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.
For those in Rio-Linda --- that means that I never attempt to reason someone out of beliefs that they didn't first reason themselves into.
For those in Palm Beach County --- that means that it isn't possible to use reason with the emotionally immature who aren't able to deal with big picture reality.
But as usual... you were wrong.
"So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh?
Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment? Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges.
And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions.
Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
You people are sick! Conservatives my ass.
You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits!
You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!
And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what.
I'll be ready for war!
It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!
2 Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson
You think todays little teapot tempest is about Bush or the GOP?
-- Get real. Its about a neo-coven at FR trying to control what they view to be the agenda here.
Feel free to correct me, but I hope this is still FR's agenda:
"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
Democrats like Hitchens who openly complained about Clinton were typically acknowledging that he is an individual of poor character. Some people who agreed with Clinton on policy were honest enough to admit that he is a bad person, and yes, that should be applauded by conservatives.
This stuff is purely political, and I'm sorry, but I have no appreciation for "conservatives" whose mission it seems to be to make arguments for Democrats, and who cannot give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on anything.
If you aren't alarmed by it, that's certainly your prerogative - but if my posts suddenly started turning up on D.U. and were being applauded, I believe I'd do a little soul-searching.
Tells me all I need to know about you.
You really don't understand a lot of what is going on around here do you?
I know enough to ping the people I'm trying to trash.
How to make a case of when GWB is in error on this forum is a challenge. I don't want to see him trashed any more than you, but if he is the cause of erosion of conservative ideals, then it needs to be recognized. Constructively.
And yes, I do believe for security he is better than Gore would have been. I am concerned over the WMD issues and the Al-Queda links that haven't panned out.
DU is nothing more than a mutual admiratioon society. Anyting they do, say or react upon is meaningless.
Not only the administration, it was the UN and intelligence agencies of Russia, Germany, China, the UK and even France.
Note that numerous countries who were against the war agreed that Saddam had a WMD program.
It was also the majority of Democrats who believed Saddam's WMD programs were enough of a threat to authorize military action. Even many who are now hypocritically changing their tune for political reasons.
So the idea that people are now pointing the finger at Bush about this is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
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.