Like it or not the public and historians are likely to base their assessment of his performance on how well his “signature piece of domestic legislation” is implemented.

Obama has made at least 80 promises related to health care and this report is based on 8 of the most consequential. 6/23/07 “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first tem as president that will cover every American.” CBO projections as of the end of 2013 OBC will have reduced the number of nonelderly uninsured by less that 4%. This figure excludes 1 million unauthorized immigrants (51% of whom are uninsured). Fully implemented in 2017 it will cover on 92% of the nonelderly population. (Nearly everyone age 65 and above is already covered by Medicare) and 84.7% of that group already had coverage in March 209. Other countries relying on individual mandate have failed to drive their uninsured rate below 1% or 1.5%. OBC will close only 53% of the gap that existed when Obama was sworn into office-

9/12/08—“I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase-not you income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” Using official estimates form the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation and the House Ways and Means committee, projects that OBC will increase federal revenues by $1.058 trillion between 2013 and 2022. Only 30% of this total will be raised form taxes that exclusively target taxpayers earning over $200,000. The remaining 70% will be borne by households at all other income levels. Tax Policy Center figures show that such households do not account for more than half of all federal taxes. That still leaves at 35% to be borne by families at or below middle-class incomes. These figures do no include the hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue that will have to be collected by states to pay for their share of OBC induced growth in Medicaid. Nor do they include the impact of “taxation by regulation”, the tens of billions in higher premiums that your Americans are being forced to p[ay under OBC. In order to subsidize predominantly higher-income people who happen to be older. His promise at best was 65% true and more likely 50% or less true—GRADE-“F”

6/5/08 “we’ll lower premiums by up to $2500.00 for a typical family per year—we’ll do it by the end of my first tem”. This promise was reiterated at least 14 times, most recently 7/16/2012. His claim was a “misstatement”, what was originally intended was that total health spending would decline by this amount. Giving the benefit of the doubt—reframing his promise as a prediction about HC spending rather than Premiums and allowing OBC a full 12 years to achieve the promise instead of taking candidate obama rash claim ”by the end of my first term.” The latest report form the Medicare actuaries shows that in its first dozen years, OBC will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion”—or an average of $7,579.00 for a family of four. GRADE—“F”

12/15/09 the bill “will finally reduce the costs of health care”. While conceding that health spending would go up in the first 10 years as a result of the expansion of coverage, PolitiFact scored this statement, as Half True on it will “bend the cost curve”. That is, in the final year of the 10-year projection used by the Medicare would be slightly lower (6.9%) than under the status quo (7.2%). Medicare actuaries, CBO and GAO are either wise of politically sustainable in light of their potentially devastating effects on access to care. Medicare spending by 2085 will absorb 9.8% of GDP rather than only 6.5% of GDP under the less realistic current laws projection that was used by the CBO.

9/9/09 obama promised, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.” The CBO scored the plan as reducing the deficit in its first 10 years, Paul Ryan eloquently and decisively revealed the “gimmicks and smoke-and- mirrors” underlying that assessment (which counted 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of spending). Charles Blahous documenting that some of the conventional assumptions used in CBO’s analysis contravene actual laws. CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Michael Ramlet who concluded that “the new reform law will raise the deficit by more than $500 billion during the first 10 years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade.” ACA has put us on a path to add $6.2 trillion (2011 dollars) to the deficit over the next 75 years.

6/15/09 obama promised, “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, PEROID. No one will take it away not matter what”. This promise was made 3 dozen times as of 12/11/13, some 6 million American had lost their coverage as a result of the cancellation of nongroup policies that id not meet OBC coverage standards. RAND corporation projects that 17.7 million who would have had nongroup coverage in 2016, only 0.2 million will retain that coverage. But for the one-year delay of the employer mandate, many would have seen their employer based plans canceled. Estimates lose their employer based coverage because their employer drops it are all over the map, ranging from 11 million (CBO) to 14 million Medicare actually to 17.2 million (Lewin Group) to as high as 35 million (American Action Forum). OBC will slash payments to Medicare Advantage plans, the Medicare actuary has calculated cutbacks are fully phased in by 2017, about half of Medicare Advantage plan members (7.4 million) will lose their Part C coverage and be forced back into the wasteful and inefficient Medicare. Advantage plans are low-income seniors who had discovered it was much less expensive to join a Part C plan that pay premiums for regular Medicare. In short leaving aside the tens of millions who will pay higher premiums for “enhanced” coverage they may not want or need. PolitiFact declared this promise the lie of the Year for 2013.

6/15/09 obama “if you like your doctor, your will be able to keep your doctor, PERIOD.
New plans have more restrictions on access to specific doctors, hospitals and RX drugs”. The law requires those in the individual and small group markets to purchase coverage that is more comprehensive than some buy today. It is difficult to say how many of the nearly 6 million who have lost their nongroup coverage have been unable to find a plan that lets them keep their doctor. Tens of millions who may eventually lose their employer-based coverage and the 7.4 million affected by the Medicare Part C cutbacks. Mid January, 4.5 million have signed up for Medicaid (and CBO projects that when fully implemented in 2015, Medicaid will cover a total of 12 million newly eligible). RAND simulations indicate that 27% of newly Medicaid eligible people will be individuals losing employer based coverage. Since one third of doctors are currently unwilling to see new Medicaid patients, at lease some unknown fraction on newly Medicaid eligible people will lose their doctors. GRADE “F”

7/29/09 In a town hall meeting: Medicare is a government program. But don’t worry’ I’m not going to touch it.” The chief actuary for Medicare scored the law less than a month after its passage- he found that it would cut Medicare by $575 billion in its firs 10 years. In four consecutive annual reports actuary reported that if these steep cuts in provider payment rates were actually implemented, 15% of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies would be operation in the red by 2019. OBC would drive Medicare payment rates to physicians to less than half the levels [paid by Medicaid, which most experts agree would push providers to abandon Medicare in droves. Medicare Advantage plans are 9% less expensive. OBC will also slash payments to such plans by $145 billion in its first 10 years. In a 50% reduction in Medicare Advantage plan memberships by 2017. GRADE-“F”


Sources—weekly standard, Washington post, politifact, rand, AAF, lewin group, cbo,


Income inequality in the US has been increasing for a generation. The hare of pretax income received by top 1% of earners roe from 7.8% in 1973 to 17.4% in 2010. The
Gini coefficient—indicates that inequality for the entire range of income recipients rather than only the top 1% has risen by 26% since the early 1970’s. Income inequality after taxes is substantially diminished because of the offsetting effects of taxation. The top1% of income recipient’s pay 37% of total tax revenues, and the top 5% and 20% pay 59% respectively. The bottom 50% pays little or no income taxes. Pretax income inequality has been driven by long-term societal trends that are numerous, complex and hard to change. The drivers include education, parenting and family structure, neighborhood, immigration, globalization and IT-based technology. Poverty typically and strongly impedes emergence form it.
Recession eased monetary policy (aka-Quantitiative Easing) injected as much as $4 trillion into the monetary base by Federal Reserves purchases of mortgage-backed securities in order to lower long-term interest rates. The results ha been an increase in income inequality in recent years as an unintended side effect of monetary easing, apart from the additional to the long-term trends mentioned earlier. The process has been accompanied by a surge of equity markets to record highs (up 30% in 2013).
Since the Great Recession the share of wages in national income has decreased rapidly from 65% in 2008 to 61% in 2013.
It represents $600 billion less for the wages and salaries of the relatively numerous middle and lower income recipients and correspondingly more for the much less numerous form recipients. Although inequality has also increase among recipients of wages, the far smaller number of profit recipients has had a dominant effect on income inequality in recent years. Increased inequality is not simply an unintended consequence of eased monetary policy; it is also quite remote form the prescribed mandate of the Federal Reserve.
The more one is concerned with slowing, let alone reversing, the rising pace of inequality; the sooner on should favor “tapering” quantitative easing. The more one is concerned with stimulating growth, the more one should favor continued easing.
Accurate measurement of inequality it itself problematic
The Gini coefficient, which measures the gap between each percentage of the population and the corresponding percentage of income (or wealth) received by that percentage. If 5% of income and all the population percentages receive 5% of income and all other population percentages receive the corresponding income percentage, then the Gina coefficient is 0, indicating maximum equality of income distribution and no gap between population percentages and income percentages..
Is increased income inequality attributable more to such positive effects as those resulting form Steve Jobs and Apple, Bill Gates and Microsoft, or instead to negative effects such as those emanating from the likes of Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and Enron, Dennis Kozlowski and Tyco and Bernie Madoff.
Gini coefficients for the US lies midway between .45 and .49, having risen form a low of .39 in 1968 to a high of .48 in 2011. The Gini coefficient estimate for China is higher than that of the US as is the estimate for Brazil. Income inequality is substantially less: perhaps as much a 10% points lower than the before-tax estimate.
Source—weekly standard, charles wolf


7H 3/26/14

At the national prayer breakfast speech on the growing threat to religious liberty around tee world, the message was odds with his commitment to the issue: “we believe that each of us is “wonderfully made” in the image of God. We therefore, believe in the inherent dignity of every human being—dignity that no earthly power can take away—for the killing of the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will; in fact, it’s the ultimate betrayal of God will”. THIS FROM A GUY WHO BACKS ABORITONS AND LETTING THOSE WHO SURVIVE THE ABORTION LEFT TO DIE)
These words were uttered by a man who twice voted against the Infants Born Alive Act, capped off a speech to Planned Parenthood with the “GOD bells you”, and it currently bringing the full force of the federal government down on religious employers who don’t think abortion should be covered by the company health plan.
The main focus of obama speech—religious persecution abroad—was also at odds with his adm commitment to the issue. It’s nice know that the leader of the free world thinks religious persecution is a problem, but what has he done about it??
Maybe we should ask the Rev Suzsan Johnson Cook, until she resigned last fall; Cook was the ambassador –at- large for the office of International religious freedom in the state dept. obama was so unconcerned about religious freedom that he didn’t even bother nominating anyone to head the IRFO before appointing Cook in 2010.
“Dr. Sujay’s resume with no discernible international policy experience, her close ties to the Cinton adm and several ill-defined business ventures, suggest that obama cares little about supporting religious freedom around the world”.
When she stepped down, she did so “amid criticisms that she failed to stand up for some of the worlds most prosecuted victims of religious oppression. According to Religious News Service, while Christians in Egypt, Syria, AFG, and Nigeria were being massacred the ambassador at large was nowhere to be found. Nina Shea a lawyer with Hudson Institute, told RNS she was shocked Cook “would be utterly silent and not speak about the largest, single persecution of the largest single religious minority in the Near East in 1.300 years”, the Egypt’s Copts.

Sources—weekly standard, Washington post, RNS,


48H. 3/25/14

Michael Morell then acting director of the CIA gave an account of his role on Benghazi that was often misleading and sometimes deliberately false. He played in producing the obama adm flawed talking points about the fatal attacks on US facilities. And the misleading answers he gave lawmakers who investigated them.
Six republican members accuse Morell of lying in sworn testimony to congress, that Morell misled them in one on one or small-group meetings about the talking points. Morell now a consultant with Beacon Global Strategies, which is close to Hillary—did not respond to a request for comment.
Three aspects of the controversy are drawing particular interest—
1. Morell’s obfuscation of his central role in rewriting the talking points.
2. Morell’s contention that the FBI in rewrote the talking points
3. Morell’s false claim that the talking points were provided to the white house merely as a heads up and not for coordination.
Within weeks investigators on the senate intel comm. Learned that the unclassified “talking points” provided by the CIA to members of congress and top adm official told a different story than the classified intel. “We were seeing the classified stuff and then we see the unclassified talking points,” recalls one lawmaker with access to the intel. “It just didn’t match up.” Early drafts referred to AQ and attacks while later drafts did not.
11/15/12 four top intel officials appeared before the senate committee to answer questions—Clapper, Olsen, Kennedy, and Morell, Chambliss grilled the officials about changes made to the talking points. “I went down the line. I said: Okay guys did you change the talking points? Every one of them said no.” much of the hearing was devoted to uncovering how the talking points had been put together and who had made the changes. Morell volunteered nothing.
Senator Burr asked each witness if he knew who had been responsible for changing the word “attacks” to “demonstrations”—again denials down the line.
Clapper as the top US intel official was asked if he knew who had revised the talking points. I don’t, the other intel officials also indicated that they didn’t know who had made the changes, but their answer wee nonverbal and thus do not appear in the transcript.
“When US intel officials testified behind closed doors tow weeks ago, they were asked point blank whether they had altered the talking points on which UN ambassador Rice based her comments. A Reuters story on 11/28, “Clapper, Morell and Olsen each said no, according to two congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity”. For weeks the official public position was no one knew who had made the changes. In private meetings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and at CIA headquarters Morell denied that he had played any significant role in writing or revising the talking points.
Members of the congressional oversight committees pressed the white house to turn over emails and other document6s pertaining to the talking points but the adm refused.
Holding up Brennan’s nomination the adm cooperated more fully on Benghazi. Eventually, the white house made available on a “read only” basis nearly 100 pages of emails between top intel and obama adm officials.
Emails given to reporters on May 2013, showed Morell had been a key player in rewriting the talking points. In fact a Sept. 15th email to Rice described a secure video teleconference in which Morell told others on the call that he had rewritten the talking points and would be happy to revise them further in consultation with top advisers to Obama and Clinton. “Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them. He noted that he would be happy to work with Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.”
The messages contradicted claims from Carney and other top adm officials that neither the white house nor the state had played any role in revising the substance of the talking points.
5/10/13, after The Weekly Standard and ABC reported on the emails, a reporter asked Carney “we have had emails showing that he state dept punished back against talking-point language form the CIA and expressed concern about how some of the information would be used politically in congress. You have said the white house only made a stylistic changes her, but these were not stylistic changes. These were content changes. So again what role did the white house play in making but in directing changes that took place to these?” Carney—“the CIA in this case, deputy director—took the process and issued a set of talking points on that Saturday morning and those talking points were disseminated.”
Five days later the white house released the emails, the adm enlisted Morell to participate in two background press briefings. While the emails themselves showed robust and sometimes contentious exchanges between top officials, Morell told reporters that he had been responsible for most of the substantive changes.
Quite a reversal in Nov 2012 Morell had dodged responsibility during congressional hearing s and misled lawmakers in private meetings. Then in May the white house spokesman told the world that Morell had been in charge of the process that produced the talking points and Morell privately told reporters the same things.
In June Morell resigned. Soon he joined the consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies (SEE ABOVE—HILLARY CONNECTION) he joined with Jeremy Bash, Michael Allen, Andrew Shapiro and Philippe Reines all connected to white house departments and Hillary.
On 11/27/12 Morell accompanied Rice to Capitol Hill to meet with senators including republican critics of her role in selling the misleading narrative. Morell had been named acting CIA director after the resignation of David Patraeus. Graham, McCain and Ayotte asked Rice why Morell was there “she said: “he will help you understand what was going on with the talking points.’ The first question was “who changed the talking points? Morell responded telling the senators that he FBI had made the revisions. “He told us that the FBI made the changes because they were the ones on the ground talking to people and they didn’t want to jeopardize their investigation”. Graham says Morell implied that the CIA didn’t have enough information to have made the changes, telling the group that the FBI wouldn’t share with the CIA information from their interviews with the survivors.

Graham was surprised, “it was the first itme I’d heard anyone say the FBI.” We were back to pre 9/11 style stove piping. So Graham, called the FB
I leadership to ask why the bureau would have withheld such important information form the CIA. “They went apeshit and offered and unequivocal denial”.
Morell said the FBI removed the references and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing investigation. The CIA officials contacted indicating that acting Director Morell misspoke in our earlier meeting. The CIA now says that it deleted the AQ references not the FBI. They were unable to give a reason as to why.
Graham doesn’t think Morell misspoke. “He knew when he met with us that it wasn’t the FBI who had changed the talking points. “Morell tried to dump this on the FBI and got caught.”
Perhaps the most serious charge against Morell comes in the “additional Views” section of the senate intel committee report on Benghazi. The authors, six republicans senators who sit on the panel report for the first time in his testimony on 11/15/12 Morell “emphatically stated” that the talking points were provided by to the white house “for their awareness, not for their coordination.” 100 pages of emails between adm and intel officials released last May, a CIA spokesman tells a white house spokesman that the talking points are being provided to the white house “for coordination.” That email sent on 9/14 from the chief of media relations at the CIA to the white house National security council spokesman Tommy Vietor reads: “you should be seeing some ‘white paper’ taking points from us this afternoon for coordination’. Ben Rhodes foreign policy and national security adviser was copied on the email. So from the very beginning, top white house officials were involved in coordinating eh discussion of what would go into the talking points, with heavy input from senior officials at the state dept and the intel community.
9/14 the CIA public affairs office sent white house officials another draft of the talking points with instructions to “review the below and respond with your comments ASAP”.’
Everyone has submitted a coordination comments from an earlier email that day.
In an email the following morning, Morell writes to officials working for the director of national intel seeking there approval of the talking points. “Everyone else has coordinated,” he notes about the review of “tweaks”. Finally according to a 9/15 email from then CIA director Petraeus, the final decisions on the talking points were “National Security Staff’s call to be sure”.
Given all of this, why would Morell emphatically claim two months later that the talking points, already the subject of public scrutiny, had been provided to the white house only for awareness and not “coordination.”

Sources—weekly standard, Stephen hayes, reuters, ny mag, abc


47H 3/24/14
The economic news from Tehran is good—good, that is, if you are a state sponsor of terror moving toward a nuclear weapon program. If you were hoping that sanctions might persuade the Iranians to cease and desist, the news is disastrous. Since the obama adm relaxed sanctions on Iran, oil sales are up 25% from 1.06 million barrels per day to 1.32 million and the white house reportedly has no intention of preventing the rise ins sales and consequent swelling of Revolutionary Guard bank accounts. Indicators show an Iranian economy on the mend, thanks to the interim nuclear agreement struck in NOV. Inflation has decreased form 40%-plus to 20% and falling. The rial-to-dollar exchange rate is steadily recovering. And where Iran’s GDP fell 3% in 2012, the IMF now projects modest increases for 2014 and 2015.
With sanctions regime eroding, Iran’s business climate has been transformed, and trade delegations are exploring investment options in Iran’s petrochemical and automobile industries. The regime was getting only $7 billion in sanctions relief was way off. The figure is far closer to those estimates of $20 billion that adm officials scoffed at.
Sanction relief was never about rewarding the regime with relatively small sums of money in exchange for steep concessions on the nuclear program. The plan rather was to get Iranians president Rouhani lots of cash.
The white house idea is that once Rouhani understands how much easier his life is with lots of money pouring into the economy, it will be in his interest to petition Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for more concessions on he nuclear file. The problem with the strategy is that it shows how badly the White house has misunderstood not only the regimes behavior but also Routhani’s role and how sanctions affect it. Mark Dubowitz director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, whose work has been central in building the Iran sanctions regime. According to Dubowitz the white house wanted to empower Rouhani while weakening figures like Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. The more Rouhani becomes ‘addicted’ to cash, the better he’ll be able to make the case to Khamenei that they need to make more concessions.
What was significant about sanctions relief was not merely the exact amount of money. Any realizations of sanctions would give rise to an international lobby with a vital interest in making sure the white house never made good on its threats to reimpose stiff sanctions on the Tehran regime.
A European corporation doing business in Tehran means jobs back home. What politician gladly turns his back on thousands of jobs or potential jobs to agree to observe the restoration of a sanctions regime that the Obama white house wasn’t serious about in the first place?
The adm strategy, says Dubowitz, “has nothing to do with rational economic models. Rather it’s a psychological profile of the regime based on its assessment of Rouhani as a pragmatist who was elected to secure sanctions relief and will be further strengthened if he can deliver’.
Rouhani uses the sanctions regime, and the threat of new sanctions, as a stick in his fight with the IRGC and Khamenei. Rouhani was elected to win sanctions relief for a beleaguered Iranian economy. Khamenei has long seen Rouhani as a useful asset in his dealings with the West. The Iranian president often boasts of his role in duping his American and European counterparts as lead negotiator when he held the regimes nuclear file form 2003-5.
Now the Western businessmen and politicians are pecking away at the sanctions regime, Rouhani has already served his purpose. Khamenei has a deal he’s perfectly happy with. He’s getting paid for doing nothing and if the interim agreement is renewed after six months more money to spend on whatever he likes—backing Assad in the Syrian civil war, or building the bomb. What’s peculiar is that the white house seems just a pleased with the agreement.

Source==weekly standard, lee smith


47H 3/24/14

Kiev is ablaze. Syria is a killing field. The Iranian mullahs aren’t giving up their nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda is making gains and is probably stronger than ever. China and Russia throw their weight around, while our allies’ shudder and squabble.
The USA is in retreat. Obama response to these events, further retreat!
Having withdrawn from Iraq, and seeing it now fall apart, determined to get out of AFG. Its Russia “reset” is a joke, and its “pivot to Asia” an empty slogan. Kerry huffed and puffed when Al-Assad used chemical weapons last year. Having failed to hold Assad accountable, Kerry now says that global climate change may be the weapons of mass destruction we should most fear!!!
Our military is being decimated in size, as it is being enervated by political correctness. We’re dealing with no recent memory of the Great War, no Great Depression, no Hitler or Tojo or even Mussolini. We don’t need extraordinary heroism or exemplary statesmanship in deal with the second and third-rate threats that we face.
Chaos that result form weakness and dissolution can be as hard to remedy as defeat by formidable and well-organized foes.
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide.

Source—weekly standard, willian kristol


Obama is rushing to implement the 6-month interim agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is now working to negotiate a long-term agreement aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. He has proudly declared that diplomacy opened a path to “a failure in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon”. The question is a preeminent one concerns Iranian compliance the ayatollahs will not press ahead with their unclear program in clandestine facilities, as they have done in the past? If they do press ahead we have that our intelligence agencies will catch them?
Obama faith that “we can verify” Iranian compliance glides over the fact that the US track record in unmasking covert nuclear programs is checkered at best. Because the task is exceptionally hard, just last week Defense Science Board concluded that US intelligences agencies “are not yet organized or fully equipped” to detect when foreign powers are constructing nuclear weapons or adding to existing arsenal. Their ability to find “small nuclear enterprises is “either inadequate or more often does not exist”.
Past intelligence lapses the 1949 soviet A-Bomb test, 1953 soviet H-bomb test. After the first Gulf war astonished to learn that Iraq was only months away form putting the final screw in a nuclear device. The second Gulf war, the CIA’s Tenet’s said that Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. N. Korea constructed uranium, enrichment facility that went t unnoticed until the North itself chose to reveal it.
N, Korea was helping Syria with a joint venture involving N. Korea nuclear experts. “It certainly didn’t have any observable, externally observable characteristics things like a massive electrical-supply system, massive ventilation, and most importantly a cooling system. The structure closely resembled N Koreas plutonium reactor at Yongbyoin, America’s highly skilled photo interpreters could not connect the dots between the tow facilities. Syrians had erected curtain walls and a false roof to disguise the building’s shape and conceal typical features of a reactor. The multibillion-dollar ultra-high tech tools of US intelligence were foiled by camouflage.
Only in 2007 US intelligence conclude that Syria had built a gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor. Thanks to incontrovertible evidence provided by Israel. Under our eyes Syrians is close to possessing an operational generator of the nuclear bomb ingredient plutonium. Gates reports “Syria for years had been a high-priority intelligence target for the US.” “How can we have any confidence at all in he estimates of the scope of N Korean, Iranian or other possible programs?” That was the right question to ask in 2007 and it remains the right question to ask about Iran today.
It is especially significant that the CIA was undaunted by its own lapse. CIA judgment behind him, Israel was not so reluctant. It destroyed the reactor in an air raid on 9/6/07.
But under the preliminary agreement with Iran struck by Obama in November, International Atomic Energy agency inspectors are not free to roam at will; it appears they will be confined to those nuclear facilities that the IAEA already knows about.
In the unlikely event that he US and its negotiating partners persuade Iran to grant inspectors unlimited access to all potential nuclear sites on its territory, our ability to detect violations will still be limited. For more than 20 years, Iran has violated IAEA safeguard agreements, developed covert nuclear facilities and sought to mislead the West about the scope and [ace of its activities.
Source—weekly standard, Gabriel schoenfeld