THAT URANIUM STORY

NRO ^ | 7/14/2003 | David Frum

[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.

[Mo1]

Oh geez that picture hurt my eyes .. LOL

[Howlin]

Sorry, it's late........my head hurts, too.

[joesbucks]

Call him a Mush-bot

That's cool. Names and labels don't bother me.

[Mo1]

A quick glance at this thread .. and I can understand

[okie01]

"That's cool. Names and labels don't bother me."

Actually, that's hypocrisy. You've been littering this thread with names and labels.

[joesbucks]

oh?

[King Prout]

He extended the assault weapons ban,... - OWK
No he didn't. - facedown

thanks - that bit had me confused.

[King Prout]

I agree with the sentiment, and hope you are right in your certainty. Needs doing... BEEN needing doing for quite a while.

[Marysecretary]

Nope. God uses men and has throughout history to complete His purposes. Just because we're in the 21st century doesn't mean God's not operating just as He always has. Yes, Dubya IS anointed by God to perform His purpose for America at this time in our history. That's why he's being villified by not only democrats but some pubbies as well.

[Marysecretary]

Churches in the inner city are beginning to reach out to the poor and that's why I'm glad Dubya wants to give them money to continue. I think this is a good way to minister to the poor and I don't mind my tax dollars going toward that end. God is the solution to poverty and despair. He's willing if we are.

[carton253]

Mary... totally off topic...

Have you heard Sandy Patty's new album? It is wonderful. I highly recommend it.

[Marysecretary]

No,I haven't. What's it called? She's an amazing singer.

[Marysecretary]

Uh, sure, buh-bye back atcha.

[swarthyguy]

we can call ourselves BUSHPACKERS

Now that is funny!

[carton253]

Take Hold of Christ!

It is so good!

[cardinal4]

Or nine Souters.

Or worse, nine Ginsburgs..

[Marysecretary]

Thanks! I'll check it out. Mxxx

[Kevin Curry]

A particular character (Professor De La Paz) helps establish a new government on a lunar colony toward the end of the book . . . I rather like the idea.

You're a political trekkie. You wear the verbal equivalent of pointy styrofoam ears, banlon shirt, and high water sansabelt slacks, tote a plastic phaser etc. You attend all the conventions, tweaking one eyebrow up high while gravely intoning, "The law of the many is not a logical solution, captain."

And you have way-y-y to much time on your hands, wasting the time that you do during the productive hours of life, posting endless Heinlein polisci-chobabble.

I don't know who supports you (the taxpayer?), but they must have deep pockets and no clue what you are doing on their dime.

[roughrider]

"The Republicans voted for tax cuts. The Democrats opposed them. Yet you claim they are the same."

You are implying that only how socialist programs are financed is a material difference between the MAJORITY of the Members of Congress and the Senators who are both Republicans and Democrats. How socialist programs are financed is not a material difference between those who vote for the programs. The elephantine Ted Kennedy "Education" bill that passed early in the Bush Presidency had to have the support of a majority of both Houses of Congress with GOP majorities. That means a majority of Republicans in both houses, and the President who pushed Kennedy's bill and signed it, were in favor of the socialist Kennedy program. When most of the Republicans voted for the tax cuts, they were only voting in favor of a particular way of financing the programs, namely tax cuts that, they believe, will stimulate the economy, increasing revenues to the government in order to pay for the socialist programs. In other words, "Supply-Side Economics" as a financing technique of government.

The Democrats, on the other hand, prefer direct increases in marginal tax rates to fund the socialist programs. The Republicans believe this is counterproductive, as the tax increases put a drag on economic activity and cut revenues to the government that finance socialist programs.

The Democrats may turn around and claim the Republicans "favor the rich" with tax cuts, but they know this is only true by appearance. It is a political ploy to get more of their party in office, but the Democrats really know that the only difference is how their programs will be financed, and that is NO DIFFERENCE at all with the exception of financing technique. The end result is bigger, less Constitutional government no matter how the programs are financed.

[roughrider]

I have tried to tell people in here that the "vote GOP because you can hold their feet to the fire for conservative values" campaign slogan was NO LONGER OPERATIVE. It isn't even operative during election cycles when the GOP is most striving to hold their conservative base anymore. No one is allowed to criticize any of the socialist programs they pass. "Hold their feet to the fire" is DEAD, officially. It has been dead for a long time, but the chronic campaigners used to haul it out for a little "Weekend at Bernie's" fun at the expense of conservatives and libertarians. Now, they are admitting that it was only hucksterism.