Bomb, Repeat, Bomb

One major problem with bombing Iran as a means of disarming them, is that even if we bomb Iran this won't prevent them from building a nuclear weapon. But it seems John Bolton has answered this objection:

If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran’s.

With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway.

Justin Logan points out some of the serious problems with this strategy but it's worth also noting that it's really hard to say whether or not bombing Iran would really delay anything at all. You can think of the timeline as driven by a few different variables. Destroying some equipment and infrastructure and killing some people would definitely be a setback for the program. But an American bombing raid might lead the Iranian government to boost funding for the program. It might lead the Iranian government to restart work on weaponization. It might lead foreign countries to look more sympathetically on the Iranian predicament and become less helpful to efforts to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. For all we know, airstrikes could make the Iranians get a nuclear weapon sooner by making us look like an irrational actor that needs to be balanced against.

Now maybe not, maybe it really would produce a delay and maybe that delay could somehow be used to locate the regime change pony and maybe the new regime in Iran would have no interest in nuclear weapons, but that's an awfully long string of "maybes" to use as a pretext for starting a war.

Comments

With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran

Of course! Because when a country is attacked by outside forces, they don't just automatically rally around whatever current leadership they have. Why, just look at America in 2001.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 15, 2008 3:01 PM

This kind of nonsense proves Bolton knows nothing about Iran. He could learn more than he knows presently by reading the current issue of National Geographic(No, I am not kidding!!). Does he know anything about the history of that area. The Persians are a proud people. They won't take stuff like bombing laying down. And what's with Bolton advocating violence all the time. Bolton is in serious need of a shrink. He has way too much blood lust.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 15, 2008 3:02 PM

A judicious use of 15 megaton bombs can set back the Iranian nuclear program forever.

Posted by SLC | July 15, 2008 3:02 PM

whenever i hear someone say "regime change", i reach for my revolver.

Posted by cleek | July 15, 2008 3:06 PM

Wouldn't a new regime be even more fearful of the US? Therefore they'd be even more inclined to get a nuke so that the US couldn't regime change them?

Posted by mactbone | July 15, 2008 3:06 PM

I think you are trying to be too clever here matt. the key assumption is that iran is already trying to develop nukes. the notion that the airstrikes might accelerate that process is a stretch too far. it is far more likely that it will slow iran down - the question is by how much and at what cost.

Posted by dan | July 15, 2008 3:07 PM

OTOH, it's probably pretty demoralizing to lose your 25-year nuclear project, your entire air and tank force, and your anti-ship capabilities in a three week air campaign.

Note that Saddam didn't/couldn't rebuild after Desert Fox. I don't think it was for lack of motivation.

President Ahmadinejad probably doesn't win reelection after a fiasco like that.

Posted by john bragg | July 15, 2008 3:07 PM

So that's why the protector of Matt's capital gains, Barack Obama, was so specific today about leaving the bombing of Iran on the table?

Matt's just willing to lie through his bared teeth to neuter the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | July 15, 2008 3:08 PM

The United States may have as much popular support in Iran as in any of the large Persian Gulf nations. Bombing Iran would like greatly reduce or destroy that support, and greatly strengthen the theocrats' support.

Posted by Will Allen | July 15, 2008 3:08 PM

I think you are trying to be too clever here matt. the key assumption is that iran is already trying to develop nukes. the notion that the airstrikes might accelerate that process is a stretch too far. it is far more likely that it will slow iran down - the question is by how much and at what cost.

Posted by dan | July 15, 2008 3:08 PM

A judicious use of 15 megaton bombs can set back the Iranian nuclear program forever.

And as an added bonus, bring about the long awaited Rapture!

Posted by Davebo | July 15, 2008 3:09 PM

A judicious use of 15 megaton bombs can set back the Iranian nuclear program forever.

This reminds me of the advice Croesus received from the Oracle of Delphi about attacking the Persian Empire.

If we attack Iran with nuclear weapons, a nuclear power will be destroyed.

Posted by rea | July 15, 2008 3:11 PM

The support of the Iranian people and $4 gets you a gallon of gas.

Posted by john bragg | July 15, 2008 3:12 PM

SLC,

Please die painfully and burn in hell for all eternity you murderous psychopath.

Of course, not being a murderous psychopath, I don't want 15 megaton bombs dropped anywhere, but if such an event must happen, I can think of about 30 places where it would do the world more good. At the top of the list is Washington, D.C.

Posted by LarryM | July 15, 2008 3:15 PM

OTOH, it's probably pretty demoralizing to lose your 25-year nuclear project, your entire air and tank force, and your anti-ship capabilities in a three week air campaign.

Note that Saddam didn't/couldn't rebuild after Desert Fox. I don't think it was for lack of motivation.

President Ahmadinejad probably doesn't win reelection after a fiasco like that.
No, he would just be replaced by someone willing to spend the next few decades plotting revenge for all the innocent men, women, and children we just murdered.

Typical jingoism. The enemy is so fanatical and dangerous nothing will serve but to make war on them, yet they are such weaklings and cowards that they will fold up and meekly accept their punishment.

Posted by Berken | July 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Nuking the entire Mid-East, from the Mediterranian to Afghanistan, would end its annoying importance in international affairs. In addition, nuking much of China and Russia would set back our only global rivals. And nuking much of Western Europe would set back their manufacturing and also teach them a lesson about not being so snobby. And don't get me started about where we could judiciously nuke in South America and the Caribbean. The beauty of this strategy is that surely there could be no negative side-effects for anyone.

Posted by El Cid | July 15, 2008 3:16 PM

Didn't know you were a Ted Leo fan.

You've gone up 1% in my estimations. Congrats.

Posted by Andy | July 15, 2008 3:16 PM

The photoshopped Iranian missile tests reduced my fear of Persians by about 100%. Does anything else better illuminate the extent of Iranian weapon development?

Posted by TDE | July 15, 2008 3:19 PM

"...is that even if we bomb Iran this won't prevent them from building a nuclear weapon..."

What do you mean "we". The decision to bomb Iran will be made in Israel, by Israel. "We" will, as usual, just follow along.

Posted by kafka | July 15, 2008 3:19 PM

Dear god, enough with we idiots pontificating on whether it is a strategically good idea to bomb a nation that is NO threat to us and, more important, has never attacked our nation.

Here's a tip. STARTING wars is never a good idea, it's immoral and disgusting no matter how strategically good it seems. We all sound like a bunch of Stalinists rationalizing mass murder of a few for the good of the many.

"Hey, should we bomb country x?"

Did country x attack us? Is it in a military alliance with another nation that attacked us? is it on it's way to attack us? If the answer to those 3 questions is no, than we should not bomb them. If we do, we're murderers.

It's very simple.

Posted by hankest | July 15, 2008 3:19 PM

OTOH, it's probably pretty demoralizing to lose your 25-year nuclear project, your entire air and tank force, and your anti-ship capabilities in a three week air campaign.

Note that Saddam didn't/couldn't rebuild after Desert Fox. I don't think it was for lack of motivation.
President Ahmadinejad probably doesn't win reelection after a fiasco like that.

No, he would just be replaced by someone willing to spend the next few decades plotting revenge for all the innocent men, women, and children we just murdered.

Typical jingoism. The enemy is so fanatical and dangerous nothing will serve but to make war on them, yet they are such weaklings and cowards that they will fold up and meekly accept their punishment.

Posted by Berken | July 15, 2008 3:20 PM

Ahmadinejad probably isn't going to win reelection right now. He's the Bush of Iran: he's made the right wing there extremely unpopular. So bombing Iran would save his political career just like 9/11 saved Bush's. Starting the Falklands War kept the Argentinian Junta in power just when they were at their most unpopular; can you imagine how popular Ahmadinejad would get if Iran was attacked unprovoked?

Posted by tomemos | July 15, 2008 3:21 PM

"President Ahmadinejad probably doesn't win reelection after a fiasco like that."

Ahmadinejad isn't going to win reelection, anyway. The fiasco of his economic policies will ensure that. His popularity now is lower than Bush's and he's getting close to the Robert Mugabe/ Than Shwe range. The only thing that can save him now is a war.

Posted by fostert | July 15, 2008 3:22 PM

El Cid -
As Randy Newman musically opined "Let's drop the Big One, there'll be no one left to blame us."

Posted by reverter | July 15, 2008 3:25 PM

Why does the profoundly worthless Bolton continue to get a platform anywhere, ever? What a waste of human flesh.

He could probably host a resurrection of Captain Kangaroo, but he'd eventually slaughter and barbeque Bunny Rabbit.

Posted by trollhattan | July 15, 2008 3:30 PM

Captain Kangaragnarok!

Posted by El Cid | July 15, 2008 3:34 PM

Let's just say it. The right-wingnutoshphere, Bolton included, has been WRONG over and over again. It is so obvious they their abilities to predict cause/effect and action/reaction is so minimal as to be useless. Every time one of these pinheads blurts out their prognostications, they need to be beat over the head with their prior predictions.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 3:35 PM

"Why does the profoundly worthless Bolton continue to get a platform anywhere, ever?"

Well, if you need someone to propose a murderous, self-evidently disastrous military strategy, few commentators are better than Bolton. The number of people willing to be publicly insane is sadly dwindling. Unless…hey! Maybe SLC could be a pundit, too!

Posted by tomemos | July 15, 2008 3:35 PM

The number of people willing to be publicly insane is sadly dwindling. Unless…hey! Maybe SLC could be a pundit, too!

Has anyone ever seen SLC and John Bolton in a room at the same time?

Posted by drjimcooper | July 15, 2008 3:50 PM

Just what exactly would we bomb?

The known enrichment facility is not producing bomb grade material. I believe it is still being inspected. If inspections reveal the presence of highly enriched uranium, it would take some time to make sufficient material for a bomb, so there would be plenty of warning.

Iran does have more centrifuges than the ones in the Natanz facility, but they are not in use as far as I've heard. If they are, they are in an undiscovered, secret facility. If we don't know where it is (or even IF it is), how do we bomb it?

Posted by Njorl | July 15, 2008 3:53 PM

If we don't know where it is (or even IF it is), how do we bomb it?

Remember when Bush was talking about a new class of nuclear bunker buster bombs? He'd basically blow up anything suspicious with nukes.

Here's an article on some of the issues with development of that type of bomb versus part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 4:06 PM

This kind of nonsense proves Bolton knows nothing about Iran.

Make that humanity.

~

Am I the only one who feels like I woke up in Orwell's 1984? Was it not just a few months ago that the NIE on Iran stated that they are *not* engaged in an active nuclear weapons program? It has all seemed to have gone down the memory hole, because here we are talking about what to do about Iran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons program...

Posted by McKingford | July 15, 2008 4:23 PM

With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway.

Ooooooooooh. So it really is about regime change, not just about disarming them. I'm glad someone got John Bolton to admit that.

Posted by Swan | July 15, 2008 4:36 PM

How much more time could Bolton want? The last NIE judged with "moderate confidence" that Iran would be able to produce enough bomb-usable uranium by 2010. The State Department said no earlier than 2013, and it's likely that the Iranians won't get their act together until at least 2015. Politics aside, the technical details bear out something we've known for a while: we've still, still got time.

Posted by brian | July 15, 2008 4:38 PM

tomemos wrote something similar, but to quote fostert:

The only thing that can save [Ahmadinejad] now is a war.

Of course, there's no evidence that Bolton wants to bomb Iran to save Ahmadinejad's career, but wouldn't it be irresponsible not to speculate? Note that this wouldn't be the first time that the neocons advocated for Iranian interests.

Posted by J | July 15, 2008 4:43 PM

"Of course, there's no evidence that Bolton wants to bomb Iran to save Ahmadinejad's career, but wouldn't it be irresponsible not to speculate?"

There's a line from John Burdett's "Bangkok Tattoo" that I always liked. The lead character is a Thai detective and he's talking to an Imam from Pattani. The Imam basically says that the most threatening thing to the American administration is a moderate Muslim. The administration wants a war with Islam and only the crazy Muslims can provide the necessary justification. Bush needs Ahmadinejad every bit as much as Ahmadinejad needs Bush. If Khatami were still in power, it would be hard to portray Iran as irrational. Khatami cooperated with the US in Afghanistan and with rounding up Al Qaeda members. And he made serious overtures to the US to try to improve relations. So Bush ruined his career by insulting the Iranians with his "Axis of Evil" speech.

Posted by fostert | July 15, 2008 5:41 PM

All of this is irrelevant. Bush has no intention of bombing Iran because of its nuclear weapons program because he knows perfectly well - or if he doesn't, Cheney does - that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and never did.

There is ZERO evidence that Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program. In that respect, the NIE was wrong.

The US intelligence community has been trying to "frame" Iran with a nuclear weapons program for years now. They deliberately sent Iran the plans for a nuclear trigger hoping Iran would accept it. The cover story was that the plan had flaws that would hamstring the Iranian program. In reality, that was just the cover story for the Russian scientist they used to deliver the plans (and he screwed that story by telling the Iranians the plans were flawed). The reality is they wanted Iran to have those plans so they could later accuse Iran of having those plans.

The reality which nobody seems to want to discuss is that the US wants to attack Iran for the oil, for ME hegemony, and to support Israel. It's that simple. All the "nuclear weapons/Iran destabilizing Iraq" are just total fabrications meant to justify an already decided policy - just like Iraq. There is no difference between Iraq and Iran. The Bushies intended to attack Iran after Iraq. Israel wanted to attack Iran first.

That's all you need to know. Discussing whether bombing is going to affect a program that doesn't exist is just stupid.

Iran is unlikely to try to develop a nuke in the middle of a war with the US. The efforts involved in winning a 4th Gen War against a superpower mitigate against any technological development by a Third World country during that war. The US is in a position to totally cripple Iran's industrial and technological infrastructure. The US proved that in Iraq.

What the US cannot do is "win" a war with Iran - shorting of nuking the entire country.

In addition, as Scott Ritter has pointed out in the past week, it is no longer an option to conduct a limited strike on Iran. Iran has said that ANY strike on it will result in a full-spectrum response including missile attacks on Israel, on Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona, on US bases in the Middle East, and the closing of the Straits of Hormuz to oil traffic.

They've upped the ante. Now the only option for the US is a full-scale attack on Iran. As Ritter points out, the US isn't in a position to do that. It would require taking out all of Iran's missile batteries - which is extremely hard to do as the Iraq war in 1991 showed - and putting thousands of US troops IN IRAN to suppress the coastal defenses involved in closing the Straits.

The US can do that if Bush orders the Pentagon to do it. But in Ritter's view it will require more preparation.

So Ritter believes the odds that Bush will launch such a war have been reduced somewhat. He still feels the only way to prevent that war is Congressional hearings motivated by pressure from corporations based on the likelihood of a major economic depression brought on by oil price shock resulting from the war.

Personally, since I know Bush and Cheney don't give a damn about any of that, I expect Bush to launch the war anyway. But Ritter may be correct that now the option of a limited strike may be off the table.

On the other hand, if Bush and Cheney don't care about another war, they probably don't care how it starts either. There is some lee way they could gain by starting a small strike, then claiming the Iranians over-reacted. They could still be blamed - and would be, by the Pentagon - for not anticipating the Iranian reaction - but that kind of charge loses steam fast and will never cause Bush and Cheney to lose any sleep.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 15, 2008 6:27 PM

Why is the press ignoring Obama's open calls of escalating our forces in afghanistan, and instead focusing on a withdrawal from Iraq? He is basically calling for a surrender in the counterinsugency surge in Iraq, in one of the most geostrategically important countries on the Earth, so that he can instead do a counterinsurgency surge in a country of little strategic value instead. And threaten to invade a nuclear power with a very good military on top of that. To "get" 6 AQ fugitives, basically, at a time when Obama and most of his followers are fighting for the "sacred terrorist rights" of Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 Mastermind and Operation Head.

Is Afghanistan going better than Iraq?

If he is going to increase our actions in Afghanistan, shouldn't he give a timetable, and exit strategy?

what does victory look like? how much does it cost?

Does anyone believe that we will have our troops out of Afghanistan before Iraq?

btw-how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Pakistan or Afghnistan?

***********
And if Ahmadinejad (or more important, the Mullahs pulling on their figurehead's strings) is not impressed with his sitdown with the Great Black Messiah the stiller of the oceans rise and the man future generations will call the Planet-Healer, according to him??

Then what will Black Messiah do to stop Iranian nukes?

Posted by chris ford | July 15, 2008 7:01 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

One has to be amused how Mr. Hack likes to invoke child molesters like Scott Ritter as his source.

Posted by SLC | July 15, 2008 7:09 PM

"btw-how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Pakistan or Afghnistan?"

Hmm, gosh, good point? Here's a "btw" for you: how many were from Iraq, you asshole?

Posted by tomemos | July 15, 2008 7:12 PM

"One has to be amused how Mr. Hack likes to invoke child molesters like Scott Ritter as his source.

Posted by SLC | July 15, 2008 7:09 PM"

This is a bit like serial killers hating on rapists.

Posted by Reality Man | July 15, 2008 7:21 PM

And while we're at it: how many masterminds of the 9/11 attacks "are currently in Pakistan or Afghanistan"? Here's a hint: it's more than 0.

Why am I talking to you again?

Posted by tomemos | July 15, 2008 7:22 PM

"btw-how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Pakistan or Afghnistan?"

btw-how many were part of an Afghanistan-based terrorist group? Oh, that's right, all of them.

Retard.

Posted by Reality Man | July 15, 2008 7:28 PM

Re Reality Man

Mr. Reality Man is a poopy head.

Posted by SLC | July 15, 2008 8:34 PM

Sorry to be all fact-based, but is there any reason to belive that we can bomb?

Of course Bush or Olmert can direct their military to drop a bunch of bombs, but do we have targets?

I suspect a lot of people think back to the Osirak bombing in Iraq (which really did set back the Iraqi program) and figure that if it worked in Iraq it would work in Iran (haha), but Iraq was breeding plutonium, which uses a nuclear reactor with an impossible-to-hide heat signature.

The Iranian effort follows the Pakistani model using uranium 235 rather than plutonium. Uranium 235 is made using thousands (40,000 is a good guess) of centrifuges. These centrifuges are not large, can be spread around the country in typical industrial buildings, and their heat signature is not large.

Put simply, I have seen no evidence that we know the locations of the targets. The 1981 Osirak bombing does not help assess the feasibility of bombing the Iranian program.

Posted by tomtom | July 15, 2008 8:34 PM

In 1941 Japan had a problem; the US base in Pearl Harbor prevented Japanese hegemony in the Pacific. The thinking in the Japanese high command?

Remove Pearl Harbor = Japan dominates the Pacific rim.

Yes, they were that stupid. The US reaction to a direct attack with massive loss of life was not seriously considered.

In 2008, Iran seems to be pursuing some sort of a nuclear program, but we aren't sure, the progress seems uneven, etc. Yet the thinking at the top levels of the US government seems to be:

Bomb Iran (lots of bombs, remember. the uranium-enriching centrifuges are all spread out, and we don't know where they all are) = delay Iranian nuclear effort.

Yes, some of us are that stupid.

Bombing Iran would not rally the Iranian people to their government?

Bombing Iran would not prompt a furious and more elaborately concealed bomb program?

Bombing Iran would not carry the lesson that nukes are needed to keep the US at bay?

Unbelievably stupid.

Posted by tomtom | July 15, 2008 8:52 PM

Iranians' sense of their energy needs is that they need to develop a nuclear program: their oil production is in decline, and oil won't last forever anyway. We're trying to lock them into a has-been status by denying them a nuclear program, and their anti-Israeli belligerence is going to seal the deal.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 15, 2008 9:13 PM

Ahmadinejad has NOTHING to do with Iran's nuclear program -- which stared LONG before his election, in the days of the Shah, when the US was encouraging and participating in the same nuclear program. The program is WIDELY popular among Iranians who deeply resent being pushed around by superpowers. Well, so would you.

Second, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be bombing IAEA-monitored, safeguarded, overt, legal facilities that verifiably have no relation to any weapons program. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IRAN IS MAKING NUKES despite what the question assumes.

IF IRAN IS INDEED operating "clandestine" facilities, then how are you going to bomb 'em - if they're clandestine?

It took Pakistan 4 years to build a nuke. Iran is much more technologically advanced. If Iran wanted nukes, it would have obtained them by now. We've spent the last 20 years listening to claims about how Iran is "just 2 years away" from nuking the world.

BULL.

Posted by hass | July 15, 2008 9:16 PM

Hass, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Even Washington Institute, a pro-Likud, neo-con outfit admits that nuclear power is overwhelmingly popular among the population. Now, perhaps Bolton doesn't mean even the Bushian version of democracy - elections in which the voters are totally uninformed about the representatives they are voting for, but given a party choice only, as in the Iraq election. He just means a good old fashioned death squad dictatorship, a throwback to the Reagan days. The pretence that the Iranian people are against Iranian nuclear power is simply a lie.

I think Bolton's vision is not going to come to pass. It would be nice if, when Iran does get nuclear power, the U.S. has established diplomatic relations with it. That is the only thing the U.S. can productively do about Iran.

Posted by roger | July 16, 2008 12:43 AM

SLC is a child molester. There is just as much evidence for that statement as his statement about Ritter.

Not to mention that even if Ritter WERE a child molester, it would be irrelevant to his knowledge, experience and the points he makes in his articles about Iran.

Whereas SLC has zero knowledge, experience or points to make.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 7:26 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Just for the information of Mr. Hack, the bank robber, Mr. Ritter refuses to discuss the accusations of child molestation which have been made against him or explain why the FBI and a local police department subjected him to questioning about them. As to why it is relevant to his claims about Iraq and Iran, when evaluating such claims, one must consider the source and a source who molests children is hardly credible. Just as one must consider the source when Mr. Hack makes claims; a convicted felon is hardly a credible source.

However, Mr. Hack and Mr. Ritter have this much in common. Mr. Hack thinks he's a big hero because he shoved a gun into the face of an unarmed bank teller, Mr. Ritter thinks he's a big hero because he molests underage girls (at least it was girls).

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2008 8:37 AM

Big freakin' "if" at the beginning of that statement.

Posted by ET | July 16, 2008 8:51 AM

Once attacked, Iran would shut down the strait of hormuz. The price of oil will hit 500 dollars and the question for Americans won't be how could I drive my car to work; the question would be how would I warm myself and my family the in winter.

Iran could potentially finish off this empire for good.

Posted by Hameed | July 16, 2008 12:46 PM

SLC once again refuses to either address the issue of how Ritter's charges - and they were clearly politically motivated given his opposition to the war - have anything to do with either his level of experience as an intelligence officer, his experience as a UN weapons inspector, or his information based on his contacts or his points.

Credibility has nothing to do with irrelevant issues of past behavior - especially in Ritter's case where there was less evidence than the evidence for Iran's nuclear program. Which is why I don't bother bringing up Bush's history of homosexuality in college when discussing the Iraq war, or his father's alleged connections with a pedophile ring.

I wonder if SLC wants to bring up the corruption charges against Olmert, the rape charges against other Israeli politicians, and various other corrupt behaviors of practically every politician in Israel.

OTOH, SLC's past behavior of lying, falsifying information, ignoring repeated refutations of virtually everything he's ever said here, clearly shows how credible he is - not to mention being a Zionist freak, which is about as un-credible as one can get.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 4:51 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Just for the information of Mr. Hack, I have brought up the corruption charges against Olmert and have demanded that he be removed from office numerous times on this and other blogs. The scuttlebutt in Israel is that he will be gone by the end of the month. Triple billing for travel is a no no. As far as the rape charges against former president Katsef and the sexual assualt charges against former cabinet minister Mordechai, both men were convicted and lost their jobs. Like Mr. Hack, both men are now convicted felons.

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2008 7:41 PM