Plus with Iran balking at inspections, this deal is turning into a nightmare. We - and the other's involved - should walk away and keep the sanctions. France is being harder on Iran than we are.

Not as if we didn't already know about that. In fact, the outing of Valerie Plame's CIA-Counterproliferation unit by Richard Armitage in a June 1, 2001 interview with Rupert Murdoch's Times of London was one of the first significant acts of the incoming Bush Administration.

The irony is, that Bush Sr., when he was DCI, was the one who originally helped the Saudis finance the Pakistani nuclear program through shared operation of BCCI. BCCI was a funding vehicle for a number of black programs, including al-Qaeda and the AQ Khan network. That 1976 deal was codenamed, Safari Club. Google it. Or, this will save you the trouble: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/280

AQ Khan later opened his nuclear supermarket to global customers. It made billions. It mostly sold pricey junk to a number of countries around the world while the CIA watched. The Pakistani P-1 and P-2 centrifuges were garbage that regularly required specialized parts, the supply of which the CIA controlled, and was able to effectively monitor and slow down the nuclear programs of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, and North Korea by supplying them. In the case of Iran, that program was codenamed, Merlin.

This is why we no longer want Iran to reveal its historical program. The CIA was its principal equipment supplier through the Pakistanis.

to shout that from the rooftops? Why protect the CIA?

Especially when you are trying to get a deal.

it's own inside backstory of how the US helped Pakistan proliferate. Iran has its own reasons for wanting to keep the details under its hat, as well.

Behind that might well be the idea that you don't want to set the example for other people to talk too. Honor among thieves, is all you need. Our friends the banks are in competition with each other, but they are still quite able to collude against us.

Iran and the CIA have had a "complicated relationship".

of the journal link in my post above for the range of possible explanations.

and make this a much better place to hang out at.

In context, Kerry was emphasizing what they would be doing going forward - not getting them to publicly state everything they ever did. As Kerry said, the US and its partners KNOW what was done. Given where they are in the negotiations, I think BOTH sides are deciding what their red lines are and what they are willing to be more flexible on.

Here, all he is saying is that Iran admitting to all that was done is not something a deal depends on. Going beyond anything Kerry said - if you were negotiating, how much would you give up on other issues to get this? Neither side will get everything that they wish were in the agreement. This is far less important than having the strict monitoring that we need in the agreement. This may be something given that allows Iran to save face as they agree to a deal that includes things that THEY have said they don't agree with.

Netanyahu and various Republicans and pundits have argued that it seems the agreement will not be close to what the US spoke of in early 2013 as their goal. However, it also won't be what the Iranian leaders spoke of. Yet, that is always the case.

As to the 2004 recount, NO serious person thought a recount could make him the winner. He lost by slightly over 100,000 votes in Ohio. The Republicans cheated by voter suppression (by not having enough machines in Democratic cities leading to lines of over 4 hours.). The problem is that you can't count votes not cast. Recounts have a chance only if the gap is far less -- like the about 500 that Gore had in Florida. The SAME Democratic lawyers and strategist who told Giore to take back his concession because it was too close, told Kerry that there was no way a recount would change anything.

Here (from State.gov) is the full question and answer)
QUESTION: Sir, I’m Michael Gordon, New York Times. You mentioned that possible military dimensions, which is the term of art for suspected nuclear design work and testing of nuclear components, has to be addressed as part of a prospective Iran agreement. Do these concerns need to be fully resolved before sanctions are eased or released or removed or suspended on Iran as part of that agreement? Is that a core principle or is that also negotiable? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Michael, the possible military dimensions, frankly, gets distorted a little bit in some of the discussion, in that we’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in.

What we’re concerned about is going forward. It’s critical to us to know that going forward, those activities have been stopped, and that we can account for that in a legitimate way. That clearly is one of the requirements in our judgment for what has to be achieved in order to have a legitimate agreement. And in order to have an agreement to trigger any kind of material significant sanctions relief, we would have to have those answers.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/06/243892.htm