She's makin a list.. she's checkin it twice...
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.
She's makin a list.. she's checkin it twice...
I, for one, like being in a position where the GOP holds the White House and both houses of Congress. Being in the minority pary can be spiritually liberating because you don't actually have to do anything- you can spend all your time critisizing the other party. Being in power draws all the complainers and Monday-morning-quarterbacks in your own party out of the woodwork.
You are doing the work of the DNC, whether intentionally or purposefully. You are attempting to shave support from the President, and you are using the tactics of DU.
I do believe that sometimes you go for short gains and that sometimes there is a roll for government when others believe there is not one.
But I haven't seen OWK waiver. What he is doing is holding feet to the fire based on what he sees are the needs of the country. Some don't want that to happen when certain people are in certain government posts. And that is to a point sad.
Here I can play too. You must support Hillarycare because your Hero has been trumpeting it for months in the WhiteHouse.
You must agree with Maxine Waters, because she likes sending Millions to Africa for aids too.
And you must be in bed with Diane Finestien because she too wants to see to it that the AWB gets reauthorized.
NONE of which is believe in. So you go ahead and blow that horn. The Democrat label seems more in line with your beleives.
And one other thing dearie. Don't try to put words in my mouth. You posted: Your gripe is that more people support President Bush than whatever candidate you would deem an acceptable alternative. Is something I never wrote or posted. I voted for the man. So if you are going to run around and attack folks who dare question the wisdom of King Dubya atleast try doing it with some semblence of truth, okay?
You are doing the work of the DNC, whether intentionally or purposefully. You are attempting to shave support from the President, and you are using the tactics of DU.
Maybe you and Jethro can meet-up out by the cee-ment pond, and do some double-naught spyin ta'figgur out how to save the world from them support-shavers and the like.
There is, of course, another path - which is to try and restrain certain RINO impulses in the GOP, which I am trying to do. One only needs to look at black Democrats to see the perils of blind party loyalty. Conservatives need not exile themselves to a similar political plantation within the GOP.
You pay me a greater compliment than you know.
Good luck with that, too. But since the goal of a politician is to get elected, you've got a tough row to hoe.
If you want to change the direction of the party and the country, do something POSITIVE. Write and lobby your Congress and legislatures, donate money to groups that support your agenda, praise those things you like about an officeholder, argue your position with intelligence and with courtesy.
But to come on the forum and accuse the President of being a socialist and actively work to shave off support into a third party is actively campaigning against the President. There is no other way to look at it.
And the goal of electing a politician, is to have them represent your views.
Not your opposition's views, because that's what he thinks is necessary to get elected.
Please show me where I have put 100% of the blame on Bush. Hint: I haven't. But Truman had a sign on his desk. The buck stops here. Apparently you don't think that Bush should bear culpability for proposing massive spending increases and refusing to wield his veto pen.
I'm shocked...
Shocked I tell ya..
That's all wel and fine joe, but OWK doesn't offer anything constructive how to do that electorally.
He's shouts from the wilderness.
I will ask OWK the same question that I have asked other "pure" conservatives.
Who is OWK's perfect Presidential candidate. Then we will discuss that candidates strengths and weakneses and his electoral chances.
I am surmising that I will hear "crickets" from OWK, since it seems all he wants to do is tear down everything and add nothing constructive.
However, to promote the concept that conservatives should offer uncritical support to Bush is a path to political impotence. Just ask blacks what voting 93% for Dems has gotten them.
Subtle hint translater:
Dear Jim, This guy says stuff I don't like.
Please make him go away.
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.