European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - May 2, 1990, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 the stars and stripes columns Tom Wicker once again pro choices respect rights of All when gov. Cecil Andrus of Idaho recently vetoed an anti abortion Bill an article in this space declared the measure a thoroughly deserving of his rejection. That article also set off a barrage of critical mail primarily evoked by this paragraph a the pro Choice position respects the rights of All rather than denying the rights of some by government Fiat that Sony in the Long run it will be More representative of the views of More Ameri cans a Many More a than the absolutism and intolerance associated with the pro life  but what about the rights most letter writers demanded of the unborn How is the a a fetus a right to live a one inquired respected by a the pro Choice position that position another insisted a sets at naught the fetuses most fundamental right the right to  besides one woman wrote a the belief that life begins at Conception leaves no room for  How could anyone holding that belief a allow for any exceptions without condoning murder the question exemplifies the absolutism the original article criticized. The fact is that everyone does not believe that life begins at the moment of Conception. Those who do not believe it May be disputed but it is their right to hold that View they May be in error but to be in error in belief or opinion is permitted and protected by the Constitution and the Bill of rights. In any Case the Mere belief by one person that another is in error does not necessarily make it so. Those like these passionate correspondents who do believe that life begins at Conception Are not being forced or even asked to abandon that View. They arc not being coerced into having consenting to or supporting abortions and they arc As free As every american should be to hold his or her own beliefs and to take legitimate political action in the Pursuit of those beliefs. William Safire r6wn&stmpiwhu5banp amiss amp it a few  amp a per social Pecos goal that cam0mivb6me Nouanp your.  in that was the Point of the assertion which i now repeat that a the pro Choice position respects the rights of  but those who want to impose on All americans the belief that life begins at Conception hence that abortion is murder do not respect the rights of the Many who differ with them. Instead As the original article also stated anti abortionists would have government a enforce. The one True Faith Quot a their Faith a on All the rest of us. If that a not intolerance what would be a More accurate word numerous correspondents also Bel bored the proposition that the pro life movement insists a that abortion is a moral Issue upon which All but one position is mortal sin while its opposition regards abortion a was a rights Issue to be determined by the individual for him or  but most distorted that to mean that morality is not at All involved in the abortion question. Of course morality is a vital part of any woman a or fathers or family a decision about abortion. But honorable moral people can and do differ on what might be the moral course on any number of matters a draft resistance for one example capital punishment for another. If such differences in moral judgment Are to be respected rather than repressed by Law abortion does become a rights Issue to be determined by each individual for herself or himself a not a question to which Only one answer can be  that leads to a third Issue raised by the anti abortion letter writers. There never has been they assert a right of a unfettered choices for americans. Did not the government put an end to slavery can one legally choose to shoplift or to discriminate against a fellow citizen because of race sex or Creed if these a a choices can and ought to be forbidden by Law Why can to a citizens Freedom to choose an abortion be As properly limited because in the cited cases to choose to own a slave or to steal from a shop counter indisputably damages the Legal or property rights of others. For a woman to choose an abortion does not indisputably damage other Peoples rights a unless of course one believes that life indisputably begins at Conception. Once again therefore the question inevitably comes Down to rights. Some americans want to Force their moral View on All americans to be observed As if there were Only one True Faith. Other americans want to be Able to exercise what they believe is their right without repressing the rights of anyone else. New York Timesia s botched soviet analysis ignored covered up Miami a the Central Mission of . Intelligence is to gather and evaluate data on the economic and military strength of the soviet Union in comparison with the . We Are now discovering How the Cia has botched that assignment. Throughout the �?~80s, our analysts Clung to the notion that the soviet Economy was More than half As Large As our own and that 15 percent of its budget was devoted to arms. That was the Bedrock estimate on which most other projections a and our own defense planning a was based. A handful of outside experts began to dissent from the official View in 1985. Led by Henry Rowen of Stanford now with defens Echarles Wolf of the Rand corp., the russian emigre Igor Birmin and the swedish economist Anders Oaklund the dissenters Drew on startling Gorbachev admissions to arrive at a wholly different conclusion growth had stopped in the soviet Union As the 80s began. This meant that its Economy had shrunk to less than a third the size of ours and the percentage of soviet National product spent on armaments had become an unsustainable 22 to 25 percent. Each dissenter came up with a different percentage but All differed from the Cia on the essential Points a that the soviet Economy was disaster bound unless drastic arms cutbacks began right away when this disagreement was bared in this space two years ago director of Central intelligence William Webster a not an uptight fellow a invited a couple of us to an on the record lunch at Langley. I outlined the views of the new thinkers and called for appointment of a a team  the Cia economists politely held their ground. As we left 1 stole a Cia ashtray and left behind a new York times Mug. Director Webster called it a a fair Exchange in More ways than  the discussion was duly recorded in a column. The Cia economists contrary views were expressed in a letter to the editor from the staff of the joint economic committee of Congress which has become a Cia publications outlet. Here we Are in 1990. One Side operated on shoestrings the other on billions. Which proved right the answer is evident in the Ciao a catch up analysis. A the soviet Economy stumbles badly in 1989�?� is the title of director websters recent report to his joint economic receptacle. It is As if the decade Long decline a Long ago divined by the Unap pointed a team by a had mostly taken place in the past 12 months. The Agency belatedly discovers that the soviet Union is in a near crisis and might soon be pushed a Over the Edge into Sharp  its assessment of the pressure on Gorbachev reads like a rehash of Judy Shelton a 1989 a the coming soviet crash with an update from Wellesley professor Marshall Goldman a excoriate on of Gorb atomics in the latest foreign affairs Magazine. A few Days after this Cia Epiphany a Trio of reformist soviet economists came Over to Tell an american Enterprise Institute conference a headed by non team bus Nicholas Eberstadt a How it really is. Oleg Bogomolov who serves in the Congress of Peoples deputies said that soviet military expenditure was 20 to 25 percent of Gnu contrary to the Ciao snowball 16 percent. Viktor Belkin also a Gorb Chevite said that soviet output was about one fourth that of the ., not nearly the half that the Cia still estimates. These soviet economists disagree with the official figures put out by their establishment just As our outsiders dispute Cia estimates. However the Cia is hustling Over to the conclusion reached by the outsiders about the economic crisis forcing the soviets to reduce arms spending. To avoid admitting egregious error the Cia will gradually revise its underlying estimates in future years to jibe with present conclusions. Does no to this huge miscalculation cry out for oversight economic intelligence has none. The Senate intelligence committee defers to a joint economic subcommittee on these matters and its dovish chairman Jeff Bingaman is Putty in the hands of the Cia. In the National Security Council the1�s-Terior coverage of the misguided evaluation is handled by former spook Robert Gates. And the presidents foreign intelligence advisory Board is being limited to technological kibitzing. As the Bay of pigs was to intelligence operations the extended misreading of the soviet economic debacle is to intelligence evaluation. Yet this fiasco is ignored and concealed a even As the future Cia Mission must be redirected toward realistic assessments of economic and scientific strength. New York times