The most recent National Intelligence Estimate claims that, although Iran is still enriching uranium, their intent to create weapons-grade material has been stopped since 2003. I'm not comfortable believing that, especially because the Iranians are working with the Russians, and the Russians (read nouveau Soviets) have not told the truth (unless it gave them a distinct advantage over their enemies) in over 90 years. For example, this paragraph, buried deep in the dungeons of the publicly released portion of the NIE:
Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.That's got me wondering a bit. But what does it really matter? Does anyone, including the former Soviet Union, currently have a missile to propel a warhead that can hit our east coast, let alone the rest of America?
George W. Bush got us into Iraq because he was worried that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I still think he did to a small extent, but what did it really matter? Oh, that's right. It matters because that same George W. Bush refuses to implement the border security that was enacted by congressional legislation, the only way that we can effectively prevent attacks on American soil by such weapons.
Why is he asleep at the border switch? Because he's an Establishment man, and the establishment loves a bogeyman. It makes for good propaganda, and it often works to point at the imaginary monster's flaring nostrils so that the people won't notice your own genuine warts. Such as lack of (1) a secure border, and (2) a national, independent energy policy.
It's interesting that both the Establishment Democrats and the Establishment Republicans are involved in the same shell game. The Republicans have no alternative energy policy; rather they keep fighting foreign wars so that we can continue to feed our Middle East oil addiction. The Democrats have an alternative energy policy, but they refuse to recognize that the first phase of that policy has to be energy independence--to wit, that we must first (1) increase refinery capacity in the United States and (2) drill for more oil in US territory, such as in ANWR and off our coasts--before we can effectively encourage the switch to clean energy. And thus we have an impasse. But it makes for good theater!
Clean energy will be much better: (1) It will help us clean up our air and water, and (2) it will convince all those sky-is-falling liberals that the sun is much more powerful than man when it comes to global warming. It will be much easier to foster clean energy if we didn't think we had to mind the rest of the world's business--in other words, if we first become energy independent instead.
However, until we stop electing (in most cases) the same tired Establishmentarians to national political office, we aren't going to get either energy independence or clean energy. We'll still be flummoxed by the same, stupid charade.
Both major political parties are largely committed to the same shell game. The Chuck Shumers and the Harry Reids in the Democratic party, as well as the Chuck Hagels and Trent Lotts of the Republican party, love the same thing.
Any bogeyman that helps them perpetuate their power. And right now--tag!--Iran, you're it!