That caught my attention on Fox News Sunday too, when Tony refused to get drawn into a WMD question by Chris Wallace.
I remember when Gen. Hayden underwent his confirmation hearings for CIA Director a few weeks ago. He was asked by some snarling leftist whether he thought the connections between Iraq/AQ were overblown by Steven Hadley. Hayden said the information didn't stand up to scrutiny and there wasn't much of a relationship there. If he really believes this, he doesn't deserve to be the director of the CIA. And if, for national security reasons he doesn't want the jihadists to know what we know about that long-standing relationship, he should have declined to answer in open session.
It has been shown to be an even more substantial relationship since the documents were translated by freeper jveritas, so since we're all talking about the relationship in the blogosphere and there are books about it, I'm not sure what the president gains by keeping it quiet.
Now, it's entirely possible that there is a good reason to not let the public know just how correct the administration was. But then why did the president use this to justify the war to begin with?
I'm not a strategist; far from it. And you know I fully support the administration; it's just their PR campaign since Karen Hughes left has not been terribly good. I think Karen had very good instincts about what resonated with the average American and what battles were important to fight and which weren't worth the trouble.
My two cents.
I don't know the answers to this. I am HOPING that after the war is over, or after enough time has passed, we get a decent explanation. I am desperately hoping that Bill Sammon will get the official biography and we find out these answers before I am carted off to the loony bin in frustration. LOL!