Compare and contrast

Now:

President Obama released a special video message for all those celebrating Nowruz. Translated "New Day," Nowruz marks the arrival of spring and the beginning of the New Year for millions in Iran and other communities around the world. This year, the President wanted to send a special message to the people and government of Iran on Nowruz, acknowledging the strain in our relations over the last few decades. "But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together," he says.

After committing his administration to a future of honest and respectful diplomacy, he continues on to address Iran's leaders directly: "You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create."

And then:



(from this post)

Update: Paul Reynolds of the BBC analyzes President Obama's speech.

Norman Podhoretz is a boob.

Who still insists that we must bomb Iran. Now. Quickly. Before Bush leaves office. Because Iran may achieve a nuke in 2015. And is thinking about nukes. And talking about them. Which in Podhoretz' mind is a bombing offense:

Iran won't have a nuclear weapon until 2015, according to the spooks. This, of course, Podhoretz takes in his stride. Tearing the (classified) 2005 NIE to shreds, he reminds us again that the spooks are more likely wrong than right, and the US must bomb Iran NOW before it's too late: "[O]nly by relying on the accuracy of the 2005 NIE would Mr Bush be able in all good conscience to pass on to his successor the decision of whether or when to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities. But that estimate, as he could hardly help knowing from the CIA's not exactly brilliant track record, might easily be too optimistic."

But now it's our turn to say "Hold on!" Norman, may we remind you of your introductory sentence? In case you had forgotten, it says: "Up until a fairly short time ago, scarcely anyone dissented from the assessment offered with 'high confidence' by the National Intelligence Estimate of 2005 that Iran was 'determined to develop nuclear weapons'." Yet now you are telling us that like the 2007 NIE, the 2005 NIE is not worth the paper it's written on? So where exactly do you find the evidence to back your unwavering assertions that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuke? In Vice President Dick Cheney's office? Dang, Norman, it really is time to consider a mental silicone implant.

The funny thing is, to the best of our knowledge (including exhaustive web searches) the actual contents of the classified 2005 NIE remain unknown to anyone outside the intelligence establishment or their masters (and clearly, Podhoretz is not a member of the intelligence community).

It was not until the 2007 NIE findings were released that we discovered that the 2005 NIE allegedly assessed "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons". The 2007 NIE lays out for us exactly how its findings differ from those of 2005, all neatly tabulated and in your face (see the public version of the NIE here ). How does Podhoretz know what the 2005 assessment (with which "scarcely anyone dissented") said, without getting the information from the 2007 NIE that he has so thoroughly discredited?

Actually, there is only one question arising from this tangled web of NIEs, and it's not whether Iran should or should not be bombed, or whether Podhoretz needs hormone therapy, or why people read garbage like his article. The question is, why did the authors of the 2007 NIE see fit to publicly flaunt the (allegedly) inaccurate and previously unknown findings of the 2005 NIE? Could it have been intended as a message to people like Podhoretz's neo-con dog handlers to butt out this time around?

We think that's quite possible: the 2007 key findings were released to the public hard on the heels of reports that the NIE had been delayed for months because of pressure from Cheney's office to make it more congenial to aggressive military action against Iran (see Spooks refuse to toe Cheney's line on Iran, November 10, 2007).

Um.. Could we just speed up the process and bomb Iran with Norman Podhoretz?

He said Hitler. Are you scared yet? Hitler... anything?

You're supposed to scream and run around in circles. Hitler. Because we need to bomb Iran. Hitler and diplomacy Hitler doesn't Hitler work.

Glen Greenwald writing for Salon:

That about covers the full set of arguments and knowledge of our nation's leading neoconservative war cheerleaders.

Whoever is next on the War List is always The New Hitler and the country they lead is always The New Nazi Germany. Anyone who wants the new war is the brave and glorious Churchill. Everyone who opposes the new war is the cowardly appeaser Chamberlain, willing to allow Hitler to Take Over the World and impose Caliphate and burquas and humiliation on everyone. That's the level of advice which both George Bush, the current President, and Rudy Giuliani, the leading GOP presidential candidate, have chosen to receive and -- by all appearances -- follow.

Josh Marshall:

It's almost an insult to what the world faced in the late 1930s. Germany, industrial powerhouse, with arguably the most powerful army in the world, at the forefront of technology, overawing and invading neighboring countries. Iran, minor economic power, second or third-rate military power, which may get a couple of small nuclear-weapons compared to the couple hundred high-end nuclear warheads in Israel's arsenal (plus, a robust second strike capacity, as Fareed notes) and the many thousands we have -- and our blue water navy, satellites, air force. Please. Time's running out for us? We're going to look back on this fifty years from now and see the non-podhoretz-loons as the Chamberlains of the day? I don't know what to say. Just watch ...