I do not believe it will hem in GW Bush one iota. I think he has already made the decision to bomb Iran, and has the law behind him to do it. In fact, I believe this NIE is part of a cover to put the Iranians at ease before the bombing begins.

The Congress should have impeached him after he quid pro quo'd the Scooter Libby pardon. Now Bush has no respect for anyone else in DC, and will proceed with his plans to bomb, and possibly nuke, Iran.

Well, they've got quite a freerolling (or win-win) scenario there. If Iraq had turned out great, it would prove the case for preemptive war. But because it was a disaster, it "proves" the intel community can't be trusted, which obviously means we need more preemptive war. I'm a total outsider to this world of intel, but I'd imagine there will be many more damaging leaks now that they've made official their policy of throwing the experts under the bus for their own rush to war.

"Now Bush has no respect for anyone else in DC..."

I don't understand the meaning of now in that sentence. It sounds as though you're implying that GWB once had respect for someone else in DC, but lost it after the Scooter Libby pardon. But that notion, that GWB had respect for any institution or anyone else, is so risible that I know it can't be what you meant.

Kucinich was the only one at the NPR sponsored debate today whose record of judgement has been accurate on these issues,Iraq WMDs,Irans capabilities, vote over Repub.Guard etc.. Of course he was asked the fewest questions.(maybe Gravel was tied) He is also the only one calling for impeachment of an administration which has so obviously lied about such important issues.

It was amusing and annoying to watch the president smirk and squirm as the question was asked, then he showed his usual contempt for the media by talking to them as though they were simple-minded children (projection there) and chuckling through the words (w-heh-orld W-W-heh-ar 3), then dismissing any more questions about it.

Not. A. Word. anywhere at Foxnews.com about the NIE. Plenty of celebrity BS, freak-show stories, GOP praise and smearing of Dems, though.

As I mentioned earlier tonight in this post, directed to Larry Johnson:

“… the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…”

I just love that line!

As I am sure you recall, Larry, the unclassified National Intelligence Estimate—released many months prior to the launch of the attack on Iraq—said nothing of the sort. Instead, the consensus conclusions included that claim that Iraq did not have a robust and sophisticated program for the production of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, that it had no long-range missile delivery system, that its efforts to develop more effective short and long range missiles was ineffective, and that it posed no near-term term threat to the United States and our European allies, and only a limited threat to its neighbors. Even the discussion regarding ’suitcase’ nuclear delivery systems and any possible alliance with rogue states or stateless terrorist organization was largely dismissive.

I wish I could find myself more polite in discussing both Podhoretz and Bolton, but I rather find myself unable to resist the temptation to classify both as they can plainly and reasonably be seen: complete whack-jobs! Then, and now. (At least they are consistent in that respect.) For either to make the claims they do is ridiculous on its face.

I thought that Ambassador Bolton came essentially unhinged during the War Room interview. Strangely, I imagine that being on CNN’s poorly named War Room broadcast is actually the closest that Bolton has every come to war. And, that’s apparently closer than most of his associates and co-conspirators have ever come…

“… the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…”

I still remember Scott Ritter on the PBS Newshour insisting most vehemently that there were no WMDs.

I still remember Hans Blix in country not finding any, and George Bush telling him to shut down his operation and bug out quickly or risk being bombed himself. Bush stopped Blix before he could definitively prove that there were no valid pretext to going to war.

I am incline to believe that at that point Saddam would have cut him a deal that would have given Bush the country - with infrastructure fully intact - without a war, for only a $1 billion and some nice coastal property somewhere where he could sit out his retirement. But Bush wanted war.

The Pod may be correct.

But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations.

Another way of putting it: The career professionals are finally exercising their professional responsibilities and defying the whackjob in the White House.

Too bad Congress won't exercise their responsibility to impeach, convict, and then indict the architects of the criminal invasion of Iraq. Too bad the national media careerists won't exercise their responsibility to tell the fucking truth of things.

MW

Let's see now...
Impeachable... yes or no

Withholding information from Congress/public concerning Iraq threat...
no

Lying to Congress/public concerning firing officials who leaked information about Valorie Plame...
no

Lying to Congress/public concerning threat of Iran...
no

Apparently, nobody in Congress or the Senate has bothered to read the Federalist papers concerning withholding and swaying information by the president concerning military threats as justification for impeachment...

Our leaders have all abandoned "We the People" and are instead vying for position as our democracy falls....

Bush isn't insane, and he isn't the Beast either, (whose followers must wear the mark of the Beast and who unites the world in 7 years of harmony and 7 years of discord leading to Armageddon) nor could he think himself to be. I honestly don't believe he's even a Christian. I've never known a committed Christian who cursed and didn't go to church.

Bush is a deeply neurotic, egotistic, and insecure man. He's not delusional, in the clinical sense, but he is deluding himself constantly. He's a horrible prick who is utterly self-centered, sadistic, and incapable of empathy. I'll not let you enter an insanity plea for him!

Plus, when he talks like that I always assume he's talking to the 24% who have undying faith in his delusions.

But isn't it annoying? Somebody described it like scratching your nails against a blackboard - and that fits for me.

bush... the man who failed upward.. to the detriment of a country and a world.

You're right in one sense... but I disagree with your conclusion.

Yes, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. (but not only)

However, in this case, in my view, bush is unable to pursue his agenda, because there is a huge wave of opposition to letting him have his way again. So, this report gives strength and comfort to all those who oppose war as a solution for this kind of thing. Not just at home. But abroad.

So we're not just talking bush's ability to go to war on his own here. The military is stretched and doesn't want another quagmire etc. There is a much stronger group of people now who will rise up and disagree with propaganda that beats a war drum... and this NIE is hugely helpful with that. And other countries simply won't get in line behind bush. There's going to be no coalition, no "willing partners."

So, while my field is not foreign relations, I'm pretty sure that despite bush's desire to be a war leader, he's not gonna get another war for Christmas, or Easter for that matter.

Just my two cents.

Isn't this the precise point in time when the neocon crazies get crowned with the tinfoil hat? (we should pause and remember other great moments in the record of a diseased political ideology. Of course there was William Safire and his campaign against the CIA hiding the transparent information (beamed to him presumably from more intelligent life on Halley's comet). Safire was given the full free use of the esteemed editorial pages of the NYTimes to sell Atta's connection with Saddam in Prague. How soon we forget how piss-poor our corporate media has been for so long.)
They are genuinely certifiably nuts and the fact that they take up so much of the oxygen in our national debate is a dangerous sign of a nation in serious distress. Other signs abound. Katrina, a national disgrace brought to us by morally deficient crazies, too busy pretending to be religious to care about their responsibilities and the need to do "no harm'. And the housing bubble and the current economic distress. Mr Greenspan, the maestro, another giant in the land of powerful men. Time to read more Ayn Rand...comic-book literature for our leaders.

I would love an enterprising film maker to do a remake of "Seven Days in May" but with the plot device changed so that General Scott is trying to stop a deranged president from starting WWIII by dropping tactical nukes on a ME country. Even better if they could use the original film, using CGI to replace Frederick March with GWB (or Dick Cheney).

How would the movie end? I'd have a Musharraf-like takeover (as Scott planned in the original film) and conclude with a closing speech from Scott excoriating Congress and the media for their serial failures to uphold their constitutional roles of oversight and informing the public. If they could use CGI to animate Burt Lancaster delivering the speech in that calm but relentless manner....

It would be a dark little movie, in tune with the times....

I particularly like this line from The Pod Man:

"[I]f [Bush] were to do so [attack Iran], it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding."

And where would he get this information, if the intelligence community can't be trusted to give real data? (Oh, I forgot - he'll get it from commentators who've never been to Iran, don't speak Farsi and have never been in the military!)

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" - Franklin Roosevelt

Fortunately, the release of this NIE hems him in a bit and limits his options for using military force

Hems him in a bit? It makes a complete fool of him.

It's only the compliant mainstream media that allows him to save face.

Curveball 2: Tehran Boogaloo!

On Monday, forced to lead with the story, Lou Dobbs made his first question this: if they weren't right before, why should we think they got it right now? I was already scared and depressed enough to change channels.

Of course, the answer is that they're better at predicting the past than at predicting the future and that they wouldn't even be so bad at the latter if Bush/Cheney didn't suppress or lie about what they'd known all along. And that should be the news. But Larry's right to see the right swing into action, and we should be scared.

I don't mean we should be scared they'll invade Iran. Honestly, I thought all along that fear represented liberal paranoia. (Note that we got these warnings that it was happening any day now starting so long ago....) The fear should be that this is their political talking points, a way of sustaining the only hold they have on the public, fear and patriotism, long after Iraq no longer served that purpose.

Thus, while no power on earth could restrain Bush from doing what he pleases, the more the Democrats start talking back, the more they win in 2008.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

That's not mutually exclusive. He has been made a fool yet the strategic employment of the corporate media still allows him room to move. 

you have to follow the neo-con obfuscation. "… the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…" the key word is HAD, there was a universal belief that Saddam "had" WMD (at least chemical) at some point in the past, as there was documented (tragic) evidence that he had used them, and stockpiles had been found following the first Gulf War.

However, there was not a 'universal belief' that he currently possessed WMD in 2003. By neocon standards the statement: "the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…" is truthful, if deceptive.

J. McCutchen

It's not only the NeoCons who deserve a bashing, it's our entire foreign policy establishment.

Many of you "old TPM Timers" will recall Bruce Jentleson's posts urging the viability of coercive diplomacy against Tehran back in 2005(?).

Well trouble is - there wasn't anything to sanction for!

Now how sad is that? Our entire US foreign policy elite - from one end of the political spectrum to the other - debating phantasms - AGAIN

All politicians are egotists, same as movie stars and pop musicians: they all want the spotlight on them as often as possible-- for pop stars it means more movie or cd revenue, for politicians it means more publicity and thus more campaign funds and then more votes, and the wheel keeps rolling.

I don't think Kucinich's IDEAS are all that bad, so I will forgive him the "me, me, me" aspect of his answers.

Well written Larry except for this "serious threats can be resolved with diplomacy rather than rely on testosterone laden military fantasies"

It has nothing to do with testosterone or balls i.e. courage. Bush and Cheney jump headfirst into one fiasco after another out of fear of the previous failures catching up with them.

By "F" word, do you mean "frustration"?

I try to avoid letting my frustration show. I'll continue trying.

MW

Well.... it won't affect them adversely, it may well affect them favorably.

Just a little clarification,Im certainly not campaigning for Kucinich.But just because he says "me, me me" clearly while the others do it obliquely doesn't suggest he would make any better or worse a "leader".I was simply pointing out where being"correct" gets you in a Spectacular Debate.

There needs to be a better definition of what is meant by "covert nuclear weapons program". One of the difficult parts of WMD, especially where I've had the most experience, biological warfare, is that you have to understand the threat to be able to conceptualize several things. You have to have some concept how the weapons are made, in order to:

1. Define intelligence systems to detect them and assess their potential -- and effect if used


2. Understand their effects well enough to plan defenses and mitigation. BW is really tricky because a lot of this is perfectly relevant to public health.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The National Review editors are a riot as well.

From their latest offering:

"Of course, all this assumes that the NIE is accurate and impartial — and there is reason to doubt that. It’s no secret that careerists at the CIA and State have been less interested in implementing the president’s policies on Iran, Iraq, and North Korea than in sabotaging them at every opportunity. Sources close to the intelligence community question the objectivity of the NIE’s Iran conclusions, and tell us that three principal authors of the report are longtime critics of the administration’s policy who have axes to grind."

After that, NPod gave them each a biscuit.

markg8 said:

It has nothing to do with testosterone or balls i.e. courage. Bush and Cheney jump headfirst into one fiasco after another out of fear of the previous failures catching up with them.

Mark, heh, truly.

Does anyone believe that this new NIE will deter the Bush/Cheney gang from their appointed rounds?

Not unless Bush/Rice are getting concerned with their place in History. The Annapolis meeting, a new NIE that allows Bush to save face and not attack Iran. And, the Marines want to get out of Iraq and go to Afghanistan, hmmmm. I can see the headline now, "Bush orders new strategy, drawdown of troops in Iraq."

Condi gets to go to Iran, Bush to Israel, and all of a sudden they look like world leaders.

How right you are!

You willing to apply that line about doing the same thing over and over against and expecting different results being a definition of insanity to people who voted for George Bush twice?

Actually most of us who voted for him twice got what we expected...you guys just don't like it.

How is being #10 on AOL's list of "most dangerous cities" in 2007 the fault of the city's mayor in 1977-1979??

To me, *that* sounds insane.

As for his "socialist ideas", he was run out of town in 1979 after single-handedly saving the city from extortion by the banks over a public utility they wanted to privatize.

"If Muny Light had been swallowed by CEI, he believed, it would have cost Cleveland millions of dollars in higher rates and especially burdened working-class homeowners."

Imagine, a politician taking a principled stand, even if it might cost him an election. Would that we had more such politicians today.

Eventually, "Clevelanders [came] to believe Kucinich had been right about Muny Light, especially after members of a congressional staff concluded, in 1980, that the default had been politically motivated. History was ... rewritten by the loser."

"In 1993, then-Cleveland Mayor Michael White cited Kucinich's 'wisdom' in not selling the utility, and in 1998 the council honored the deposed mayor for having the 'courage and foresight' to stand up to the banks. The utility, now known as Cleveland Public Power, provides low-cost electricity that saved the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995. One of the new buildings in its expanded plant is named for Kucinich."

"'Two things about Dennis have never changed,' said Jack Schulman, a Harvard-educated lawyer who worked in the beleaguered Kucinich administration. 'One, he is absolutely honest and you never have to wonder whether he's taken a position because someone bought him off. Two, he's committed to working people.'"

We should have a little more of such "socialism". And then the crime rate would go down everywhere. Crime activity is strongly corelated to local economic conditions -- why do you think Detroit came in at #1 on that list?

Source:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-04.htm

-- ARG

You expected the lying?

And the spying?

And the cronyism designed to infest every executive branch department with incompetent (but loyal) "Bushies"??

If you expected all that -- if that's what you actually wanted, and voted for -- then you must be pretty happy indeed.

But also insane.

-- ARG

The fact that we dropped nukes on Japan, though sad, probably saved the life of my father and maybe the life of your uncle, father, grandfather, etc. who were practicing for the invasion of Japan on the island of Okinawa when the bombs were dropped.

Those bombings likely saved the lives of 200-300K US military men and another 500K-2000K Japanese military and civilians. Yes, to the 250k-500k killed, obviously, it was a horrible result. And that is why it is so important we work so hard to ensure it never happens again.

But, think about the simple fact that we had to drop a second one before they gave up. What does that tell you about how willing the Japanese leadership at the time was willing to decimate their own people in the defense of their "empire"?

I don't think Iran is winning in the world-opinion olympics over the U.S. I don't see the any nation running to backup Iran. In fact, the Euros seem to be holding in line with Bush.

Yeah, I see alot of foreign nationals wanting in line at the Iranian embassies all of the world waiting to get their Iranian entry visas like they are at the US embassies. How is it that despite the "horrible" things Bush has wrought on the world, America is still the country so many millions all over the world still want and work to come to?!

Hey, we can agree Iraq was a mistake, but the fact we were there is a big reason why the Iranians gave up the program. They truly were afraid they would be next. You might not like the method, but you can't argue with the results. We got them to give up their program (for now), that's a victory for us and a loss for the Iranian hard-liners who wanted the bomb.

We can agree, perhaps, that Iraq is a *mess*.

But I'm not sure it was a "mistake".

I'm not convinced that the outcome is all that much different from what the neocons wanted -- not what they *said* they wanted, or expected, but what they really wanted, which might have been: General chaos, a means to loot the treasury and funnel money to cronies and, perhaps, build a slush fund for other secret activities.

-- ARG

Fascinating!  You don't even believe your own BS!  I would cut & paste it, but I won't bother. 

Has it ever occurred to you that the other people/countries who are seeking nukes are hoping to prevent their "dads, or uncles, or _____ (subsitute personal reference to make it seem warm & fuzzy to drop a nuke on women, children and men going about their daily lives)from dying at the hands of an agressor?  Is it only American lives that count? 

By they way, I DON'T LIKE THE METHOD, AND I MOST CERTAINLY CAN ARGUE WITH THE RESULTS.  George Bush can't take the credit for Iran benching their nuke program any more than an arsonist can take credit for a home-owner cancelling his redecoration project.

Everything the Bush regime has done has been a fiasco, and speaking of EUROS, the dollar is in the worst place it has been in a generation. 

Jan

What does that tell you about how willing the Japanese leadership at the time was willing to decimate their own people in the defense of their "empire"?

hoppy,

heh, heh, truly.

world leaders in their minds only

:-) :-)

There are world leaders that come to mind......link

Isn't this NIE release is an attempt to absolve the US of coming aerial attacks on Iran from another country in the neighborhood? The NIE release just changes the pretext of the war. Now it would be to save our friend from the counter attack by Iran.

The Bush admin went to war against Joe Wilson and his wife to save face about their lies about Iraq and now the same admin is putting out an estimate that contradicts the President and the admin in a major way. What giveth?

"And if they did, how does it concern me?"

Amen to that. Israel has had a covert nuclear weapons program since 1959.
Look what its done for them: The US lavishes tons of money, state of the art weapons systems and politcal backing on Israel. Hell, even the 2008 presidential candidates--most of them--try and outdo one another in proving how much they love Israel.

India developed her nukes outside of the NPT and look how much trade and soon, nuclear reactors we toss their way.

Ditto for Pakistan. We reward them by giving Musharraf billions and billions of dollars each year.... in CASH.

Iran is surrounded by the U.S. and our 10,000 or so nukes. We've got them in the Arabian Gulf on board our aircraft carriers; we've got the in the Indian Ocean on Diego Garci; we might even have them in our colonial project in the nation formerly known as Iraq.

And Israel is threatening to initiate a bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear energy program.

So why would one more nuke in the ME make any difference?

Maybe if the ME was made a nuke free zone, some sanity could return.

"What giveth?"

Infighting? 

It's a policy to keep us frightened so the can manipulate us through fear. Then they try to get us to follow any damn fool venture they want such as invading Iraq or bombing Iran.

1983Merman said:

Maybe if the ME was made a nuke free zone, some sanity could return.

What an excellent idea.

They were smart enough to want to strengthen their country?

<>Very close, notthere, but no cigar. Try this...

(yuk, yuk) 

<>Neoboho

Illlich, haven't you noticed that all the contenders say me, me, me when they get the floor?  Bill Richarson is particularly good at it.  Why the double standard?  Last time I checked me, me, me is a very standard campaign posture.

Kucinich rules! 

Neoboho

You may be right (wondering if it will make any difference).  I'm leaning toward the other direction, like others have written, I think the dynamics of election year will have a play in this, and the net effect will to be to restrain Bush/Cheney.  And the restraint will come from Republicans, especially those who seek office in the next election.  

If this isn't a classic re-enactment of The Boy Who Cried Wolf I don't what is. And like the fairy tale, when no one believes the President anymore then we are vulnerable to a real threat. 

Neoboho

As I mentioned earlier tonight in this post, directed to Larry Johnson:

“… the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction…”

I just love that line!

The March, 2003 interview with French President Jacques Chirac by Christiane Amanpour, that was aired on 60 Minutes should also be remembered:

CBS News 60 Minutes - March 16, 2003
Chirac Makes His Case On Iraq

Amanpour: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

Chirac: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.

As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don’t know. And that is precisely what the inspectors’ mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response.

Amanpour: Here, many commentators, many newspapers have been hailing you as a hero. They have even said your position should make you qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, in America, in Britain, they call you an appeaser, that you are appeasing this terrible dictator who may have weapons of mass destruction.

Chirac: I feel the same way about Saddam Hussein as George Bush or Tony Blair. There is a rather long list of countries where there are dictatorships, and if we were going to wage war to get rid of all of them without pursuing all other options, we are going to be very busy

Amanpour: You have said that inspections were working in great part because of the massive US and British force that is arrayed outside Saddam Hussein’s doorstep. Wouldn’t it be even more effective if France had sent troops also to double and triple the threat?

Chirac: I have said that it is indeed thanks to the pressure of British and American troops that the Iraqi authorities and Saddam Hussein have changed their position and have agreed to cooperate with the inspectors..

So I would say that the Americans have already won, and they haven’t fired a single bullet.

Considering that on Okinawa the Japanese literally fought to almost the last man losing 100,000 troops, and that according to John Masters in his classic book, The Road Past Mandalay:

...there was our common single enemy, the Japanese. They are the bravest people I have ever met... they believed in something and were willing to die for it, for any smallest detail that would help achieve it... they pressed home their attacks when no other troops in the world would have done so....By 1944 (in SE Asia) scores of thousands of Allied soldiers had fallen unwounded into enemy hands as prisoners, because our philosophy and our history have taught us to accept surrender....By 1944, on the Burma front....the number of Japanese captured unwounded was about six. Frugal and bestial, barbarous and brave, artistic and brutal, they were the dushman (enemy-Hindi) and we now set about , in all seriousness, the task of killing every one of them.

A reading of Prisoners of The Japanese is also educational. Who can say how many would have died without 'the bomb', perhaps as Masters described, with an invasion of the homeland, it would have been necessary to 'kill every one of them'.

Yes indeed the US sold "insecticides" chemicals to Iraq which we knew full well without any doubt whatsoever were being used for (in fact we removed Saddam's Iraq from the list of terrorist nations to allow the trade to happen):

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague....
According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." ..

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide." ...

In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

Iran has been proposing turning the Mideast into a nuke free zone since 1974.

Guess who opposes it?

You expected over 3800 of your fellow soldiers to be killed and an additional 28,000+ wounded - at least half of whom have been permanently maimed? Just so he can strut around pretending his cojones are big?

Turn in your stripes!

Of course the careerists at the CIA oppose Duhbya, they're part of the reality-based group.

There's no actual evidence that there ever was a nuclear weapons program in Iran - not now, not in 2003, not ever.

There's no more reason to believe this NIE than there was to believe the previous NIE. Who knows what the next NIE will say.

Finding secret nuclear weapons programs is the job of the IAEA, which has stated repeatedly that it has not found any such evidence. If the US has the evidence, let them present it to the IAEA. That's the bottom line.

The NIE is just some more spin by the Bush administration which wants to explain away the absence of evidence (by claiming that the once-existing weapons program was "halted" as a result of US policies) and yet still scaremonger about IRan's alleged "intent" or "capacity" to make nukes.

The real disinformation is not going to come from these primary sources. It is when the secondary sources start being cited in zines like WND and Newsmax, that the real NeoCon Circlejerk begins in earnest. I culled these citations from Laura Rozen's "War and Piece".

The Primaries:

• Norman Podhoretz, "Dark Suspicions about the NIE", Commentary, 12.03.2007
• Max Boot, "A Few More Questions About The NIE", Commentary, 12.03.2007
• Gabriel Schoenfeld, "Is the NIE Part of a Plot to Undermine President Bush?", Commentary, 12.04.2007
• Michael Ledeen, "The Great Intelligence Scam", Pajamas Media, 12.3.2007
• Robert Kagan, "Time to Talk to Iran", Washington Post, 12.5.2007
• Clifford May, "Re: Iranian Nukes", NRO, The Corner, December 03, 2007

Not many will be fooled by references to Commentary, or from Micahel Ledeen. A few more would be fooled by Kagan and May references, but not enough to make the circlejerk stick. It is the secondary source citations that need be watched for:

• Mike Nizza, "The Skeptical Camp Emerges on Iran's Nuclear Ambitions", New York Times, 12.04.2007

Actually I expected the President to stay committed to the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the world. I expected him to push for making permanent the tax cuts that started the economy rolling again after the down turn at the end of the Clinton administration that was exacerbated by 9/11. I expected the President to stay committed to find terrorists here as well. I also expected all of the name calling and outrageous claims like "treason against the Constitution" from the nuttiest of y'all. Thanks for not disappointing. Oh, and you can have my stripe when you think you can come take them.