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.
The pot is calling the kettle black.
Nice try. There was no Medicare prescription drug benefit. Now there is the start of one, and the AARP and the seniors will be back each year wanting to make it bigger and bigger.
That's the best you can do? But, then again, you ARE quite limited in your options when you're defending the indefensible...
No kidding. And tax cuts coupled with increased spending is a virtue instead of a vice, and as long as we're getting back a few more dollars a week, who cares if the government is growing like crazy? We'll let the kids pay for it later.
Yell and scream now and let the GOP know that they cannot take the vote of fiscal conservatives for granted. Duh.
It was struck down by SCOTUS back during the Clinton Admin.
Where have you been... Perscription drugs is legislation who's time had come...
Do I agree with it? No... but it's good politics and old people vote. Sorry, but they do and as long as they do, politicians will continue to give them things that will make them vote for them.
Whereas I agree with 95% of what you are posting, I disagree with your assessment that it is the President's fault that the 1994 Republican Revolution is dead. He didn't kill it. The Republican House and Senate did that all by themselves.
I thought we were having a discussion... I didn't know this was the world championship of debate... winner take all... leave your opponent dead on the field.
You and I disagree. For that I'm called silly and petulant... and now, I haven't reached dirtboy's standard for snappy come-backs.
My word! How old are you? Six?
No, it is not. We can't pay for the current stable of senior benefits in the future. We have no business adding a new one. But Bush doesn't care. He'd rather screw folks come 2017 than confront the issue now.
You've been here HOW long?
How do you square this? Well, not every Republican is a conservative. We have a whole lot of them who will oppose men of principle like Rick Santorum and Phil Gram and Tom Delay and Dick Armey.
So the battle isn't with Republicans as a party. We don't want the GOP to lose to the benefit of the Dems. We want the GOP to benefit from Dem losses, however.
The other problem is that the left still controls the media. This allows them to intimidate Repubs on the fence or force basically decent Repubs to back down on conservative issues to remain viable for re-election. Of course, this would be true for any third party too.
The final, and maybe biggest, problem is a lot of big business and finacial interests are supporters of strong government control and opponents of absolute morality and have a lot of influence in the GOP.
Regardless, it would stupid and suicidal to give up the politcal gains in the GOP for which we worked so hard.
But now that I do, don't think I will play by them.
I don't mind the discussion... I don't care much for the cut throat.
Last time I had to play cut throat I was 9 year old.
Should I wait until you grow up before the discussion continues?
Actually, I am trying to get our county GOP head to run for something, anything.
The only way to get the changes (shrinking gov't, etc) into play is by grassroots/local action. Then take it all the way up.
I absolutely agree with you.
But the reality is that as long as seniors vote and at times determine elections, politicians will pander to them.
Just like I would be up in arms if someone said after 2020, no more social security. I have paid too long into this system to be shut out.
Where you and I differ is that you put 100% of the blame on the President. It doesn't belong there. It belongs with the House and Senate.
There is a certain sub-set of Conservatives who won't be happy unless every Republican in office is 100% pure conservative on every single issue. There's a name for such a conservative running for office- "unelectable."
He has? I know he hasn't addressed it yet, especially because it has been strongly resisted by many. But abandoned? Not so sure about that.
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.