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.
Or nine Souters.
Ah, hold on there, Sport. I believe the quote below is directly attributable to you:
I'm sorry I don't seem to be as taken with myself and my views as you guys are; perhaps it's because I realize this is just an internet forum and not the real world and/or high school.
I'm just confirming what every one else supports you in: a site-wide, communal and universally accepted state of not being taken with you.
You need to get over being over with.
Unfortunately, men do need controls to live in peace with each other in an ever shrinking World. The trade-off point is the debate. But we certainly don't need what our out-of-control politicians have brought on us for decades now.
And I would surmise that you wouldn't want nine Scalias or nine Thomases, but nine Kennedys or O'Connors.
BTW, Kennedy's seat on SCOTUS should have been Robert Bork's but Oldsmobile Ted sank that nomination.
There was thread with Bork's writings on FR and it was dissed by some of those who would call themselves Libertarians and they were giving Oldsmobile Ted indirect praise for his sinking of Bork.
How come nobody ever listens to who I want banned? ::pouts in corner::
Actually 7 were.
Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon, good choice. The ultra liberal Stevens was appointed by Ford, no surprise there. O'Connor was appointed by Reagan as the fulfillment of a campaign promise, she turned out to be a big disappointment. Scalia was then appointed by Reagan, good chocie there. Reagan then nominated Bork and as stated earlier Oldsmobile Ted sank his nomination, and Kennedy finally was appointed by Reagan, wishy washy disappointment and he is also a good friend of liberal Harvard professor, Laurence Tribe.
Next came Souter, another disappointment but in defense of Bush 41, there is a plethora of evidence that he was snookered by McCain mentor, former NH Senator Warren Rudman. Next came Clarence Thomas, who the demos smeared with their usual vile tactics.
Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton and have beecome stalwarts of the liberal wing of the court.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/15/gaddy.htm
FBI And DOJ Move To Subvert Political Process
By Michael Gaddy
With over 100 cities having voted nonsupport for the Patriot Act, the government has swung into action to influence the votes in jurisdictions that are considering such a vote, or those that might do so.
Obviously the pressure is beginning to mount. How can they expect to push Patriot II at us when so many have caught on to the game and are rejecting Patriot I?
The FBI, working in conjunction with DOJ, is now sending --through local police forces to city councils and other local government bodies --a piece of drivel called "US Patriot Act Myths." (See in its entirety below) A United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Mary Beth Buchanan, prepared this document.
This appears to be a cooperative effort between the FBI, DOJ and the local police departments of the cities considering legislation against the Patriot Act. DOJ prepared the propaganda; the FBI provides it to sources inside the police departments, who then send it to their cronies in the governing bodies.
This should put to rest the idea the police really want to honor their oaths to the Constitution.
Sources that shall remain anonymous, for obvious reasons, say that in addition to the state authored drivel, the governing bodies are being provided with lists of potential domestic terrorists within the governing bodies immediate area. These lists appear to be very much inflated. A jurisdiction of 40,000 inhabitants was provided with a three-page list of these potential domestic "terrorists."
Are we to believe for a moment that such a document is not intended to intimidate the governing body into supporting the Patriot Act out of abject fear? Attempts are now being made to secure one of these "lists." First indications are they have been classified and are not to be disseminated to the public, which ultimately means the governing bodies would not be able to confirm or deny the authenticity of such a list.
It is imperative to big brother that these tyrannical pieces of legislation receive full support. I have been told that Patriot II will establish data bases of all those, who for reasons I am sure they believe in, have seen fit to beg government for the rights guaranteed by our Creator through the Constitution, namely, those currently holding concealed carry permits.
Congressman Ron Paul in an earlier interview here at Sierra Times stated that no member of Congress was allowed to view Patriot I before the vote was called. Now the DOJ boasts of the level of support the act received in the Congress.
On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan public interest think-tank in Washington, revealed the full text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. (Patriot II) The classified document had been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. Remember, if you will, John Ashcroft's initial denial of the existence of this document.
There was a version of this act presented to Speaker of the House, Hastert, and many of the provisions of Patriot II are included in Senate Bill S.22. This is very important because it catches the Justice Department in a bald-faced lie. The Justice Department claimed that the secret legislation brought into the House was only for study, and there was no intention to try to pass it.
This legislation calls for registration of ALL gun owners and a national ballistics database, while prohibiting the private sale of firearms.
All of these Hitler-esque actions have passed through the various committees and have made their way into these pieces of legislation now pending. Where is the outcry from our lawmakers?
Remember all of the prevarications of government as you review the propaganda now being delivered to city councils etc. as they debate the local support and enforcement of the Patriot Acts.
You can cut the sarcasm!
Bush 41 was sandbagged in a false flag gambit of the dims. The esteemed Rhino from New Hampshire Warren Rudman was used to sell a bill of goods to the President. Whenever the dims need to cover their a-- they use Rudman, after all he has an R after his name(see WACO)
President Bush has said over and over he will appoint strict constructionists!!!!
Here's what PresBush said. Tell us all, exactly what is so amazing about his remarks?
" I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation's campuses. Diversity is one of America's greatest strengths. Today's decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law.
My Administration will continue to promote policies that expand educational opportunities for Americans from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. There are innovative and proven ways for colleges and universities to reflect our diversity without using racial quotas. The Court has made clear that colleges and universities must engage in a serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives. I agree that we must look first to these race-neutral approaches to make campuses more welcoming for all students.
Race is a reality in American life. Yet like the Court, I look forward to the day when America will truly be a color-blind society. My Administration will continue to work toward this important goal."
Personally, I think PresBush`s remarks were honest and fair. The President is merely looking at this in the best light possible. The two USSC decisions can be viewed in many ways. One can say the glass is half empty, or the glass is half full. I'll choose the latter. I think winning the Gratz case was a bigger win then losing the Grutter case.
It should be! The rats can't get any of their agenda through the legal way(legislation)so they use the liberal courts. It is their raison d etre'.
The battle for the courts that is shaping up to be a doozy, will have implications that will last for decades. It cannot be lost. If their are constructionists on the court all the unconstitutional laws can be reversed. I think by your tagline, this is what you want.
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.