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.
What tax cuts were passed for people who don't pay taxes? Are you refering to the bill currently sitting in Congress?
The child tax credit? As I recall, the portion of that which gives money to those who do not pay taxes is sitting in Congress right now. It wasn't part of the tax cut for which checks are being prepared now.
My understanding was that the line-item veto did not get passed, although Clinton was in favor of it. Of course, during Clinton's time, I was not as politically aware. Do you have a source so that I could 'catch up'?
Like it or not, most of the country is in the middle of the spectrum. If you call serving them as well as those farther right on the spectrum "go along to get along," so be it.
If you think you can win the hearts of the American people with your kind of conservative candidate, go for it. Find one or run yourself. Good luck. You'll need it.
So don't accept them. Find a candidate that holds your views, or run yourself. But the reality is, most of this nation is in the center of the spectrum. So good luck.
To much of the country, it is.
201 posted on 07/15/2003 7:34 AM PDT by Miss Marple
----------------------
From another thread I just came across...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/945866/posts?q=1&&page=751 PhiKapMom
Well, Dane and I and a few others have been on another thread with the REALLY perfect conservatives, not this lame bunch on this thread. THESE perfect conservatives are attacking Jim Robinson and by the way, I am a "butt smoocher" in case you didn't know it. HA!
I am not going away. I am not giving in. And I still say a bunch of them are democrats.
760 posted on 07/15/2003 7:58 AM PDT by Miss Marple
-----------
pack 1.a group of animals or people.2.to organize the composition of in order to achieve a favorable or hoped-for result
There were some old line Republican (and Democrat) conservatives that thought, in the the 1930's, that the US could resort to isolationism to protect itself. I think we know what happened then. The only difference today is that the results of isolationism will be FAR worse (such as a nuclear bomb in Washington).
If only they were even 40% conservative on ANY issue..
Why are there three separate threads of Bush-bashing this morning? Care to answer that one?
And, by the way, what is the difference between me notifying PhiKapMom that there are other Bush-bashing threads to be answered, when you guys all toss praise back and forth to each other?
You didn't answer my original question, by the way. Why is my insinuation any worse than dirtboy's? And why are all of you suddenly here complaining about every single thing the President has done at the exact same time that he is under attack for a bogus charge in the media? Care to explain that coincidence?
As I said, you can insult me, harass me, copy anything I have posted anywhere, try to intimidate me, whatever. It isn't going to work, and you are allying yourselves with those who want to see the President defeated. I am in opposition to that effort, and I will fight you here as long as Jim allows me a place on the forum.
Yeah so??? She is telling the truth. Is there one false thing in that statement. There are people on this thread attacking JR and she was called a butt smmocher by OWK and some people on this thread think they are "perfect conservatives", IMO.
Like I said before when you get to your destination called "the perfect world", send me a post card. I have a notion that I will be waiting a long time by the mailbox.
But you will agree that things and circumstances have changed since Washington was President.
Sometimes, you can go to your past and find the answer. Other times, the past is just that... the past.
If I remember correctly (and I might not, since I haven't had my morning whisky)the line item veto was either never passed or it was ruled unconstitutional.
Like what? National defense? Rejection of international treaties that would have threatened American soverignity? Tax cuts?
I haven't always been happy with Bush's love of spending- I have complaints about the administration. However I know that a Republican president is sometimes going to have to sign certain bills that are politically necessary, despite the fact that those bills might not be perfectly conservative.
I haven't changed MY opinions over the last 3 years, either. Your gripe is that more people support President Bush than whatever candidate you would deem an acceptable alternative.
You and the Sore-Loserman group have a lot in common.
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.