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.
Then press charges.
No, just don't act all whiny about being called dishonest, when you are the one who called me that first.
But it sure as heck can be an accurate description of what someone is saying, as it was in this case.
I am going back and read all of your and carton253's posts this afternoon. I think that might be a good idea for you to do as well.
So we therefore should not be increasing domestic spending on items such as a tax cut for people who don't pay taxes, AIDS money for Africa (when abstinence programs in Uganda have been proven most effective), or a prescription drug benefit for the wealthiest segment of the population. We should instead be asking folks to make a few sacrifices in their pet government benefits so we can wage a war without running a $450 billion deficit.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Trust me, I've read them all quite carefully. As much as carton253 distorts the debate, I've had to.
That's the most dishonest thing you've said yet. You've whined nonstop about my alleged personal attacks, which primarily consisted of calling a post of yours "bullcrap." And you've whined about my alleged dishonesty, when you admitted that you distorted my positions.
Although I don't agree with some of the directions JimRob is taking as of late, I really don't care to waste his bandwidth further mud wrestling with the likes of you. Later.
Who is the best candidate for the job, and who most closely matches your beliefs?
I understand that it is frustrating for people who are very conservative to accept less than what they wish. Remember, I suffered through the Dole campaign myself.
However, there is no doubt in my mind that Bob Dole would have been a better president than Bill Clinton. I had no qualms in voting for Dole, although I did wish we had had a better candidate.
But, by the looks of it, I'm the one left standing on the field. Me! I guess I won... Oh, happy day indeed.
PS... I wasn't whining, but since you can't hear written words, I guess you can call it whining if you like.
We have presidential elections every four years. But Congress stays up late every month trying to figure out how to spend more of our tax dollars. I would hope a GOP president would hold the line against spending, but instead Bush is egging them on. So this is not about elections, it is about squawking loud and clear to Bush and the GOP that we do not find this to be an acceptable state of affairs - and that they should not take our vote for granted, lest they run further leftward. You may see this as disloyalty. I see it as healthy politics - as I've said time and time again, blacks vote 93 percent for Dems, and all it's gotten them is being taken for granted. Conservatives should not make the same mistake with the GOP. The minute they think your vote is automatic is the minute they stop listening to you.
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.