Page 4 — THE LACONIA DAILY SUN, Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Pat Buchanan
Romney to allow Israel to lead us into another war? Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war? So it seemed from the declaration in Jerusalem by his adviser Dan Senor, who all but flashed Israel a green light for war, signaling the Israelis that, if you go, Mitt’s got your back: “If Israel has to take action on its own in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision. No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it.” What does “stand with” Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while Israeli planes strike Iran? This would make America complicit in a pre-emptive strike and a co-belligerent in the war to follow. What Senor said comes close to being a U.S. war guarantee for Israel, while leaving the decision as to when the war begins to them. This country has never done that before. And what does Senor mean by Israel’s need to act “to stop Iran from developing (the) capability” to acquire nuclear weapons? The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 — that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon — reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 — has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb. Moreover, Iran’s known nuclear facilities are under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Does the government know something the American people are not being told? Undeniably, Iran, by enriching uranium to 3.5-percent, then up to 20-percent, has a greater “capability” than five years ago of building a nuclear weapon. But Japan, South Korea and Brazil also have that capability — and none has decided to build a nuclear weapon. Gov. Romney did not go as far as Senor, but he, too, seems to be saying that not only is Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon a casus belli for the United States, even an Iran that is capable of building such a weapon is intolerable. “The regime in Iran is five years closer to developing nuclear weapons capability,” said Romney. “Preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority.” Preventing what outcome is “our highest national security priority”? Stopping Iran from building a bomb? Or stopping Iran from being able to build a bomb years from now? The governor seems to be aligning himself with Israel’s hawks who are demanding that not only must Iran
swear off nuclear weapons forever, Iran must cease all enrichment of uranium, and dismantle the facilities at Natanz and Fordow. Romney’s policy is zero enrichment, said Senor. Tehran must understand that “the alternative to zero enrichment is severe, and that’s why the threat of military force has to be critical.” This is tantamount to an ultimatum to Tehran: Either give up all enrichment of uranium and any right to enrich, or face war. Here we come to the heart of the issue, which may be impossible to resolve short of war. Unlike its neighbors Israel and Pakistan, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. The ayatollah has said they are immoral and Iran will not acquire them. But under the NPT, Iran claims the right to enrich uranium and seek the benefits of nuclear technology. And in that decision, the people of Iran stand behind their government. Is denying Iran the right to enrich uranium a reason for America to plunge into its fifth war in that region in a generation? That appears where we are headed. Reportedly, Obama’s national security adviser recently briefed Bibi Netanyahu on the specifics of U.S. contingency plans to attack Iran. Has Congress been briefed? Have the American people been consulted? Or are we simply irrelevant? A decade ago, this country sent an army up to Baghdad to overthrow Saddam and strip Iraq of a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons we were told it had and was preparing to use. We were misled; we were deceived; we were lied to. Before we outsource to Bibi and Ehud Barak the decision to take us to war with a country three times the size of Iraq, we need to know: Was the U.S. intelligence community wrong in 2007 and 2011? Is Iran hell-bent on building nuclear weapons? If so, where are they constructing and testing these weapons? Finally, if Iran is willing to permit intrusive inspections of its actual and suspected nuclear sites, but insists on its right to enrich uranium, should we go to war to deny them that right? But if we are going to go to war again, this time with Iran, the decision should be made in America, according to our Constitution, not by any other country. (Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)
LETTERS Goldstein is completely unqualified to comment on this matter To the editor, Regarding Hillarie Goldstein’s letter: Proverbs 18:2 says, “A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.” I won’t dignify Ms. Goldstein’s attacks with any sort of a substantive response. I will, however, address the logical failures of her argument. First, if DCYF is the “arm” of the state that ensures child safety, then it clearly appears that Goldstein is accusing DCYF of not doing its job. I believe that DCYF did their job and did it effectively in this instance. Ms. Goldstein, someone whom I have never met, is completely unqualified to comment on any portion of this matter — her immutable right to free speech notwithstanding, regardless of how ignorant she may be of the facts.
Many on the left appear to be blind to a system that permits bitter, vindictive people to file false allegations for the purpose of exacting pecuniary benefits, all while holding the innocent child ransom. This is among the most heinous form of revenge and abuse. Even more heinous is a system that permits and even exacerbates the false allegations for the enrichment of those within the system, such as lawyers and guardians ad litem. Most heinous of all is Goldstein attempting to utilize an innocent 8-year old boy in her attack dog party politics. Ms. Goldstein should be ashamed of herself for trying to use my child to advance her political agenda. Joshua Youssef Laconia
I tried to promote cognitive dissonance by taking unpopular positions To the editor, I wish to inform readers of my column that I have moved away from the area to be near my granddaughter and will not continue writing my columns. I not only thank all of those faithful readers who privately and publicly endorsed my views over the years but also those who vehemently disagreed with me but who expressed their opposition respectfully. I also hope that the namecallers who continue to write will be able to refrain from personal attacks in the future and develop sound arguments for their views. Such behavior has no place in a civil society. My values and beliefs have developed over several decades and been the result of learning about those people who have made a positive dif-
ference in the world like Albert Schweitzer, Anderson Sa, Oscar Arias, Bruno Hassar, Riane Eisler, Jane Goodall, Henry Salt, Astrid Lindgren, Nader Khalili, Wangari Maathi and so many others who have sought truth, peace and justice in the world, sometimes at their own peril. I have sought to promote cognitive dissonance but taking unpopular positions that question the status quo and I have been less interested in being right than I have in being honest. I wish all my readers well and hope that you continue to pursue the truth at a time when it is difficult to come by. In the meantime, I shall enjoy my new anonymity. Leo R. Sandy Formerly of New Hampton
It is all too common for mother to attack father after separation To the editor, Speaking from experience, Mrs. Goldstein’s version of the tale needs some correction. Where she uses the term “reportedly”, one should ask, “reported by whom?” A psychiatrist? A medical doctor? A counselor of any kind? No. In this case, (as can be found with little effort and a lack of bias) it
was an allegation by the mother. It is all too common for the mother to attack the father after particularly bitter separations, and therefore people should take this allegation with a grain of salt. Mark Leuis Concord