In its latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, the US intelligence community said yesterday Tehran stopped developing atomic weapons in 2003. Media coverage depicts the NIE as a completely unforeseen development that undercuts President Bush's rhetoric regarding Iran as a threat. The development, according to analysts, has the potential to dramatically reorient the international debate over sanctions on Iran. NBC Nightly News opened its broadcast yesterday with the news that "out of nowhere the US said today that it has intelligence that Iran stopped trying to develop atomic weapons four years ago. ... This means, among other things, that during last week's Middle East conference -- where so much of the talk was centered around the Iran threat -- US officials intelligence officials had information indicating they knew better, and the administration said so today." The CBS Evening News pointed out that just earlier this year, director of national intelligence Michael McConnell, said: "We assess that Tehran seeks to develop nuclear weapons. This is a very dangerous situation."
In a front-page news analysis, the New York Times reports, "Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate." The Times adds that the report "will certainly weaken international support for tougher sanctions against Iran, as a senior administration official grudgingly acknowledged. And it will raise questions, again, about the integrity of America's beleaguered intelligence agencies, including whether what are now acknowledged to have been overstatements about Iran's intentions in a 2005 assessment reflected poor tradecraft or political pressure."
The Washington Post reports in a front-page article titled "A Blow To Bush's Tehran Policy" that yesterday's report "not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency." According to NBC Nightly News, former administration officials "say there is in fact disagreement within the White House about this new information and that hardliners within the White House think this intelligence information has undercut US foreign policy."
The AP reports Democrats "did not hesitate to suggest an Iran-Iraq comparison." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats had requested the new Iran assessment "so that the administration could not rush this Congress and the country to another war based on flawed intelligence." Likewise, McClatchy reports the conclusions "also undermine...Bush's Oct. 17 warning that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons could 'ignite World War III' and his administration's drive for tougher international sanctions against Iran."
Fox News' Special Report noted that though the NIE concludes Iran has stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons, "it says also that its current activities suggest Iran has not really given up the idea." According to Fox, "senior officials believe it is Iran's latent goal to develop a nuclear weapon." National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said the new assessment "shows that international pressure has had an effect on Iran," and "insisted that this won't change the administration's goal of pursuing more sanctions against Iran for continue continuing to enrich uranium." Likewise, the AP says the report "concludes that Iran's decisions are rational and pragmatic, and that Tehran is more susceptible to diplomatic and financial pressure than previously thought." The Washington Times adds that senior US intelligence officials "said it is 'plausible, but not likely' that Iran's suspension is part of a 'strategic deception' operation." The New York Times reports that a senior administration official "speculated that Iran may have concluded that the risk of getting caught with a covert weapons program was simply too high. ... The official said that perhaps Iran wanted to master the hardest part of the process first - making nuclear fuel - before risking the next step, designing a weapon."
UN Sanctions Effort Shelved? The Financial Times says the report "comprehensively undermines the case for military action on Iran." Under the headline "Europeans See Murkier Case For Sanctions," the New York Times reports the new assessment "is likely to complicate efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council." European officials said "they were struggling to understand why the United States chose to issue the report just two days after the six powers involved in negotiating with Iran...had decided to press ahead with a new Security Council resolution." Nonetheless, according to USA Today, US officials "are still trying to enlist more nations to bring sanctions against Iran." Taking a different tack, the Wall Street Journal notes the report "could pose a challenge to the Iranian regime," which "has employed belligerence over the nuclear issue to bolster its regional credentials by standing up to the US."
What's The New Evidence? The Los Angeles Times reports that the intelligence community "acknowledged that emerging evidence has forced analysts to alter their views on Iran's intentions and capabilities." The New York Times notes that intelligence officials "had said just weeks ago they were ending the practice of declassifying parts of intelligence estimates, citing concerns that analysts might alter their judgments if they knew the reports would be widely publicized." But Donald M. Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, "said that since the new estimate was at odds with the 2005 assessment -- and thus at odds with public statements by top officials about Iran 'we felt it was important to release this information to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.'" According to the Washington Post, senior officials "said the latest conclusions grew out of a stream of information, beginning with a set of Iranian drawings obtained in 2004 and ending with the intercepted calls between Iranian military commanders, that steadily chipped away at the earlier assessment." In one intercept, a senior Iranian military official "was specifically overheard complaining that the nuclear program had been shuttered years earlier."
USA Today reports that media photos of Iran's Natanz nuclear facility "were reviewed by intelligence analysts who concluded Iran continues to face 'significant technical problems' in using the facility to enrich uranium, the officer said."
President Bush yesterday criticized Congressional Democrats on a series of spending issues, in what some media outlets are casting as an escalation of his rhetorical assault on the opposition. The AP reports President Bush said, "The end of 2007 is approaching fast and the new Congress has little to show for it. I call on members to use the time left to support our troops, and to protect our citizens, prevent harmful tax increases and responsibly fund our government." Bush "insisted that Congress pass his war funding request; he is expected to devote much of December to attacking Democrats for trying to condition additional money on a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq." The Washington Post (12/4, A3, Weisman, 723K) this morning suggests the President is trying to spark spending battles with Congress in order to improve his public opinion numbers. The Post reports GOP leaders "say the president's strategy has kept congressional Democrats on the defensive," but "Bush's confrontational approach is already fraying some nerves in his party," and "the White House's own actions yesterday appeared to bolster Democratic assertions that the problems in Washington lie with the president's intransigence, not Congress's work ethic."
The New York Times, meanwhile says "neither side made a move to negotiate, even though lawmakers have just a few weeks left to wrap up work for the year." Instead, "Bush and the Democrats spent the day lobbing verbal grenades at one another." Bush "appeared in the Rose Garden to chide lawmakers for failing to finish their work, and his aides said he would do so again at a news conference on Tuesday -- a rare departure for a White House that typically keeps its news conferences a secret until an hour before they occur." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "responded by calling Mr. Bush's arguments 'pretty weak,' and accusing the president of being intransigent."
In what would appear to contradict the President's rhetoric yesterday, The Politico reports Bush "plans to use the next two weeks to defuse fights with Congress over the economy, laying the groundwork for a 2008 strategy aimed at assisting GOP candidates early on and improving his image at home and overseas, according to two senior White House officials." The Politico adds that the presidential aides are "realistic," and "anticipate stalemates over Iraq funding, education, domestic spending and tax cuts," but Bush "is looking for other areas of possible agreement, such as incremental changes to health care and new incentives for energy production."
Democrats Plan Iraq Pullout Votes On the Iraq front, the Washington Times reports Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday "vowed to hold another vote on a House-passed bill that would provide $50 billion for the war and require an immediate start to troop withdrawals and a near-complete pullout by December 2008. Senate Republicans blocked the measure last month, but Mr. Reid said he had reason to expect a different outcome now." The Hill, meanwhile, says Democratic leaders "are negotiating a new strategy...and will squeeze in votes on the war during the jam-packed schedule leading up to Christmas Day." The Wall Street Journal adds that Democratic leaders "are looking at the option of advancing more money for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan as a way to ease the strain on the Pentagon."
McConnell Suggests Endgame The AP reports Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell "said Monday that Congress should wrap its uncompleted budget work into a huge spending bill combining funding for the war in Iraq with unfinished domestic spending bills." McConnell "offered to work with Democrats seeking increases in domestic programs, provided any such 'omnibus' appropriations bill would also contain funding for US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan." Roll Call adds that Democrats could find themselves "in the uncomfortable position of having to choose whether to provide additional domestic spending for health care, education and veterans or to stand firm against the president on the war." In an op-ed in the New Hampshire Union-Leader, Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman write, "For Congress to fail to provide the funds needed by our soldiers in the field is inexcusable under any circumstances -- but it is especially disappointing right now, coming at the very moment when Gen. David Petraeus and his troops are achieving the kind of progress in Iraq that few would have dared imagine possible just a few months ago."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The New York Times reports, "After months of accusations that reports written in The New Republic...about the cruelty of ordinary soldiers in Iraq were false, the magazine says that as a result of its own investigation it can no longer stand by the articles." The columns, titled 'The Baghdad Diarist,' were written by Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private. This weekend, TNR posted on its Web site a nearly 7,000-word column to run in the Dec. 10 issue by Franklin Foer, the editor. It concluded: 'In light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.'" The Washington Post notes Foer admitted Beauchamp's wife, Elspeth Reeve, a researcher at the magazine, "was assigned 'a large role' in checking the story. While Reeve acted in good faith, he said, 'there was a clear conflict of interest.'"
The Hill reports, "Senior Republican appropriators in the Senate have collected more money in earmarks than any other members of Congress, even though President Bush and GOP leaders have forcefully criticized 'pork-barrel spending.' Not only have these lawmakers defied their leaders, they have also taken a much greater share of the pot set aside for rank-and-file Republicans than have senior Democrats." Sen. Thad Cochran, ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, "has collected $774 million worth of earmarks in 12 spending bills." Sen. Ted Stevens, the second-ranking Republican on Appropriations, "secured more money for special projects than any other member of Congress: $502 million."
The AP reports, "Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day -- or nearly $1 million a minute."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
NBC Nightly News reported the "competition between the two Democratic front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is getting more heated and a bit more personal." Clinton's campaign "is so concerned it unleashed a new strategy in Iowa today, attacking Barack Obama." MSNBC's Hardball reported Sen. Clinton "is ditching her above-the-fray approach and is now hammering Obama directly. Over the weekend, Clinton told reporters, 'I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks. Well, now the fun part starts.'"
The AP says Clinton, speaking Monday in Clear Lake, Iowa, "chastised Sen. Barack Obama for his lack of experience and his inordinate ambition." The Des Moines Register notes Clinton criticized Obama on "Social Security reform, diplomacy with Iran, health care [and] taking a stand when it's time to make tough decisions," suggesting that Obama "is all talk, little action." McClatchy says Obama "voted 'present' in 1997 on two bills that would have outlawed the procedure that some call partial-birth abortion and on two 2001 bills related to parental notification of minors seeking abortions."
The Hill also reports on Clinton "ratcheting up criticism," noting that she "specifically targeted" Obama, and that a campaign spokesperson said Clinton "would try to 'frame the primary election as a choice between a talker and a doer.'" The Washington Post says that Clinton's fortunes in Iowa have waned in the past two months, citing Iowa Poll director J. Ann Seltzer, who "described a cluster of concerns voters here have about Clinton. She is seen as capable, experienced and the most knowledgeable about the world. But her negatives are significantly higher than those of any of her leading rivals."
Negative Tone Could Backfire On Clinton The New York Times reports Clinton "doesn't sound angry or look angry or act angry. But if you transcribe her recent speeches in Iowa and reread them, they do seem angry -- or, at least, more negative toward other Democrats than she has been since the 1992 presidential primary campaign of her husband." Some Clinton advisers "are also concerned that voters may react poorly to attacks by a woman."
New Obama Website Rebuts Clinton Attacks USA Today reports that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign "launched a new 'Hillary attacks' website Monday" to respond to the recent barrage from Clinton's camp.
Rove: Clinton Faces Uphill Battle The Raleigh News & Observer reports that in Durham, NC on Monday, Karl Rove said that Sen. Hillary Clinton "might have a more difficult time getting elected president than many people realize. Appearing before a raucous Duke University audience, Rove said public opinion polls suggest that if Clinton captures the Democratic nomination, she will have a difficult time defeating the Republican nominee, even though she is far better known."
Could Clinton Hurt Weak House Democrats? The New York Times reports in a front page story that Hillary Clinton is "a long way from winning the Democratic presidential nomination, and over the last few weeks has struggled to hang on to the air of inevitability that she has been cultivating all year." But the "possibility that she will be the nominee is already generating concern among some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and Congressional districts, who fear that sharing the ticket with her could subject them to attack as too liberal and out of step with the values of their constituents."
USA Today reports a new USA Toda/Gallup poll finds "national support for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani significantly eroded during the past month." Clinton's "standing among Democrats dropped by 11 percentage points from early November, and Giuliani's standing among Republicans fell by 9 points, though both continue to lead their fields." The "big winner: Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee."
On the GOP side, 25% would vote for Giuliani; 16% would vote for Mike Huckabee; 15% would vote for Fred Thompson; 15% would vote for John McCain; 12% would vote for Mitt Romney; 4% would vote for Ron Paul; 1% would vote for Duncan Hunter; 1% would vote for another candidate; 10% had no opinion.
On the Democratic side, 39% would vote for Clinton; 24% would vote for Barack Obama; 15% would vote for John Edwards; 4% would vote for Bill Richardson; 4% would vote for Joe Biden; 4% would vote for Dennis Kucinich; 1% would vote for Chris Dodd; 1% would vote for another candidate; 6% had no opinion.
Clinton Leads Three Early State Polls Even as her national lead appears to dwindle, the New York Times /AP reports an AP-Pew poll that shows Clinton has "clear leads in New Hampshire and South Carolina, building on her ownership of the health-care issue and her broad but more fragile trust among Democrats on Iraq, the survey showed Monday. Yet she could stumble in Iowa." According to the surveys, Clinton is "essentially tied with Obama in Iowa, 31 percent to 26 percent, with Edwards at 19 percent and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 10 percent." In New Hampshire, Clinton leads with "38 percent, Obama 19 percent, Edwards 15 percent, Richardson 10 percent." In South Carolina, Clinton garners "45 percent, Obama 31 percent, Edwards 10 percent."
Giuliani Leads Narrowly In South Carolina The State of Columbia, South Carolina, reports that an American Research Group survey of 600 likely South Carolina Republican primary voters shows Rudy Giuliani leading the GOP presidential field with 23%, followed by Mitt Romney with 21%, Mike Huckabee with 18%, Fred Thompson with 13% and Sen. John McCain with 10%. On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads with 45%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama with 21% and John Edwards at 12%.
Huckabee Seeks To Tone Down Expectations Short on cash and campaign infrastructure, Mike Huckabee is seeking to tamp down the expectations that he will win the Iowa caucuses in order to prevent disappointment in the event of a less-than-stellar performance. But based on the volume of media coverage, Huckabee is having little success, and the former Arkansas governor's boomlet continues full bore. The Washington Post reports Huckabee, "for months cast as a 'second-tier' candidate, now finds himself with another label he is not eager to have: 'front-runner.'" Unable to "raise the money earlier in the year to run a traditional campaign, Huckabee is employing an unprecedented and risky strategy to win the caucuses here: a campaign with almost no on-the-ground operation." Without the "money to hire field organizers around the state to ensure voters will turn out, the campaign is instead relying on a network of pastors, parents who home-school their children and other Christian conservatives."
ABC World News reported, "Something seems to have clicked here for Huckabee even if the past few days, there was his performance in the last debate and those new poll numbers suggesting he could win." The CBS Evening News reported Huckabee is "the man of the hour here."
In a move reminiscent of the 1960 speech in which then-candidate John Kennedy pledged his Catholic faith would not determine his policy, Mitt Romney plans to explain how his Mormon faith informs his political views. The New Hampshire Union Leader reported Romney "called it 'an important topic to talk about if you think about what our nation needs to consider to maintain its culture.' He said he is 'merely talking about the role of religion, faith in America and in a free society.'" The Nashua Telegraph reports, "Romney said Kennedy was right in asserting that Americans don't choose presidents based on their religion, but on their character and moral values."
But many think the former Massachusetts governor is taking a big risk. The Politico says "even some of his top aides see the speech as a wildly unpredictable gamble." ABC World News reports Romney "says his speech will highlight how his faith would inform his presidency. But it could be a double-edged sword." Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine said, "The risk is that this highlights his Mormon religion, gets people focused on exactly the wrong place from his point of view." NBC Nightly News reported, "Many evangelicals claim members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints are not real Christians and have not overcome negative stereotypes like polygamy, a practice banned by the church more than 100 years ago. But questions keep coming."
Some leaders in the moderate evangelical community also tell the US News Political Bulletin Romney is making a mistake. The more Romney tries to equate his faith with Christianity, the more problematic his Mormonism becomes, says Randy Brinson, founder and chairman of the Redeem the Vote voter registration project. "If I were advising him, I would not focus on whether Mormonism is Christianity," he said. "I would focus on policy and how my faith informs that."
The Concord Monitor reports, "Given the target audience many saw for Romney's speech -- evangelical Christians in Iowa -- it would be impossible for him to reiterate Kennedy's speech, several observers said. 'Romney's problem is he's talking to people who don't necessarily think that church and state should be separate,' said Dante Scala, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The late night shows continue to be in reruns due to the ongoing writers' strike.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
