Posted on 07/14/2003 8:59:22 PM PDT by Utah Girl
On the ground floor of the White House is the Map Room, so-called because it was here that Franklin Roosevelt used to get his briefings on the progress of World War II. Over the mantel is the last map FDR saw before his death. It shows American, British, and Soviet troops racing toward Berlin. It also shows a frightening concentration of German forces in the Nazis’ last redoubt, the mountains of Bavaria.
We now know of course that this last redoubt did not exist. American intelligence had been deceived. And it’s possible that policymakers also deceived themselves. Roosevelt, for reasons of his own, wanted to let the Russians have the honor – and suffer the losses – of an assault on Berlin. The belief in the last redoubt was a very useful belief: It justified FDR’s wish to avoid joining the battle for Berlin.
Intelligence is a very uncertain business. And there’s no doubt that consumers of intelligence tend to be quicker to accept uncertain information that confirms their prejudices than uncertain information that calls those prejudices into question. Since consumers of intelligence are usually prejudiced in favor of doing little, most of the time they prefer intelligence that errs on the side of minimizing dangers.
9/11 changed the way American officials looked at the world. So when they got reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Niger, you can understand why they took the information seriously. That information has since turned out to be false – and its falsity has generated a major political controversy, as bitter-end opponents of this president and the war on terror try to exploit the administration’s error.
The controversy turns on the fact that some in the CIA doubted the story from the start. Their warnings were apparently disregarded, that is assuming that they were adequately communicated in the first place. Why? One reason may be that the CIA’s warnings on Iraq matters had lost some of their credibility in the 1990s. The agency was regarded by many in the Bush administration as reflexively and implacably hostile to any activist policy in Iraq. Those skeptics had come to believe that the agency was slanting its information on Iraq in order to maneuver the administration into supporting the agency’s own soft-line policies.
So when the Bush administration got skeptical news on the Niger uranium matter, it would not be surprising if mid-level policymakers mentally filed it under the heading “more of the same from the CIA,” filed it, and discounted it. The tendency was redoubled by the origin of the Niger-debunking report: Joseph C. Wilson. For more about him, see Clifford May's important post in last week's NRO. The result was the strange formulation in the State of the Union speech, in which the Niger story was cited – but attributed to British intelligence.
The story is an embarrassment for all concerned. But it no more undercuts the case for the Iraq war than FDR’s mistake in 1945 retroactively discredited the case for World War II. The United States did not overthrow Saddam Hussein because he was buying uranium in Niger. It overthrow him because he was a threat to the United States, to his neighbors, to his own people, and to the peace of a crucial region of the globe. All of that is just as true as it was on the day the President delivered his speech containing the errant 16 words – and the war is just as right and justified today as it was then.
And the GOP then turned around and massively increased spending. Tax cuts have NO impact on the size of the federal government if the GOP will just borrow the difference.
Inasmuch as they were given to people who DIDN'T PAY TAXES to begin with... Yes, I'd pretty much have to say they were...
Well since you decided to start off when an ad hominem, I will just remember the old tried and true adage, "it takes one to know one".
The GOP did not. Some members of the GOP sided with Democrats to do so. But you'll notice that (most times), the vast majority of the GOP votes against the spending programs. How can the GOP and the Democrats be the same and most votes end up being about 55-45?
A GOP prez has to sign 'em.
No pass, no sign, no spend.
Well let's just chuck all the tax cuts then since they aren't politically pure enough for the "one who knows".
BTW, like I stated those before tax credits are bottled up in conference, while the tax relief for tax payers has been signed, sealed, and delivered by the President.
And who SIGNED it?
W.
Be careful when you demand that posters here toe the GOP party line or go elsewhere. You might just get what you ask for.
83 posted on 07/15/2003 6:34 AM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
----------------------
Me Three! It's becomes a pretty sad affair.
LOL.
Not politically "pure" enough?
We're talking about TAX CUTS FOR PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T PAY ANY TAXES AT ALL.
That's not about purity.
It's about sanity.
But rather than accept this criticism as the truth that it is... out come the excuse mongers. As usual.
Of course, Bush could have just vetoed the spending programs, but, considering that he proposed many of them, he's not about to do that, is he?
But, in a way, you've made a far more damning case against Bush in regards to fiscal conservatism. Every conservative has his or her breaking point regarding this nonsense. I've just about reached mine.
Bush is the leader of the GOP. You can't spin that salient detail away.
Exactly.
It only takes ONE republican to stop it.
It's about sanity
And the above statement comes from a person who seems to be mad at the reality that tax relief was also passed for tax payers.
Have fun complaining about the tax increases pushed through by Kerry/Lieberman/Dean/Edwards/Gephardt.
After all you have reached your breaking point haven't you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.