Michael Knowles

He offered a little bit of military advising, a little bit, but he...

restrained himself.

He did not allow Vietnam on his watch to develop into a massive war.

He viewed it as an unwinnable quagmire in East Asia.

His successors, unfortunately, did expand the war, and they proved him right.

Eisenhower, again, whether you say Eisenhower's decision was right or wrong, he is a true symbol of American strength.

And yet, when push came to shove, his tactic was restraint.

Even Kennedy.

Kennedy shot down intervention into Laos in the 1960s.

Kennedy backed down.

He was restrained in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It was one of the great victories, supposedly, of the Cold War, was that we didn't end up in nuclear war with Russia because Russia removed the missiles.

The only reason Russia removed their nuclear weapons was because Kennedy removed his missiles from Turkey.

Even in that issue, it was restrained.

So I'm just pointing out

Regardless of what you think about the Iran war, and there's a scintillating New York Times report on how we actually got into the strikes on Iran, which we'll get to momentarily, before getting to the Dignidad Act.

But regardless of your view on the war and the strategic objectives and getting rid of the mullahs and democracy for Iran and the nuclear, I just want to point out.

Being a strong president, a symbol actually of American strength, and being restrained in your foreign policy, pulling back, not escalating, those two things are not necessarily opposed.

In fact, in almost all the examples I can think of in recent history, they go together.

Now, before we get to anything else, I want to tell you about Shopify.