posted
I'm not sure which is the bigger news, that Iran apparently clearly doesn't have an active program and hasn't since 2003 or that the NIE was provided based on Democrats in Congress trying to check whether the White House's agressive statements and stances were based in reality, or to put it another way, Congress actually did its job.
Much smaller news is that the Bush administration knowingly made many statements about a Middle East country pursuing WMDs that either wasn't supported by the intelligence they were given or was directly contradicted by it. But is there really anyone who is even remotely suprised by this anymore?
quote:Congressional leaders of both parties had been pressing the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, for the report for months, and some had worried that the delay was the result of the administration's efforts to influence the final result. Those concerns appeared to dissipate yesterday, when the report contradicted not only the administration's views but also the intelligence community's previous assessments -- evidence, to many observers, of the intelligence agencies' new willingness to question assumptions and assert their independence from policymakers.
...
The assessment, under preparation for more than 18 months, was completed on Tuesday and President Bush and Vice President Cheney were briefed on Wednesday, intelligence officials said. Hadley said Bush first learned in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program and was advised it would take time to evaluate.
...
Last year, Congress required that key judgments from the NIE be declassified. McConnell said in November that he had no plans to issue an unclassified version, but officials said the dramatic shift in the assessment convinced him otherwise. "Since our understanding of Iran's nuclear capabilities has changed, we felt it was important to release this information to ensure that an accurate presentation is available," Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, said in a statement.
quote:"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said, pointing out that Tehran continues to try to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and therefore develop technology that could be used for a weapon.
.......
"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" Bush asked.
The latest estimate shows "Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace," Bush said.
So what exactly is he suggesting? That we need to have a war to destroy their knowledge? I don't get it, he complains that we need to stop Iran, and by all measures, it appears the world's efforts have succeeded, but it's not enough so long as people who know how to make nuclear power are alive? Watchful vigilance is one thing, but it sounds like his burden of proof is impossible to meet without another war.
Thank goodness Congress actually did some oversight for once and didn't blindly go along with it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find that scary. He's trying to cling to the "Iran is a nuclear threat" rhetoric, but I think it's all a bunch of empty statements. The NIE took most of the traction out of the "Let's get Iran" machine.
I wish that the President would admit to the reality of the situation, but while clinging to what he wants to believe is going to damage the US's attempts to deal with this situation, I don't think there's enough to get the all out aggression that his administration has been pushing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone cite where Congress is the one that called for this NIE 18 months ago when it was first started?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Iran being transparent with weapons inspectors? Of course, even if it isn't being completely transparent, that's not enough reason to invade, since Iran hasn't proved itself to be unstable by invading other countries as Saddam Hussein's Iraq did.
But hmmm, Iran hasn't had an active program since 2003? Gee, what else happened in the Middle East in 2003?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is Iran being transparent with weapons inspectors? Of course, even if it isn't being completely transparent, that's not enough reason to invade, since Iran hasn't proved itself to be unstable by invading other countries as Saddam Hussein's Iraq did.
You know, even if there were a good case for justfying invasion of Iran, unless this case involved a serious immediate to short-range threat to the U.S., the U.S. actually invading Iran would be insane without some pretty significant changes in the state of affairs in Iraq.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought weapons inspection was something Iraq was subject to as part of the cease-fire terms after Desert Storm. So it isn't a matter of Iran cooperating.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Also, Dick Cheney shot some guy in the face because he thought he was a duck and he never apologized. This administation doesn't do apologies.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They aren't having problems finding buyers. If anything they are having problem with a total lack of refining infrastructure and a number of their wells going dry because they haven't invested enough in their own infrastructure. They're currently producing below the OPEC mandatory limits given to them, which is like throwing away free money. Either the wells are going dry, or they just aren't spending the money where they should be if they care anything about longterm prosperity.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I've heard this repeated several times (probably including the same NPR report you heard) and can't find anything in print/online yet.
Frustrating news reporting.
I've seen it online mentioned in articles, but there's no mention of where that information came from. Not sure how helpful that is. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That part might not be declassified yet? I find that hard to believe. If the President had it done, he'd be claiming credit from the hilltops, and so would either side of Congress. Or maybe it just hasn't snowballed that much yet. If we don't hear claims of credit soon, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an in-house decision.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Makes sense to me, and also explains why Bush is still pushing the rhetoric. It's his way of pulling back from the brink without totally admitting defeat. It's a middle course. But he's still going to be open to the types of attacks Biden has already launched, of incompetence. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out politically, but GEOpolitically I think this will mean good things for the US. Toning it down will give our Arab allies breathing room instead of putting them in impossible positions of choosing sides (likely against us) and it gives European allies a chance to support us without being left in the cold.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I had read beyond the first page of the NYTs in regards to the front page article discussing this, I just had no time. At least in the first page treatment, there was no mention of congressional pressure to get the report out, it simply mentioned that the report was finished, the national security adviser briefed the press on it, and its message is very clear.
I'm certain that such a consensus on this topic is a result of the snafu on Iraq WMDs. I'm please it appears Iran has no serious program. I hope we can find a way to convince them that it is in their best interests not to start up the program again. I wonder what the impetus was for Iran to discontinue it's nuclear program.
In other news apparently military commanders have been seeking for every opportunity to praise Iran for it's cooperation with our efforts in Iraq. I think a big part of Bush's efforts with Olmert and Abbas is how he approaches Iran in the wake of this report.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:THE NEW National Intelligence Estimate on Iran contains some unambiguously good news: that Tehran halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, and that it is responsive to the sort of international pressure applied by the United States and other Western governments. Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," says the public summary released Monday. That sounds like an endorsement of the diplomatic strategy pursued by the Bush administration since 2005, which has been aimed at forcing Iran to choose between the nuclear program and normal economic and security relations with the outside world. It strengthens the view, which we have previously endorsed, that this administration should not have to resort to military action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.
But there is bad news, too, which seems likely to be overlooked by those who have been resisting sanctions and other pressure on the mullahs all along, such as Russia, China and some members of the European Union. While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium. The U.S. estimate of when Iran might produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb -- sometime between late 2009 and the middle of the next decade -- hasn't changed.
posted
I'm not sure what the Post is referring to by "binding UN resolutions" - do you have an idea what they mean, Dagonee?
[Edit - partly because the article does not make it clear what UN resolutions it is referring to, but more importantly because UN resolutions are not binding per se in a normative sense.]
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That sounds like an endorsement of the diplomatic strategy pursued by the Bush administration since 2005, which has been aimed at forcing Iran to choose between the nuclear program and normal economic and security relations with the outside world.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Iran is making a cost-benefit analysis here or that tying cooperation to good things and violation to bad things is what we should be doing, but I don't understand how you can credit programs that started in 2005 for a decision made in 2003.
If their cba in 2003 was one way, I don't see how we can conclude the increasingly hard-line stance the Bush administration has been taking since 2005, and, you know, bringing up the idea of World War III, is responsible for the continuance of the cba decision, unless there were other significant changes that neccesitated the U.S. increasing the pressure brought to bear.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what the Post is referring to by "binding UN resolutions" - do you have an idea what they mean, Dagonee?
[Edit - partly because the article does not make it clear what UN resolutions it is referring to, but more importantly because UN resolutions are not binding per se in a normative sense.]
I think the press uses "binding" to refer to Security Council resolutions such as this one. My understanding - which is certainly less informed than yours on this topic - is that Security Council resolutions pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter are considered binding on UN members.
That's a different use of "binding" than I would associate with a domestic court order or judgment, but it seems to be the way it is used with respect to UN resolutions, at least in the literature I've read.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Iran is making a cost-benefit analysis here or that tying cooperation to good things and violation to bad things is what we should be doing, but I don't understand how you can credit programs that started in 2005 for a decision made in 2003.
I don't read that as crediting programs started in 2005 for a decision made in 2003. Rather, it says that the fact that they made this type of decision in 2003 is evidence that programs such as the 2005 one have a good chance of working.
quote:If their cba in 2003 was one way, I don't see how we can conclude the increasingly hard-line stance the Bush administration has been taking since 2005, and, you know, bringing up the idea of World War III, is responsible for the continuance of the cba decision, unless there were other significant changes that neccesitated the U.S. increasing the pressure brought to bear.
Iran has only come into partial compliance - the NIE states that they are continuing enrichment. If cba made them abandon one activity, it might make them abandon this one. Since the cba of 2003 wasn't enough to make them do so, perhaps increased pressure will cause them to do so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
edited: That seems far too broad, superficial, and non-specific to even be called analysis. I think it also misses the idea that we were threatening largely about things that apparently, they weren't doing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I get for trying to actually address you. One day I'll learn my lesson.
Are you seriously contending that your analysis - one that compared two dates and concluded that the post must have somehow missed all the fact that 2005 is after 2003 - is deep and insightful?
Of course my analysis was superficial. It was a response to a superficial analysis of your misreading of half-column op-ed.
Edit: this was written in response to Squicky calling my anlysis "lazy" and "superficial," not his latest amendment to his post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That seems far too broad, superficial, and non-specific to even be called analysis. I think it also misses the idea that we were threatening largely about things that apparently, they weren't doing.
It's as much analysis as your post. In fact, it's more so, because at least it shows an attempt to understand what the Post was saying and not building a ridiculous straw man to blow at.
I didn't even address whether I agreed with the Post's analysis. I found it interesting and posted it before I made up my mind. I then addressed a post that seemed to be based on the premise that the Post doesn't know that 2005 came after 2003.
Moreover, despite the fact that you've called my analysis shallow, you haven't bothered to mention the ongoing enrichment - which is one of the things that was loudly called threatening to us by the Bush administration for at least 3 years.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I wasn't calling your analysis lazy or superficial. I was saying that the Post's was.
Thank you for clarifying.
However, your analysis as presented above still represents a misreading of what the Post said. Moreover, it fails to address the enrichment issue, the halting of which has been a publicly stated goal of the administration's Iran policy for several years.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my earlier link, here are the key judgments of the NIC:
quote:Key Judgments
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.
We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
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.
B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.
C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge[1] enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.
We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.
E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.
Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.
We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.
F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities— rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.
H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
[1] For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.
Does anyone know when the draft NIE with the current conclusion about Iran was first brought to the attention of the President?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard a year ago, in which case he's been lying repeatedly (or he wasn't paying attention to the Presidential Daily Briefing, which might be worse).
quote:QUESTION: Steve, what is the first time the president was given the inkling that something? I’m not clear on this. Was it months ago, when the first information started to become available to intelligence agencies? […]
HADLEY: [W]hen was the president notified that there was new information available? We’ll try and get you a precise answer. As I say, it was, in my recollection, is in the last few months. Whether that’s October — August-September, we’ll try and get you an answer for that.
The NIE has been in near-final form for something like six months, so it would be hard to believe there hadn't been general knowledge of the primary conclusions among those making policy with regard to Iran. Indeed, considering how delicate the situation is with Iran, if Bush wasn't briefed about the current state of the intelligence community's best estimates, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Indian nuclear test mistake was a classic. The newly elected gov't had virtually been campaigning on, we will test the bomb when the other party wouldn't. It had been all over the Indian news.
I'd be really interested in seeing some estimate of 'how much' the NIEs have been incorrect in comparison to 'how much' they were correct (obviously measuring this would require more precise definitions). In particular, how often they were outside the confidence intervals for the confidence intervals they use (the language is very specific, even if it isn't accompanied by a number).
After all, nobody is right all the time. That's part of why they have varying degrees of confidence.
The most important conclusions about Iran are stated with high confidence, in this NIE.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, the 2005 assessments of some of those conclusions were also stated with high confidence.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Barring some accusations that the 2005 NIE was cooked, the Administration was justified in making claims about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons for some time. I'm trying to get a sense of when that cutoff point occurred. Right now, the 6 months mark seems the most likely candidate based on fugu's earlier post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it is hard to believe it could have happened later, given Cheney's office has been campaigning against the current form of the NIE for at least that long.
I'll have to look for specific statements, but I believe this will be the first credible proof that the President has lied (or is incompetent on a grand scale and was ignoring his briefings).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the NIE poses a number of questions, including the following:
1. What happened in 2003 (in geographic proximity to Iran) that may have contributed significantly to Iran's apparent decision to halt its nuclear weapons program? Possible answer: An argument can be made that the U.S. invasion of Iraq over concerns that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction contributed to Iran’s decision. Perhaps the "international scrutiny and pressure" the NIE speaks of became much more credible, in Iran's eyes, by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which weighed heavily on Iran's cost-benefit analysis.
2. What kinds of things might cause Iran to re-think the cost-benefit analysis and decide to restart its nuclear weapons program? Possible answers: First, perhaps the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and otherwise demonstrating an unwillingness to follow through and continue fighting could reduce the credibility of any diplomatic pressure. Second, perhaps our abandoning the current diplomatic pressure on Iran, and the additional pressure the U.S. currently is lobbying for, under the misplaced belief that Iran no longer is a threat, would convince Iran to restart its weapons program.
3. Does the NIE undermine the policies the Administration has advanced with respect to Iran? Possible answer: No – the argument can be made that the NIE actually justifies the Administration’s policies in that: (i) Iran likely did pursue a nuclear weapons program until sufficient pressure was brought to bear prompting Iran in 2003 to halt its program; (ii) Iran still is continuing its enrichment program and other programs that could help jump start a nuclear weapons program if Iran changes its mind; and (iii) Iran easily could change its mind.
In summary, an argument could be made that the NIE supports the policies the Administration has advanced and continues to advance with respect to Iran.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In summary, an argument could be made that the NIE supports the policies the Administration has advanced and continues to advance with respect to Iran.
Frankly it makes me wonder how useful NIEs are at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: David, what American is advocating abandoning diplomatic pressure on Iran? Please name one.
I don't know of any American so advocating.
But I believe there are Americans who have trumpeted the NIE as undermining the Administration's policies, both past and present. My point (among others) was that perhaps the NIE supports the Administration's policies, both past and present.
President Bush has been accused of "beating the drum for war with Iraq." Maybe (and I think this is an argument worthy of consideration) that "drum beat" coupled with substantial dipolomatic pressure (including sanctions, the threat of more sanctions, labeling the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization, etc...) has proven to be an effective and worthwhile strategy.
Edited to add: ... and a strategy worth continuing. Under some circumstances, perhaps the "drum beat for war" is exactly what we need to prevent war.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, David. We were fooled with the whole "we need the drumbeat so we won't have to go to war" thing with Iraq. I no longer trust this President with drums.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I respectfully question whether you read properly my posts and discerned the arguments advanced.
4 questions for you:
1. Do you believe (or do you know of any Americans who believe) that the recent NIE undermines the Administration's policies and position on Iran? 2. Do you believe (or do you know of any Americans who believe) that the recent NIE should cause the Administration to change its policies and position on Iran? 3. Do you believe (or do you know of any Americans who believe) that the recent NIE should cause the Administration to reduce the pressure it has applied and continues to seek to apply to Iran? 4. What is the fallacy you accused me of making called?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope, David. We were fooled with the whole "we need the drumbeat so we won't have to go to war" thing with Iraq. I no longer trust this President with drums.
Exactly! When this President beats the drums, the world believes him - which makes his drum beat credible. If you beat the drum, but back down after exhausting all other practical remedies, then you lose credibility and your drum beating no longer means anything.
Like I said, following through on the threat to go to war with Iraq made Bush's threat to go to war with Iran credible - and may have contributed to Iran's halting its nuclear weapons program. And so maybe the Iraq war saved us from going to war with Iran.
(I expect that there are many who will dispute that Bush "exhausted all other practical remedies" - as stated above - before invading Iraq. They may be right. But the invasion nevertheless may have lent considerable credibility and force behind the diplomatic pressure applied elsewhere.)
EDIT: kmbboots - I hear what you are saying. You don't trust this President to refrain from invading Iran when there is evidence suggesting that it has halted its weapons program. That distrust is based, I presume, on your belief that this President invaded Iraq on the premise that Iraq had WMD when, in fact, it did not. But the question is what did President Bush believe at the time and what was the basis for his belief. This opens up a whole other set of issues to be debated, but I think (or at least hope) that Bush will not invade Iran unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
[ December 05, 2007, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
