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.
Where did I say the parties were the same? Nice strawman. However, I would hope there would be enough of a difference in the parties that there would be more than 20 GOP Congresscritters opposing the prescription drug benefit when we can't even figure out how we're gonna pay in the long run for existing senior entitlements.
Give it up, Hank. What Bush has done in the fiscal arena is indefensible by any standard of fiscal conservatism. I'd rather you just say I should put some ice on it than see you try and spin it as anything less than a sell-out of fiscal conservatives.
The parties aren't the same.
The GOP is a little less socialist.
The democrats are a little more socialist.
Instead of trying to excuse a "slightly less socialist" GOP, why not actually raise your voice against it?
I really don't understand.
No, disagreement here. I agree that you don't understand or refuse to understand the machinations of the modern American political sysytem.
In a way, I'd rather increased spending be coupled to tax increases, so the public would not be under the illusion that they could have their cake and eat it too. Instead, Bush has significantly increased discretionary spending while giving us tax cuts. My concern, first and foremost, is that the federal government be constrained. Spending increases do the opposite, whether they are funded by tax increases or borrowing.
Socialists pas TWO tax cuts?? I don't think so. You are stretching.
Oh, I understand it just fine. That's why I'm an activist, because I don't like where it is and especially where it's going. And, as a fiscal conservative and an activist, I'm not about to stand there and cheer when Bush increases spending and proposed a massive new entitlement when we won't be able to fund existing entitlements.
That is uncalled for, comparing people defending Bush who is going through the minefield called American politics, to the rapist(Clinton) of Juanita Brodderick.
JMO, the above italicized remark shows how arguementively bankrupt you are.
A tax cut for people who DIDN'T PAY TAXES.
Nope, nothing socialist about that.
No, not a thing.
Socialists give government benefits and welfare to large segments of the population. A prescription drug benefit and welfare disguised as a tax credit sound like socialism to me, whether or not they are funded by taxes or borrowing.
The DEMOCRATS pushed for that. The vast majority of Republicans OPPOSED it. Yet you claim they are the same.
You guys are getting too paranoid. You think everyone is whispering about you and plotting ways to get you banned. Get a grip.
You said it not I. I think a bit of Walter Mondale has rubbed off on you, IMO.
Oh, quit your whining, Dane, that is EXACTLY what I am being told to do here - put some ice on it and be a good pubbie and pull the elephant lever next year, no matter if my political values are being completely sold out by the party.
A tax credit for people who don't pay taxes is welfare. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you and further debate is futile.
And yet it passed two houses of congress (both of which have a GOP majority) and was then signed into law by a republican president.
Go figure.
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.