Say what you will...

I don't agree.

In fact, I have issues with almost everything you wrote... but I'll mention the things I agree with first.

If the report is accurate and the Iranian nuclear program was dropped in 2003, then there is little doubt that American and international opposition to a new, regional WMD program prompted the change in attitude. As has been stated here before, the years since 2001 have seen Iranian regional security fall by orders of magnitude. Where once they faced only ONE enemy on their border (Saddam's Iraq), they now face the potential of having THREE (a US-friendly Iraq, a US friendly Afghanistan, and Pakistan... all "committed" to stopping terror). That is more than two-thirds of their land borders constituting a 'threat" of one kind or another to the current regime, added to the simple FACT that US naval power denies them any security from their shores on the Gulf. No one has accused the Iranian leadership of being stupid... only evil and belligerent.

I also give credit for the Administration, and Bush in particular, in having made this report public as soon as it was released... even though there was the distinct chance that it would make them look vulnerable in the eyes of the opposition. It seems that 7 years into the administration, someone has finally learned something from past experience.

Now, to points I disagree with...

At no point in the summary of the report (linked under "Articles of the Week") do you see the invasion of Iraq listed as a contributing factor. This doesn't negate the fact that the invasion probably did effect the resulting suspension of the program, but let's not stuff any more creme into this pastry than it can handle. If we are going to now use the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as proof positive that aggressive military actions against foreign nations can have a "deterent" effect on rogue nations, then we are walking down the path to a very long and costly conflict-ridden 25 years.

In fact, given the information found in the summary, I can now say that an invasion of Iran rather than Iraq might not have been justified, either (although all indicators show that Iran WAS actively pursuing nuclear weapons prior to 2003)... at least based on the information I had (as the single, LOUDEST advocate of that action in this group) as a "civillian". With no observable or measurable evidence that Iran had the capacity to produce or procure enough fissible material until 2015, I fail to see how they could have constituted any greater a threat to regional security (in a WMD manner) than any other rogue nation actively trying to secure a black-market nuke. That's not saying I still don't think that of the two countries, Iran wasn't the greater threat to regional security based on their open support of terror and anti-American actions... but if I am to trust this NIE, then it seems they weren't any closer to a nuke than Iraq was.

Next...

I have read Beck's An Inconvenient Book, and it is absolute CRAP! The facts he uses are (probably) irrefutable... unless he employs the same researcher as Ann Coulter... but his conclusions are so outlandish as to make the book nearly worthless. In fact, had the book not been a gift from a VERY liberal friend here in NEPA, and had I not been expected to return it knowing questions and comments would follow, I'd have stopped reading after the first two chapters.

His claims that the mayoral election results of the poorest cities represent a reflection on Democratic leadership abilities are asinine in the extreme, and very painful to read. I'm not claiming that a mayor doesn't have some control of a cities fiscal well-being, but I would hesitate to vaunt that "control" in cities the size of those listed... they have Councils and Borroughs that dictate the fiscal future of cities the same way Congress does the country, and NO consideration was given to how those groups were oriented politically. No mention is made of such Democratic success stories as Ed Koch, the FIRST and subsequently ONLY Mayor of New York since 1948 to EXPAND social programs while at the same time REDUCING crime and doing it with a BALANCED BUDGET... and he accomplished that in his FIRST of three terms. That's solid Democratic leadership, if you ask me.

He completely MISSES the fact that the contributor list of the DNC for the last 17 years has exceeded the RNC's list in the number and gross amounts of money donated by multi-millionaire by as much as 25%! That's right, the "Party of the Working Man" now has more multi-millionaires contributing and swaying the agenda than the RNC... people like Soros, Gates, Oprah, Turner, nearly every member of the Screen Actors Guild that can afford to contribute, Leno, Trump... the list is long and shockingly RICH... and VERY biased.

Trust me when I say... save yourself the $15.99 or whatever they are charging for the book. It isn't worth the paper its printed on.