What They've Thought
Their View Archives

January 1, 2006

• Global Predictions for 2006
• A Modest Proposal (How To Plug the National Security Leak)
• 2005: The Year In Headlines
• Peace and Prosperity in 2006?

• 2004 Archives
• 2005 Archives

What They Thought January 8, 2006

Alan Caruba
R.A. Hawkins
Jonathan David Morris
Rep. Ron Paul
Nancy Salvato

Click here for columnist bios

Alan Caruba
An Attack on Iran is Inevitable

A military confrontation with Iran is inevitable. Israel will need to destroy as much of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability as possible. If it does not, Iran’s ayatollahs will launch nuclear-armed ballistic missiles at Israel.

If the Israelis attack, it will be with the assistance and blessing of the U.S. because a nuclear attack on America using innocent-looking merchant ships as launch platforms is a significant fear among counterterrorism experts. Or the U.S. will undertake its own preemptive military operation.

This isn’t conjecture or speculation. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made it clear to the world that Israel is to be “wiped off the map” of the world and, in the first days of its Islamic Revolution, it was American diplomats who were held hostage for 444 days by the Iranians.

For the ayatollahs, America is the “Big Satan” and Israel is the “Little Satan.” No ambiguity here. No slippery rhetoric to disguise their intentions.

Ahmedinijad recently told an Islamic summit in Mecca that an alternative to killing all the Israelis would be to have them all move to Europe! He is not merely certifiably insane, but he is virtually begging for a war with Israel.

In a chapter in a new book, “War Footing,” the collective thinking of some of the nation’s best defense, diplomatic, and intelligence gathering experts, looks at Iran and says, “It is surprising to most terrorism experts that, even after four years of a global war on terror, there has yet to be any serious national debate about the need and the means to confront Iran.”

When asked how far Israel was prepared to go to protect itself, one of its top military leaders replied, “About two thousand kilometers,” the distance between Israel and Iran. Guess who will be refueling those Israeli bombers and fighter jets over Iraq? Guess who will be flying with them? It will be the United States because Iran leaves neither America, nor Israel, any alternative.

With a news media beleaguering Americans daily with reports of every casualty in order to sap our national resolve to remain in Iraq long enough to eliminate the threat that emanates from the entire Middle East, Americans are most surely not being reminded that, in the years prior to the attacks of 9-11, “Iran was responsible for the deaths of more than fifteen hundred Americans—more than any other state sponsor of terror or terrorist organization in history.”

A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, leaked to the media in August 2005 stated that Iran is unlikely to produce the fissile material it needs for a nuclear weapon until “early to mid-next decade.” Bear in mind the intelligence community has been taking a beating over its estimates of WMDs and other reasons to invade Iraq. The NIE estimate is probably too cautious. Iran may well be closer to what it needs to make nuclear weapons.

What will stop this? A massive bombing campaign to degrade their capacity to make or launch nuclear missiles. Take away their nuclear option, along with their command and control capabilities, and there will be no need to invade. Indeed, with sufficient planning, resistance groups inside Iran could be armed to finish off the relative handful of ayatollahs in charge.

Recently, an Iranian opposition group, based in the United States and calling itself the “Iran of Tomorrow Movement” issued a statement calling on Iranians to begin a period of resistance just prior to the next election on June 17 and calling on all governments worldwide to support the resistance. There is momentum gathering among Iranian resistance groups and one can only hope that Iranians, who are mostly young and pro-American, will respond to the call. Iran, however, is a total dictatorship and the risks are literally a matter of life and death.

What are the alternatives? “War Footing” offers a number of steps the U.S. and the rest of the world can take. Its authors dismiss any “détente” or negotiated resolution. They recommend such measures as making freedom in Iran a declared U.S. policy; an active effort to delegitimize the Tehran regime, declaring it a threat to humanity; waging economic and political warfare, inside and out of Iran; and supporting resistance movements, among the options available.

In the end, the experts conclude that military power may be the only option. I believe this will prove to be the only way to avoid a nuclear Armageddon.

We are dealing with religious fanatics who want to bring about the return of the twelfth Imam al-Mahdi. Born 800 years ago, the lunatics running Iran believe that, before he returns, “one third of the world population will die by being killed and one-third will die as a result of epidemics.” The ayatollahs of Iran have decided to kill one-third of the “unbelievers” with nuclear weapons. This is Islam’s gift to the world, murder on a scale no one can conceive.

If they succeed, the world will plunge backward to a time comparable to the Dark Ages. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear and other military facilities is a small price to pay to avoid this. Let’s do it sooner rather than later.

R.A. Hawkins

No column this week.

R.A. Hawkins       Web Site       Contact       Back to Top

Jonathan David Morris
Conventional Wisdom Answers Your Letters

Hi. My name is Conventional Wisdom. JDM is on assignment this week, so I’ll be filling in. Rather than write a traditional column (which I wouldn’t be good at, since I’m not a writer—but rather an abstract concept), I’ve decided to open the floor to JDM’s readers instead. Whatever your questions—personal, political, or even pop cultural—by all means, fire away.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
Do you think there’s any chance that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie will last?

Sincerely,
Brad Pitt in Los Angeles

Dear Brad,
None whatsoever. Thanks for asking.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
I understand that George Bush has been illegally spying on American citizens. Bush says it’s his right to do this because we’re at war now. But my friend Bill says it’s tantamount to tyranny. I’m not sure who to believe.

Sincerely,
Unsure in Iowa

Dear Unsure,
Believe George Bush, of course! I wouldn’t be using exclamations if I didn’t think you should believe him! George Bush is the president of the United States of America. Presidents aren’t regular people like you and me. They have superpowers. Indeed, they’re a special race of superpeople. We must trust Bush’s judgment on this one. He has special strength, and also the ability to see into the future.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
I think I might be cheating on my girlfriend. I’m not sure. What should I do? Also, I read your answer to the last question, and I think you’re full of it. George Bush was caught breaking a law that he didn’t have to break. All this domestic spying could’ve been done with FISA court warrants, but he chose not to get them. Either this guy thinks he’s above the law or he was spying on people he shouldn’t’ve spied on. I can’t believe the gall of the Justice Department, looking to bust whoever outed this criminal. Bush is using the fear of terror to swindle us into giving up freedom.

Sincerely,
Insincerely in Omaha

Dear Insincerely,
You, sir, are using the fear of “Bush using the fear of terror to swindle us” to swindle us into losing this war. It’s anti-American, and I don’t like it. Terrorists attacked us on September 11th. Maybe you missed it, but I didn’t, because I’m Conventional Wisdom, and I listen to Sean Hannity and watch lots of Fox News. George Bush is our president. If he feels he must trash the Constitution, suspend civil liberties, and treat himself like the living, breathing embodiment of the law to protect us, then I agree with him. Maybe after the war is over there will be time to worry about silly little things like “the rule of law.” But there’s no time for that now. This war is going to last for generations. We need a leader brave enough for the long haul—a leader willing to stay the course. I applaud George Bush for saying he’s above the law in wartime; I hope he appoints himself president-for-life! As for your girlfriend, if you suspect you may be cheating on her, you probably are. Don’t be afraid to call her out on it.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
We don’t really have a question. We just want to let you know that the picture you’ve painted in your last two answers doesn’t sound anything like the country we founded upon this continent 200-something years ago. In fact, it sounds more like Nazi Germany than anything else. Granted, we’re dead now, so we’re technically not supposed to know Nazi Germany ever existed. But we get TV up here in Heaven, and we watch a lot of the History Channel. The point is, George Bush sounds an awful lot like the very King George whose totalitarianism we rebelled against. Haven’t you read the Fourth Amendment? We spent a lot of time crafting it.

Sincerely,
The Founding Fathers, signed by delegates from each of the several States

Dear Founding Fathers,
First, let me say: Big fan. With that out of the way, you need to understand something. Things have changed since the 1700s. We’re living in a much different world now. Terrorists attacked us on September 11th. I respect what you accomplished. Really, I do. And I’ll continue to quote you whenever it helps me prove gay people shouldn’t have rights. But the Constitution is antiquated now. Unless we’re talking about appointing judges—in which case I’ll settle for nothing less than conservative originalists—we can’t allow ourselves to be strapped down by this old, yellowing document. Warrantless searches and seizures must continue. The American people must be defiled. And if you know a better way to beat Usama bin Laden, I’d like to hear it! As for the Fourth Amendment, yes, I’ve read it. But I was high on Palmolive and dressed like a sailor that evening. The word “violated” is the only thing I remember about it.

• • •

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
I applaud your stance on the issues. I mean, so what if America’s starting to look like Nazi Germany? In case you haven’t noticed, we haven’t been hit since September 11th. Maybe police state policies aren’t so bad after all. Torture, secret prisons, domestic spying, false wars, propaganda, and the slow death of due process obviously work. I’ll bet you the liberals running our public schools have given the Nazis a bad rap just to suit their agenda. Nazi Germany was probably better than any of us care to admit.

Sincerely,
Adolf Hitler

Dear Adolf,
Exactly. Finally, a JDM reader with common sense. Everyone wants to treat our descent into tyranny like it’s a bad thing. People need to learn to look on the bright side. So what if the Bush administration has obtained absolute power? Democracy was nothing but trouble. I’m not going to miss campaign commercials, boring debates, and “Vote or Die” t-shirts—are you?

We’re living in a very important historical moment. That makes us very important people. We should be thankful about this. People 30, 40, 50 years down the road will treat us like delicate artifacts. Just think how much fun it will be to look back and remember how Americans asked to give up civil liberties after September 11th. Just think how quaint it will seem to remember our country’s near-sexual obsession with the flag and other national myths. Maybe we’ll look back and compare the bulldozing of Dixie Chicks CDs to German book burnings. Or maybe, if we’re lucky, we’ll compare the War on Christmas—with its blacklists and cries of “But this is a Christian country!”—to the manic obsession with the purity of German blood. How could anyone not want this? Clearly September 11th was the best thing ever to happen to America. I can’t wait to tell future generations about it. I’ve always been a little bit jealous of Holocaust survivors. Those folks have the best stories.

• • •

Finally, time for one last letter.

Dear Conventional Wisdom,
Please stop using my name. In fact, pretend I never existed. Thanks. By the way, who do you think will win the Super Bowl? I’m taking the Giants.

Sincerely,
September 11th

Dear September 11th,
I can’t make that sort of promise. And I’ll take the Colts.

Jonathan David Morris      Web Site      Contact     Back to Top    

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Representative Paul wrote a column in August as the Senate readied itself for hearings on then-Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts. As the Senate gears up for the upcoming hearings for Samuel Alito, many of the same debate points are being raised. It seemed appropriate to reprint the Congressman's column on the subject since his comments then are certainly as valid as ever now.

Politics and Judicial Activism
August 15, 2005

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to sit on the Supreme Court has reopened a bitter cultural divide in America, and the Senate confirmation hearings in September may exhibit more of the partisan rancor that characterized the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings.

It's sad that so many Americans see their freedoms as dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.

Dozens of political pressure groups stood ready to launch an immediate public relations attack on any judge nominated by President Bush, while dozens of others stood ready to support the nominee no matter what. These groups reflect the unfortunate reality that millions of Americans unquestioningly support or oppose judicial nominees based solely on the party affiliation of the current president. Once again, blind loyalty to political parties has politicized a process that our Founders never intended to be political. When we as voters and citizens allow the nomination of judges to become political, we have only ourselves to blame for the politicization of our courts themselves. When courts become politicized, judges not surprisingly begin to act like politicians.

Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Congress is guilty of enabling judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.

The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states' rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.

The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.

Rep. Ron Paul      Web Site      Back to Top

Nancy Salvato
Actions Speak Louder Than Words

In 7th grade Language Arts, the classes have been receiving instruction in linking verbs and action verbs. Now most of the kids demonstrated that they understood a verb usually represented action. When asked to list examples, it was pretty easy for them to come up with things that could be seen; running, jumping, walking, eating, talking, etc. However, not nearly as many students came up with action verbs which could not be seen. I suggested to one of the kids, that he should consider words that represent feelings, such as to love. Put to him that way, he came up with words like hate, like, want, pretend, imagine. Perhaps it wasn’t that hard after all. Some kids decided to argue that you could actually see a person listen. This was resolved though, when it was agreed that a person might look like he or she is listening when in fact they could be thinking about last Saturday night. The bottom line is, unless you can see the action, you can’t really know what is happening inside another person unless it is shared.

If 7th graders can understand this concept—in less than 45 minutes I might add—why are opinions which speculate about and indict people taken seriously when they’re solely based on conjecture and not actions? Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, according to the Associated Press reports, recently stated without the slightest hesitation that the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for dividing God's land. He deduced this because in the bible the prophet Joel “made it clear” that God directs his enmity against those who would divide Israel. Am I to accept that since Robertson believes he speaks with authority on God, he must be able to divine what God is thinking? By this reasoning, Osama Bin Laden must also have this ability as well, since his leadership is based on the notion that God commanded al Qaeda and the Taliban to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.

It was reported in the Washington Times today that, “The U.S. Naval Academy has ordered a court-martial for a faculty member who made a 'crude' remark in the presence of female midshipmen.” I don’t know what the remark was but the lieutenant facing charges for the crime has since apologized and believed the incident to be over. Little did he know that another lieutenant on his ship determined his apology to be insincere and filed a report which resulted in the following charges: failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation; conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; and indecent language. Obviously this woman could see inside this man’s mind to determine that he wasn’t “for real” and that his words couldn’t be taken at face value. For this he faces court martial.

All too often people only see events through a filter which validates their own beliefs. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described the Holocaust as "a myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as decreed by radical Iranian clerics. From all appearances, Tehran is attempting to make an atomic bomb, though Tehran denies seeking nuclear weapons and says its atomic programs are solely for peaceful power generation. Because Ahmadinejad has revised history to support his own agenda, it would warrant we be more cognizant of his actions than his words. Most recently Iran skipped a scheduled meeting with the International Atomic Energy Agency --set up so it could explain its decision to restart critical operations. That is troubling.

Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel. Palestinians believe the pullout occurred because of the intifada. The official reason is it was a concession to the Palestinians to help bring peace to Israel. Sharon was trying to secure Israel’s boundaries while providing the Palestinians the opportunity to create a state of their own. Regardless of what anyone thinks of his reasoning, the pullout was made in good faith in the hope that Palestinian militants would cease their acts of terror against the Jewish citizens and further negotiations toward a Palestinian state could resume.

Sharon led his party in pursuing this course of action despite evidence that would indicate the policy would fail. A previous offer of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal (brokered by the Clinton administration) was outright rejected by Arafat (who represented the Palestinians). Much infighting took place within the Likud party over the Gaza pullout. Benjamin Netanyahu actually resigned fearing that Gaza would become a "base of Islamic terror. Natan Sharansky also resigned; his reason being that any concessions made by Israel must be conditioned on Palestinian democratic reform. Sharon himself was compelled to leave the Likud and started a new party, with a more moderate stance toward the Palestinians.

Given the history, is it surprising that Palestinian militants continue to fire rockets at what it considers to be occupied land? Hamas opposes the existence of the Jewish state and has carried out dozens of suicide bombing attacks against Israelis. Mahmoud Abbas has condemned the chaos yet has been unable to impose order. Israel will not cooperate with upcoming elections if an armed Hamas is allowed to participate. Abbas fears a forced disarmament would lead to civil war. Is Israel to believe that the militants will not to attack Israel and Hamas' involvement in politics will moderate the group?

Meanwhile, the Rafah has been placed under Palestinian control and European supervision, as part of a U.S.-brokered deal with Israel last month. Is it any surprise that the crossing was forced to shut down several times during attacks by gunmen. Israel finds itself threatening to close the crossing in coordination with European observers if the breach is not repaired.

Personal ideology and bias have no place in making decisions of policy. Decisions that affect others should be based on facts. If people could truly divine what another is thinking or whether someone should live or die, then by that reasoning Clinton and all those preceding him would have been struck dead when trying to broker a separate Palestinian state. How did the old saying go…oh yeah, “Actions speak louder than words.”

Chaos in Gaza spills into Egypt
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
2002721210_gaza05.html

Navy prosecutes officer for a 'crude' remark
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/
normal.php?StoryID=20060107-122951-3941r

Sharon Warns Against Hamas Participation in Elections
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/6/224525.shtml

Why Gaza pullout matters
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p09s01-coop.html

Nancy Salvato       Web Site      Contact    Back to Top