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.
Me either.
But you evaded the question.
An honest answer would be nice.
Why do you think the fact that democrats are flawed, makes republican flaws good?
It's a straightforward question OWK, who is your perfect Presidential candidate and please stop the Clintonian parsing.
Psst! Don't be late for our super secret banning conference later this afternoon. Your job today to notify the usual attendees!
But legislation come from Congress.
Bush can veto it and hope it is not over-ridden.
But, we both know that since he campaigned for prescription drugs, the bill was going to pass and he was going to sign it.
Now, this is my opinion on what Bush did... it is not an opinion on whether I think he should have veto'd it or not. I still haven't addressed the subject... so, don't go off, half-cocked, skewing my posts to fit your agenda.
A very interesting question.
But you evaded the question.
An honest answer would be nice.
Why do you think the fact that democrats are flawed, makes republican flaws good?
I haven't evaded anything OWK, the answer is right there in reply #338.
You just didn't like the answer because of it's clarity of someone living in the real world of the modern American political system.
JMO, but I see you doing something like a computer blowup, screaming this "does not compute", when you saw reply #338.
Who do you think his friends are?
I don't think I know the guy.
And while I certainly know dirtboy, I had no idea I'd run into him in this thread.
I don't think we've communicated by any medium for years.
Perhaps you're the one that needs to check with The Guild; Miss Marple hasn't posted there in years.
Fine Ron Paul, the person who co-sponsored a bill in the House with demo's basically trying to put a roadblock in the Bush administrations attempt to replace saadam hussein.
Checked again.
Nothing resembling an answer there.
Of course, he also promised reforms and privitization ... and then caved.
Now, this is my opinion on what Bush did... it is not an opinion on whether I think he should have veto'd it or not. I still haven't addressed the subject... so, don't go off, half-cocked, skewing my posts to fit your agenda.
The point is, you say he does not bear any responsibility. And that's bullcrap. But my saying so is somehow putting words in your mouth. Telling.
Yup. That's the guy.
Nothing resembling an answer there
Correction, nothing resembling an answer that OWK likes, IMO.
OneWhoKnows.... Thanks for the laugh. LOL
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.