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.

[facedown]

I see it as the price we pay to end terrorism and to end the abortionist/homosexualist/gungrabbing liberal activist judiciary.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[OWK]

I see it as the price we pay to end terrorism and to end the abortionist/homosexualist/gungrabbing liberal activist judiciary.

He extended the assault weapons ban, and you didn't utter a peep.

He nationalized airport workers to collect toenail clippers, and not a sound was heard.

He expanded the federal Department of Education, and you continued to cheer.

He pushed for and got, yet another federal giveaway program in prescription drugs for seniors.

And you want this guy to pick justices.

Go figure.

[Jim Robinson]

I've got a feeling that if we had FR when Ronald Reagan was in office, some of you guys would've been campaigning against him and some of his "socialist" policies and run away spending too. No one took him serious about defeating the communists. Well, thank God there were not so many short-sighted, weak kneed cowards around in those days as we seem to have today.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, who cares. The prize is much bigger than all of that rolled together and multiplied many times over. Ending the liberal activist judiciary is priceless.

[Jim Robinson]

Who would you rather have picking the judges?

[facedown]

He extended the assault weapons ban,...

No he didn't.

[OWK]

I've got a feeling that if we had FR when Ronald Reagan was in office, some of you guys would've been campaigning against him and some of his "socialist" policies and run away spending too.

Yeah you've got all kinds of "feelings".

And a long supply of excuses.

And a habit of changing the subject.

The fact is the the republicans are behaving just like the democrats you claim to despise.

But because they're republicans, you don't say a word, and you ridicule those who do.

Rationalizing and excuse mongering seem to be the order of the day.

"They had to, because...."

"Well if they just take care of this, then I don't care about that...."

With each passing excuse, and with every rationalization, the bonds on our children's future become tighter and tighter.

And you helped.

[Jim Robinson]

No excuses. The prize is worth the price.

[OWK]

Ending the liberal activist judiciary is priceless.

yeah, that's gonna happen.

His track record as a conservative is so dependable after all.

[Jim Robinson]

It's going to happen.

[OWK]

The prize is worth the price.

The price is further advancement of socialism, and a bleak future for our children.

Not only is it an unacceptable price... but an unnecessary one.

All of your rationalizations are based on the assertion that we somehow NEED to do these things.

That they are political necessity.

That's nonsense.

[OWK]

It's going to happen.

GOP Lucy will yank the football out from under conservative Charlie Brown... yet again...

And everyone will see it... yet again.

And they will know it for what it is... yet again.

And yet others will still excuse it.

[Rebelbase]

Do you ever sleep?

[.30Carbine]

Am I ever on time to work?

[Jim Robinson]

The price is doing whatever he has to do to get reelected and to increase the majority in both houses of Congress. And I could care less what that price is. How can you measure the price of ending the scourge of terrorism? How can you measure the price of killing millions of the unborn through government sanctione abortion? How can you measure the price of destroying the family and our society? How can you measure the price of defending the 2nd amendment or of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights? This is the first chance we've had in my lifetime and my parents lifetime before that to have a complete turn around in government. Do not underestimate the evil that a continued liberal activist court can do. We can replace them. It will happen if Republicans don't go all wobbly on us. I believe that ending the liberal activist judiciary is the first step in recovering our constitutional government. What the libs couldn't get done via legislation, they simply got their judges to do through unconstitutional rulings. There is no other way to break their hold other than having a Republican president and a Republican Senate to appoint and confirm conservative judges. Sorry, but there's zero chance that the libertarians can do it.


Besides, you don't have any plan to do anything else, other than try to defeat Bush by electing a Democrat and letting the downhill slide into a socialist hell continue. What the hell good will that do for you or your children?

[RJCogburn]

wiping out the terrorists and I back him 100% in that effort. I also back him 100% in his effort to turnover the liberal activist judiciary. I'll live with the rest of the baggage just to get those two things accomplished

While I agree with the first, I respectfully disagree with the second. The huge expansion of non defense items, the acceleration of motion toward bigger, more expensive government, the continued road to more and more regulations is really a very high price to pay for an unpredictable judiciary.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, what else are you going to do? I wish he wasn't doing all these things, but he doesn't take my calls. I'll be damned if I'm going to give up now when we're so close. four more years, eight more, and we get several Supreme Court appoints. Twelve more years and we probably have a complete turnover, not only in the Supreme Court, but in most of the federal judiciary. Why defeat the Republicans now by allowing the Democrats to win? You say Republican judges are unpredictable. Well, I guarantee you liberal judges appointed by Democrats are not. I'll take my chances with the Republicans.

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, In fact, I was getting ready to turn in when OWK popped up on the thread. Will be signing off in a few minutes.

[OWK]

The price is doing whatever he has to do to get reelected and to increase the majority in both houses of Congress. And I could care less what that price is.

OK... so let me get this straight.

You want republican control of both houses of congress, the executive branch, and the ability to pick judges.

And you're willing to pay any price for that. Including (as now appears to be the case) the price of republicans becoming just like democrats, thereby eliminating any advantage to liberty and rights there might have been in having republicans in those positions.

Try as I might, I just don't get it Jim.

[bmwcyle]

Yes lets get more do absolute stupid, do nothing Dems like Hillary in there to rob you blind. At least the Republicans don't steal as much.