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.
Do you have to win this badly?
I didn't continue to repeat it... when you went into attack mode, you used that statement to accuse me of things I wasn't saying. I defended myself against those attacks and those attacks only. I even said that I would have corrected the statement if you weren't too busy trying to win the game with a single swing of the bat.
Even now, you won't accept the win with any graciousness because it is more important to appear the injured poster and continue the attack. That must be because I'm still standing, and you have admitted that this is winner take all.
Interesting. I haven't really noticed that taking place (not that I've been paying that much attention, I admit), but what I have noticed is a LOT of truly ancient Freepers, people who registered all the way back in '97 and '98 and rarely, if ever, post these days, coming out of the woodwork to attack Bush now that the "climate is right." That's why I say these people have always been around. These are self-proclaimed "real conservatives" (read: hard, HARD right) who always hated Bush from the moment he started his campaign (they probably wanted someone more like Pat Buchanan), but just didn't feel comfortable posting their hate once we all rallied around Bush due to Florida 2000. But now they see an opening, and three full years of pent-up venom are now being puked out all over FR.
Pretty soon they'll have nothing left to say, and will disappear again.
However, the long-time anti-Bush conservatives are not reluctant to use them as proof that "Bush is losing the base."
No argument there!
*coughFABcough* :)
I wish I knew how to do art work on the computer. Darn!
Even that is false. You said that Congress was to blame, not Bush - and I demonstrated that Bush shared in the blame by promoting these items and not using the power of his veto pen to block them. Pointing out the shortcomings of your argument is hardly accusing somone of saying things they weren't saying.
It's not that I have to win - it's that you refuse to be honest about your own misstatements. And, since you are showing no signs of altering that trait, I won't bother any further. You can distort the debate one more time and get the last word.
A biddie, yes, but I refuse to be an old biddie!
Great post
"Failure"???
Do rational, clear-headed, circumspect individuals jump to conclusions without all the facts?
Do they even define "failure" the way the illogical, and/or agenda-driven would define it?
No, they don't. So --- other than others with the same sort of emotion-driven predjudices as you have, just whose thinking do you hope to influence with such intemperate, knee-jerk statements?
Get with the big picture
The underlying problem that needs to be *cured* in this country are the hearts and minds of the people who vote for those who believe as they do (pro-abortion, social welfare spending, etc., etc.). That will take time.
For instance, Rush has been working on that problem for over 15 years. He was the pioneer that "took all the arrows", but he blazed the trail and has had a LOT of success. Just look at how many conservative talk shows, web sites and other media outlets we now have. Incrementally, minds are being changed.
So, focus your energy on "the problem". Change their minds. Stop being side-tracked / distracted by the symptoms that the problem causes. That's not logical. Help cure the problem. Be constructive.
In the meantime, we must stand together, and refuse to allow *their choices for public office* to win at the ballot box.
*Their choices* will be "DemocRATS".
That's ALL you need to know to stop them --- IF and UNTIL they can be *persueded* to make better, less self-centered, choices on their own.
It is literally a matter of life and death which party we allow in power.
There is ONE PARTY that has a reputation (both here and abroad), for being weak on crime and against a strong national defense.
Do you think that the enemies of America, within America, will vote for GWB and other Republicans for the House and Senate in 2004, or any other time????
Do you think that CIA or State Department officials like Robin Raphel (who said it would be "fascistic" to purge too many Baathists from the new Iraqi government) will be voting for GWB or ANY Republican?
Do you think that the terrorists and the anti-war Marxist sympathizers won't pull out all the stops trying to put the DemocRATS back in power?
It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to vote DemocRAT (even in local elections).
It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to sit at home and not vote (even in local elections).
It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to vote for a third party candidate because the result will be a DemocRAT in the White House appeasing terrorists and other enemies of America again.
Bottom line?
Those who don't go all out to see to it that G.W.Bush is re-elected will be aiding and abetting America's enemies -- either indirectly, by not voting, or directly, by voting DemocRAT / Third Party.
Those who aid and abet America's enemies by allowing DemocRATS to get back in power will be the recipients of the contempt that they will so richly deserve.
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.