THAT URANIUM STORY

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.

But what else do you do? When I first came to this thread, I posted to OWK and was lamenting about Voinovich. But, in the election it may come down to Voinovich and Jerry Springer.

I'll hold my nose and vote for Voinovich, but to really solve this problem, the Ohio Republican party is going to have to find someone to run against Voinovich in the primary. That's not going to happen.

But even telescoping the problem down further... where are the conservatives to run for office? Because I will vote for them.

The issue you raise is valid. We, as a nation, are spending our future to pay for today's vote. We aren't learning anything from Europe. Our states are drowning under the burden of illegal immigration.

I'm not going to blame the President for all the ills of the country. (I'm sure you don't either)... but if we are going to change it... it has to be changed at the state grass roots level, with better candidates who will vote conservatively and not have their heads turned by the power that comes with voting the center or left.

"BullShit.. Plain and simple."

You are one articulate dude.

"... to sit back and say One Party is better then the other ..."

Is that what I said?

I thought I said one party was safer to have in power than the other.

I thought I said that America's enemies will be pulling out all the stops to put the DemocRATparty back into power.

The implications for why America's enemies (within and without) frantically want the DemocRATS back in power seems to be over your head.

And that's bad enough, but you have also shown yourself to be an intellectually dishonest reporter of my words and meaning. If you do it to me, I know you do it to others, too. GWB, eeeeeeeeeeeven.

I suspect that's because you are a member of the crowd that tells themselves, "I have seen the truth, but it makes no sense." You know --- they're the ones who refuse to know anything other than what they want to know. They're the obtuse ones who already have everything all figured out.

Better go back and read my post again, and try to control your illogical emotional reactions in order to be able to exhibit some sort of semblance of objectivity.

Oh, and by the way --- not only is the Republican party a safer party to have in power, it is also the only viable party wherein conservatism has a voice at all.

If you don't help keep Republicans in power, you are in effect, helping to take away the only voice we have.

You will not be permitted to wash your hands from your complicity in helping to take away our voice and therefore furthering the DemocRAT agenda.

Conservatives have NO VOICE AT ALL in the DemocRAT party.

Can you explain to me the difference between OUR lock-step, and the lock step of the people who bash Bush day in and day out?

Certainly.

There is an unbelievable amount of overlooking what President Bush has done by the Bush-Bots as "prudent, necessary, in it's time, he can only do so much, you have to remember the political necessities" and on and on and on. Yet if the White House was controlled by a democrat, these same purdent, necessary......comments would have been "well, we've been sold down the sewer to destruction again." Sewer is sewer.

Frankly, I do understand the political necessities and I do believe that some things need to be incremental. But Bush has even amazed me at times. The Michigan supremes decision is a case in point. His remarks totally amazed me. He must follow the law and he must put on enough face to keep the country at ease regarding a very sensitive matter. Even recognizing that, I was amazed at what he said. Even after his own justice department lost one of the cases.

Hey, some of these folks are simply cranks and nasty people. Some simply stick to their guns. And i know OWK for example would have been saying the same things even if his candidate of choice was elected. He and I are often miles apart on idealogy, but his is consistant. Most Bush-Bots swing and sway depending on who is in the office, even when the outcomes would be the same. That's what troubles me.

"to sit back and say One Party is better then the other"
"I thought I said one party was safer to have in power than the other."

You may wish to sit back and look at the above lines.. As they are one and the same, but in different wording...

"The implications for why America's enemies (within and without) frantically want the DemocRATS back in power seems to be over your head."

No, not over my head... evil is evil.. Which includes the evil from Un-Constitutional actions from any member of any party. That includes the GOP.

"Oh, and by the way --- not only is the Republican party a safer party to have in power, it is also the only viable party wherein conservatism has a voice at all."

Now that's down right funny... You may wish to read the Bills signed into Law and not the press releases put out by DC btw.. Ever hear of the Patriot Act?, Son of Patriot Act? Heck.. The Pa Hate Crimes Bill was co-written by a local GOP rep.

"You will not be permitted to wash your hands from your complicity in helping to take away our voice and therefore furthering the DemocRAT agenda."

Can you show me where... There has been a overall Tax Decrease? An decrease in Laws that are Un-Constitutional? A decrease in regs that increase the burden on business, sending them overseas? And my fav.. A decrease in un-lawful taking against Americans? Or how about Rummy standing in the way of help for our Guard, going so far as to bring up the Veto Threat :

"MOAA's Legislative Update July 11, 2003

The Secretary of Defense sent another emphatic message this week that he opposes spending any more money on health care or disabled retirees.

His July 8 "heartburn letter" to House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders said he would "join other senior advisors to the President in recommending that he veto the FY2004 Defense Authorization Bill if it includes Senate-passed provisions authorizing concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans' disability compensation benefits, or expands TRICARE." It said he'd also recommend a veto if the defense bill includes any change that would hamper a new round of base closures in 2005.

The Administration's opposition to concurrent receipt is nothing new.

It's what made Congress backpedal last year after both chambers passed substantive concurrent receipt plans. The pressure is on again this year, as the Senate-passed bill would authorize full concurrent receipt, and 201 representatives have signed a discharge petition that would force a vote on the issue in the House (see article below).

This year, Secretary Rumsfeld has stooped further to oppose much-needed health coverage continuity for drilling members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Tens of thousands of these families have experienced significant health insurance problems in recent years because of the change in their coverage

status when mobilized to and demobilized from active duty. Many had to try to find new doctors who would take TRICARE when they were mobilized, and then switch providers again when reverting to their private health plan.

Members called to war had to worry whether their families would get information about TRICARE, find a participating doctor, or encounter billing hassles.

Too often, their worries proved well-founded. The Senate responded by passing a plan to let drilling Guard and Reserve members enroll in TRICARE coverage year-round (for a fee) or elect to have the government pay part of their civilian insurance premium while mobilized. MOAA and virtually all other military and veterans' associations think such health coverage continuity is essential to protect Guard and Reserve families hurt by multiple mobilizations to fight our country's battles around the world.

If our national policy requires frequent mobilizations of the Guard and Reserve, we can't keep disrupting their families' health care. We can either build a retention tool or ignore a problem that causes many servicemembers to think twice about reenlisting. The Secretary is making the wrong choice here."

Now remem: the GOP has all there pillars of DC.

"Conservatives have NO VOICE AT ALL in the DemocRAT" party.

And you honestly feel that they do in today's GOP?

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.