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.
Of course he had them at one time. We gave them to him and taught him how to use them against Iran. The question is where are they now. Hey, I'm not the one having to make up ridiculous fairy tales to explain why the administration was so dead bang sure he had an ACTIVE WMD programme and ACTUAL WMD just a couple of months ago and no can't prove when or where they are now. Maybe it is magic -- they haven't tried that excuse yet and it should work well with the bots who believe everything. Maybe Saddam hired David Copperfield and the Brits have the documents to prove it.
Richard W.
You have plenty of choices. You could go the demo 9 route or the third party route.
Bush has eight years to fulffill his Presidency and in 2002 he defied 100 years of history in that a Republican administration gained seats in Congress during a mid-term election.
JMO, but I say stay with him and not muddy up the waters while the demo's are scrathing and salashing each others throat to get the demo nomination.
Let me repose the question. If the choice was Forbes for the republicans and Bush as a democrat (again with his record in tact...same votes, same comments, same actions) who would you vote for
Hypothetical. Forbe's is not going to join the race in 2004. Forbe's knows of the adage of when your "enemy is hanging himself, get out of the way". And contrary to your implication, Mr. Forbes's is a very welcome voice in the Republican party, IMO.
In fact... it was what it was... my understanding of your position based on your posts.
And you know that...
You disagreed with my assessment... before I could respond and say "yes, you are correct..." you went on the attack.
We've been playing tit for tat ever since.
I think I've mentioned that in my posts also.
So, save the wounded integrity for someone else. I'm not buying it.
Have you SEEN John Edwards give an interview?
Maybe we can add all the insults hurled at us as merit badges.
Why just today, I was called petulant and dishonest for trying to convince someone I agreed with them.
Really? First you said this:
I would have said you were right, you didn't give him 100% of the blame.
And then you claim this:
In fact... it was what it was... my understanding of your position based on your posts.
Once again, your own posts do you in.
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.