QandO

Dale,
I think that many of your readers are probably either pro Bush or undecided. Just from my own memory, most of the Bush-lied, I don't care if Kerry did sentiment does not come from regulars here. Obviously these people could be lurking and not posting, although if they post once or twice and then stop, I'm not sure what their motivation could be. I'm not sure that I'm making a whole lot of sense here, but off the cuff that is what I think is happening.

Posted by: Curt Mitchell at August 18, 2004 01:17 PM

Dale,

I think you're mistaking how people choose who they're voting for.

Aside from the people who've fallen in hate with Bush who will vote for Kerry no matter what and are probably leaving comments here because they want to convert you, most people, when deciding who to vote for, weigh the benefits and drawbacks, and in the event that Kerry is found to be a liar, they have decided that while it is a drawback, he's still not as bad as Bush from where they sit, whether it's because they think Bush is a bigger liar, or because they agree with Kerry's policies more, or whatever.

For example, I wish Bush would have been a bit quicker about releasing his military records, and I think the Medicare prescription drug benefit was a bad idea. That said, I'm almost certainly not voting for Kerry because by my calculations, Bush is still significantly ahead.

Posted by: John A. Kalb at August 18, 2004 02:36 PM

If Bush should have released his records sooner, explain why no call for Kery to sign the 180 and release HIS records.

Posted by: Bithead at August 18, 2004 03:30 PM

Maybe you are addressing people like me. So I will respond.

First, of course I don't concede that Kerry is lying about anything concerning his service in Vietnam.

Second, there are probably a fair number of people who come to this site and not only read your posts, but read the comments section as well. Some of them may be uncommitted voters. Therefore, I feel that I have a duty to correct the errors - both in fact and in judgment - that I see on this site. Maybe I will influence one voter.

Third, as for your question about lies, and what matters, set Kerry aside for a moment. Let's look at Clinton instead. Clinton lied under oath in a judicial proceeding. That is a serious lie. Bush has not lied under oath, but he has lied. And his lies have made us weaker and gotten Americans killed. Now, if Clinton could run against Bush, I would still vote for Clinton. Why? Because, his lies, while serious, did not make America weaker and less safe, and did not get anyone killed. Now, you may disagree that this has been the effect of Bush's lies, but if you cannot discern the difference, then there is no reasoning with you. I believe most right-wingers do understand this, because I do not believe they are stupid. I also believe, however, that they are unwilling to acknowledge they do, because to do so would cause their whole belief system to crumble.

Even if Kerry has lied, no one, and I mean no one, has claimed that his lies has caused America to be less safe and gotten Americans killed. Suprisingly, not even the nuttiest of the wingnuts has made this claim. And with good reason - because there is nothing to support this notion.

And this is the fallacy of your position. Clinton lied about getting a BJ. Do I think, therefore, that he would tell lies to take us to war? No, I don't. Human beings are more complex than you make them out to be.

A good example is Eisenhower. Eisenhower lied to the American people about U2 spy planes. He said Powers' plane was a on a weather related mission. Does that mean that I think Ike would have lied to take us into war? No. But you do. This is where your reasoning goes off the rails. Just because a person lies in one area of his life, does not mean he would lie in another. It's possible, of course. But it is not automatic.

And more to the point, it takes an incredible amount of cynicism and incredible leap in logic to think that a man who lies about his war experiences would therefore tell a lie to take us into a war. It's possible, of course, but highly unlikely, especially when the person has been in combat. It's even less likely when the person has served in the US Senate for 18 years and not even the nuttiest of the wingnuts claims the person has told lies about information that was not available to the general public. I mean why would Kerry wait 18 years to start telling lies about information not available to the public? But under your theory, Kerry is a pathaloogical liar. Ok, so name one lie he has told about classified information - aside from anything having to do with his personal war record - in order to persuade people to his side on a policy issue? Name one. I have lied in my life. So have you. But I have never lied knowing my lie could get people killed. Neither have you I bet. And neither has John Kerry. And you know that.

Which brings us back to Bush. Bush has done exactly that. He is an apple to Kerry's orange. Bush has demonstrated that he will purposefly omit, exaggerate, mislead and even lie to get America into a war. And we are weaker, and Americans are being killed. And for what? What is the plan? Read George Will today for more on this subject.

So lets assume Bush lied about the war and Kerry lied about his war record. Lets just assume that. If you cannot tell the difference, well then I would hate to be you.

Posted by: mklutra at August 18, 2004 03:33 PM

Bush has demonstrated that he will purposefly omit, exaggerate, mislead and even lie to get America into a war.

mklutra, this is the core of your argument. Unfortunately for you, multiple commissions in multiple countries looked into this issue and concluded otherwise. Just what evidence do you have that those commissions did not have that forces you to disagree with them?

Even if Kerry has lied, no one, and I mean no one, has claimed that his lies has caused America to be less safe and gotten Americans killed.

But some people have claimed that. I can't speak to the truthfulness of the claim, but some POWs say that the Viet Cong were encouraged by Kerry's testimonies (which Kerry has also now modified") back in the 70's. POWs were taunted by that--isn't that "less safe"? And the many thousands of boat people from Viet Name show that many people were killed, even if they weren't Americans.

I don't concede that Kerry is lying about anything concerning his service in Vietnam.

Then what is your conclusion based on Kerry's "seared--seared" memory that he has already modified?

Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 18, 2004 03:51 PM

Actually, no commission has looked into whether Bush lied, so stop lying about that. The Butler Commission was not charged with that task. Neither was the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, it's uncontested by all sides that the 9/11 commission was not allowed to look into how the Bush administration used pre-war intelligence.

Posted by: mkultra at August 18, 2004 03:57 PM

This is perhaps the best summary of how Bush misled the country into war:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

It's factual, documented, and comprehensive.

Posted by: mklutra at August 18, 2004 04:00 PM

The best part of the article from In These Times is at the end, where Gloria Borger catches Cheney in a lie so flat it makes Kansas look like Colorado.

Posted by: mkultra at August 18, 2004 04:06 PM

What lies, specifically, did Mr. Bush tell?

One also notes that Mr. Clinton told us that the facotry he bombed in Sudan was a facility involved in making chemical weapons. It was, in fact, and aspirin production facility. Did Mr. Clinton lie?

The reason I ask is because, even though no comission has looked specifically into whether Mr. Bush has lied ( a rather disingenuous qualification on your part), several have looked into the information about which Mr. Bush is supposed to have lied. Mr. Bush may have been incoreect, but, as far as we've been able to determine so far, he was telling us what various intelligence services were telling him.

So, unless you posit that Mr. Bush somehow knew something different than what the intelligence was saying, he could not have lied, in the sense that a lie is telling a deliberate untruth. So, what is your evidence that Mr. Bush lied, and what lies did he tell?

It seems to me that if you are going to make the charge, some specificity is required.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 18, 2004 04:09 PM

I put this in another blog, but I think mklutra should read it, because in its last paragraphs, its highlights the importance for character in the presidency, and why Kerry's lying about his history should worry voters.

(This follows from a longer post about Kerry's medals)

Its not entirely false to say he [Kerry] was an opportunist. While I don't think he purposely put himself in these situations or purposely injured himself to win Purple Hearts, I am pretty well assured that he exploited and exaggerated many events to his benefit.

That comes to my point about character. I personally won't vote for Kerry just because of his opportunism. He seems too willing to tell embellish stories, tell lies, and denigrate the characters of others for his own gain. I don't think its a stretch to estimate he will generally put his needs over the needs of others. He will consider how he can benefit from a situation before he thinks about how it affects others. I think we've seen this a few years ago...*cough* Clinton campaign money *cough* China *cough* nuclear secrets *cough*. (man, how does NK keep moving ahead on its nuclear program???)... Not exactly what I'd want in a president. He can lead himself appropriately, but can he lead the American people? [What was that about lies not hurting American interests?]

As Kerry says, judge him by his record. His intentions and promises often belie his record, as is evidenced by the recent Cambodia kerfuffle. (Any Best of the Web Today readers: I just had to add a notch to that word count). He lied about the integrity and honesty of his entire chain of command, just so he could have a flowery story for his "turning-point" in life. Let me just say this on behalf of Hoffman et al: "Thanks...ASS!"

As for his running mate, the same line should be delivered on behalf of all doctors in NC, as legitimized by the second to last paragraph in this column.

I'm sure the doctors thinking along the same lines. "Gee, you bankrupted and ruined my career solely for the purpose of shifting millions of dollars into your own pockets, but I can't despise you for that."

Mklutra, you go on and on about how Bush lied, without providing any evidence. I'm wondering whose credibilty you stake these claims on. I really hope you haven't been believing every bit of "literary flair" issued by Joe Wilson (Yeah, remember him? He's one of those leftwing loonies who held conspiracy theories about Bush. The press kind of dumped him after it turned out he made riduculous claims rivalling Gore's Internet Claim in absurdity). You say commissions, didn't look into lying. This is true, no commission was ever set out with the purpose: "Did Bush Lie?" However, when people say you lied about the presence of WMDs, and every commission says the evidence pointed to their presence, and there was no evidence to the contrary, its kinda devastating to the whole "lied" theme. Its like saying doctors lied in the 50s when they said that smoking didn't cause cancer. All the evidence pointed towards yes, nothing said no. (I also want to point out a recent story on the strong evidence of Saddam moving several truckloads of "stuff" to Syria days before the invasion.)

In order to garner any credibility, you really have to back up your claims with evidence, and logical conclusions from evidence. Simply stating something that is unproven, then spinning a conspiracy theory, just makes you look like a jackass.

Note: I know you're particularly sensitive about ad hominem attacks and name-calling. I just want to point out that I did not call you a jackass, I said you present yourself as a jackass when you argue without evidence.

Posted by: Chris at August 18, 2004 04:20 PM

I apologize now for the lack of evidence comment, I was writing that last post in between your postings. While not appropriate for the situation now, there is still truth in my comments.

Posted by: Chris at August 18, 2004 04:23 PM

You want proof?

READ THE LINKED ARTICLE!
READ THE LINKED ARTICLE!
READ THE LINKED ARTICLE!

I am so tired of right wingers demanding proof of Bush's deceptions and then, when you provide the proof, they ask, where is your proof?

And when you get done with the article, explain what parts are wrong and why. And please back up your contentions with sources.

Thank you

Posted by: mkultra at August 18, 2004 04:39 PM

Dale:

I will say this only one more time: Read the linked article from In These Times. And then tell me what parts you disagree with and why. And cite your sources.

What part of "read the linked article" do you not understand??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Posted by: mklutra at August 18, 2004 04:42 PM

Dale:

The reason I said that no commission had looked into whether Bush lied is because Rory said multiple commissions had done so.

You agree I am telling the truth. You can see that I am responding to someone's false assertion to the contrary, and you claim that I am being disingenious? What is wrong with you?

Posted by: mklutra at August 18, 2004 04:45 PM

Mklutra, I just read your link. I have to say it was pretty weak at best. Much of it is "hindsight evidence". Sure, its easy to look at all the evidence laid out right now and determine one thing, but its a great deal more difficult to make the decision when you're presented with contradicting facts and you are responsible for the well-being of your country.

There is a consistent lack of concentrated evidence in the article. They pull at straws (to use the phrase of the day apparently) to make their case. I.e. there are 100 reports that say one thing, and 2 that say the opposite. Its easy in hindsight to say Bush knew about the evidence to the contrary, and conveniently overlook the overwhelming evidence debunking this claim.

The authors use a 1997 report, hoping that it still holds evidence for 2003. If thats not lacking in intellect, I dont know what is. I guess building WMDs doesn't take months, but decades in the eyes of the authors!

The authors even deliberately mis-state findings of key pieces of evidence.

Ten months before the president’s speech, an intelligence review by CIA Director George Tenet contained not a single mention of an imminent nuclear threat—or capability—from Iraq. The CIA was backed up by Bush’s own State Department: Around the time Bush gave his speech, the department’s intelligence bureau said that evidence did not “add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

If you follow the links, they explicitly outline the threat of Iraq pursuing WMDs and ACWs, simply stating they can't report with confidence the time frame of intended use.

They also conveniently leave out parts of quotes from reports such as this:

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

What the first quote should read is: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely"

Quite frankly, its a hatchet job on the facts. If you cross-reference their links, they don't support their claims. It is exceedingly lacking in journalistic integrity.

Posted by: Chris at August 18, 2004 04:55 PM

I'm in the middle of "family stuff", so I don't have time to delve into it, but I have the same impression as Chris on the linked story. It's tendentious, hyperpartisan stuff. (actually, I've discussed David Sirota a couple times on this blog, and that has been my experience with him....willing to sacrifice context--i.e., "honesty"--for a "gotcha")

As Kevin Drum--yes, Kevin Drum--pointed out awhile back, the only major "in the know" figure who suggested, prior to the war, that Iraq did not have WMDs was Vladimir Putin. Other than that, the universal assumption among relevant people was that Iraq did have them.

Posted by: Jon Henke at August 18, 2004 05:04 PM

Seriously guys, if you want to take a look at piss-poor journalism, read the story mklutra is linking. While going through the story, make sure you read the linked articles in the story as well. It's typical propaganda-journalism. Much of its quotes are taken out of context, and its really a disgrace for whatever paper ran the article.

Posted by: Chris at August 18, 2004 05:05 PM

From your link, mkultra:

As the 9/11 Commission recently reported, there was “no credible evidence” of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

That's been beaten to death on this blog.

1. There were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. They weren't working together every day, but Iraq did provide logistcal support and even offered safe haven to AQ. Even the 9/11 Commission said as much. And no one said that Iraq and AQ collaborated on 9/11.

2. Iraq had ties to several other terrorist groups, such as Ansar al Islam and Hamas. Hussein personally gave money to families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Based just on that, the invasion of Iraq was worth it, because it took out a strategic support for international terrorism.

Similarly, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

That's a flat out lie. We've found some 3 dozen Sarin and mustard gas shells. Granted, that's not the stockpiles we were expecting, but that's not NOTHING.

Just in the second paragraph, your article is caught in two complete falsehoods.

Posted by: Steverino at August 18, 2004 05:13 PM

What part of "read the linked article" do you not understand???????

Since you aren't keeping up with current events, let me tell you how this whole web thing works.

You leave a comment. I read it, and decide to respond. While I am writing my comment, you post an article that answers it.

Since, I can't see that new post, busy as I am writing in a window that only shows the comments that existed before you posted it, I have no idea that it's there. I don't see it until after I post my comment.

Things on the web don't update automatically. When I see a page, I see it as it was at a particular point in time.

It'd really be a lot more helpful if you could figure that out, and didn't act like such an ass. Because, as soon as your dick switch turns on, it makes me just want to tell you to f*ck off.

If you can't be civil, then shut the f*ck up.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 18, 2004 05:32 PM

You agree I am telling the truth. You can see that I am responding to someone's false assertion to the contrary, and you claim that I am being disingenious? What is wrong with you?

What is wrong is that it is hyper-legalistic. For example, when someone says that the Butler comission shows that Bush didn't lie about Iraq's uranium forays into Africa, it is presumed that the reader understands it to mean that since the Butler report concluded that Iraq did, in fact, try to obtain uranium from Africa, so statements to that effect were truthful.

Countering by saying the Butler report didn't specifically look into whther Bush had lied is disingenuous, since the logical conclusion from the Butler Report is that Bush did, in fact, tell the truth on that point.

The clear--and common--meaning of the commentors post was that the various commissions had come to the same conclusions that Bush had publicly stated. If, then, one believes the commission reports, then the only possible logical inference is that Bush was, in fact, telling the truth as he knew it. The commission, therefore, does not, as a separate matter, have to seek an answer to whether or not Bush lied, since, if the conclusions they both come to are congruent, Bush could not have lied by stating them previously.

I should have thought that would be obvious, so an apparent attempt to dismiss it is either disengenuous or the sign of a tenuous grasp of logic.

Forgive me for not assuming the latter.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 18, 2004 05:42 PM

From the left zine Counterpunch:
Hail, the Conquering War Criminal Comes!
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

So if true he is personally responsible for the death of innocents by his very own hand!

(and since it's not from rightwingers it MUST BE TRUE)

Posted by: hank at August 18, 2004 05:55 PM

Dale:

Here is what Condi's boy Stevie said:

Stephen Hadley, America's deputy national security adviser who reports to Condoleezza Rice, said he should have deleted a reference to claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa from George W Bush's State of the Union speech in January.

The Butler report is wrong on this one. If you trace back the sources on which it relies, there are two: forged documents and an unidentified source.

And if the Butler report were correct, why hasn't the Bush administration corrected itself and said that it was proper to include the reference? Answer: Because it wasn't.

Facts, Dale, are funny things, aren't they. You can play with logic all you want, but without facts, you lose.

Posted by: mkultra at August 18, 2004 08:04 PM

Mklutra, I have the feeling that you get your news from extremely partisan sources.

Hint: Media Matters and www.johnkerry.com are not credible sources...

Posted by: Chris at August 18, 2004 09:15 PM

Stephen Hadley, America's deputy national security adviser who reports to Condoleezza Rice, said he should have deleted a reference to claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa from George W Bush's State of the Union speech in January.

And perhaps he should've. But he didn't. So, because Hadley didn't take it out, that makes Mr. Bush a liar, how?

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 18, 2004 09:26 PM

mklutra:

First of all, Kerry's Cambodia lies could be more insidious than you suppose. Why would he lie about something like that, anyway? How does it fit in to the big picture? Here's a guy with obvious political aspirations who signed up for Vietnam, spent an unusually short amount of time there garnering medals under suspicious circumstances, came back and testified before congress and threw the same medals away, and climbed that ladder all the way to the US Senate. Did Kerry look at the sentiments of his generation, and banking that they were "the future" go to Vietnam in order that he could come back and make big political capital among them by accusing his fellow servicemen of war crimes? That context makes Kerry's Cambodia lie make sense, and it unfortunately would mean that he is even more a pathological liar than Clinton was in his darkest moments. One could still hold out hope that there is evidence waiting to come out, and that Kerry is holding it ala "rope-a-dope" until, oh say, just after the Republican convention. But that possibility is fading fast, given that Kerry's entire chain of command denies it.

All of the instances cited by you of Bush or Cheney lying are either differences of interpretation (ie- the importance of known Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein) or are ridiculously trivial (ie- Borger caught Cheney saying "boo" in one interview when he previaously said "bah".) I look at the WMD or the Al Qaeda issue in a different way: one is trying to exclude a possibility at a certain level of confidence. In other words, the error in the measurement of WMD or terror links is just as important as the mean value of that measurement. I now draw your attention to the last UNSCOM report at the UN web site, paragraphs 12 through 15.

12. Three basic points about this disarmament record need to be made. First, the overall period of the Commission's disarmament work must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. General Hussein Kamal. This which resulted in the provision to the Commission of an extensive cache of documents on Iraq’s prohibited programmes. (...) Iraq's current claims that; it has fulfilled all of its disarmament obligations in each weapons area; ceased concealment policies and actions; and, that it has neither proscribed weapons nor the ability to make them are not able to be verified.

Regardless of what Blix actually found, no one would seriously be able to assign a high level of confidence to the findings of UNMOVIC after the experience of UNSCOM. The answer of course is that war was a foregone conclusion as long as Hussein stayed in power given the new requirements on the above condifence level, post 9/11. (Aside: in that view, the French, Russians, Germans, and the myriad antiwar protestors, as well as the laughably unconvincing run up to UNSC 1441, helped convince Saddam that he could ride out the storm and thus trgically made war MORE likely.) Now, did Bush lie? If so, I wonder if he did it in order to bring democracy to Iraq or greater public scrutiny to Haliburton's government contracts.

Posted by: pdq332 at August 18, 2004 10:33 PM

For me the separation is lies about the past vs lies about the future. Lies about the past are much worse. I'm not sure that lies about the future are even lies.

Campaign promises - future
Monica - past
Cambodia - past
WMD in Iraq - future
Watergate - past
Weather reports - future
I'm a virgin - past
I'll love you forever - future

Posted by: John Davies at August 19, 2004 09:54 AM

Dale Franks writes,

So, here's my question for those of you who think the Swiftvets stuff, and the Cambodia stuff, and John Kerry's Magic Hat are all just lies told by Kerry's detractors. What if it's all true?

Then why did all those people so fervently testifying to it in affidavits now say nothing then?

Why did they keep silent for 35 ghuforsaken YEARS and allow Kerry to (a) receive medals, (b) become a public prosecutor, (c) become lieutenant governor, (d) become a senator, (e) join prestigious Senate committees like Intelligence and Foreign Relations, and (f) keep getting re-elected, a career that has showered him with honors, without raising their voices to expose these lies?

Even John O'Neill, attacking Kerry in 1971 with the full backing of the Nixon White House — known for its willingness to use any dirt it could dig up (or even plausibly invent) on its political enemies — said nothing then about these allegations!   Why were O'Neill and Nixon complicit by silence?

It gets worse.   Some of these people actually put themselves on the record supporting and defending Kerry and his record, right up until he starting running against George W. Bush.

To quote Kevin Drum at Political Animal:

Roy Hoffman, today: "John Kerry has not been honest."
Roy Hoffman, 2003: "I am not going to say anything negative about him — he's a good man."

Adrian Lonsdale, today: "He lacks the capacity to lead."
Adrian Lonsdale, 1996: "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

George Elliot, today: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
George Elliot, 1996: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage."

Grant Hibbard, today: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate."
Hibbard's evaluation of Kerry, 1968: "Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of 'one of the top few' in three categories—initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, 'above the majority,' in military bearing."

Indeed, why did Admiral Zumwalt, the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam, make a point of personally awarding the Silver Star to Kerry — and never try to retract that honor, to the end of his days (2000)?

It gets even worse than that.   Some highly respected Republicans STILL support and defend Kerry's military record.

New York Daily News, 08/16/04:

Ex-Navy chief: Kerry earned Nam medals

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that John Kerry "deserved" his combat medals for heroism in Vietnam, which some vets have disputed.

Sen. John Warner, an ex-Navy secretary under President Richard Nixon, particularly defended the process by which Kerry won his highest honor, the Silver Star.

"I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition," Warner (R-Va.) told CNN's "Late Edition."

"We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal [the Silver Star], a very high one, when it goes through the secretary," Warner said. "I feel that he deserved it."

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and a Vietnam War veteran himself, denounced the [SBVT] ad against Kerry in the strongest terms: "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable."

How can so many honored men have been corrupted so badly?

And how is it that Bush, Cheney, and crew — who, let's face it, are pushovers for any lobbyist with enough cash — are impervious to this corruption... when otherwise they might be the most corrupt politicians in Washington?

How did Warner and McCain succumb, when Bush and Cheney stayed pure?

Oh, the evil goes deep, deep, and it must be rooted out!

Let there be witch-hunts, I say, let there be an Inquisition, until every Kerry-sympathizer is caught and confined to Guantanamo for life under torture, without trial, hearing, or the right to an attorney!

Hmmmm... but is Gitmo really ready to hold 200 million Americans?

Posted by: Raven at August 22, 2004 11:24 AM

I'm sorry, I failed to use the current buzzword.

For all occurrences of "corrupt" above, please substitute "business-friendly".

Posted by: Raven at August 23, 2004 01:40 AM