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.
Agreed,and I can think of a number of things that I think should be cut, e.g. the endowment for the arts. I've lobbied my representatives on that issue. If we all did that, it would make a difference. (I would imagine there are many on this thread who are whining about the increased spending that haven't bothered to do that.)
I have no problem with deficit spending if it is directly related to national defense and other areas have been cut as well. But both you and I know there is far more than that going on here.
What specific spending increases could he have vetoed without vetoing other important legislation at the same time? (As you know, most spending bills ride the coattails of other legislation. Wish we ould get a line item veto passed.)
I think you'd be surprised how much power even the threat of veto has..
Or perhaps how much power someone willing to let the government shut down for a few weeks rather than sign a pork-laden entitlement program has.
Excuses are a dime a dozen.
But they don't change a thing.
Character, principle, and integrity do.
Veto the whole damn thing and send it back. But instead, Bush is egging them on to spend more.
I do not know of any. Do you know of any he could have vetoed without also vetoing other important legislation?
I will not be baited into acting in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the owner of this forum.
177 posted on 07/15/2003 7:22 AM PDT by Miss Marple
-------------------------
Right, instead you do the baiting yourself, with insinuations!
How sincere of you.
That's even better Dane, although Reagan had to deal with a Dem House. Bush has no such constraint.
Yet another socialist entitlement.
This wasn't a case of pork buried in another bill.
This was what HE asked for.
Let's cut the pretense.
Yes, that would be great. And of course, the Dems would then use the other 'important legislation' I mentioned as ammo against Bush. Very politically smart. . .give your enemies ammunition.
Were you SURPRISED by that? He talked about that when he was campaigning for President.
Every one.
They are only linked, because a GOP majority congress in both houses, allowed it to be so.
So, in other words, the GOP is no longer willing to stand up for its principles and take its positions to the people and let them decide, and instead they'll just cave in to the Dems.
Yeah, that's a VERY compelling reason to vote for the GOP next year.
As you define them, of course. LOL
And this is a GOOD thing?
Clearly somebody has to.
What do you mean 'no longer'. When did they ever? Politics is politics. It's an ugly business, but the alternatives are less palatable.
I voted for him DESPITE that, not because of it.
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.