add a former CIA director.

And when I consider how the anti-war movement seems to endorse (mistakenly) Michael Scheuer
as an anti-war advocate, or left-wing darling and how Michael Scheuer maintains that we do not understand the motivations of our adversaries, and most interestingly of all, the reference on the part of OBL to Michael Scheuer, a seemingly misunderstanding or myoptic understanding on the part of OBL as to where Michael Scheuer stands.

From a Shakespeare standpoint this is like a mid-summers night dream.

What I will say is that CNN is making some ground breaking reporting that is testing the boundaries of internal public consumption news.

I also feel that the whole story as portrayed by most major news networks is an endeavour in where 'pundits' regurgitate the same positions and create an atmosphere of not examining the issue agnostically or informing the public to anything beyond the expected IPC product, say for example; you know the fare of O'Reiley or Buzzflash as well as what you would find on the menu at McDonald's.

What I will say is this, that there were many whom disagreed with the Iraq plan before it got started, or after it got started, for a variety of reasons, with a myriad of perspectives. While I agree with Michael Scheuer on the belief that we are not asssesing the adversarie and their motives as religous fanatics accurately, and even went as far as to call early on the disproportinate policies as a consequence of AIPAC/JISA a mistake, in the absence of an end-game, mid-game, and felt that the usage of US troops on Monday as social workers, Tuesday as warriors, Wednesday as diplomats, Thursday as target practice, Friday as warriors, Saturday as humanitarian effort peacekeepers, and Sunday as security forces would not work in the absence of any diplomatic and foreign policy changes. Going even further to remark: It is an unusual war in that it is directed at an emotion (terror) and that there has been no war bonds, no draft, and no real effort to undermine the core issue by establishing an energy policy that encourages conservation as outlined in SetAmericaFree.

While OBL misses the fact that Michael Scheuer
advocates 'doing the dirty work' for the US directly and ruthlessly, I always felt that terming the conflict within the framework of religion and politics was a mistake, I advocate identifying OBL and his ILK from all religions as 'murderers' which is a universal taboo and seeking commonality to marginalize the extremist globally.

What CNN illustrated last evening was the fact that this larger issue on all sides is being emotionalized and sensationalized for political purposes of all the vested interest parties whom get air-time, including OBL.

It also illustrated how the news and the public at large is ignorant as to the intenets and motivations of the other.

That ignorance and disagreement is being applied to the report and being quibbled in side-bar facts and figures.

And nobody seems to be asking the broader question, is our understanding of the challenges we face, our adversaries, really understood?

In a similar fashion that the Russians left Afghanastan and created a failed nation state, I doubt that US troops can just leave Iraq. I also feel that the policy and efforts in Afghanastan are inadequate to the genuine challenge.

And if all sides could concede that above point, putting aside the circumstances that lead us to the current circumstances, there is still a wide difference in opine as to the best way to deal with religous extremists.

But the generals report, or lack of it, is just that for most.. an exercise where their preconceived opinions and policies can be voiced within that discussion, irrespective of facts or figures.

It is an exercise in mental masturbation for the most part in the absence of an effort to genuinely evaluate the situation beyond platform positions and ask the question: What is the most effective means to undermine and marginalizze those whom advocate using the shroud of religion as self-appointed executioners of others.

Or asked this way, globally what is the most effective means to ensure the peace and tranquility of the realm?

What you will see in the next week is a continuation of the myoptic positions of factions interpreting what they will as they will to support pre-conceived positions in an exercise of intellectual laziness that will produce similar results to what we already have.

code word, right.. as in I summed that up correctly.