Daily News Roundup, 11/5/07: No WMDs In... Iran?

The premise that war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is especially galling because we knew well ahead of time that no such weapons existed. So it is more than a little frustrating that the U.S. might consider adding Iran to the list of countries to invade, particularly when experts think that Iran having a nuclear weapons program is just as unlikely.

The experts cited in the McClatchy article include U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, former IANA deputy director Pierre Goldschmidt, and Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation controls. Even Bush's own administration doesn't seem too sold on the idea that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. From the article:

Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric.

"Iran is seeking a nuclear capability ... that some people fear might lead to a nuclear-weapons capability," Burns said in an interview Oct. 25 on PBS.

"I don't think that anyone right today thinks they're working on a bomb," said another U.S. official, who requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

...

Bush's rhetoric seems hyperbolic compared with the measured statements by his senior aides and outside experts.

"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," he said Oct. 17 at a news conference.

"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney warned on Oct 23. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

If you'd like more information on Iran, the U.S.'s stand on them, and their nuclear capability, McClatchy also compiled a list of questions and answers on Iran.

Josh mentioned over the weekend that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had moved to establish martial law in Pakistan. The Washington Post has a followup piece on how this is the sort of thing the United States can help prevent — that is, when they haven't thrown away all vestiges of international support on an ill-conceived, unsupported, four-year military occupation of an independent nation based on flawed evidence. We were successful in negotiating such an arrangement back in August, but this time, even with CENTCOM Commander Adm. William Fallon in Pakistan at the time, there was little hesitation from Musharraf in establishing martial law. So it's safe to say the picture there isn't rosy.

"The train is derailed and off the tracks," said Stephen P. Cohen, author of "The Idea of Pakistan." "We have to give ourselves a share of the responsibility for this. We placed all of our chips on Musharraf."

At this point, Cohen added: "I don't think there is anything we can do. We are not big players in this anymore."

Needless to say, that has significant ramifications for the search for Bin Laden and al-Quaeda in the area.

In national news, MSNBC seems to think that the presidential race is heating up, and they've got plenty of reason to think so: Edwards is still criticizing Clinton on her lobbyist contributions, and released a statement from ex-NARAL head Kate Michelman saying that Clinton is using her gender "as a shield", and Obama took his shots at Clinton by saying she was better with winning elections than bringing the country together, Rudy temporarily entered a parallel universe and sided with Hillary to attack Obama (to which Obama's people answered), and McCain took shots at Republican candidates' support of torture (which, seeing as he's the only one on that stage that's had to endure it, seems fair). With primaries getting dangerously close, it's pretty understandable that candidates would start getting more forceful in trying to wrest votes from their opponents, but though one might imagine a gradual increase in direct assaults on other campaigns over time, it seems that the rancor of the Tuesday Democratic debate might have fed a fire that set the field ablaze remarkably quickly. The MSNBC article also details a number of issues that make this election one of the most unpredictable — and politically interesting — elections in recent history.

Prospective Attorney General Michael Mukasey's chances at being confirmed by the Senate got a big shot in the arm over the weekend. Shortly after Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy said that he wouldn't be voting in support of Mukasey's recommendation for confirmation, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer came out in support of Mukasey. This means that the issue of his nomination will most likely pass the Judiciary Committee and advance to the Senate floor some time early this week.

And lastly today, abstinence-only education doesn't work. Oh, wait, did you already know that? Fair enough — just consider this more evidence. Texas has topped another worst-of chart recently, as it climbed from No. 5 to No. 1 in number of per-capita teen pregnancies in the nation between 1991 and 2004. By comparison, California, who shares the issue of an oft-decried increase in immigrant population, dropped in ranking from 11th highest to 24th highest over the same period of time. California's schools teach abstinence, but explain contraception as well, and doctor's offices and community clinics give contraception to students for free with no parental consent required.

Of course, Rick Perry doesn't think there's anything wrong:

A spokeswoman said Gov. Rick Perry sees no need for new legislation.

"The governor is satisfied with current law, in that abstinence is the only 100 percent [effective] way to prevent pregnancy," said spokeswoman Allison Castle.

Ms. Castle added, "It's important to make a distinction between pregnancy rate and birth rate. Texas does not have the highest teen pregnancy rate."

If you're wondering, the last time teen pregnancy rates were reported was in 2000. We were fifth highest then; we were second in teen birth rate. I have the funny feeling that we've probably "improved" in our teen pregnancy rate rankings since then as well. And if not, well, I'm sure that'll give Texas Republicans something to shoot for.