David Boies on the Iran War: the way we were
Five days ago I read this piece. It was in support of Trump’s actions in Iran, and because it was published in The New York Post – which is a paper on the right – it didn’t seem surprising.
But when I noticed the author’s name – David Boies – I was very surprised indeed. I immediately recognized the name as that of a prominent Democrat attorney. But the content was so unlike what I would expect these days from any Democrat not named Fetterman that I looked Boies’ history up, just to make sure. Yes, he had represented Gore in Bush v. Gore, and represented the plaintiff’s side in the case that successfully invalidated California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage.
But now he’s written this:
Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it.
Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it.
Instead each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address. …
I understand some of the hostility to Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, to devastate a city.
I also understand — and deplore — the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies.
What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition rooted simply in antipathy toward Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops at the water’s edge. …
Those of us who generally oppose Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to support the military action not because we owe anything to Trump but because we owe it to ourselves, our country and our children.
If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Trump to curtail it before the mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically.
But America would be worse for it.
The whole thing is worth reading.
Boies is eighty-five years old, so I see him as a throwback to an earlier time when many Democrats would have been willing to support such a war despite a Republican president being in charge. Now there are few.
The New Yorker interviewed Boies on the subject; the text of the interview seems to be available although TNY is usually behind a paywall. To get the tenor of some of the questions asked of Boies, take a look at this one, which seems designed to tell the reader just how wrong Boies is:
This war was started by a President who frequently seems unstable, who can’t lay out a clear reason for the war, and who makes vague threats against our allies. We have a Secretary of War who seems to delight in death and destruction. The White House X feed is putting out fascistic video edits of military attacks that delight in violence. How do you synthesize all that with the point you’re trying to make?
The questioner assumes the New Yorker readership is naturally in agreement with such propositions as that Trump is “unstable,” has not laid out a clear reason (although he’s laid out many, actually), that Hegseth “delights” in death and destruction, and that videos of the war are “fascistic” ones that also “delight” in violence.
Boies answers that question by basically ignoring all that editorializing and sticking with logic:
I think you’ve got to begin by asking yourself, Do you believe that this war is necessary or not? And I think you’ve got to begin by asking yourself, first, Do you believe it’s acceptable for the Iranian regime to have nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them? If you believe that, then the next question you have to ask yourself is: Could we have achieved that goal of eliminating the threat that Iran poses by some other means?
Ah, but that’s absolutely not where most people on the left begin. They begin by hating Trump and Hegseth and automatically opposing everything the administration does; their “logic” is retrofitted to conform with that conviction.
A bit later in the interview Boies reveals he was not a fan of Obama’s Iran deal when it was negotiated because he doesn’t trust the Iranian leaders. So this goes back quite a ways with him; he is consistent. He also says the following when the interviewer tries to point out inconsistencies in what Trump has said:
But see — my view is I don’t support [Trump] in this conflict because he says it’s the right thing to do. I support him because I think it’s the right thing to do.
The interviewer cites the girls’ school bombing as though it’s been proven the US did it, although it has not been, and then asks another question more to guide the reader than for Boies:
Sir, you’re a very, very smart guy. You don’t think Donald Trump actually cares about casualties, do you?
He simply can’t believe the answer can be “yes.” That disbelief is astounding and shows the strength of TDS, considering the war’s focus on the Iranian leadership rather than civilians, the inevitability of collateral damage in any war, and Trump’s longstanding opposition to most wars.
Boies’ answer:
Look, I actually do, O.K.? In his first Administration, in 2019, when he turned back the bombers from hitting Iran, I think he did that because I do think he genuinely cares about human life. Now that doesn’t mean that he respects human life the way I would.
He had to add that last sentence, but I forgive him, considering the “Look, I actually do, O.K.?”
And he adds, for good measure:
I do understand that in wartime people say a lot of things that are untrue to support their side. We’ve done that repeatedly in every war we fought. Now, with respect to civilian casualties, it is a terrible cost of war, and it is an inevitable cost of war. And, by my count, the civilian casualties that have been incurred are far less than the civilian casualties that this Iranian regime caused in suppressing the protests.
Later in the interview Boies gives another hint at why he’s willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt – in other words, why he seems relatively free of TDS [emphasis mine]:
Well, I don’t know. I do know Donald Trump some. I’ve known him for decades. And I think that he would be better served by being willing to recognize some of the costs here, but I believe he respects human life. And I think this is a President who, despite renaming the Department of Defense, really doesn’t like war.
Boies is to be lauded for refusing to demonize someone he knows is not a demon. It takes some courage these days for a Democrat to take such a position. Yes, he’s old, and that may help. But probably many of his friends and associates will now shun him.
It is interesting that a conservative person will soundly disagree with a Leftist, but will not hate the Leftist. While hate of anyone who does not agree with them is the base state of the Left.
Regarding girls bombed. More important than who did it, is, was it done on purpose? Iran, or USA, it was an accident. DUH!
Maybe he’s one of the people in the new Pfizer TDS vaccine trials. 🙂
You’re right, Neo. Every D/leftist I know reflexively opposes anything Trump does due to their blind hatred.
Watched Boises for a bit during Gore/Bush. Bush sied had four or five lawyers in court, Boise all alone. Bush shuffling papers with notes during arguments, Boise winging it.
At least that is the way I remember it.
I was concerned he would win.
Oh, and the judge was pretty impressive also.
We have his whole career to look at, including his work digging up dirt on behalf of Harvey Weinstein and his service on the board of Theranos. I think a few pro-war words from him at this late date are not enough to warrant Strange New Respect, personally.
The New Yorker interviewer’s questions illustrate why at some point there will be a “war between the states of mind” in the USA. It won’t be civil, but God willing, will not be excessively violent.
Nice. One of the most thoroughly rational things I’ve read on the situation and it comes from a Democrat.
In conversations about Iran with family members, I try to focus on the necessity of denying religious fanatics access to WMD. But all a get in response is mockery of Trump.
So i ask if Trump is a fool, then we have to let Iran have the bomb? Answer seem to be yes!
The mind-set of that reporter is more than I can comprehend. It’s like if all your friends told you they had a ton of gold stored at home and you accepted that without question.
I remember Boies from the US v. Microsoft case. Clearly, a very smart & capable guy. I wasn’t that convinced of the merits of that case.
@TommyJay:I remember Boies from the US v. Microsoft case.
You remember many of his other cases, even if you don’t remember him. Overturning the constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage in California. Defending Harvey Weinstein and smearing his accusers. Serving on the board of Theranos and threatening whistleblowers. Representing Virginia Giuffre in her defamation of Alan Dershowitz. Led an effort to use faithless electors to make Hillary Clinton president and to use lawsuits to end run around the Electoral College.
He makes a few pro-war noises and we’re ready to forget all that, it seems.
“He makes a few pro-war noises and we’re ready to forget all that, it seems.”
Does being wrong on nearly everything prevent being right on one thing? Does support for preventing murderous religious fanatics from gaining nuclear weapons capability outweigh “Overturning the constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage in California. Defending Harvey Weinstein and smearing his accusers. Serving on the board of Theranos and threatening whistleblowers. Representing Virginia Giuffre in her defamation of Alan Dershowitz.”?
Does public support for preventing the deaths of millions outweigh unjustly damaging or even destroying the reputations of at most dozens?
In this, you evidence that classic symptom of an inability to see the forest for the trees.
@Geoffrey Britain:In this, you evidence that classic symptom of an inability to see the forest for the trees.
No, it’s that I weight these things differently. Boies has worked toward the corruption of America all his life. That he says he thinks Dems should support the war in Iran just makes no difference to me in my opinion of him. It’s all talk, a) and b) it doesn’t offset the damage he’s done and will do if given a chance, ESPECIALLY if the ostensibly conservative give him Strange New Respect and meet him halfway on things.
There is no person so evil that you can’t point to something good about him. Stalin fought Hitler, right? I doubt Boies kicks babies or eats puppies. I just don’t care that he’s making anti-Iran noises.
Does public support for preventing the deaths of millions outweigh unjustly damaging or even destroying the reputations of at most dozens?
No. “Public support” is talk, and talk is cheap, and abstract. He has specifically harmed people and taken money for it. It’s the things he does that define him, not the things he says. Nothing he says is even going to cost him one of his ill-gotten dimes.
Niketas,
I do remember some of the other cases. It’s just that the US v. Microsoft one was the first one I recall. I did NOT know that he was involved in the Theranos disaster. Those types of cases, or situations, make me laugh even though the consequences are severe.
How is it that every 10 years or so there is some corporate or financial debacle that is so silly or crazy that one can’t believe that it could be possible? Bernie Madoff, or Stanford Financial, or the FTX crypto scandal. And Theranos.
Niketas:
Public support for the war in Iran, or anything else Trump might do, is not cheap if you’re a prominent Democrat. The costs are ordinarily personal and painful.
Not that you have to like him, though.
In the WSJ, letters commenting on Boies’ op-ed: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-hasnt-lost-his-voters-over-iran-c539382e?st=HGRvnY&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Somehow Niketas falls into the same mode as many of my D/leftists acquaintances. If I happen to agree with them on some minor issue, they immediately respond with “But you’re a MAGA, racist, Trumper, so you’re still an evil person” Not good company to keep, Niketas.
There are several “Derangement Syndromes” going on here, related in some—or all—cases
– Trump Derangement Syndrome
– America Derangement Syndrome
– Israel Derangement Syndrome
Boies seems not to be aware of these potential relationships, believing “we’re STILL in Kansas, Toto”.
One problem is that he seems to believe that one can be anti-Trump but still be pro-America.
In theory, this, of course, should be true; but I believe it no longer is.
Because of this belief of mine, he believes that most Americans perceive Iran as the enemy to be defeated, whereas it seems to me that most perceive America to be the enemy.
Ditto Israel. Alas…
Continued:
…As such, the answer to question [1] above would be: NO!
The answer to question [2] would be: ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE…AND DESIRABLE
And the answer to question [3] would be: N/A
If we fight the Iran War as fearlessly and ruthlessly as nik battles strawmen it will be a great triumph.