ch.annel2-i.s-n.ow-a.ngry

<embed FlashVars=’videoId=177437′ src=’http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml’ quality=’high’ bgcolor=’#cccccc’ width=’332′ height=’316′ name=’comedy_central_player’ align=’middle’ allowScriptAccess=’always’ allownetworking=’external’ type=’application/x-shockwave-flash’ pluginspage=’http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer’></embed>

“In 1972, nine countries had ballistic missiles,” Cheney said. “Today, it is at least 27. And that includes hostile regimes that oppress their own people, seek to intimidate and dominate their neighbors and actively support terrorist groups.”

What, like us?  Though we don’t really repress our own people, unless of course you count economic repression. We have supported terrorist groups.

“Tehran continues to develop technologies that could lead to its building an ICBM capable of striking the United States, perhaps as soon as late in the next decade,” Cheney said. “Given all that we do about the Iranian regime’s hatred of America, its vow to destroy Israel and its ongoing efforts to develop the technology that could be used for a nuclear weapon, that is a danger every one of us must take seriously.”

Same old story we’ve heard before. The above is from an AP story posted today. Below is from the Washington Post in 2005.

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that “all options are on the table.”

The Washington Post Story can be forgiven because it’s 2 years old. However…

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was “determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.”

But the latest report says Iran — which declared its ability to produce enriched uranium for a civilian energy program in 2006 — could reverse that decision and eventually produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to do so.

Why are we so intent on giving them a reason to want to do so?

The Iranian paper offered “full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavours to develop or possess WMD [and] full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments.”

The Iranians also offered support for “the establishment of democratic institutions and a nonreligious government” in Iraq; full cooperation against terrorists (including “above all, Al-Qaeda”); and an end to material support to Palestinian groups such as Hamas. In return, they asked that their country not be on the terrorism list or designated part of the “axis of evil”; that all sanctions end; that America support Iran’s claims for reparations for the Iran–Iraq war as part of the overall settlement of the Iraqi debt; that they have access to peaceful nuclear technology; and that America pursue antiIranian terrorists.

We could have had it all. But really, why, when it’s so much more satisfactory to give them the finger and then threaten them with guns when they get pissed off.

Via BBC: Cuba has signed two legally binding human rights agreements at the UN in New York, just days after Raul Castro was sworn in as the new president.

Via Reuters: “I’m not suggesting there’s never a time to talk, but I’m suggesting now is not the time … to talk with Raul Castro,” Bush told a White House news conference after being asked about Obama’s willingness to meet with the new Cuban president, Raul Castro.

“It will send the wrong message. … It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity,” Bush added, saying there was no difference between Raul Castro and his brother, Fidel, who recently stepped aside as president because of ill health.

*whistles nonchalantly*  In any case, Raul Castro looks kinda like my grandpa did before shaved his ’stache, so he’s an alright guy in my book blog.