That's the best you could come up with?

Umm, I don't think anyone, anywhere expected the wankosphere to spin the National Intelligence Estimate, that a nuclear program in Iran was halted four years ago, quite this way.

Glenn Reynolds:

This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq -- meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat -- and also punt further serious action on the Iran issue to the next administration. Cui bono? I think it's pretty obvious. . . .

Wow! I mean, just, wow! That's one helluva straw your grasping onto there, professor. So now the reason du jour for invading Iraq was to deal with a threat in Iran. Honestly, even the rest of the wankosphere would have trouble with that line of thought. Well, maybe not....

Victor Davis (I love war. Please start one so I can watch.) Hanson.

After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war — aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region — might have been the elimination, for some time, of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?

Jeez! Another one!

So, if we are to understand the talking point correctly from these two, it made perfect sense to lay waste to Iraq to deal with a threat from Iran. I'm just guessing, but somehow I don't see the devastated population of Iraq buying into that line of reasoning.

Applied at a more local level, using the rationale of these two clowns, if I have an urge to get rid of the drug dealer in the crack-house down the street, it makes perfect sense to burn down his neighbour's house.

John Cole has found a much more traditional right-wing Bush cargo culture response. Yeah, I like it. Conspiracy theories are a lot more fun and reaffirming.

Update: Alright, this is becoming more than a coincidence. Now Ed Morrissey weighs in with the same line of reasoning as Reynolds and the highly irrelevant Hanson.

What might have happened in 2003 to convince Teheran to stop its nuclear-weapons pursuit? Could it have been the events on its western border, where the American military removed a dictator that they couldn't beat in eight years of brutal warfare? Libya's Moammar Ghaddafi certainly had the same idea in 2003, and for that very reason.

Which is to suggest that an unjustified beating on Iraq gains some purpose because, gee, look, Iran stopped their nuclear program, obviously because they were afraid they would be next on the Bush hit list.

Have another coffee Ed. You're making about as much sense as the PhDs and professors.

If Iran wanted to send a message that there was no reason to fear them, why did they continue to make noises to the contrary? And why did it take intelligence gathering to finally determine the state Iran's nuclear program when all the Iranians had to do was open the doors and let the world have a look? Iran wanted everyone to believe they had a nuclear program and taunted the US with it.

The NIE itself puts a lie to the Reynolds/Hanson/Morrissey "because of Iraq" talking point with this statement:

Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

Not the invasion of Iraq.

Update II: Who left the window open?

I was wondering when the Canadian RWA crowd would weigh in. Frankly, I'm disappointed. Maybe that last blast of winter took something out of them. The basic premise of their talking point is the most predictable:

If the intelligence on Iraq was flawed, how credible is this intelligence estimate?

Really. You aren't even on the same field as Reynold/Hanson/Morrissey. For one thing the "intelligence" on Iraq wasn't. It was manufactured, cherry-picked and spun out forty-eight ways to Sunday. The real intelligence on that case was ignored and suppressed. If you need a further explanation, this should help.

So, go back into the basement, clear away the crumbs, open a new bag, pour in some Mountain Dew® and get to work. Come up with something stunning. Here are just a few more examples of real talking points. As you can see, you have a long way to go to achieve that level of sophistication.

We'll wait.

Update III: Ha! Chet has a complete all-in-one spin that is a do-not-miss. Honestly. It covers everything a wingnut could want, all in one sentence. Personally, I'd slap a copyright on it and make money off the royalties.