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 he can run to another forum and whine about how the evil Bush-bots are controlling Jim Robinson, etc. etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum
I agree.
I am going to ask him the same question that I asked his comrade, in OWK's mind which has the most flaws, Bush or the demo 9.
Again I will probably hear "crickets" from OWK.
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.
I was here before you ever heard of FR....
I'll be here when you leave.
And you are right... there is no legal standing for such a plan in the Constitution.
But to write this changes the debate...
Just listening to politicians campaigning, the prescription drug plan was going to happen... because of the lobbying of AARP (to name one) and the impact seniors have on elections.
I'm not saying its Constitutional... I'm not even saying it is correct.
What I am saying is that politicians do and say what gets them elected... and politics is the means by which they do it.
Teddy Kennedy wasn't thinking of the "seniors" when he voted for the bil. He was thinking of Teddy.
The President has been for prescription drugs since he started running for office. It sells well in Peoria. It sells very well well in Peoria.
That's what I mean "is legislation who's time had come..." Sooner rather than later, this legislation was going to be passed into law and seniors were going to get there prescription drugs.
You it seems would rather focus on Bush.
Because at this point in time, why waste energy on at least 8, maybe 9 people who will not even garner a twinkle of support from me, much less won't be on the Presidential ballot. But since the election is, oh, 16 MONTHS AWAY!!!!!!, I though mid-term would be ok to question some of the domestic policies of the President. You call it pointing out his flaws, I call it constructive criticism.
When is it ok to bring up things I disagree with?
Democrats are more flawed.
Now answer this honestly.... why do you think the fact that democrats are flawed, makes republican flaws good?
Can you tell me the exact date on which George W. Bush signed INTO LAW the bill giving tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes?
That's a lie.
I guess your refusing to answer the question adds another piece of evidence that you are not interested in anything constructive, but are in the business of destruction, the same business the DNC is in.
Besides, I already told you I'm not playing a 9 year old's game.
If you want to discuss this topic, let's discuss it...
Why bother, when you can't even grasp the meaning of your own posts?
On issues?
That's a lie.
Really? So exactly what was granting a child tax credit to someone who doesn't pay taxes?
Falls under the Commerce Clause, probably. And before anmyone jumps up and down screaming that this isn't commerce, people should remember that the Supreme Court, in dozens of decisions, has given very wide interpretation of what the Commerce Clause covers. Like it or not, that's the law. Now, if we can get more conservative judges on the court to change the interpretation of the Commerce Clause....
There is nothing in this post about my thinking about whether the President should have veto'd the bill...
What is there is who has responsibility for legislation. The Congress or the President.
I'm not misdirecting anything. That's not blood I see on your shirt, is it? LOL!
Of course you will! You have set up a premise to protect yourself!
However, I will be here as long as you are, so you can quit wishing that I will get discouraged and quit.
I don't live in a "perfect world" as you seem to want to.
I'd rather ally(I know that is a staist concept to you, Mr. Individualism) myself with the person and party that I agree with most of the time and has proven that it can win in the modern American political landscape.
You on the other hand knowingly or unknowingly are participating in tactics that would make the DNC proud, IMO.
Both, boss. Congress drafts legislation, the President signs it. PoliSci 101. Bush has the power to block it.
Quit?
What would FR be without a bunch of old biddies running around accusing anyone who doesn't have a Bush shrine in their bedroom closet, of "working with the DU".
Can't find entertainment like that anywhere else.
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.