N.I.E.

Today 16 separate entities, including but not limited to, the CIA, FBI, DIA, Navy Intel, Marine Core Intel, Army Intel, the Sate Dept, Homeland Security, and the Treasury Dept, released the National Intelligence Estimate for the coming year. The big news? Iran. It was revealed that Iran abandoned work on its primary nuclear weapons project (centrifuges, etc, although they are still seeking to enrich uranium) in 2003. Now, what event occurred in 2003 that we can all think of? It was in that region, it involved a neighbor of Iran .... oh that's right, we invaded Iraq and demonstrated to Ahmeddenajad et al that we could depose in a few weeks a man they couldn't beat in two wars over 25 years. Now the insurgency post war is a different group by and large, but the point is he saw first hand just what we could do with minimal forces. And the larger point is that had we not gone in it is highly likely that Iran would be nuclear by now, Saddam wouldn't have stood for that, he goes nuclear, we have to arm Jordan and the most incendiary region of the world flies full bore into a new arms race. What a disaster. And no, that was not the reason given for invasion, I'm simply pointing out that if current trends hold and even progress in Iraq, combined with scaring Iran into not going nuclear, add Qaddafi's about face and things are shaping up in a way that will cause history to look quite favorably on one GW Bush's overall action and results in that theater.

Of course opponents are jumping on this report saying that it shows that once again Bush & co were beating the drums of war over WMD's that didn't yet exist, but I find that a rather juvenile attack. Like the case with Saddam every Intel agency in the world believed Iran was heading towards nuclear armament (and they obviously were), but it was OUR intelligence agencies that, unlike last time, vetted the situation and broke the news that primary nuclear development was halted 4 years ago, and Bush held a press conference stating just that right away (earlier today), and noting that they will continue to push for the dismantlement of already made progress.

On a separate note Glenn Beck has a new book entitled "An Inconvenient Book" that is supposed to be a very comprehensive compilation of facts and figures on a wide range of issues, charts, graphs etc that, among other things, conservatives can reference in refuting liberal talking points and stereotypes. He was reading from it on the radio today and this got my attention ... of the ten most poverty stricken large cities in the US (including Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark, New Orleans and Toledo Ohio which Dennis Kucinich as mayor ran into the ground) the political affiliation broke down that on average Republican mayors governed for 8% of the time since 1965. In some instances such as New Orleans and Detroit there hasn't been a Republican mayor elected at all since that date. Isn't that interesting? These are the cities which are supposed to be the grand, shining examples of how a society should function once a cacophony of "caring" social programs are implemented and yet these people live in abject poverty.

Also, Registered Republicans give 30% more in charitable donations each year, and before you go saying it's because they're wealthier on average (a bit of a misnomer), let me add that out of the 25 highest donating states, 24 went red for Bush in 2004 - that's a lot of rural middle class Republicans with big hearts. Not to mention the majority congressional districts with the highest number of millionaire's per capita are Democrat held. So much for the stereotype of the greedy, unsympathetic GOP member, huh?
FR