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.
So your debating consists of gut reactions rather than being based in what the other person actually said. Interesting.
If you hadn't decided that demeaning and belittling a poster were good debating techniques,
That's a hoot. You put words in other poster's mouths, and then lecture them about debating techniques.
I would have said you were right, you didn't give him 100% of the blame.
Aren't you a petulant one? So you're going to sit there and distort the other side just because they're being combative? Once again, where do YOU get the standing to lecture others about debating techniques?
Yes, Bush was 100 times better than the alternative Al Gore.
Just a question to you, who was the best of the viable candidates in 2000, Bush or Gore?
I would rather debate a wall than you. A wall is more honest.
So you deliberately lie about my position ... and then turn around and question my honesty.
That's a special FR moment...
Anyway, the problem is in attacking the President in toto as a socialist not deserving a second term, not in disagreeing on policy.
For exampl, Howlin and I were on opposite sides of the Elian Gonzalez controversy. This does not make me discount her opinion on other issues.
In the same manner, President Bush and I are on opposite sides on the education bill. However, I knew he was going to get something passed if he could, yet I supported him, anyway, both in the election and to this day. Why?
Because I firmly believe that the security of this nation is more important than anything else. If we lose the war on terror, or are attacked by Chiina, or Cuba, or wherever, we will not have the luxury of going back and re-doing things. President Bush understands the critical nature of national defense. No other candidates do.
Education Bills, Farm Bills, and every other issue (with the exception of judicial appointments) can be re-done. National defense cannot.
Therefore, I support the President, who has shown he means business about defending this nation. The rest of the issues are subordinate, in my opinion.
Boy, were we ever! I still remember those exchanges!
Of course, that was before I began sucking up to you, smooching your butt, and generally letting you led me around by the nose.......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.