QandO

Here's a thought experiment for you, McQ: Let's suppose you're a flag officer and you're going to brief the Chief of Staff on the cost of a program you're heading.

So, you go to your staff and ask them for the cost. They tell you your program will cost $X. You ask them how confident they are in that figure and they tell you it's a mortal lock--a "slam dunk."

You dutifully report that number to the Chief of Staff. When it turns out your program winds up cost many times more than $X--are you going to blame your staff?

Apparently so.

But Bush did lie. Would you like a recounting of the specific lies (i.e.; claims made by Bush that were known to be false at the time he said them)? You could talk about the IAEA report that Bush said that had Iraq producing a nuclear weapon inside of 6 months. Or we could revist the aluminum tubes issue. Or the yellowcake from Niger.

Say the word, McQ. I'd be happy to revisit those lies.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 09:27 AM

JadeGold:

Did you read the post

Joe Wilson himself says that Iraq, in the person of old Baghdad Bob, was inquiring about Nigerian yellow cake afterall.

Then we have Woodward's book debunking the "Bush lied" canard in reference to WMDs.

Frankly I can't imagine you have much, but you're welcome to trot out whatever you think answers the mail.

As for your thought experiment. Fatally flawed. The premise isn't who's to "blame", it is whether the information provided was believed or whether Bush made it up. Had he made it up or directed it be made up to fit the situation, then the charge of lying has validity.

If, instead, he accepted as true reports that Iraq had WMDs and accepted the assurance of the agency charged with developing that intelligence that it was the case, then he DIDN'T lie.

Per Woodward, that latter is the case.

Now that's a fairly simple dichotomy. It doesn't take a degree in astro-physics to understand. An understanding of what does and doesn't constitute a lie suffices.

I assume you know that difference.

And the bottom line is that in a matter of two weeks, the myth perpetrated by Democrats that Bush "lied" about African yellowcake and WMDs has been shattered.

I know that's inconvenient for those of you pushing that bit of nonsense, but there it is.

Posted by: McQ at May 2, 2004 10:07 AM

Jade, you evidently haven't been reading the news. Either that, or you just aren't a very clever liar. Bush never once said that Iraq had gotten yellowcake from Niger (if you dispute this, show me the link). And Great Britain has always stood by its intelligence saying that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Now, according to Joe Wilson's book, it's known that Iraq certainly did make an overture to Niger for uranium.

But keep lying. It's fun tearing you to bits.

Posted by: Steverino at May 2, 2004 10:11 AM

McQ: Either you're very confused or you're not telling the truth.

The Wilson-yellowcake issue concerned Dick Cheney's questioning of an unsubstantiated report that Niger had sold nonenriched uranium (yellowcake) to Iraq in the late 1990s. Please note the words "had sold."

Wilson traveled to Niger, at the behest of the CIA and State Dept., to investigate if this was true. His finding was that it was not.

More can be found at this link:

Sahhaf's role casts more light on an aspect of Wilson's report to the CIA that was publicly disclosed last summer. On the heels of Wilson's public criticism that intelligence was exaggerated and his statement that his trip to Niger had turned up no uranium sales to Iraq, agency Director George J. Tenet took the blame for allowing President Bush to make assertions about the Iraqi quest for nuclear material in his 2003 State of the Union address. Tenet said the intelligence had been too "fragmentary" to merit inclusion in the speech.

Tenet's statement noted that Wilson had reported back to the CIA that a former Niger official told him that "in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

In his book, Wilson recounts his encounter with the unnamed Niger official in 2002, saying, he "hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium." Wilson did not get the Iraqi's name in 2002, but he writes that he talked to his source again four months ago, and that the former official said he saw Sahhaf on television before the start of the war and recognized him as the person he talked to in 1999.

It should also be noted--in addition to Tenet's apology on the yellowcake matter--this appointed administration has also said they overstated the claim and should not have included it in the SoTU.

New York Times 7/8/2003:

WASHINGTON, July 7 — The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.

The White House statement appeared to undercut one of the key pieces of evidence that President Bush and his aides had cited to back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 12:41 PM

"the IAEA report that Bush said that had Iraq producing a nuclear weapon inside of 6 months"

- - -He was really referring to an IISS report, which came out a few days later, and reached the same conclusion. (the president doesn't wait for the shelf date)

In addition, the IAEA operated on the assumption that Iraq could produce weapons within months during the 90s. Nothing had occurred to change that calculation.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 2, 2004 12:45 PM

Actually, Mr. Henke, on 7 Sep 2002, Bush referred to a "new" report from the IAEA that had found Iraq trying to rebuild, as Mr. Blair put it, at "former nuclear-weapon sites." Bush elaborated, citing an IAEA report that Iraq was "six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

The IAEA responded that not only was there no new report, "there's never been a report" asserting that Iraq was six months away from constructing a nuclear weapon -- not in 1998, not in 1991.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 01:08 PM

JadeGold:

McQ: Either you're very confused or you're not telling the truth.

You're welcome to post here and have your say, but you're not welcome to infer or imply that I'm lying. Debate is one thing and its welcomed, but ad hominum is another and if you prefer it to debate you'll be asked to go elsewhere.

The Wilson-yellowcake issue concerned Dick Cheney's questioning of an unsubstantiated report that Niger had sold nonenriched uranium (yellowcake) to Iraq in the late 1990s. Please note the words "had sold."

Wilson traveled to Niger, at the behest of the CIA and State Dept., to investigate if this was true. His finding was that it was not.

What?

If this were about Cheney, it wouldn't be a "Bush lied" controversy in the first place.

This has to do with Bush saying in his 2003 State of the Union address that 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

THAT is the point of all this. The "16 little words" controversy. It was in the news forever.

And, as pointed out, the Joe Wilson you cite above had now written a book and essentially say "oops, I was wrong". Per the WSJ which I cited in an article on this blog:

It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.

It should also be noted--in addition to Tenet's apology on the yellowcake matter--this appointed administration has also said they overstated the claim and should not have included it in the SoTU.The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.

And now, it appears, that information, per Wilson's own claim has been vetted, doesn't it?

Now we can argue all day long as to whether it should have been included or not in the SoTU, but the bottom line is ... it wasn't a LIE.

And that was the entire point of my article.

Posted by: McQ at May 2, 2004 01:10 PM

"on 7 Sep 2002, Bush referred to a "new" report from the IAEA"

- - -Yes, JG, I'm well aware of that. That's why I knew that he had mis-spoken about the origins of the report. (IISS, rather than IAEA)

The IAEA responded that not only was there no new report, "there's never been a report" asserting that Iraq was six months away from constructing a nuclear weapon -- not in 1998, not in 1991.

- - -This is simply a misleading statement, as was their claim that they had "concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program". They also claimed to have "dismantled" the nuclear program. In fact, they did no such thing.

While they certainly did dismantle parts of the program, they operated (between 1997-98 when inspections ended) on the premise that Iraq could "successfully fabricate a working nuclear bomb if they managed to acquire a sufficient amount of fissile material". They operated on this assumption because, "“Iraq has never surrendered to inspectors its two completed designs for a nuclear bomb, nuclear-bomb components such as explosive lenses and neutron initiators that it is known to have possessed, or almost any documentation of its efforts to enrich uranium to bomb-grade using gas centrifuges, devices which are small and readily concealed from reconnaissance."

As a result, even Mohammed ElBaredei stated in 1998 that they could not be certain about the state of Iraq's nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the IISS released a report stating that if Iraq "were to obtain fissile material from abroad --- steal it or buy it in some way --- we certainly believe [Saddam] has the ability to put together a nuclear weapon very quickly, in a matter of months."

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 2, 2004 01:30 PM

but you're not welcome to infer or imply that I'm lying.

I see. So Steverino is welcome to call me a liar?

The facts are there--either you're confused or you've deliberately decided to interpret the facts differently from reality.

The WaPo article I cited said Wilson's report to the CIA and State Dept and the Embassy in Niger stated "that a former Niger official told him that "in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.""

A reasonable observer would note that Wilson had disclosed this fact to the CIA and appropriate appointed administration officials. So, the 'revelation' in Wilson's recent book isn't a revelation and changes nothing.

Further, George Tenet knew what Wilson's Niger report had said. And knowing this, he still apologized for providing bad information WRT the Niger/Iraq yellowcake issue.

Still further, this appointed adminstration knew what Wilson's Niger report contained. And they apologized for the Bush claim WRT yellowcake in the SoTU.

There's no way anybody could interpret this as anything but a lie. Even the WH has acknowledged it.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 01:38 PM

That's why I knew that he had mis-spoken about the origins of the report. (IISS, rather than IAEA)

Does "mis-spoken" mean "lie?"

The IISS report you refer to was released 9 Sep 2002. And it did not contain any 6 month estimate. It does say that Iraq "could assemble nuclear weapons" if (and here's the big 'if') they could obtain fissile material.

Golly, most of the 205 nations on earth could assemble nukes if they obtained fissile material.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 01:45 PM

Does "mis-spoken" mean "lie?"

- - -No, it means "mis-spoken". Considering how often his critics claim he has problems with the english language - and he does - I find it amusing that those same critics will conveniently forget that fact when they don't like the "mis-speak" angle.

"And it did not contain any 6 month estimate. It does say that Iraq "could assemble nuclear weapons" if (and here's the big 'if') they could obtain fissile material."

- - -Uh huh. However, if you look at the transcript, he appears to be saying that the report dates back to the 90s.

More recent reports may have brought it back to the forefront - even caused confusion about names/dates....but the point stands. Multiple agencies believed - at one time or another - that Saddam could be within months of possessing nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 2, 2004 02:02 PM

Again, Mr. Henke, to misspeak does not mean to add time frames or dates that are not there. That is known as lying.

Nor does he refer to either report as from the 1990s--he calls it a "new" report. The claim it was from the 1990s came later from his spokesperson. Of course, teven if we accept the report was from the 1990s--what relevance does that add?

I'd also note the caveat in the IISS report is pretty significant. Virtually every country could assemble a nuke if they have fissile material. Heck, most individuals could assemble a low yield nuclear weapon without much difficulty--if they had fissile material.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 02:23 PM

but you're not welcome to infer or imply that I'm lying.

I see. So Steverino is welcome to call me a liar?

That's between you and Steverino, just as the ad hominum between you and Beck was left to you and Beck.

This is about you and me. And it stands as stated. The ball's in your court.

The facts are there--either you're confused or you've deliberately decided to interpret the facts differently from reality.

Well that's quite a bit different than "not telling the truth" isn't it?

There's no way anybody could interpret this as anything but a lie. Even the WH has acknowledged it.

But it all absolutely ignores the fact that what was cited by Bush was a BRITISH intelligence report. And it is now been proven, by Wilson, to have been factually correct.

So again, where is the lie?

Posted by: McQ at May 2, 2004 02:37 PM

"Nor does he refer to either report as from the 1990s--he calls it a "new" report."

- - -Here's the full quote:
"We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

Note, please, that he switches from talking about the "new" report to a discussion of the period when the inspectors were "finally denied access". That is the time period for that particular cited report. (though, the IISS report also gives background)

"Of course, teven if we accept the report was from the 1990s--what relevance does that add?"

- - -We can assume that what was true then, in the absence of additional information, may still be true.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 2, 2004 02:42 PM

Well that's quite a bit different than "not telling the truth" isn't it?

Not really; I'd have expected you to read the relevant cites and follow the timeline and come to a reasonable conclusion. You elected not to.

Again, the 'revelation' in Wilson's book was not a revelation at all. It was in his brief to the CIA and the State Dept. at the time. To pretend this is new and contradictory is dishonest.

But it all absolutely ignores the fact that what was cited by Bush was a BRITISH intelligence report. And it is now been proven, by Wilson, to have been factually correct

Not relevant. Bush had Wilson's report. He also had CIA intelligence strongly suggesting the British intelligence was suspect. In essence, you have one source saying this intelligence 'might' be accurate and two sources strongly suggesting it is not. Why on earth would you put this out in a SoTU as fact?

The answer is very obvious.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 03:03 PM

Mr. Henke: Does it hurt to perform those contortions?

If we are to accept your explanation as a case for mis-speaking--there remain several questions.

At the time when inspectors were "finally denied access" would have referred to an IAEA report of 1998. This report did say that Iraq was six to 24 months away from developing a weapon before the Gulf War in 1991,* but its efforts to produce weapons-grade uranium were largely crippled by the war and subsequent inspection regime.

* my emphasis added

Thus, Bush was trying to sell a war based on a potential (assuming Iraq could get its hands on fissile material) threat in 1991. A threat which --the report noted--had not come to fruition and was, indeed, crippled.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 03:10 PM

Not really; I'd have expected you to read the relevant cites and follow the timeline and come to a reasonable conclusion. You elected not to.

Your definition of a 'reaonable conclusion' seems to require ingnoring relevant info ... which is why I didn't arrive at YOUR "reasonable conclusion".

Again, the 'revelation' in Wilson's book was not a revelation at all. It was in his brief to the CIA and the State Dept. at the time. To pretend this is new and contradictory is dishonest.

Then please produce the name cited in his book as it was included in the brief to the CIA and State Dept.

To not be able to produce it would mean its new and contradictory.

To pretend to not understand that specifically naming an individual who made overtures concerning buying uranium for Iraq changes the entire equation would put you in the 'unreasonable conclusion' category you so badly wish to put me in.

Not relevant. Bush had Wilson's report. He also had CIA intelligence strongly suggesting the British intelligence was suspect. In essence, you have one source saying this intelligence 'might' be accurate and two sources strongly suggesting it is not. Why on earth would you put this out in a SoTU as fact?

The answer is very obvious.

Completely relevant ... inconvenient to your point but totally relevant... it wasn't Wilson or the CIA's report he cited ... it was the British report ... and, as it turns out, the British report was CORRECT.

Again ... where's the lie?

Posted by: McQ at May 2, 2004 03:21 PM

Then please produce the name cited in his book as it was included in the brief to the CIA and State Dept.

It doesn't matter. Let's try to remember the purpose of the Wilson mission--to find out if Niger had sold Iraq yellowcake. There was no evidence to support such a finding.

In his brief to the US Mission to Niger, the CIA, and the State Dept, Wilson relayed this finding. He also noted a former Niger official told him that "in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

Wilson's recent book has now put a name (Baghdad Bob) to the Iraqi in question.

As I noted earlier, to pretend this is new information or even slightly contradictory is foolish and dishonest.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 03:46 PM

WRT the British intelligence report, this refers to some documents, found in Italy, that purported Saddam had purchased 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger.

The documents, a series of letters dated from July to October 2000, were actually crude forgeries. They referred to Niger agencies that no longer existed and bore the signature of a foreign minister who had not served in the post for more than a decade. Italian investigators, thieves who broke into the Niger Embassy stolen letterhead stationery and official seals that could be copied to create bogus documents.

Again, at the time Bush cited British intelligence--our intelligence services (as well as Wilson) had already concluded these documents were fakes.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 03:53 PM

"to pretend this is new information or even slightly contradictory is foolish and dishonest."

- - -It certainly wasn't mentioned in his "What I didn't find in Africa" column in the NYTimes, which started this whole thing. Funny, that he wrote the column in response to Bush's claiming that Iraq had SOUGHT uranium - in order to discredit Bush's statement - but left out the fact that Iraq HAD sought uranium.

So, yeah....it is new information. At least, it's new that Wilson is owning up to it in public.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 2, 2004 03:59 PM

WRT to forged Italian documents--it should be noted that the documents were so obviously forgeries that the US Station Chief in Rome didn't even bother to forward them to CIA HQ. CIA HQ eventually got them via the Italian media.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 04:00 PM

WRT the British intelligence report, this refers to some documents, found in Italy, that purported Saddam had purchased 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger.

- - -If you'll look further, you'll find that the Brit intel report reached that conclusion on the basis of more information than simply those documents. The reason it should not have reached the SOTU is that we don't know what the additional information IS. We simply know their conclusion, rather than the source and raw data.

Bush shouldn't have mentioned it without the CIA being able to vet it. But that doesn't imply dishonesty.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 2, 2004 04:03 PM

Again, Mr. Henke, the CIA did vet it. And they found it highly suspect.

And you had Wilson checking out the claims in Niger and finding nothing to them.

Let's also not forget the Brits haven't exactly had the best track record WRT intelligence. Remember, the British dossier championed by Colin Powell? The one that was largely plagiarized from an essay written in September of 2002 by a graduate student from California named Ibrahim al-Marashi? What's even more ludicrous is the fact the British dossier claimed to be the most up-to-date intelligence on Iraq---but was actually plagiarized from a grad student's paper about Iraq in 1991-92.

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 04:34 PM

It doesn't matter. Let's try to remember the purpose of the Wilson mission--to find out if Niger had sold Iraq yellowcake. There was no evidence to support such a finding.

Nonsense. The 'matter' has to do with whether THIS is true or not:

'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

Wilson says in his book that indeed Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, aka "Baghdad Bob",
was identified as the Iraqi official who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

Wilson was sent to determine if Iraq had PURCHASED enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Not just looked for it, but indeed PURCHASED it.

Per Wilson:

"I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Wilson found no evidence of that.

But ... one more time for those who still don't get it ... THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED.

Bush said: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

Note the word 'sought'. That doesn't mean 'bought'. And Wilson makes it clear that Baghdad Bob most certainly 'sought' uranium in Africa.

So again: Where. Is. The. Lie?

As I noted earlier, to pretend this is new information or even slightly contradictory is foolish and dishonest.

Jade: cut the crap. Either debate without the name-calling or move on.

New: We now have a name which puts a face on the attempt to procure yellowcake. That gives the story relevance and crediblity.

Contradictory: It contradicts Wilson's claim:

"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

He was wrong.

And to stay on point: Wilson went there to find out if a transaction had ever taken place.

That was NOT the claim Bush made. Wilson did NOT go there to find out if Iraq had ever attempted to simply procure uranium.

So again: what did Bush claim?

That's Iraq had 'sought' uranium recently in Africa.

Recently: 1999

Place: Niger, Africa

Seeking uranium: Baghdad Bob of the Iraqi delegation.

Conlusion: Bush was correct.

Again: where is the lie?

Posted by: McQ at May 2, 2004 05:15 PM

Again, McQ, you're deliberately ignoring timelines. Immediately after his trip to Niger to investigate claims Iraq sought to purchase or had purchased yellowcake from Niger, Wilson briefed the CIA and State Dept.

These claims originated in a series of forged documents turned up in Italy and nearly immediately exposed as fake. These are at the heart of the British intelligence report on this subject. It should be pointed out that our CIA advised their British counterparts the Niger documents were forgeries.

This brings us back to Wilson. Wilson acknowledged in his briefing to the CIA and the State Dept. he had heard a former Niger official told him that "in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

But nothing had come of this. And what was there, anyway? A Niger official 'thinks' he was being urged to meet with Iraqis to discuss uranium? Again, the lack of any evidence is astounding. Once more, reference the WaPo article cited above. George Tenet admits it was a mistake for Bush to have referenced it in the SoTU. The NSC admits it was a mistake. The WH admits it was a mistake. Even British intelligence has admitted its report on yellowcake was flawed. All of these apologies and regrets occurred well after Joe Wilson's briefing to CIA and the State Dept.

It's purely fiction to suggest Bush didn't lie. Especially when we're talking about a decision to place our troops in harm's way. Unfortunately, McQ, it seems you're very willing to sign on to this fiction

Posted by: JadeGold at May 2, 2004 06:36 PM

Again, McQ, you're deliberately ignoring timelines. Immediately after his trip to Niger to investigate claims Iraq sought to purchase or had purchased yellowcake from Niger, Wilson briefed the CIA and State Dept.

OK ... last time through on this one.

Wilson and Bush were talking about TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Wilson was sent over there to find out if uranium had been SOLD to Iraq on the basis of some documents that claimed that was the case. He found no evidence of that.

Bush said BRITISH INTELLIGENCE had reported that Iraq had recently SOUGHT uranium in Africa.

That has been proven to be true. Bush didn't say Niger had sold Iraq uranium. Bush didn't say they'd bought anything. Bush was very clear about what he said ... and it has been proven to be true.

The timeline you keep pushing is IRRELEVANT.

OK ... I'm done with this nonsense.

Posted by: McQ at May 2, 2004 07:04 PM

Jon & McQ -

Please stop feeding the troll. He/she/it was banned from John Cole's site for just this very nonsense.

Jadegold is Lucy and wants you two to be Charlie Brown, but instead of moving the football, this troll moves the goalposts.

I am beginning to feel about Jadegold here how I did about Tony Foresta at Bill Quick's site. It's painful to read its deliberately obtuse and, while polite and well-spoken, annoying comments here.

John Walker

Posted by: A fine scotch at May 3, 2004 10:08 AM

John: While I appreciate your point, JadeGold actually provides a valuable service. He continues to point out the bankruptcy of some arguments.

I for one encourage that for the benefit of other readers who wonder. I assume most of those readers are intelligent enough to weigh the two sides and decide which has validity.

Posted by: McQ at May 3, 2004 10:19 AM