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.
That's just the point.
By expressing a willingness to "pay any price", you end up perpetuating the cycle... not breaking it.
Civility? No.
Jim's a big boy. He's passionate, I'm passionate.
We disagree about something important.
He can take care of himself.
You are trying my patience and I am not even involoved.
Bummer.
Hooray.
What a guy.
That cloak-and-dagger back stabbing stuff is your schtick toots.
I don't have a secret back room to discuss who's dissent will be allowed, and who will be banned.
I'm standing right here facing you.
My objections are stated honestly and openly.
To his credit, Jim stood toe-to-toe rather than whine about why I'm here.
GW must have wanted this crazy war pretty darn bad to have to fabricate so much information. Now the typical blame game will go on and on. All the bots are now saying it was someone else's fault -- the UK or France of anyone. Some think that old Saddam was so darn smart that he just magically made all those WMD disappear overnight. Man, you have to be practically brain dead to believe some of the crap coming out of the administration now. I guess the latest plan is try to keep everyone confused by simply claiming everything and being responsible for nothing. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Richard W.
You apparently think that you have the corner on what is perfect conservatism, you are doing everything you can to get people to jump ship from the President, and you are using the vulgar tactics of the rat trolls we routinely battle on this forum.
You are interested in causing arguments and disruption. The title of this post is "That Uranium Story," which you have not addressed at all. Instead, you are attacking Jim and those who support Jim, and those who support the President.
You can call me names, act patronizing, insult the President and anyone else you can think of. One fact remains:
You are using the tactics, the words, and the complaints of the democrats, and you are actively atttempting to help them achieve their goal.
I just want to know why republicans are acting like democrats.
And why you guys keep excusing it.
And why you guys keep excusing it
Gee, I didn't know you hated the tax cuts so much or Bush's judicial appointees, or Bush's killing Kyoto and the International court, or signing a PBA ban when it reaches his desk.
JMO, but it seems that is you who is looking for any excuse to throw rocks at Bush, like the demos do.
Actually, it wasn't "siding with Jim in an argument" that drew the accusation of butt-smooching.
It was your butt-smooching that drew the accusation of butt-smooching.
You didn't offer an argument at all.
In fact, you can't stand dissent of any kind. Anyone who offers the least dissent from the party line is shouted down by harpies like yourself, and illicits a chorus of whispers in Jim's ear about "acting just like democrats, and helping them achieve their goal".
But the fact is that YOU, and people like YOU, who continuously encourage, rationalize, and excuse democrat-like behavior in republicans are the ones "acting like democrats".
I challenge you openly and honestly.
Not with butt-smooching, and secret back-room whisper campaigns.
Don't like it?
Do what you ususally do.
Lobby to silence it with a banishment.
You mean the ones that went to people who didn't pay taxes?
Yeah.... they were... Uhhh... great and stuff.
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.