Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 2

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the second in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding Debt and Taxes:

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

I agree that the economy (and by extension, the majority of the populace) benefits from low marginal tax rates. I agree that Americans are generally better off being being free to make our own economic choices rather than having economic choices dictated to us by a paternalistic government. On the other hand, I see two significant qualifiers to this general rule:

1) The federal government has a legitimate role to play in providing some services to citizens. Insofar as the government must provide these services, taxes are necessary to fund this work. At some point, lower taxes are not an option. When a lower tax rate results in government revenue that is too low to fund government operations, the tax rate is too low. Ron Paul can argue for lower taxes, but this is a policy goal which can only be implemented if government spending is reduced.

2) It simply isn't true that "lower taxes benefit all of us". It is arguably true that lower tax rates would be a net boost to the economy. It is arguably true that most government spending programs are misguided, wasteful and ineffective. But the truth is that some people do benefit from our current regime of resource redistribution. Politically, the low levels of taxation and government spending that Ron Paul wants to see are simply unattainable. Most conservatives are willing to compromise in the face of political reality. Ron Paul, not so much.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

Armageddon is coming. Repent. Yes, we spend too much money. Yes, we should have been running a surplus over the last several years to pay down the national debt while we were in the midst of an economic expansion. The end of the world is not yet in sight though. In the grand scheme of things recent deficits haven't been a serious problem.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

The Federal Reserve is one of Ron Paul's favorite bogeymen. Here he argues that the unaccountable Fed creates inflation. While he doesn't mention it here, it's no secret that Paul would like to abolish the Fed and put America back on the Gold Standard. He calls the Fed "unaccountable", but in reality it is a creation of Congress, it is governed by a Board whose members are appointed (and who can be dismissed) by the President and the whole system can be altered by Congress if necessary. I can't deny that the Fed definitely does try to achieve a positive (albeit low) rate of inflation. This is a feature, not a bug. Smarter folks than I will argue that inflation is *NOT* always a bad thing. As for putting America back on the Gold Standard, I'd rather vote for Hillary than for somebody who honestly thinks that the Gold Standard is significantly better than a well managed fiat currency. I'm not exaggerating, either.

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth. Another way to describe this situation is to say that the central banks of China and Saudi Arabia continue to see the U.S. as the safest place to invest their money. If they choose to invest in America by offering us very low rates of interest, the rational response is to say "thank you", but only after grabbing their cash. We wouldn't want them to rescind the offer while we're busy being polite...

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

"Private banks" is Paul's way of saying "the Federal Reserve". Enough said about that. Sure, many government agencies are wasteful, pork barrel spending is a problem that I'd love to see reduced, and I think foreign aid is generally counterproductive, at best. But Paul is missing the forest for the trees. The biggest fiscal problem we face is entitlement spending: these are the liabilities in future budgets that the federal government will not be able to fund. Foreign aid is, in relative terms, a pittance. A real solution to our over-grown entitlement spending isn't politically feasible (at least, not right now). Paul's ultimate solution is to return to the Constitution to find a blueprint for the Federal Government's fiscal and monetary future. This makes sense, in Ron Paul's dream world. In reality, we are never going to roll back the size and scope of the Federal Government to the extent that Paul desires.

Ron Paul's past history of absolutely uncompromising devotion to his principles leads me to believe that he would be a horrible President. As an uncompromising congressman, Paul is a valuable (embarrassingly rabid, but valuable nonetheless) voice for limited government. As President, Paul would gladly grid-lock the country into disaster in pursuit of his goals. To do so in pursuit of limited government is somewhat understandable. To do so in a quest to restore the Gold Standard would be laughably bad policy.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to American Independence and Sovereignty.

Deconstructing America's Savior

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the first in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

To begin, let's look at the introduction to his policy platform:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

The protection of individual freedoms for American citizens is the fundamental goal of Paul's political philosophy. Because Paul sees the U.S. Constitution as the bulwark of individual freedoms, all of his policy prescriptions are measured against an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. This desire for individual freedoms and his respect for the original intent of the founding fathers are admirable, but he holds these principles in such high regard that he is blind to the practical impact of his policy prescriptions in the real world. I don't disagree with Paul's principles, I disagree with several of the policies he advocates based on a blind devotion to those principles.

Let's pick apart that introduction:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital.

First and foremost, Ron Paul's goal is to protect individual freedoms. Although he doesn't specify any qualifiers here, further analysis of Paul's platform reveals an important qualifier: Paul isn't concerned with the individual freedoms of non-citizens.

As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.

In Paul's view, almost any government activity results in the destruction of individual liberties. This is especially true when government engages in activities that aren't explicitly approved by the Constitution. Consequently, "limited constitutional government" is the first item on Paul's priority list. "Low taxes" and "free markets" make the priority list because an originalist interpretation of the Constitution would force the federal government to drastically curtail its interference in the lives of Americans. Paul demands "sound monetary policies" because he sees the current Federal Reserve system as a tool for government to play games with money and impose a silent tax on Americans. His solution--return to the Gold Standard.

He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

His devotion to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is so unswerving that Ron Paul is nothing if not consistent in his legislative record. Political expediency has no influence in his decision making process. The practical impact of legislation isn't a major concern either

I agree with some of the principles upon which Ron Paul bases his policies. I admire Ron Paul's devotion to those principles. But I can't vote for somebody who takes admirable principles and turns them into a blind devotion to absurd policy prescriptions. As we'll see when I begin breaking down the individual components of Paul's policy platform, I strongly object to his foreign policy, his trade policy and his monetary policy. Those policies are so misguided and dangerous that I simply can't consider voting for him.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Debt and Taxes

The politics of tea

I found this on a bottle of Tradewinds Raspberry Tea:

"Tea is a natural source of protective flavonoid antioxidants that help guard against free radicals."

Perhaps this is why the revolutionaries dumped tea in Boston Harbor. Given my tea drinking habit, it may also explain my reluctance to support Ron Paul.

If actresses had a perfect grasp of history, there would be no stupid political rants during the Emmys in the first place.

One of the distinguished historians of our day, Sally Field, has been "censored" by Fox while trying to make this particularly cogent argument against war:

"If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g-dd-mned wars in the first place."

No doubt Ms. Field is basing this statement upon the historical record of women like Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. Clearly, it's coincidental that the Yom Kippur war, the Falklands war and the 1971 war with Pakistan were all fought while these women led their countries. After all, they were mothers. Q.E.D.

Ron Paul, the founding fathers, and foreign policy

Recently I've seen quite a few statements online comparing the foreign policy positions of Ron Paul to the foreign policy positions of the founding fathers. These statements generally assert that Ron Paul is a non-interventionist in the same mold as the founding fathers: we should defend the U.S. from foreign aggression, but otherwise meddling in the affairs of foreign nations is out of the question. One such statement (which I'd link to, but that statement was later deleted by the author) read, in part:

He's consistent. War does not a conservative make in my opinion. I do think we need to defend ourselves when we believe it is nessecary, I agree with Ron Paul, . . . the kind of libertarian he is, is just like Jeffersonian, and actually more Jefferson Adams.

I appreciate the desire to support the policies of the founding fathers, but I don't think the founding fathers were as non-interventionist in their outlook as is commonly believed. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to send the United States military to the Middle East to use force to protect American commercial interests. Check out Wikipedia's history of the First Barbary War:

On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

The Barbary Pirates were attacking American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean and demanding tribute--protection money, really--to stop the attacks. Jefferson chose to employ force (without a declaration of war) in the defense of America's commercial interests. Ron Paul doesn't seem very Jeffersonian when Jefferson's actual practice of foreign policy is taken into account.

the utopian fallacy

Megan McArdle identifies what I call the utopian fallacy, the irrational belief that all problems have solutions:

It is astonishing how often I have arguments about environmental issues, and a few others, in which I state a belief that the political and economic realities mean that some pet solution won't happen, and am rewarded with an angry/exasperated "Well, then how do you plan to fix the problem?" It is as if they believed that to state a problem, is also to imply a solution.

There are plenty of problems in the world, from unrequited love to people with stubbornly obnoxious beliefs, that I have no plans to fix because the solutions, if there are any, seem self-evidently worse than the problems they would replace. Yet many people seem to believe that if I refuse to state such a plan, or agree to theirs, it must be because I don't want to solve the problem--that I hate people who are unlucky in love, or the environment, or at the very least selfishly wish to continue harming same--rather than from any honest belief that sometimes life's a bugger and there's not much you can do about it.

This is a particular problem for our political system; every constituent is somebody with a multitude of problems and every politician gets votes by promising to fix those problems. Unfortunately, most of these problems are impervious to fixing. Every government program begins as a solution to a problem, but it has to be revised and expanded and improved as every iteration of the solution fails to fix the problem. Our government grows inexorably, but the problems remain, or mutate and grow. This is a problem. With no solution. Alas.

Change

Change, even change for change's sake alone, is often very good. Sometimes you just have to give your status quo bias a kick in the shins, to teach it who's boss. Or, to put it in other words:

Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days. Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you know not what disaster may happen on earth. If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth, and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie. He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap.

As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. In the morning sow your seed, and at evening withhold not your hand, for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.

Ecclesiastes 11:1-6

I've barely a week left until I move to Houston. It's nice not having any clue what my life will look like in a year.

mission impossible

Dennis Prager draws some lessons from the war in Iraq and the recent war in Lebanon:

The world defines victory of the stronger party — in this case, Israel — as either total victory or as a loss. Israel did not destroy Hezbollah, therefore it lost. . . . Likewise, America is said to have lost the war in Iraq. As with Israel, the stronger party — America — has not achieved total victory. Since no one has surrendered and there are still terrorists and insurgents, America is deemed to have lost. And the media — and its ideological ally, the Democratic Party — have been announcing the American defeat for years.

One lesson to be learned from these two wars is that victory as we have understood it in the past may not be possible when fighting terror organizations. There will be never be an equivalent to the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri in 1945. There is no way to completely stop suicide terror against "soft" targets or to stop car bombs in public places. The only total victory over Islamic terrorists will have to come from within the Muslim world. There will have to be a theological and moral revulsion so great that no Muslim would dare risk hell and universal Islamic opprobrium by targeting innocents for murder. Unfortunately that day seems quite distant.

In effect, then, America will have lost in Iraq when America decides it has lost. And then it becomes what is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The primary point of his article is that America is only "losing" in the sense that our definition of victory is inherently unattainable. I think there's a deeper lesson about the goal of our war in Iraq. This war isn't about WMDs alone, or about oil, or even about deposing a cruel dictator. Rather, in Iraq we have an opportunity to redefine the cultural landscape of the Middle East. By giving common Iraqis a shot at real freedom we threaten the cultural foundations upon which Islamic terrorism is built. So Al Qaeda must fight in Iraq, but theirs is a defensive war fought on territory of our choosing, in their own backyard.

Al Qaeda can not defeat us in a conventional war, so they resort to terror tactics, to suicide bombings and IEDs and kidnappings. The purpose of these tactics seems to be two-fold: to erode American support for the war and also to destroy Iraq's fledgling democracy in civil war. American support is eroding and Iraq is dangerously close to civil war, but Al Qaeda's tactics also pose a danger to their own existence. With one bloody attack on civilians after another, the Iraqi people are learning who their real enemies are. Already we see signs of Sunni tribes uniting to fight against Al Quada. If we hold on, Al Quada may yet destroy their domestic support in Iraq and the wider Middle East. And therein lies our hope of really solving the problem of Islamic terror. As Prager says,

The only total victory over Islamic terrorists will have to come from within the Muslim world. There will have to be a theological and moral revulsion so great that no Muslim would dare risk hell and universal Islamic opprobrium by targeting innocents for murder.

If we want to see the Middle East reform itself, our best bet is to keep Al Quada fighting in Iraq.

State of the Union

8:09 PM -- So, I'm going to try to live-blog the SOTU address. I'm watching it on HDNet rather than any of the standard networks. Is that Dan Rather I hear commenting? I'm not sure. Whoever it is, he's at least smart enough to keep his mouth shut most of the time. I flipped through the networks and heard a lot of worthless commentary. As usual. All times are CST.

8:10 PM -- There he is. I love the irony of everybody shaking hands with the president. No doubt within the next 24 hours at least 95% of them will be slandering him (or each other) for all they're worth.

8:13 PM -- ah... the president and the speaker are so cute together. Totally sincere, the both of them.

8:17 PM -- State of the economy--wonderful. Yes, it is. But that's not really what anybody cares about. He's talking about the budget and earmarks. Why preach on this issue now? We had six years of control to do something about earmarks. Way to go, all of you fiscal "conservatives" in the minority. Good luck doing something about the problem now.

8:22 PM -- Hearing a president claim credit for improvements in education is hilarious. I know this sells well with certain segments of the public, but it is *not* an issue for the president to waste time on.

8:24 PM -- Who needs a balanced budget when we can buy votes with health insurance tax loopholes? Our tax code is way to complicated. Simplify George, simplify. No more tweaking.

8:26 PM -- Interesting. He just got a unanimous standing ovation by saying that individuals are better at making health decisions than governments and insurance companies. They all like to give that idea lip service, but our health industry keeps getting more regulation, not less.

8:30 PM -- Immigration policy. George is right on this one, and everybody is sitting on their hands. Lovely. We've got an incredibly low unemployment rate, Republicans were giving him a standing ovation when he talked about the strength of the economy, but he suggests that we should have a more rational policy towards allowing immigration and they go stone quiet.

8:32 PM -- Energy policy. This is stupid--more regulations, more subsidies for alternative fuel. No pigovian taxes. Listen to your econ advisers, not your special interest group supporters on this one, George.

8:34 PM -- Doubling the size of the strategic oil reserve? Interesting. More stockpiled oil means more of a cushion if we end up taking action with regard to Iran. Good idea.

8:37 PM -- Foreign policy. Everybody agrees: we must cheer incessantly for his rhetoric. But when it comes time to take a stand and figure out the path forward, who wants to actually fight? Who's willing to do something more than criticize the current strategy? If you don't like Bush's plan, propose your own.

8:38 PM -- Ok, Iran is funding terror. You know it Bush, but what are you doing about it? I want to believe that Bush is willing to do more than lecture Iran, but I'm not certain. I am certain that the legislative branch is more than happy to bury their heads in the sand on this one.

8:41 PM -- Good point. Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan are all making steps towards democracy and have become the focal point of terrorism as a result. Terrorists lose if democracy survives in the Middle East. If we want to win the war on terror, that's where we win it. That's how we win it. If we retreat to our shores and hope the terrorists leave us alone, we've lost this war. Stop with all the clapping when he speaks in generalities about fighting terror--we need support for real action, not polite applause at politically appropriate rhetoric.

8:47 PM -- I don't know if this plan can succeed, but what's the alternative? Allowing Iraq to devolve into true civil war? Sure, they've already got vigilantes and militias murdering each other, but that's nothing to what we'll see if we abandon Iraq. We are going to have to be there for years. It's time to accept that, or acknowledge that we're OK with a bloody division of Iraq, complete with open interference by Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.

8:52 PM -- What in the world is he talking about with this civilian reserve corps? That was about the most obtuse and vague proposal I've ever heard. I don't know if he's talking about an institution for formally providing mercenaries or truck drivers or teachers.

8:54 PM -- I'm sick of the lip service given towards dealing with the Darfur problem. DO SOMETHING. Hire mercenaries, if we don't have enough regular troops to do it. There are companies ready to do this thing: let's kick this program into high gear and give it some official support.

8:58 PM -- Yippee. Way to go, Baby Einstein. Now we're into the *real* meat of the address.

9:02 PM -- Now I feel like a heel. Those last two feel good stories deserve more than applause. They risked their lives when they didn't have to. Thank you random man who saved a man from getting hit by a train. Thank you soldier (or marine? I didn't notice) who sacrificed your body for your country and your comrades.

9:05 PM -- ok, lets get on with the scripted "response".

9:06 PM -- Time for a diet coke, I think...

9:12 PM -- It is Dan Rather. He hasn't done a bad job. I still think he's a buffoon for his hatchet job with the fake documents, though.

9:15 PM -- Jim Webb is doing the response. I know virtually nothing about him.

9:16 PM -- He can talk on camera. That's an improvement over previous responders.

9:17 PM -- Wow. I'm impressed. I totally disagree, but he's good. Well structured speech so far. Start with a reasonable statement of agreement about energy policy. Move on to a clear statement of where the Dems disagree with Bush: 1) state of the economy and 2) Iraq.

9:19 PM -- Nice try, attempting to prove that the economy is falling apart. College tuitions are high. The rich are getting richer. I think that was the sum total of his proof.

9:21 PM -- Iraq. Fine, there were some people that didn't want us to go into Iraq. I get that. Granted, Congress was heavily supportive at the time, but I'll let it slide. But we don't have a time machine. We are in Iraq. We have to decide how we're going to proceed. Whining that we never should have gone in is *not* an alternative plan. If you don't like Bush's plan, then propose something. Don't tell me what you stand against, tell me what you stand for. Please.

9:38 PM -- The focus group discussion is unbearable. Republicans, Democrats, independents--they all come across as ignorant buffoons. OK, maybe not completely. But I can't watch this. Time to turn off the TV.

the worm has turned

Iran's protests are hilarious:

The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Thursday summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors to protest a raid by U.S. troops on an Iranian consulate in Iraq.

U.S. troops stormed the Iranian Consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil on January 11 and arrested six people. According to the U.S. military, one of the Iranians was freed on Friday.

“The U.S. troops’ action is a violation of international law since the arrested people were working there at the request and with the permission of the Iraqi government,” Foreign Ministry Director for Persian Gulf Affairs Jalal Firuznian told Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Majid al-Sheikh.

“We expect the Iraqi government to act quickly to obtain the release of these people and to condemn the U.S. forces,” he stated, adding that the Iraqi government should not let the United States disrupt Iran-Iraq relations through its illegal actions.

If the raid did in fact occur at an officially designated Iranian consulate, the Iranians are right to suggest that the raid violated established rules of international relations. Diplomats and diplomatic property are sacrosanct and should be virtually immune from outside interference. If U.S. troops encroached on an Iranian consulate during the raid, they effectively invaded Iran's sovereign territory--an act of war, by any normal reckoning.

You have to feel just a little bit of pity for the Iranians here--they've been the (apparent) victims of an illegal act of war, a raid on their diplomatic facilities under the pretext of searching for spies. And the more they protest this provocation, the more it will become evident that this is exactly what Iranian radicals did to the U.S. embassy in Tehran back in 1979. Of course, there is one key differences: our diplomats were (by and large) not engaged in espionage, while their "diplomats" are almost certainly guilty of inciting violent insurrection and terrorist attacks inside Iraq.

Iran can scream to our diplomats, complain to the press, protest to the U.N. and do pretty much anything they want to do. I certainly don't care and it seems evident that Bush doesn't care either. The regime in Iran has been playing a game of chicken against America for the last quarter century and the rules have always been the same: Iran can do anything it wants while America will consistently back down before hostilities commence. If Bush is changing the rules, it's past time.

Iran has probably been counting on two things to keep America passive: 1) we're occupied in Iraq, and 2) we care about keeping the oil flowing. What they fail to realize is that we have *not* over-committed our Army in Iraq. Yes, our soldiers and marines have been much busier than we would like them to be, but if we need to surge a few brigades to the region we can do it. More importantly, we don't have to send the Army or Marines deep into Iran if we don't want to. Our naval and air forces should be sufficient to keep the oil flowing from the rest of the Gulf countries, and Iran's oil fields are in easy striking distance from southern Iraq and the Gulf. We can win a strategic victory against Iran just by turning off their oil production. They need their oil revenues to prop up their economy more then we need their oil to fuel ours. If we choose to attack, we could wreck their economy, destroy their nuclear program and make it very difficult for them to continue supporting terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon.

It would be a hugely risky move on our part and Bush would face withering criticism, both at home and abroad. But, I'm not sure that he really cares at this point. He's not running for re-election, after all. What do I think? Taking the gloves off is probably the lesser evil. Iraq will never settle down as long as Iran is funding both sides of the developing Sunni-Shia civil war. If we abandon Iraq now, we've lost the war on terror and it will come back to haunt us. If we try to sit steady and fight a war of half measures, we'll eventually wash our hands of the mess and lose the war just as effectively as if we bail out now. If we up the stakes and strike back at Iran? Things would certainly get messier in the short term. I'm optimistic that Iraq, at least, would return to normalcy in the long run. If Iran's mullahs lose power, that would be a good thing. But even I'm not optimistic enough to believe that airstrikes and economic disruption will be sufficient to drive the mullahs from power. I suppose we'll find out soon enough if Bush is serious about shutting down Iran's interference in Iraq.