Skepticism proves right

Surprise! Looks like the NIE may have been less than dead-on. So much for being more accurate this time around. The IAEA has released documents--which, inevitably, the Iranians are calling "forgeries"--that show a commitment on the part of the Iranians to weaponize a nuke after 2003, which is the date the NIE said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons ambitions:

A senior diplomat who attended the IAEA meeting said that among the material shown was an Iranian video depicting mock-ups of a missile re-entry vehicle. He said IAEA Director General Oli Heinonen suggested the component — which brings missiles back from the stratosphere — was configured in a way that strongly suggests it was meant to carry a nuclear warhead.

This is of course just part of the evidence at hand. Most bizarrely, however, is that most of the material in the presentation came from the United States. If the US had evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons past 2003, why on earth was this not reflected in the NIE? Were the writers of the report so afraid of an American strike that they went so far as to intentionally put false and attention-grabbing information prominently in the document? Or, if the evidence came after the report was published, why was this not publicly and loudly corrected? The Bush Administration better get its act together on what the official story in Washington is, or it risks stunting whatever momentum is left in bringing a peaceful halt to the Iranian nuke program.

Unfair accusations

During World War II, London was hit by about 1,400 V-2 rockets, wreaking utter havoc on the population. Hitler's blitz on London also included bombing raids, causing massive damage and thousands of deaths. How did the British respond? They turned Dresden into an inferno, inflicting 30,000 civilian fatalities in 3 days.

In 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood revolted against Hafez Al-Assad's Alawite dynasty in Syria. In a few weeks, 25,000 lay dead in the city of Hama.

Since the Summer of 2005, over 4,000 Qassams have been fired from the Gaza Strip. There has been much public anger towards the perceived government inaction against those responsible. Limited airstrikes have been the extent of Israeli reprisal. Did I say "limited"? I am perhaps understating the case. Israel has made extraordinary efforts not to harm surrounding populations in these strikes--not the easiest thing when the mortar shells are launched from school playgrounds. Let nobody tell you that Israel is the among the worst human rights violators in the world or even aims to be. The British and the Syrians and many others should speak first.

Striking down the axis of evil

Israel (or officially, some unknown entity) has been in the mood for striking big the past few days. Yesterday, a mystery blast killed Ayman Atallah Fayed, a senior member of Islamic Jihad. The group warned of reprisals against its top suspect, the Israeli government.

This follows on the heels of the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, Hizballah's number two man. He is responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths--Americans, Israelis, and others. And of course, Hassan Nasrallah is warning of a great reprisal against Israel. And if we need any more proof of the close cooperation between Hizballah and Iran, the Iranian foreign minister attended Mughniyeh's funeral.

Why Hillary is oh, so unlikeable

Hillary Clinton attracts the female vote for obvious reasons. Gloria Steinem has defended her in the New York Times. But why is she considered such a pioneer for women? What separates her from, say, Carol Moseley Braun? Well, for one thing, she's been a professional wife. Yes, her most important qualifier for the presidency is her marriage -- which, as we know, has been infamous. Hillary is not a self-made woman. Where would she be without her husband? Where would she have gotten access to party insiders early on? On whose coattails would she have been able to ride into a carpetbagged New York Senate seat? Who else would have given her the name recognition necessary for her to be the frontrunner ever since John Kerry lost in 2004? Where else could she have dipped into a pool of rich (and corrupt) money circles to fund her campaign? None of the heavy lifting is her own. And yet she feels an entitlement to the presidency.

Barack Obama grew up as a mixed-race boy, moved from state to state (and country to country), and worked his way up to Columbia University. He worked on the ground in Chicago helping communities deal with the problems of the inner city. He became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He became an influential legislator in Illinois and won a landslide election to the US Senate, where he became the first black Senator since 1979 and the second since Reconstruction. He was behind in the polls since day one of his campaign and won over people with his message and rejection of the slash-and-burn political techniques. He is a true inspiration. And that is why he can win in November.

Slow and steady wins the money race

Sometime around 9:30 last evening I checked my e-mail to see Barack Obama campaign manager David Plouffe ask for $5 million by midnight (45 minutes ago) to close the gap that Hillary had created by pouring that amount of her own money into the race. And at 9:30, about $4.96 million had been raised already. As of this writing, Obama has raised $6.23 million since the polls closed on Super Tuesday, and the numbers keep climbing. I guess it really does pay to have lots of small-time donors feed you a little bit along the way.