A reader writes:
The latest "Ask Jennifer Rubin Anything" is a real doozy. She uses most of the two minutes making the sensible point that no, we can't know for sure that Iran has nuclear weapons. I expected her to explain why we should bomb anyway, but her last sentence was a real masterpiece. Here it is, transcribed:
I think the notion that we know all things at all times that are going on within a very closed, very secretive society is frankly wishful thinking on the part of some people who are simply looking for yet another excuse to not take decisive action against what I think and what many people think is the primary national security threat that our country is facing.
Wow. Somehow, and I can't understand how, she takes the reasonable skepticism about whether Iran is building nuclear weapons (not to mention what they'd do if they got them) and turns it into a point against those who don't want to bomb Iran! Critics of preemptive war are "looking for yet another excuse not to take decisive action." (I get the sense that she knows something's amiss from her facial expression at the end of the interview.) Can anyone explain this, or is it just intellectual thuggery?
Another is also incredulous:
Am I the only one who thinks that this is totally crazy? In what other areas of our life are we taught not to learn from past mistakes, and instead are actively encouraged to repeat them because to not do so would be a sign of excuse-making, or weakness, or … what, exactly? Honestly this way of thinking is so foreign to me that I can't begin to understand how a smart woman like Rubin could come to believe it. Is she so blinded by her hatred of Iran that she is willing to throw reason out with the trash? Or is this how she views decision making in her other parts of her life? Would she seriously encourage her child, if he or she had touched a hot plate and been hurt, to touch the hot plate again because to do otherwise is just "looking for yet another excuse" to not carry the plate?
Not having much familiarity with Rubin's other political positions, I have to believe it's the former and that Iran is a special case. But if she bases her political philosophy on such faulty reasoning, how can she ever be trusted?