Contrary to popular belief, the Iran report is a vindication

The National Intelligence Estimate has stated that Iran dismantled its nuclear weapons program in 2003. And somehow this is viewed by pundits as damaging to Bush. Opponents of the president are saying that the NIE is evidence that the Bush strategy should be changed. Am I missing something here? If the NIE is correct (which some other nations have disagreed with), then it means that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program prior to 2003, but then ended the program that year. Seriously, am I missing something? When George W. Bush came to office, Iran had a nuclear weapons program. Close to the end of George W. Bush's administration, Iran has discontinued its nuclear weapons program. How is this an indictment of Bush's policies? Shouldn't it be proof that his policies work? Now if the estimate said that Iran had no program prior to 2003, but has recently been engaging in nuclear weapons development, would the story be that we need more of Bush's policies? If that was the case, I might be inclined to argue that our current strategy is not working. But that is not the case, apparently.

Consider This
Anybody care to remember what happened in 2003? I mean other than the fact that Iran apparently discontinued its nuclear weapons program. Yes, the United States, under the "war monger" Bush invaded Iraq. The purpose was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction programs. As it turns out, Saddam had duped the entire world about the status of his WMD, although personal testimony from the man later indicated that he fully intended to restart WMD efforts after sanctions against Iraq were lifted. But that is a digression. Remember, the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get rid of WMD. In 2003, Iran discontinued its nuclear WMD program. Does anyone seriously think that having U.S. and allied troops along both borders had nothing to do with this decision? Was it just coincidence that the Ayatollahs awoke one morning in 2003 and decided that now would be the time to stop their pursuit of the bomb?

Unless you're a Democrat Senator, you must see that the U.S. presence in Iraq, and the aggressive action the Bush administration has taken against terror groups and rouge states, led to Iran giving up WMD. That really is accomplishing a mission.

Don't Back Down
Now we hear calls that, because of an NIE (that some nations dispute), we must change our strategy toward Iran. Cowboy George should back down. Well, as it so happens, the Cowboys have the best record in the NFC this year, and Bush's strategy seems to have been working quite well. Obviously all the more reason to change it, right?

Excuse the football allusions today, but this situation is like having a championship team playing a pesky competitor. The competitor has hung around all day, kept it close, willing to grind it out, but them their efforts at the short end of the scoreboard. With four minutes left in the 4th quarter, and a four-point lead, would the championship team be content to suddenly let-up? To go three-and-out and give the ball up? To change their tactics from what has been working to something else? If that happened, and the champions lost the big game, the coach might be fired. Yet is exactly what Bush opponents are suggesting.

For all of you who need a legend to follow the above scenario, please see as follows:
Championship Team = United States
Pesky Competitor = Iran
Bush opponents = crazy

Now, of all times, when we might actually have Iran on the ropes (there's a boxing metaphor for you), when their crazy little president is experiencing ever-increasing unpopularity, when we have heads of state in Europe that might actually back up international pressures, when some major international players even have their doubts about a country that has sped-up its uranium enrichment, why would it be a good idea to change course now?

Legacy - Averting WWIII
A headline on the Drudge Report today stated "WWIII on hold?" A few weeks ago, President Bush stated that should Iran acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons, the likely outcome would be World War III. And who is to argue that point? So if the policies pursued by the Bush administration - sometimes near-unilaterally - resulted in the suspension of activities that could have led to geopolitical cataclysm, should this not be the stuff that legacies are made of? The great war monger may have actually have prevented the great war. The strategy of security through strength hasn't looked this good since the Iron Curtain fell.