"Iran NIE a game-changer"... NOT! (part 2)

"... I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so. I want to work -- I want the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust, capable body. It's important for it's [sic] words to mean what they say, and as we head into the 21st century... when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
President George W. Bush, Press Conference, 6 Mar 2003

Below I argued that the recent Iran NIE changes nothing from the perspective of domestic politics: W can easily ignore it, his neocon supporters can spin it to reflect poorly on both the U.S. Intelligence Community and on the sane opposition, and our esteemed Democratic leadership are still following scripts provided them by Bush's Brain.

A second "Iran NIE changes the game" theme has now appeared:
Analysis: US loses leverage over Iran
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
4 Dec 2004
WASHINGTON - U.S. leverage over Iran all but evaporated this week, along with some of the international credibility and goodwill the Bush administration has worked to rebuild since the phantom weapons debacle in Iraq.
...
"The Bush administration has perhaps even less credibility now in Beijing and Moscow than Iran's clerics," said Karim Sadjadpour, an expert on Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "China and Russia felt like they were sacrificing their own national interests in order to please Washington. It's highly doubtful they will continue to do so."

This is said seriously and with a straight face.
As if W cared!

Recall, prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, [i]n March 2003, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported in regard to Iraq that, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found," saying that progress was made in inspections which would continue."

A U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force could not be procured ("Freedom Fries", anyone?).

Nevertheless, "... the U.S. government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a coalition of allied countries, named the "coalition of the willing", to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government abruptly advised U.N. weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Baghdad.
[italicized portions above taken from Wikipedia entry,
Iraq War]

From the quotation heading this entry, W's perspective is clear:
"[W]hen it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."

Furthermore, W now has - thanks to our fearless Democratic Senate - the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, stating that
"It is the sense of the Senate...

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization..."

With this and W's predilection for military confrontation, I'd say the Iran NIE changes NOTHING!