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.
You all are paranoid and give us far more power than we have. Do you really think that Jim Robinson listens to a bunch of old blue haired biddies when he's running this site?
The point is to develop some friendships in Africa to prevent the continent from becoming the next bed of snakes in the war on terrorism.
Or buying pills for seniors?
Seniors are a major swing vote. You and I may not like that fact, but it happens to be a political reality. I would guess that the strategy is to spend some money up front to make sure that the Dems don't get that swing vote and make it back into power.
To get the ever elusive black or gay or AARP vote?
Well, I don't know about the gays. Frankly, as Rush as pointed out, the new tone in the GOP regarding gay marriage seems to have come out of the over-active judiciary's decision to strike down Texas' sodomy law--another reason that we need to stay in power long enough to break the libs' hold on that branch.
Regarding blacks, you realize that if the Dems didn't have such a lock on the minority vote that they would melt away? Unfortunately, we're in a situation where to be against AA is to be seen as racist, no matter how untrue that is. The best intellectual arguments in the world won't change someone's mind if they are emotionally set against you to begin with (believe me, I've tried). It will take a very long-term strategy to get the black voters to recognize that Affirmative Action isn't good for them; in the meantime, we have to find a way to diffuse the emotional triggers.
Wouldn't it be easier to abolish the IRS and become politically immortal that way?
Not really. To abolish the IRS, you would need to amend the Constitution to get rid of the income tax altogether--unless you want to trust Uncle Sam to not start up the income tax again while we're all paying a national sales tax, for example. Amending the Constitution is not an easy thing by design. I think it can be done (nobody likes the IRS), but it wouldn't be easier than simply providing tax cuts.
You should clean that up.
Trouble on the Right? Bush and His Conservative Base(reply #794)
Oh BTW, before you scream OWK, Area51, started the whole cross threading thing earlier on this thred.
Do you really think that Jim Robinson listens to a bunch of old blue haired biddies when he's running this site?
No, genius. We think he was smart enough to use the 12 YEARS that the U.N. dicked around to make the WMDs hard to find.
Everyone agrees that he had them at one point in time, even the French and the U.N. Everyone agrees that he did not keep his promise to provide proof that he destroyed them. That you take Saddam's word over that of everyone else in the world is evidence of your irrationality on this subject.
It is my quote. I'm the one who said that you were giving him a 100% of the blame.
And once again, I will tell you that I said... me... I said that you were giving him a 100% of the blame.
You said you weren't.
But before I could concur, you veered off course into personal attacks and insults. That's where we stand now.
Shall we get back on course or shall you continue to misrepresent me, and I continue to correct you... cause I can do this all day...
Once again, show me where I gave him 100 percent of the blame. You're entitled to your opinion, but it carries a lot more weight when you can back it up.
How soon they forget!
President Bush is under constant attack from the left, including the 93% liberal press. Compare his record against the first three years of the clinton adm. We had Travelgate, White Water, Waco, Filegate,(with a bar bouncer involved that no one seemed to know who hired him). We had the failed healthcare reform that showed hillary clinton had no business implementing anything.(she was even put on the back burner for two yrs. to hide the embarrassment). Im sure China would be a lot happier if clinton were still President(and there was a John Huang in the commerce Dept) I could go on and on.
President Bush not only has to put up with the aforementioned, he has to deal with all the clinton scum holdovers. Yes he knows they are there and chooses to keep his enemies close. He has rightly or wrongly co-opted liberal policies.IMHO He has done so that when the real battle starts for the heart and soul of this nation, he cannot be branded an extremist. The battle will be over the Scotus, and will have repercussions for decades. The one issue advocates should focus on the courts, for that is where the liberals(who cannot get their agenda passed by legislation) have sounded their battle cry. It is their raison d etre'
All the Bush bashers have forgotten how this president works, and how he has restored dignity to the office of the President!!
I am proud to be proud of the pack. I'll wear my biddie badge with honor.
I said... it was my reaction to your post.
You didn't say it...
You pointed that out in the post right before you went on the attack.
If you hadn't decided that demeaning and belittling a poster were good debating techniques, I would have said you were right, you didn't give him 100% of the blame. That was my reading of it only.
I don't believe the President for a moment is a socialist. Some people are overly pure, and as I said, there are places where I believe the government does belong. Oversight vs intrusion.
But even I have raised my eyebrows over some of the things done, signed and spoken. And I am among the more moderate on this board.
Festooned with harpie hearts!!
Signed,
Proud Dual Membershipper
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.