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.
Then get out there a lobby the American people to accept your idea. But right now, that just won't fly.
Funny that you did not mention lobbying the President - in the form of constructive criticism. And, quite frankly, Bush NEEDS to be told to cut back on his spending impulses, no matter where it comes from. The louder, the better.
I am not talking ISSUES. I am talking about TACTICS and LONG-RANGE GOALS.
maxine Waters and I both support the President's trip to Africa, but for different reasons. But Maxine Waters' long-term goal is the defeat of President Bush.
Your goal is apparently the defeat of "King Dubya" also, so I would say that you have as much, if not more, in common with Maxine Waters than do I.
And at least she is up-front honest about what she wants.
Hey, am I out of the loop?
Dear Jim, This guy says stuff I don't like.
Please make him go away
Are you gunning for Ms. Cleo's job?
What is that? Pointing out some flaws he might have? Some differences we would like to see. By posting our disagreements, we are disrupting? Do people intentionally go to the Day in the Life threads and disrupt you? Can we not disagree with the President and his policies?
Your gripe is that more people support President Bush than whatever candidate you would deem an acceptable alternative.
My gripe is that people forget President Bush is 1) a man, 2) a Republican, 3) a politician.
Apparently you don't think that Bush should bear culpability for proposing massive spending increases and refusing to wield his veto pen.
Apparently, you don't know what I think since I haven't shared with you my thoughts on whether the President should have veto'd either the education bill or the medicare bill.
So, if you don't mind... please don't assume what I think... It makes you look silly.
Then he can run to another forum and whine about how the evil Bush-bots are controlling Jim Robinson, etc. etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
My long-range goal is to shrink the size of the federal government. Bush, in pursuit of his short-term goals, is doing the opposite. That is why I am opposed to his domestic agenda - because IMO he is now taking the country in the wrong direction.
You are adding to the debate in order to shape it... stick with the facts.
My blaming the Senate and the House for the legislation it produces does not have anything to do with "offering uncritical support to Bush or the path of political impotence..."
And it certainly has nothing to do with 93% of African-Americans voting for the Democrats or the fruits of that vote.
Which has more flaws, Bush or the demo 9. Honest question.
Personally I beleive that the 9 nine demo candidates have 10 times the flaws of Bush.
I would rather focus on the candidates who have the greater flaws, the demo 9.
You it seems would rather focus on Bush.
He has NOT signed any such thing.
And here I thought you were so "informed." That's at least three things on this thread so far you've been wrong about; but, of course, stating the truth doesn't further your agenda.
Apparently you don't comprehend the meaning of your own posts. From #258:
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.
You said it yourself - Bush is not to blame. I demonstrated why he shared in the blame. So now you try and misdirect.
However, since I have been accused repeatedly of forming this "pack," I think I will now found the "Miss Marple League of Reasonable and Courteous People."
Want to join?
Lessons in constructive politics 101 (written exclusively for Dane).
Lesson 1) If you want the politicians you elected, to do something (or not do something), then you must actually speak out. Sitting around waiting until they do the wrong thing, and then making excuses for them after the fact makes them think that you either like it, or are indifferent.
Lesson 2) Stop pretending that massive budget-busting social programs and expansion of federal involvement in education, and the arts, is somehow "conservative".
Lesson 3) Get over your hive-mind mentality, and have the courage to think for yourself.
Lesson 4) Recognize that the president is not a god. He is simply a man. A man who can and does make mistakes. He works for you, not the other way around. (this goes for all politicians... even (gasp) those with an "R" on their team jersey).
Lesson 5) Stop pretending that republican politicians represent a fragile house of cards, and that any of their actions (no matter how ridiculous) should be above criticism lest the whole house fall to the democrats.
Lesson 6) Stop pretending that socialism is somehow a good thing when promulgated by republicans instead of democrats.
That's now an extreme right-wing position. As is the notion of fiscal conservatism. Of course, FR used to be considered an extreme right-wing site. So if extreme right-wing positions are not welcome on FR, then what is FR becoming?
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.