THAT URANIUM STORY

NRO ^ | 7/14/2003 | David Frum

[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.

[Area51]

And why, exactly, are you and your friends on this therad not a PACK? Why is it that only the ones that disagree with YOU are a pack?

---

IT was MissMarple that asked about the term "pack". I mearly posted a prime example along with the definition.

As to my relationship with either OWK or dirtboy, as they say on TV, you don't know Jack.

I personally don't remember even having a discussion with them ever before this thread. But you can make a conspiracy ought of it if you want.

[Carolinamom]

Can I have dual membership in BOTH packs? 'Never thought of myself as a joiner, but can't resist. HAHA

[Howlin]

I'm not mad about anything at all! If you got that impression from my posts, I've once again failed to get my point across.

People on this thread mistakenly believe that all of us agree with every word this administration said. They aren't reading closely enough.

And there is a difference in disagreeing on policy and actively working to defeat a sitting president for their own benefit, which I believe is part of what is going on here.

[Miss Marple]

Well, that's a good idea! You would have the advantage, though, because you could have a neato scary logo!

[Howlin]

Oh, the little old ladies ran you off........big man!

[Howlin]

But you can make a conspiracy ought of it if you want.

Just as you do.

[Marysecretary]

I think they're disappointed that Bush isn't as conservative as they are. I'll take him any day over what's out there. He's an imperfect man, like all the rest of us and he's doing a heck of a good job in most areas. Give him another four years and I'm sure we'll see more good stuff happening.

[Carolinamom]

Did Fred run away too? He's probably back at LP w/his friends tattling on the biddies at FR.

[Tares]

...the Sandra Day O'Connor story... Could you link to more info about this?

[Howlin]

I don't think I ever got an answer to my question about the exact date Bush signed into law the tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes, did I? You know, the accusation that was stated over and over in this thread by the ones that know so much more than we do.

I'll wait a little longer.

[Dane]

Its starting to smell like burnt cookies and hair coloring in here.

That's much better than the smell of spiiled bong water mixed in with cat urine on the carpet.

[dirtboy]

That's much better than the smell of spiiled bong water mixed in with cat urine on the carpet.

I'll have to take your word for that, Dane, I've never tried that.

[onyx]

Whassa matta boy? Can't take the heat from our kitchens?

[Area51]

But you can make a conspiracy ought of it if you want.

Just as you do.


406 posted on 07/15/2003 10:02 AM PDT by Howlin

---

Well I make this bet with you. I will bet you that you will find your name and a few of your close freinds in threads where FR members where banned 10 times more than mine. If the threads haven't been pulled.

Not conspiracy dear, Cold hard FACTS!

[Joe Driscoll]

That's a shame, just when I was going to reshape the argument. It sounds like the conservative pragmatists are argueing with the conservative idealists.

For the pragmatists:
Has the President ever voted on the non-conservative side of an issue?

For the Idealists:
Is Bush the best realistic option?

If the answer to both these questions is yes than I declare a tie. Let the hostilities cease... Bring on the Beer! Passionate is one thing and rude is another. I enjoyed the barbs but not the infighting.(Both sides)

[Miss Marple]

Great! Join both! We will allow dual memberships!

Here's my logo! It's not as scary, but it does have animation!

[Dane]

I'll have to take your word for that, Dane, I've never tried that

Neither did I. There were a couple of tie dyed pot heads down a couple of apartments from me in college who had a cat.

You get the picture.

[Carolinamom]

Your question cut his water off so to speak......... he left rather than admit that there was something he did not know. Probably doing research now, but won't find the answer to that question.

[carton253]

Does this mean I'm a "biddie."

[Miss Marple]

Yes. We are all biddies, you see. Even the 17-year old poli-sci major on rintense's thread. Anyone who is female and supports the President is a "biddie."

I am sure that will make you drop your support of him, won't it? LOL!