[url=http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071207_calling_on_congress_to_stop_a_war/]Calling on Congress to Stop a War
[/url]


By Scott Ritter

Let’s hear it for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). After more than five years of effort, incorporating technologically advanced, exhaustive inspections of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities (and, to a lesser degree, some undeclared facilities as well), the fruit of its labor has been borne out in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced by the U.S. intelligence community that finds that Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program. While the analysis behind the NIE conclusion reflects the independent judgment of the 16 agencies which comprise the U.S. intelligence community, there is no doubt that the most influential information behind the assessment was that of the IAEA inspections, which had probed Iran’s nuclear program since November 2002. The IAEA had coordinated closely with the U.S. intelligence community in preparing for its inspections inside Iran, so much so that there was almost no stone left unturned and no major question left unanswered for U.S. analysts when it came to the nuclear facilities and activities of interest. The consensus-driven NIE puts to rest the notion that Iran represents any sort of imminent threat worthy of near-term pre-emptive military action.

Personally, the NIE (and its roots in the findings of the IAEA inspections) came as no surprise. In my 2006 book “Target Iran” I framed precisely the same argument using data virtually identical to that contained in the NIE. While I am tempted to utter the immortal words “I told you so,” such self-congratulation would not only reek of hubris but divert attention away from the fact that the NIE isn’t the final word on the framing and implementation of U.S.-Iran policy. It is but an empty document void of meaning unless life is breathed into its findings by an Executive rededicated to formulating policy founded in fact, not ideology, or a Congress awakened to its long-dormant status as a separate but equal branch of government.

There is, of course, considerable nuance contained in the NIE, enough to provide a safety net for those who had postulated a much more alarmist notion of Iran’s nuclear ambition. Without citing specific evidence to substantiate its claims, the NIE declares that although the Iranian program has remained dormant since 2003, there is uncertainty about what the ultimate objectives of Iran are regarding its “assessed” nuclear program. Some, such as Stephen Hadley, the current national security adviser for the Bush administration, have jumped on this conclusion as clear evidence of the efficacy of President Bush’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambition, the need for continued resolve in the face of Iranian noncompliance with international demands concerning the suspension of uranium enrichment, and the endorsement of the “diplomacy first” posture publicly embraced by the Bush foreign policy team.

This sort of “let the intelligence estimate justify the current policy” approach is extremely disconcerting, not only because of the obvious cart-before-the-horse aspect, but perhaps, more important, because of past patterns of behavior by the Bush administration. As in its approach to Iraq in 2002, the White House has embraced an unspoken policy direction regarding Iran which seeks “regional transformation” in the Middle East, including the targeting of select regimes (such as Iran’s theocracy) that are deemed to be incompatible with the United States’ (read George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s) vision of how the Middle East should operate politically. This policy was in place prior to the publication of the NIE and remains in place today. The president himself has made it clear that, far from discrediting his policy stance vis-à-vis Iran, the new NIE reinforces his belief that Iran was a threat in the past and continues to pose a threat for the future in the form of an undeclared nuclear weapons program which, even in its current “dormant” state, could be restarted in short order by taking advantage of the uranium enrichment program the Bush administration has said must be halted, something Iran has steadfastly refused to do.

Virtually unreferenced in all of the media buzz following the release of the NIE on Iran is the response of America’s No. 1 ally in the Middle East: Israel. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has dismissed the American NIE as irrelevant. The Israeli position has always been to oppose the development of any technology by Iran which provides material support to a nuclear weapons program, whether one formally exists or is currently dormant. The demonstrated capability of Iran to enrich uranium has crossed a red line previously declared by Israel to mark what is acceptable and unacceptable to its national security interests.

Looks like some intelligence and military professionals are scrambling to distance themselves from the Bush administration:



US reversal on Iran intel reflects breaking of the ranks: analysts



And of course, the monkey in the WH isn't going to like to think of himself as "irrelevant:"



EXCELLENT COMMENT AT THE LINK:

i think we're finally seeing some of the info coming to the surface that i thought for quite some time that the dems were sitting on.

the nie report and the torture memos/videos that were destroyed are potential powder kegs that i think are going to implode the bushicons for good.

and what's beutiful is the fact that the media is feeding on this like blood in the water. the dems just have to sit back and watch the game come to them as it will make look a lot less partisan.

this will put a lot more oomph behind the push for impeachment which i'm thinkin will start with cheney and fan out in a net that will ensnare many more big fish.

olbermann is a lot more fun to watch every night now.

pass the popcorn.

MSNBC has this story as its headline! Slowly, this msm has been reporting more stories that are less complimentary to the Bush admin...Olberman, of course, and then Abrams has been doing a few...now this.

Folks...if this isn't evidence for impeachment, I don't know what is! How can Pelosi refuse to acknowledge that this president is guilty of impeachable offenses????????

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/]Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'
Hundreds of false statements on WMDs, al-Qaida used to justify Iraq war
[/url]

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

That bottom image is a very fine picture of the Bushbarian warmongers.

I suspect that history will describe the cabal in much more derogatory vernacular.

[url=http://www.democrats.com:80/pelosi-plans-178-billion-blank-check-for-iraq]Pelosi Plans $178 Billion Blank Check for Iraq
[/url]

Read the several topics on the war's funding at the link.

What is most disingenuous about this maneuver is it is being setup so there will be no election debate on funding the war. It is combining two requests into one and getting them passed and approved before any serious debate can be started before the election, it would fund the war into 2009 and make all Iraq occupation problems the new president's and the new Congress'.

But the Senate will probably overturn it...

U.S. House defeats $162.5 bln in new war funds

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday defeated legislation that would have funded the war in Iraq for another year, in a surprise move that the Senate could overturn.

By a vote of 149-141, the Democrat-controlled House rejected a measure that would have given the Pentagon $162.5 billion to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan running through next summer, slightly below President George W. Bush's request.

A large group of anti-war House Democrats voted against the funds. That, coupled with 132 Republicans voting "present," meaning neither "yes" nor "no," killed the measure for now.

But the Senate is expected to debate its version of a war-funding bill possibly next week and is likely to resurrect the money for the coming year.

They can crow all they want, but in my opinion, they approved far too much for the war itself. As long as the troops are in Iraq, there will be an ever-increasing need for substantial veterans' benefits, and the "poor" are going to become one of four classes in America: Ultra RICH, Upper Poor, Middle Poor, and Lower Poor.


[url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_IRAQ_FUNDING?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME]Senate deals defeat to Bush on Iraq war spending

[/url]

In a stunning vote that illustrated President Bush's diminished standing, the Senate on Thursday ignored his veto threat and added tens of billions of dollars for veterans and the unemployed to his Iraq war spending bill.

A majority of Republicans broke ranks with Bush on a veto-proof 75-22 vote while adding more than $10 billion for various other domestic programs, including heating subsidies for the poor, wildfire fighting, road and bridge repair, and health research.

Democrats crowed about their victory. But the developments meant more confusion about when the must-pass measure might actually become law and what the final version will contain.

Senators voted 70-26 to approve $165 billion to fulfill Bush's request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, when Bush's successor will set war policy. Overall, the measure contains $212 billion over the coming two years - $28 billion more than the administration sought - plus about $50 billion more through 2017 for veterans' education benefits.

Bush has promised to veto the Iraq spending if it exceeds his request. He has enough GOP support in the House to sustain a veto.

But the spectacle of 25 Senate Republicans abandoning the White House and voting to extend jobless benefits by 13 weeks and boost the GI Bill to provide veterans enough money to pay for a four-year education at a public institution made it plain that Bush's influence is waning.

"He has no political capital left," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

Just 25? They must all be up for re-election!