Iran NIE Reax

Barack Obama says:

By reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago because of international pressure, the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy. The juxtaposition of this NIE with the president's suggestion of World War III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the President any justification to use military force.

There's a very subtle dig here at Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, noting that both of them, unlike you or I or Barack Obama, had access to the classified version of the 2002 NIE on Iraq, a document that debunked substantial elements of the administration's case for war, but which neither Clinton nor Edwards (nor a great many other members of congress) bothered to read before voting to authorize the use of force. Meanwhile, the John Edwards says:

The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war. The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps like the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which needlessly took us closer to war. And it’s why I have proposed that we pursue a comprehensive diplomatic approach instead.

Typically, the dig here is less subtle. What's more, it seems appropriate. Keep in mind that the contents of this NIE have been known to the Bush administration for over a year. Under the circumstances, the push for Kyl-Lieberman and similar measures looks an awful lot like a deliberate effort to change the subject away from Iran's alleged nuclear program specifically because the main actors in the administration knew their case on this point was about to collapse. Democrats who voted for Kyl-Lieberman look, under the circumstances, likes dupes at best.

Comments

Is this from an email or do you have a link? I would like to go read it.

Posted by d | December 4, 2007 9:36 AM

look, under the circumstances, likes dupes at best.

That's certainly being polite about it. Obama really has to keep hitting this note, that HRC is a dupe at best, and will continue to flush lives and trillions down a toilet designed by Bush and Lord Cheney.

He has to go to NH and make the case that he will end the war, she won't. He won't start ANY new wars, she might. the party thirsts for a legitimate antiwar candidate, and he might be the one.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | December 4, 2007 9:46 AM

very subtle

or not.

Posted by moron | December 4, 2007 9:47 AM

dupes at best

Unless they just plain want a war.

Great point about Kyl-Lieberman.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | December 4, 2007 9:53 AM

Edwards voted for it and Obama wasn't in the Senate so it's impossible to know what he would have done if he had been. Given his position on the phony Social Security crisis, I think there is reason to believe that Obama would have sided with the Villagers.

Posted by Rich | December 4, 2007 9:59 AM

What's real important is what Bill Clinton will say five years from now about what he thought about this today.

Posted by Douglas Watts | December 4, 2007 10:00 AM

"will continue to flush lives and trillions down a toilet designed by Bush and Lord Cheney."

TRANSLATION: Continue to Steal taxpayer money and unmetered oil -

oh and by the way, we sure liberated the hell out of that profit center that is known as afghanny opium didn't we

Posted by cynical guy | December 4, 2007 10:00 AM

What's real important is what Bill Clinton will say five years from now about what he thought about this today.

Posted by Douglas Watts | December 4, 2007 10:00 AM

Kyl-Lieberman wasn't about the nuclear program, but was instead about very real and serious concerns that the U.S., the EU, the UN and the GCC have regarding Iran's record of activities in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

How you twist that around into Democrats looking likes dupes is beyond me, since it was a measure condemning activity that there is broad consensus on (unlike the weaponized nukes program).

Posted by Kevin Sullivan | December 4, 2007 10:04 AM

Democrats who voted for Kyl-Lieberman look, under the circumstances, likes dupes at best.

At this point, I'd suggest that any member of Congress who votes for anything the administration wants is a dupe. I understand that you can't have a hard and fast rule that if the Bush administration wants it, it's a bad idea, but you can certainly use that as a starting point and work from there.

Posted by Incertus (Brian) | December 4, 2007 10:09 AM

This NIE "leak" is mighty neat and tidy.

Posted by ventro | December 4, 2007 10:18 AM

Kevin, have you noticed that the Cheney/Bush admin. has shut up recently about how the Iranians are supplying all the IEDs and the guerilla troops and all? Could it be that this rhetoric is about to go up in smoke in the same way as the "nuclear bomb" program?

Posted by Mellifluous | December 4, 2007 10:18 AM

It wouldn't matter if they read the NIE carefully. They knew Bush was lying and voted for it for political reasons. At least Edwards has apologized for the vote.

Posted by steve EVfuture | December 4, 2007 10:19 AM

In Response to Rich | December 4, 2007 9:59 AM:

Obama attended (and also spoke) at an anti-war rally. As someone who also attended a rally, as a citizen, in 20 degree weather, there's a bond there of trust you can't get over. You remember these people, the ones who are elected officials who are brave enough to get it. I remember Representative Conyers in D.C.

Read Obama's 2002 speech (link below). Somehow I don't think he would have voted along with Clinton and Edwards:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Posted by Beth in VA | December 4, 2007 10:20 AM

Kevin Sullivan: "Kyl-Lieberman wasn't about the nuclear program, but was instead about very real and serious concerns that the U.S., the EU, the UN and the GCC have regarding Iran's record of activities in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East."

Yes, since US activities like completely destabilizing Iraq, rushing munitions to the Israelis when they bombed the crap out of Lebanon recently, are outside the limits of legitimate discussion.

Posted by anon | December 4, 2007 10:30 AM

What Kevin Sullivan said. Kyl-Lieberman probably made war with Iran LESS likely by putting them on notice that we knew the score and would take some unspecified action. We've named lots of groups "terrorist organizations" without launching airstrikes against them.

Moreover, it seems to have worked, as military officials in Iraq are reporting evidence of reduced Iranian resupply of the EFP's. This will probably save American lives, and I can't fathom the kind of pig-headedness that makes those who voted for it into "dupes".

Posted by Robert Powell | December 4, 2007 10:36 AM

To add to what Beth in VA said, Obama also went on TV (I believe on Charlie Rose) in late 2002 and in that interview condemned the rush to war, in part because he didn't see how we were going to keep Iraq together between the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds. This, remember, was while he was just a guy in the Illinois Senate? What other major candidate, many of whom had access to greater resources than an Illinois State Senate member, was actually talking about the biggest barrier to success in Iraq at that time? How many of them even knew what Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds even were?

Posted by Reality Man | December 4, 2007 10:45 AM

I agree with steve EVfuture, you didn't need to read the NIE to know what was really going on. However, since most people were probably in favor of the AUMF at the time, saying Edwards and Clinton were too clueless to realize what was going on implies the people (i.e., voters) were also clueless (which they were, but that's not the point). Saying they should have known better because of information that was available only to them allows him to criticize them without criticizing people who agreed with their vote.

Posted by ibid | December 4, 2007 10:49 AM

Keep in mind that the contents of this NIE have been known to the Bush administration for over a year.

I've seen this on several posts but am puzzled as to why anyone would make that claim.

The key intercepts between the Rev Guard generals talking about the defunct nuke program wasn't even seen until last summer. It was at that point that the Administration - rightly skeptical about information that turned what we knew about Iran on its head - asked for further vetting to make sure it wasn't some kind of disinformation campaign.

This was a sensible precaution to my mind and the CIA finished it's analysis just a few weeks ago. Further, it appears that there was no consensus in the intelligence community on the program being shut down in 2003 until that intercept had been confirmed.

I think if you're trying to make a case that the Bushies had this thing cold a year ago, you fail. It doesn't stand up to the facts as they have been released.

Posted by Rick Moran | December 4, 2007 10:53 AM

"It wouldn't matter if they read the NIE carefully. They knew Bush was lying and voted for it for political reasons. At least Edwards has apologized for the vote.

Posted by steve EVfuture"

Agree 100%. Remember that Bush insisted on a vote on the resolution BEFORE the elections.

Since Bush was still riding high at the time and the press was literally begging for war, a vote delay was suicidal and a vote against was dicey.

Off hand I can only remember 2 Senators, up for re-election in 2002, who voted against the resolution. Paul Wellstone was one and even he admitted that he pushed the button with trepidation. The other was Carl Levin who was a lock to be re-elected. The GOP ran some little known schmuck (they have a thin bench in Michigan) and Levin got over 60% of the vote.

My problem with Hillary on this matter is not that she voted for it so much as she's failed to unequivically repudiate her vote. Give Edwards credit for admitting he was wrong.

I give no regard whatever to Obama on this matter. He can point to public statements against the war at that time, but, as a state legislator, he had no say in the matter and did not risk retribution.

Hell I was against it also but I'm nobody and Obama was, in that case, nobody as well.

It's very easy to say that voting no was the right thing to do. I feel that way myself, that anyone descended from bipedals had to understand that invading Iraq would be a monumental blunder, etc.

We live in a democracy (sort of) and many people take what they've learned from the media into the voting booth.

When Bush insisted on a pre-election vote the press should have climbed all over him. That would have helped stiffen a few spines. Since the press was eager for war there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of preventing the invasion.

Posted by cal1942 | December 4, 2007 11:22 AM

"Moreover, it seems to have worked, as military officials in Iraq are reporting evidence of reduced Iranian resupply of the EFP's."

That was a pretty easy achievement, since they were almost certainly blowing smoke about the source of EFPs to begin with.

Posted by Njorl | December 4, 2007 11:23 AM

Anyone who thinks there's an inch of distance between Bush's foreign policy and HRC's isn't paying attention.

Posted by Alan in SF | December 4, 2007 11:41 AM

I assume Democratic members of Intelligence Committees have also had this information for months. They sat there while Lieberman raised holy hell about Iran trying to destroy the world and never said a damned thing. Most of them voted for his crazy-assed resolutions, too, knowing they were promoting a lie. They Just sat there and kept their damned secrets. How could members of the Intelligence Committees allow these flagrant lies to be spewed by their fellow Senators and Representatives and not ever make any effort to guide the discussion away from a march to war?

What purpose does the Intelligence Committee serve if it is a partner in lies? If they have information that is necessary to make informed decisions , Intelligence Committee members have an obligation to use that intelligence to guide discussions so that Congress makes informed and sane decisions. Hiding behind the "we can't disclose classified secrets" dodge is getting old. Again and again we find out Congressmembers knew the administration was lying and they went along with those lies, because they didn't want to disclose secrets. It is shameful. Congress is supposed to provide oversight of the intelligence community and when they see lies being used to promote war they have an obligation to stand up and call it lies.

I heard a McClatchy reporter on CSPAN this morning saying the way our "intelligence community" discovered that Iran was not working on nuclear weapons, was when Iran allowed the media to tour their facility and take photographs of this super secret facility, and they could tell the structures were wrong for weapons grade enrichment. Iran allowed the media to tour a "secret facility"? Apparently, it was not that hard to figure out what they were doing, and it was not a big secret.

Posted by apishapa | December 4, 2007 11:49 AM

Has there ever been a bigger, sorrier bunch of Lying Liars than this crowd? Every time they open their mouths, they lie. Every time.

Posted by Doofus | December 4, 2007 12:16 PM

In the NY times today...

The Times’s Marc Santora writes:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s national security director, Lee Feinstein, said the report’s findings “expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends.” He added that the report “vindicates” Mrs. Clinton’s approach, which he described as “vigorous American-led diplomacy, close international cooperation and effective economic pressure, with the prospect of carefully calibrated incentives if Iran addresses our concerns.”

In fact, in September Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, voted in favor of a Senate measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards “proliferators of mass destruction,” a vote that was condemned by her rivals in the Democratic field. After the vote, her aides issued a statement saying, “The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program.”

Mrs. Clinton’s rivals used the release of the report on Iran on Monday to condemn the Bush administration, as well as to once again attack Mrs. Clinton’s vote on declaring the guards a terrorist organization. That vote, they suggested, was evidence of her hawkishness on Iran".

It looks like all Senator Clinton defenders in this blog have to read the Kyl-Lieberman amendment again.

Posted by john | December 4, 2007 1:34 PM

Read Obama's 2002 speech (link below). Somehow I don't think he would have voted along with Clinton and Edwards:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Thanks for the link, but when you couple Obama's pandering on Social Security and the failure of his health care plan to mandate universal coverage, I don't have a lot of confidence that Obama would have shown the same degree of courage if he had been in the Senate in 2002.

Posted by Rich | December 4, 2007 1:35 PM

I think if you're trying to make a case that the Bushies had this thing cold a year ago, you fail. It doesn't stand up to the facts as they have been released.

Sadly, No!
Rick, I think you don't actually think that.
You've been around enough understand that if the Bush administration held up an NIE due to issues with the consensus view, it's not because they weren't sure they had the facts as solid as possible. It's because they didn't like the consensus view, and wanted time to pressure the principals to change the consensus view.
Well, this time, the intelligence community didn't cave in, having seen the disastrous results of allowing administration pressure to influence the consensus view.

Posted by kenga | December 4, 2007 2:19 PM

Ventro: The NIE was not leaked, it was officially released. The public has been properly informed about results of intelligence gathered with our money on our behalf, but only after it was withheld to allow anti-Iran rhetoric to be disseminated without challenge. Pay attention or you'll sound stupid to people who do.

Posted by W Action | December 4, 2007 2:34 PM

Thanks for the link, but when you couple Obama's pandering on Social Security and the failure of his health care plan to mandate universal coverage, I don't have a lot of confidence that Obama would have shown the same degree of courage if he had been in the Senate in 2002.

Ahhh yes, the thanks but since he doesn't care about (insert pet cause completely unrelated to topic at hand), he clearly wouldn't have done what he didn't have an opportunity to do argument. Very compelling.

Posted by SPAZZNiBLET | December 4, 2007 2:50 PM

We've named lots of groups "terrorist organizations" without launching airstrikes against them.
Posted by Robert Powell | December 4, 2007 10:36 AM

Get your facts straight, Bozo.

Until the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was so identified, the United States had never designated the armed forces (or any element thereof) of any nation a "terrorist organization."

Look it up.

Posted by Ben | December 4, 2007 3:25 PM

"Keep in mind that the contents of this NIE have been known to the Bush administration for over a year."

I've seen this on several posts but am puzzled as to why anyone would make that claim.

Because it's true.

The opening grafs of The Consortium’s story by Ray McGovern on this read as follows:

With redraft after redraft, it was what the Germans call “eine schwere Geburt”—a difficult birth, ten months in gestation.

I do not know how often Vice President Dick Cheney visited CIA Headquarters during the gestation period, but I am told he voiced his displeasure as soon as he saw the first sonogram/draft very early this year, and is so displeased with what issued that he has refused to be the godfather.

This time Cheney and his neo-con colleagues were unable to abort the process. And after delivery to the press, this child is going to be very hard to explain—the more so since it is legitimate.

In other words, Cheney certainly knew, and we all know that he’s the real Decider. He not only knew, he was actively trying to kill the NIE before it could be released to the public!

Even better: AmericaBlog found this WaPo story showing that Bush was originally briefed months ago:

Hadley said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate. Vice President Cheney, Hadley and other top officials were briefed the week before last. Intelligence officials formalized their conclusions on Tuesday and briefed Bush the next day.

So Bush lied. Again.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | December 4, 2007 3:28 PM

"Keep in mind that the contents of this NIE have been known to the Bush administration for over a year."

I've seen this on several posts but am puzzled as to why anyone would make that claim.

The key intercepts between the Rev Guard generals talking about the defunct nuke program wasn't even seen until last summer. It was at that point that the Administration - rightly skeptical about information that turned what we knew about Iran on its head - asked for further vetting to make sure it wasn't some kind of disinformation campaign.

This was a sensible precaution to my mind and the CIA finished it's analysis just a few weeks ago. Further, it appears that there was no consensus in the intelligence community on the program being shut down in 2003 until that intercept had been confirmed.

I think if you're trying to make a case that the Bushies had this thing cold a year ago, you fail. It doesn't stand up to the facts as they have been released.

Posted by Rick Moran | December 4, 2007 10:53 AM

You have been drinking the Kool-Aid. Any time an official talks publicly about "intercepts", you are being fed disinformation.

Matthew is correct, the newsmaking part of the NIE was known by the IC no later than April, as the following from a November WaPo article makes reference to:

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said yesterday that a long-awaited intelligence estimate covering Iran’s nuclear program will be finished by the end of this month, attributing the delay to new information collected in late spring that caused a reconsideration of some elements of the assessment.

“We had more information that inserted some new questions, so the effort has been to sort that out,” McConnell said at a luncheon at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Following a recently announced policy, McConnell said he does not intend to release an unclassified version of the estimate’s key judgments.

The above makes clear that the information that the administration didn't want to hear was received way earlier than they are now claiming.

Posted by Ben | December 4, 2007 3:40 PM

Ahhh yes, the thanks but since he doesn't care about (insert pet cause completely unrelated to topic at hand), he clearly wouldn't have done what he didn't have an opportunity to do argument. Very compelling.

Far more compelling than the fact-free rhetoric that comprises your post.

Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, Obama is demonstrating a troubling propensity to give aid and comfort to the proponents of right wing policies.

That you find it so illogical that to be suspicious of a politician who evinces a lack of intestinal fortitude on important policy positions when he finally emerges on the national stage, no matter what he did with the benefit of the relative safety and obscurity of being a state legislator, reveals as much about your inability to reason as it does about Obama's apparent unwillingness to fight for meaningful change.

Posted by Rich | December 4, 2007 4:17 PM

I'm sick and tired of the argument over mandates for health insurance. Of all the ideas I've heard for making universal coverage happen, this is the sleaziest. A mandate with no penalty does NOTHING. No one has discussed penalties, and as Massachusets shows us mandates may not even work! BUT, because it gives one trivial difference between the various Democratic plans it gets brought up.

Ezra was on this nonsense the other day and I wanted to scream. If you want "universal" care (as in everyone has healthcare) you've got to go with single-payer. It's the only way to make sure EVERYONE is covered. If you're going to tweak our existing system (as almost all the candidates seem to want to do), you will not achieve universal coverage.

Does mandated auto insurance mean every driver on the road has auto insurance? No. Does it mean auto insurers feel more impetus to compete? Not really -- they play some games with price but they're all basically offering the same service for comparable prices. The only thing it does is guarantees a fat revenue stream for companies based people betting against themselves.

I'll pay over $2,000 this year for coverage for myself and my daughter. I've been to the doctor for a physical and she has as well. She saw a child psychiatrist recently. Considering what those would have cost me out of pocket, I got screwed. WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED THAT SCREWING???!!??

Posted by James Hare | December 4, 2007 4:43 PM

and "Rich"
Where are your vaunted facts that Obama's a gutless turd? You already called him out, but you don't offer any reasons to support that assertion. It's gutless to say you'd meet with foreign nations when even members of your own party call you naive and inexperienced? It's gutless to stand against a war that enjoyed majority support in the nation and a great deal of support even within your own party? It's gutless to fight for the rights of accused murderers to ensure a fair criminal justice system? It's gutless to risk your entire political career taking on the most powerful machine in Democratic politics in the last 20 years?

What does it take to show "guts," Rich? And why the heck are you so worried about that and not about policy? You offer no support for your accusation, just unfounded unwarranted attacks. If Obama gets the nomination even with the cynicism and nastiness of this party, he'll be well prepared for the Republicans.

I'm almost tired of being a part of the purity troll netroots. Y'all are every bit as crazy and out there as the wingers -- the only difference is you're not bigoted and many of you are decent writers. Whatever you are, the country isn't on your side like you think. I was gung-ho partisan, let's go after these awful Republicans for a long time but this primary has taught me a few things.

First, that there are certain elements of this party that will never be happy with anything. They want an absolutely ideologically pure candidate that does not exist. I don't think those people even examine their own views, because I know I'd get in arguments with myself if I subscribed to the whole pantheon of litmus tests the netroots would subject candidates to.

Second the netroots seems to believe the political process is solely about them. Guess what, folks--it's not about you. It's never going to be. We're a ridiculously small minority. Our best hope is to steer the discourse in positive directions and support our favored candidates. We're not going to change the system overnight and we're not going to change either party that much. If you want a new system or new party, you'll have to advocate for that--and NOT work within the existing structures.

Finally, I've learned that I have little patience for folks who cannot accept that other people have different opinions that are just as valid as their own. My Dad's a historian and one of the things we discussed many times was the idea of a "marketplace of ideas" as the centerpiece of a functioning democracy. Without a variety of viewpoints, we can't come up with the best solutions. It might feel good to run roughshod over the Republican party like they've done in the past 7 years but it would not be what was best for the country. Part of the reason many of the initiatives of the Bush administration have failed to deliver has been precisely because they don't include opposing viewpoints or see where the flaws of their arguments are. Those on our side who do the same thing face the same results.

Posted by James Hare | December 4, 2007 4:55 PM

Kevin, have you noticed that the Cheney/Bush admin. has shut up recently about how the Iranians are supplying all the IEDs and the guerilla troops and all? Could it be that this rhetoric is about to go up in smoke in the same way as the "nuclear bomb" program?
Posted by Mellifluous

US capture and subsequent interogation of Iranian operatives inside Iraq may have had something to do with practically ending the supply of Iranian EFPs that killed over 400 Americans. Iran lost it's "plausible deniability" given it's agents capture and subsequent capture of large stockpiles of Iranian EFPs, mortar shells, rockets, and sniper rounds inside Iraq. We pretty much had a smoking gun, a causus belli, and somehow, were able to communicate to Iran our willingness to "payback" if necessary.
(The US is the official UN-recognized "occupying power" - with responsibilities, but also privileges. Like no other nation having the right to go in and kill Americans or assist in that without being in a status where the UN recognizes "legitimate self-defense on the interloper". That little fact is for moral equivalence Lefties that insist Iran has as much right to go in and start civil war as the US, as occupying power, is tasked with stopping widespread violence)

Moreover, it seems to have worked, as military officials in Iraq are reporting evidence of reduced Iranian resupply of the EFP's."
That was a pretty easy achievement, since they were almost certainly blowing smoke about the source of EFPs to begin with.
Posted by Njorl

"Almost certainly blowing smoke" means you believe the despicable American troops, Petraeus, milbloggers, Brit, US intel, and briefed Armed Services members in Congress are all lying about this and the Iranian weapons and agents found. And that Amahdinejad "The Iranian Scott Thomas Beauchamp" is telling the truth.
That is the danger of hating the West and emotionally investing in the superior truth-telling of a declared enemy of the West like Iran so much, Njorl.
It makes you into an enemy sympathizer and mouthpiece.
Like those sick SWP Lefties who follow Kim Il-jong and defend his veracity over the rest of the globe...

I'd rather believe people like my nephew, that had pics sent from his old unit now in Baghdad that uncovered a cache of 80 Iranian heavy mortar rounds in a Najaf neighborhood - acting on info from a captured Iraqi who had come back from Iran's Rev Guard training and a half dozen Shiite militia he was caught working with. (Nephew is now inactive med reserve - car bomb in 2006 blew out his eardrums.)

Posted by Chris Ford | December 4, 2007 5:13 PM

"The key intercepts between the Rev Guard generals talking about the defunct nuke program wasn't even seen until last summer..."

And any intelligence agency relying on somebody claiming the nuke program was defunct in a cell phone call is composed of idiots. That was a crap statement intended to justify the weasel-worded concept that Iran has "stopped beating his wife."

The reality is that Iran never had an actual nuclear weapons program. What they had was a dual-capability nuclear energy program and possibly a side military program to learn how to build nukes (SOP for any military these days.) What probably was intercepted was a discussion about how the military information program was halted because it could be used against Iran's energy program by the US.

And Ford's nonsense about "stockpiles of Iranian weapons" and "captured Iranian agents" is so much crap. The US military has been unable to demonstrate ANY connection between Iran and the IRGC to weapons flow into Iraq, let alone attacks on US troops. I don't doubt there has been some black market activity and some support from the IRGC for the Shia militias, but if the Pentagon had any real evidence of direct Iranian involvement, it would have been flouted publicly and loudly. And it wasn't.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 4, 2007 6:19 PM

Thanks for the link, but when you couple Obama's pandering on Social Security and the failure of his health care plan to mandate universal coverage, I don't have a lot of confidence that Obama would have shown the same degree of courage if he had been in the Senate in 2002.

The media, Clinton and Edwards are all misrepresenting Obama's stance on mandates. Obama believes that most people who don't buy health insurance can't afford it. He doesn't think you should mandate coverage until after you lower the cost of it, because it would be an unfair burden. He believes his proposal would achieve the same level of coverage using lower cost and outreach or auto-enrollment to get people covered. He also allows the 18-25 age group to stay on their parents' insurance.

Once those programs are in place, he would investigate who remains uninsured and why. If there remains a significant group of people who are financially able to purchase health insurance but refuse to do so, he is willing to create a mandate. He has even said he would be willing to include a "trigger" in the law that would automatically cause a mandate to come into effect if needed.

He's giving adults an opportunity to act like adults, he's not totally rejecting the approach.

Posted by Rachel | December 4, 2007 10:46 PM

Chris Ford, you did a lousy job as the coach of the 76ers. Really miserable.

Posted by Trevor Lahey | December 5, 2007 4:02 AM

Rachel, great explanation.

Posted by mdy | December 5, 2007 4:13 AM

While it is impossible to ignore the myriad of problems that have been encountered during the Iraq war, I think Iran's decision to halt thier Nuclear program was in no small part linked to their fear of actions to be taken by the US as a result of the invasion of Iraq. This fear would have been unfounded had the US not chosen to invade Iraq. The Iraq war, aside from its failures did produce a benefit.

Posted by Bill | December 5, 2007 11:15 PM

Bill is clearly right. Only I wouldn't say just "a" benefit. By finally taking responsibility for finishing what we started in 1991, we stopped being responsible for virtual genocide by both omission and commission against the Iraqi people, saved God knows how many lives by preventing future Saddam eruptions, and in sponsoring the first Shi'ite dominated democracy in world history, have an ideal partner in Iraq for our attempts to regularize our relationship with Iran going forward. We should never minimize the costs or fail to learn the appropriate lessons from the mistakes, but when all's said and done, this will look a lot more like success than what we accomplished in Korea.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 6, 2007 2:16 AM

Unless there was something else big that happened in 2003 to influence Iran, I think credit goes to evil neocons.

Also, we shouldn't fail to note that for Iran to shelf a weapons program, it must necessarily have had one. They have yet to acknowledge this. Transparency is critical.

Posted by Charles | December 7, 2007 4:58 PM