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.
Why not? At that point, they had nothing to lose, so go for the 'gusto'. And with Clinton as President, people were more willing to vote conservative for the sake of 'balance.'
As everyone on this thread should know, maintaining such a 'lock' as we have today is tenuous business. It rarely happens and simply doesn't stay that way, particularly if the policies put forth during that 'lock' are not 'centrist'.
The House and Senate are responsible for legislation... not the President.
So, he got his prescription drugs... If he gets the votes he needs in the Senate, he can go back and get the reform. Ronald Reagan called that good politics.
That is a matter of opinion, obviously. Most of this nation is in the middle of the continuum, not the left or right. I know some have a hard time facing that fact, but it is true none the less.
I would too. So which tax cut did that?
Oh, bull. He has proposed spending increase after spending increase while simultaneously proposing tax cuts. That is the hallmark of fiscal irresponsibility.
Then he should have just called it a day and let the bill die. Instead, he let the camel's nose into the fiscal tent.
You are either naive or simply choose to deny the facts.
Being a 'conservative' is not a lock-step, koolaid drinking kind of thing. It represents a spectrum of views (as has been stated previously).
The people in this country tend toward a centrist view. An extreme conservative isn't going to get re-elected, you know.
If you think your particular 'conservative principles' are the ones which will win the hearts of the American people, go for it. Find a candidate that will run on them or run yourself.
There have been plenty of alternatives proposed - however, they involve the GOP actually making a principled stand on fiscal issues - and the fact that you do NOT consider that to be an alternative speaks volumes about YOUR political views.
That's a hoot - since when did fiscal conservatism become extremist? It seems to be a rather mainstream concept.
That's another hoot - the only koolaid drinkers I see here are the folks demanding that us fiscal conservatives drink THEIR brand of koolaid and accept Bush's spendthrift ways.
He can propose all he wants... in the end, the responsibility lies with the Senate and the House. American Government 101!
These guys have been pushing "go-along to get along" politics, and excuses for socialism for so long now, that fiscal conservatism really DOES seem like extremism to them.
And if he caters to the RINOs with his public statements and undercuts fiscal GOP conservatives, and makes it clear he won't use his veto pen to curtail spending, then he has opened the gates.
Petulant, silly posts don't carry much water here. You'll have to do better than that.
The President's agenda is presented on the Hill... After that, it is up to the Senate and the House.
He signed it because he got some... he will get the rest later (hopefully)...
Furthermore, your comment about letting the camel's nose into the fiscal tent is laugh out loud funny. This is Washington. The whole camel has been in the fiscal tent for a long time.
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.