So now what are we to think about Iran?
In the space of just over two weeks:
-- the United Nations' atomic energy watchdog reported that Iran had acquired 3,000 centrifuges needed to process uranium and would thus be able to build a nuclear bomb in about a year,
-- and 16 U.S. spy agencies jointly released a National Intelligence Estimate that revealed that while the troublesome country was making progress on its nuclear program, it had apparently halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.
Oh-kaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy. That's helpful.
Now, as is befitting our national leadership, you have Bush administration officials, Democrats and "experts" debating whether the NIE is right or wrong.
Well, I have no idea whether it's right or wrong and you probably don't either. The only thing I learned is that we have 16 spy agencies. I can count the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the intelligence organization within the State Department. That's four. You can probably fold in the Secret Service and FBI to make six. But I digress.
The only argument I can make against the NIE report is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has for several years now stated his goal to build a bomb that will wipe Israel off the map. He's hailed various breakthroughs in his country's nuclear program. Logically, there's not much need for energy-rich Iran to have nuclear power.
Otherwise, here we are with divergent reports trying to figure out which one is accurate. We need to know. There is nothing that can be more dangerous in the world than to have a nuclear-armed Iran. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad has been forthcoming with his plans when it suits him. It might take one of his vitriolic speeches to figure out the truth.
---
This one we know is wrong. Sen. Harry Reid says the troop surge in Iraq is not working. That's political speech that can roughly be translated into "Darn it, I can't stop this war no matter what I do and now my party is going to get creamed for it."
There's tons of anecdotal evidence that the surge is indeed working, enough so that Reid's fellow Democrats and most media observers agree. Why Reid continues to make himself look foolish is beyond me. But it's a real illustration of the problems we have in Washington, D.C. You can hold three fingers up before Reid and ask him how many fingers you're displaying, and his answer will be whatever he believes suits him politically.
Give us the truth. Then feel free to tell us you don't like it.
---
This is NOT the most exciting college football season in years, like you might hear or read.
This season has been all about failure. Seriously, last week of the season and numbers one and two both lost. No team that's climbed to the top spots in the rankings have been able to hold their place. USC, West Virginia, LSU, Ohio State, Cal, Boston College, South Florida, Oregon, Missouri and Kansas all had a shot at glory and couldn't hold it. Only Oregon has an excuse, since their collapse coincided with an injury to star quarterback Dennis Dixon. The Ducks, when healthy, are the best team I saw all year. Unfortunately, their offense was built around Dixon and when he went down, they were toast.
Of the teams playing for the national championship, Ohio State's non-conference schedule has consisted of Youngstown State, Akron, Washington and Kent State; while LSU has lost twice and barely survived three other contests. Outside of a pasting of Virginia Tech, the Tigers non-league slate is as bad as the Buckeyes. Being in the Big 10 is no excuse for OSU's sorry schedule. That conference is really down this year.
I've not been in favor of Hawaii being included in the BCS because it's schedule has been so weak, but looking at the teams that have been favored, I think the unbeaten Warriors not only deserve their BCS spot, but maybe should be the team playing the Buckeyes. LSU will probably win by two or three touchdowns, but no two-loss team should ever be the national champion.
We should neither celebrate nor reward failure.
