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 where we'll disagree. We're in the shape we are now mostly due to democrat legislation through the years.
My solution (dreaming): A Constitutional amendment to limit Congressional terms and in-session timeframes. The less time they spend in D.C., the less harm they do. And repeal the 17th amendment.
Age : 7 years
Sex : Female
When we ask her to draw a peace according to her thought, she drew 5 kids holding hands with big smile upon their faces. we couldn't get exactly an answer from her explanation about what peace means to her. She only smiles, when we ask her , she pointed the picture that she drew earlier and said that it is the picture of her friends playing together happily without arguing
One Judge, Breyer just made a statement on national television that he thought our constitution should be more in line with our friends across the pond. Dwell on that when you say it is not my issue!! I say this with no sarcasm, I say it to inform. and again is in line with your tag line
They did this when they held the Congress, Remember Rooseveldt tried to pack the courts, and he had both houses. They know now it will be a long time before this happens again, thus the courts is their only avenue to power. I tell you it is their raison d etre'!!
I ask you one question, how are the laws they passed over the years legislatively and were unconstitutional still laws?(most are against the tenth amendment which has almost become irrelevent)
Notice there were no retirements this year. President Bush will wait until after elections because their is optimism that we can pick up 6-8 seats in the Senate. After the elections look for the battle to be enjoined. Hang on for the ride, we will be witnessing an event that will be written about for decades if not centuries!!!
The thing is that OWK is quite correct in one thing... the GOP is not holding the line on spending. There are not as many GOP'ers that are fiscally conservative as you might think. Some are socially conservative, but fiscally liberal, and vice-versa. But, the solution is not clear. Sending a libertarian or any other party to power will be just as bad. It's easy to stand on principle until you have the power.. the power to stay in office. And all parties will exercise that power (by bribing their constituents with goodies) because it is human nature to do so. The solution is to scrap the whole system, which was designed to help grow a small group of colonies into one nation. No way the Founding Fathers had any inkling of the monster their creation would ultimately become. Corruption pollutes every form of government, because man is tempted by evil and most often succumbs to it. No man, no matter how principled he claims to be, can forever defray that temptation. The budget deficit this year is a clear warning that political party means very little. Liberalism must be stopped, I agree... but this system will not allow that to happen. It's easy for us on the outside to whine about this and that, but would we be any different if we were part of that system (government) and have the wiles of power, money, and influence? Look at what happened to Clinton, how drunk with the power he was... Hollywood on their knees for him, the press on their knees, and interns on their knees... George W may be a principled man, and I support him, but he has his failings, and appeasement of things liberal is one of them. This is no time for Machiavelli. The time is ever approaching.... time for another 1776.
B.S.
You weren't paying attention, were you?
The costs have doubled over estimates and the manpower is tied down that could be used for the War on Terror. What is the exit strategy? None. Is our position of strength increased in case North Korea pushes us into conflict? Hardly. Anyone is entitled to their opinion but I fail to see that we are far better off setting in Iraq with our troops engaged in a war against insurgency.
I agree Clinton was a sleeze ball. No argument. But as so many here have stated, policy wize in many ways he has been more conservative than President Bush. Even for someone as moderate as I, his policies and positions have me taking a double take. And then I come here and see it defended by those much further to the right than I. And many times with the warning that it's not nice to criticize the President.
Mostly because the good guys don't know how to play the game and file suit. SCOTUS has also come down with a number of decisions lately supporting states rights. Many articles here on FR regarding those decisions.
Well, that's where we disagree; you evidently believe anything that you don't agree with Bush on is a "danger" to conservatism. I never thought I'd agree with him 100 percent. You're bound to hate him if that's the way you look at it 24/7.
BTW, I'm sick of being called a Bush Bot........shall I call you an Anti-Bush Bot???
I didn't say he did. I said the Repub Senate hasn't the cojones to change the rules regarding fillibuster. They're scared the new rules may be used against them. In fact, they're scared of everything. The last true Repub leadership I saw in Congress was with Newt. He had the foresight, skills, and backbone to tell America we WILL change your Congress with a 10 point plan, if you give us the chance. It was brilliant and it worked.
I have no problem with being called an Anti-Bush-Bot. You may call me that at will.
I don't know how you can draw that conclusion from Bush`s remarks. So be it. While PresBush has displayed remarkable leadership on many issues, he generally isn't a confrontational person. Again, I think Bush was acknowledging the simple fact and the reality of the Supreme Court's decision in the Grutter case. Bush doesn't support the quota system found in traditional affirmative action and makes that point abundantly clear.
He claims to be a "moderate".
Call him a Mush-bot.
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.