March 15, 2026 (Vol. 18 No. 10) - Noted and widely respected attorney David Boies published a widely read commentary in the Wall Street Journal this week entitled "Partisanship on Iran is Dangerous for America." I encourage you to read it, although it is behind a paywall. For those not wishing to subscribe to the WSJ, the subhead of the article gives you its gist. "Trump is doing the right thing for America, and we Democrats should judge the war on its merits." To put it another way, Boies is arguing we should support the war even if Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

While I generally agree with Boise's thesis, I think his commentary is based on a false premise, that patriotism is a form of blind allegiance that says we support the actions of our nation whether they are right or wrong. Patriotism, like most things in life, has many layers. It is possible to judge this war on its merits and be opposed to it while, at the same time, supporting the goal of disarming Iran's nuclear program. My opposition to carpet bombing that kills civilians is not an indictment against our troops. In this case, my opposition to this war is based on my love for and desire to protect the Constitution. No president should be allowed to go to war on a whim.

Under our system of laws, only Congress can declare war. Boies correctly points to earlier examples of presidents unilaterally taking military actions. "Many Republicans supported Mr. Clinton's military actions and President Obama's surge into Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq," Boies wrote. "More Republicans than Democrats probably supported President Lyndon B. Johnson's action in Vietnam."

That may be true. But in each of these cases, the president either sought prior authorization or the actions were brief reactions to a provocation. Neither of these conditions existed when President Trump attacked Iran. This is especially true since the Administration claimed to have "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capacity during a brief bombing raid last summer. If that was true, where's the urgency to attack now? Trump and his cronies have fumbled all over themselves trying to come up with a justification for this war. However, I believe that Secretary of State Marco Rubio accidentally told the truth when he stated that we attacked because Israel forced us to. There's also another widely believed reason, Trump's need to distract from the ever-widening Epstein files scandal.

There's another part of Boise's commentary to which I take exception. He said that every president since Clinton had declared Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but none of them had done anything. That is false. President Obama had reached a negotiated agreement with Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. And by most independent accounts, Iran was doing so. Donald Trump, the proverbial bull in a China shop, unilaterally tore up that agreement. That left Iran little choice but to resume its nuclear ambitions. In light of this history, if you were in Iran's shoes, would you be willing to negotiate with the United States? The current war with Iran is virtually the same as Mr. Trump sending in the fire department after he stated the fire.

I support our troops. I favor the goal of achieving a nuclear-free Iran. But I do not like Donald Trump's trashing of the Constitution at the beck-and call of the corrupt Benjamin Netanyahu. (By the way, opposing Israel's actions does not automatically make one an antisemite, either.) Nor do I like the lack of planning and the failure to recognize the unintended consequences of Trump's Operation Epstein Distraction. (Have you bought gasoline lately?) I believe it is my patriotic duty to oppose the conduct of this war. That means I will engage in public protests against our wannabe king and will encourage my fellow citizens to vote these rascals out this November. That's my right and responsibility as a patriotic American. That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.

March 8, 2026 (Vol. 18 No. 10) - Against my better judgment, I watched Secretary of Defense, wannabe warrior Pete Hegseth, interviewed on tonight’s edition of 60 Minutes. Not that I had high expectations for enlightenment coming out of the interview. I was just curious as to how he might handle himself when being interviewed by a legitimate journalist, Major Garrett, as opposed to the Trumpian sycophants that now inhabit the Pentagon’s press room. He did not disappoint: Puffed-up Petey was as vapid and nonsensical as I had expected. But don’t take my word for it. You can watch the interview here.

There were two particular aspects of the interview I found objectionable. The first was his repeated insertion that the United States has the ability to bomb the Iranians into submission. People smarter than I say that isn’t true. Nazi Germany’s Blitz didn’t bring Britain to its knees during the Second World War. Nor did the Allies’ bombing of Germany force the Nazis to quit. The same was true in Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. A determined foe doesn’t wilt under aerial bombing, no matter how withering it is. Victory doesn’t occur until there are boots on the ground - something that I doubt TACO Trump has the stomach to do. That takes me to my second point.

Puffed-up Petey also circled around Garrett’s question about what the “unconditional surrender” President Bonespur is demanding would look like. He clearly thinks that the bombing will do the trick. That ignores two realities. First, the Iranians - and not without cause - hate our guts, even more than they hate the Islamic regime that has ruled the country with an iron fist. Second, and probably an even more important reason is the fact that Iran has more than 650,000 soldiers in uniform and another 350,000 reservists on standby. Do the math: That one million folks standing ready to spill a high volume of American blood. And while this USA Today analysis clearly demonstrates that the United States is more powerful than Iran, I again question how much pain the Trump administration is willing to accept in what is already, at its outset, an unpopular war. And that doesn’t take into consider other conflicts in which we are currently engaged (Venezuela and Ukraine) or are considering (Cuba). No one in his right mind believes that Iran is going to fold like a cheap lawn chair.

Here are a couple of cogent points not covered in the interview. First, how are we going to pay for this adventure? At a billion dollars a day in a failing economy, how long can this nonsense last before the economy totally craters? Second, if you saw tonight’s broadcast, you will know that CBS dedicated most of the hour to a report on a secret microwave weapon used to harm American diplomats and security people both overseas and at home. You may recall that Trump bragged about a use of a “secret weapon” at the time we kidnapped the Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro. He called it a “discombobulator.” This may have been no more than Trump telling the tall tales for which he is famous. However, if such a weapon exists, I wonder if that’s what Trump was referring to? Just speculation on my part. However, you know how careless Trump has been in the past when it comes to state secrets.

Donald Trump and his Clown Cabinet have put us in peril in so many ways. And now we have this Iranian adventure - one with no rationale and no end game. I think Fearless Leader has bitten off more than he can chew. Unfortunately, he’s not the one who will play the price. That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.