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.
Huh, if defending the notion that Pubbies are better than demo's is "indefensible" so be it, that is your right as an American to have.
But I disagree with you and will not stoop to your level of rhetoric of ad hominems and shameless comparisons.
Why?
See ya Hank... ;^]
Which one was that?
Above and beyond the welfare issue, cutting taxes while massively increasing spending is nothing to be proud of, Hank. The GOP stood for balanced budgets in the 1990s - heck, it helped carry them into power. Now, we're the Santa Claus party - we tell the people they can have both tax cuts AND increased spending. Reagan was hamstrung by a Dem House. Bush has no such constraints. He could simply sit there with his veto pen, but he instead demands that spending be increased. Which, in the end, makes him no better than the Dems at shrinking the size of the federal government, which used to be a key plank of this website. I guess we burned it a long time ago and I didn't notice.
You've dishonestly framed the argument.
Both dirtboy and I (and frankly most sane folks) will concede that republicans are better than democrats.
The question is whether democrat-like republicans are better than conservative republicans, and why you keep making excuses when republicans act like democrats?
This one.
I will wait for your JPEG or Gif of Ronald Reagan in tar and feathers.
Gotta go and get some business finished, will be back later to see the replies.
159 posted on 07/15/2003 7:14 AM PDT by Miss Marple
-------------------------
How bout just coming right out and name names.
When can we gripe and its ok?
Why don't you instead keep some of your compatriots in line who are trying to push all dissent off this website? And quit railing against those who have valid criticisms of Bush's spending insanity? What happened to the Quayle supporter I knew in 1999, who was supportive of concepts such as fiscal conservatism?
FWIW, I disagree often with OWK, but I'll take him over Bush harpies any day of the week. Likewise with AAABest.
Quantity isn't the problem.
You've already got a majority in both houses of congress... and the Whitehouse too.
The problem is quality.
And that won't change until they know you don't like what they're doing.
And thanks to mongol hoardes of excuse makers, that doesn't seem likely to change either.
As witnessed on these threads, it's obvious that Republicans are not lock-step, koolaid drinking non-thinkers who toe the party line. They have very diverse views of the issues.
Just because there is a "Republican" majority doesn't mean there is a single school of thought among those Republicans on any issue. Therefore, Bush can't depend on the Republicans in Congress to vote in concert on every issue.
And by the way, OWK, anyone who thinks a President can simply keep vetoing everything that comes across his desk is politically naive.
Uh, Dane, I haven't said that. But at least this line of attack is an improvement over your attempt at shame.
I will not be baited into acting in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the owner of this forum.
Uh, it would be nice if he used it occasionally. And quit promoting spending increases. And quit caving to the Dems on spending issues.
Exactly. And if we say we'll vote for them no matter what they do, they'll say thank you and then stick us in their back pocket and forget about us.
And then sit down on us.
Now I heard you run with a dangerous crowd...
They ain't too pretty, they ain't too proud...
They might be laughin a bit too loud...
Ahh.. but that never hurt no one...
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.