Neck-Snapping Spin From the President

William J. Broad and David E. Sanger write in the New York Times: "The assessment does not explain -- unless it is addressed in more than 130 pages still marked classified -- how the May 2005 conclusion that Iran was still pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program went awry. . . .

"The problem the administration faces now is that it is declaring that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development with the same certainty that it insisted two years ago that the program was speeding ahead."

Myers writes in the Times that the assessment "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 Drum Beat Ends?

Steven Lee Myers writes in the New York Times: "Until Monday, 2008 seemed to be a year destined to be consumed, at least when it comes to foreign policy, by the prospects of confrontation with Iran.

"There are still hawks in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney chief among them, who view Iran with deep suspicion. But for now at least, the main argument for a military conflict with Iran -- widely rumored and feared, judging by antiwar protesters that often greet Mr. Bush during his travels -- is off the table for the foreseeable future.

"As Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, put it, the intelligence finding removes, 'if nothing else, the urgency that we have to attack Iran, or knock out facilities.' He added: 'I don't think you can overstate the importance of this.'

"The White House struggled to portray the estimate as a validation of Mr. Bush's strategy, a contention that required swimming against the tide of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's occasionally apocalyptic language."

Fred Kaplan writes for Slate: "Skeptics of war have rarely been so legitimized. Vice President Cheney has never been so isolated. If Bush were to order an attack under these circumstances, he would risk a major eruption in the chain of command, even a constitutional crisis, among many other crises. It seems extremely unlikely that even he would do that."

Wither the Hardliners?

Mark Mazzetti writes in the New York Times: "In interviews on Monday, some administration officials expressed skepticism about the conclusions reached in the new report, saying they doubted that American intelligence agencies had a firm grasp of the Iranian government's intentions."

But Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times quotes John R. Bolton, formerly the Bush administration's ambassador to the United Nations: "Asked what effect the document might have on the debate within the Bush administration, Bolton said: 'There really isn't any debate. Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates have fundamentally won. This is an NIE very conveniently teed up for what the administration has been doing.'"

Hadley's Task

Bush's comments today were foreshadowed by national security adviser Hadley, who went before the press corps yesterday afternoon to explain how the NIE proved the administration was right.

"On balance, the estimate is good news," he said. "On one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen."