It's obvious that throughout time, people in government feel they understand certain situations better then the average joe on the street, so to speak. And they feel that diseminating too much information will make it harder to do their job.

But this administration is focused on an enemy. "Must keep the people in a state of fear".

>>The reason for discussing hypotheticals is to show you've thought thru the possibilities.
>>
>>The current administration has show a propensity to ignore differing opinions. Especially anything that describes scenarios that don't agree with their vision.
>>
>>Hence, we have thousands dying in a civil war in Iraq that the administration won't even acknowledge is occurring. You can't fix a problem if you don't acknowledge it even exists.
>
>I think it's far worse than that, Perry.
>
>I've heard that the standard operating assumption for this Administration's "security" planning is the worst case scenario (which isn't a bad basis on which to plan security). BUT they carry it a step further, allowing scenarios where none really exists.
>An example of such was the following: It was assumed that the Russians were working on some sophisticated submarine detection system matching the U.S. capability. Spys were sent out to search high and low and came back with the conclusion that the Russians didn't even seem to have heard of such a thing, much less develop it. The operating conclusion adopted: the Russians must be beyond that, to some mechanism that is even worse than we had thought, and their secrecy so good that the spys couldn't penetrate even a hint of it. So we'd (U.S. military) better get crackin on improving our.
>
>>
>>>>In this video, Condi Rice dicusses how civil war in Iraq is just a hypothetical and doesn't need to be discussed.
>>>
>>>Hypotheticals don't need to be discussed publicly by the Secretary of State. What purpose would it serve?