N.C. republican loses his mind...

[Tiger Al 0]

U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, the congressman who coined the term "freedom fries" as a show of support for the war in Iraq, said Sunday he will be among the congressmen introducing legislation this week calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.

Jones, the Republican who made sure Capitol Hill cafeterias retooled their menus to advertise freedom fries instead of french fries to protest France's opposition to the Iraq war, said on ABC-TV's "This Week" that reason for invading Iraq - weapons of mass destruction - has proved false.

"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed - it's almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded - and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," said Jones, who voted for the war.

But now, he said, "I feel that we've done about as much as we can do."

When asked whom he blamed for the U.S. failure to plan in Iraq, Jones said he believed neoconservatives in the Defense Department gave bad advice.

President Bush has said that any timetable for withdrawal would encourage insurgents to wait for the foreign troops to leave. But Jones said he believed Iraqis can defend their own country.

"I believe that once we train the Iraqi people to defend their country, then it should be their fight. How much can we do?," Jones said.

He said he didn't disagree with Sen. Joe Biden's assessment that civil war could break out once U.S. troops leave. But he said the United States lacks the troops to stay in Iraq for several more years, especially in light of the possibility of problems in Iran and North Korea.

"There could be other contingencies that would come about that we would need our military to defend and to fight," he said. "We don't have the numbers."

His stance leaves Jones sided with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., the most prominent Democrat calling for a timetable to leave Iraq. Jones said he had not discussed the issue with Kennedy.

"This is what I believe is the right thing to do for our military first; and secondly, I think we are doing everything we can do in Iraq to give them an opportunity to have a democracy, to defend themselves," Jones said.

Jones said he began changing his mind about the war after attending the funeral in April 2003 for Sgt. Michael Bitz, 31, at Camp Lejeune.

Bitz died March 23, along with eight comrades, in the southern city of Nasiriyah. He had two children and was about to become the father of twins, whom he never met

He recalled Bitz's widow, Janina, read the last letter she received from her husband. "And that really has been on my mind and my heart ever since," he said.

Jones, whose district includes Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point, has written condolence letters to the families of more than 1,300 service people killed in Iraq, and posters outside his congressional office show the faces of those killed.

Jones said he continues to support the troops, noting that the "men and women in uniform have done a magnificent job for this country and for the Iraqi people."

LINK

[AURaptor 1,125]

That's a good one. Bill Clinton is now a 'neocon' . Classic. Seems this guy is just wetting his finger and going which ever way the polling data blows. Now THERE'S real leadership for ya.

[rexbo 104]

That's why this guy is a Congressman and not the President; no backbone or heart for seeing the United States through on its goal of pushing the Middle East towards democracy. He cannot see past the end of his own nose or his own next re-election campaign...

[Tiger Al 0]

Two possible explanations, rexbo and Raptor. Certainly, I suppose, he could be of questionable character. I find it odd (not really) that neither of you attacked his story or reasoning for coming to the conclusion he has apparantly come to, but, instead launched straight into an attack of his alleged character and his assumed motives, which, when he was replacing "french" with "Freedom," were both just hunky-dorey. Another explanation that always seems to fly right by you guys is that maybe he realizes now that he was duped.

You seem to ignore what happened with UNMOVIC and its relevence to how we got to where we are now. This from the Downing Street Memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.

They thought that Saddam either wouldn't allow UNMOVIC back into Iraq or that he wouldn't give them "unfettered" access to any and all locations they wanted to inspect. NEITHER of these things happened. They were allowed in AND given "unfettered" access to any location our intel told them to go to find WMD. Site after site was clean. If you remember, as time went on and no WMD's were found, public opinion slightly began to shift. It was at this point that UNMOVIC was told to leave because military operations would soon begin. "Shock and Awe" then took over the headlines and to question the existence of WMD was heresy.

Raptor, whatever Clinton said, which, BTW, wasn't as pro-war as you think it is, the context you and others pull his quotes from was always from a "If Saddam...then..." context, but, whatever Clinton said in 1998 has no relevence to what happened in 2003. First, Clinton didn't believe that Saddam was enough of a threat to start a war with Iraq and, second, Clinton didn't have the foresight of UNMOVIC to verify his "facts" before the planes took off and the bombs fell. You can ignore the fact that we knew there were no WMD in Iraq if you like, but, it still won't go away.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Al, this thing has gone FAR past whether or not being in Iraq is the right or wrong thing to do. The bottom line is that now, for whatever reason, lies or not (and I still say NOT) we are there. We started it, now we are going to finish it, and the overall benefit will be to make the world a better place. IF the US is going to be thrust into this role by the UN when they see fit to spend our money and use our troops, then we should also be able to assume that role as we ourselves see fit. Politicians, esp Congressmen who are up for relection every two years, are incredibly shortsighted. This is not a one hour episode of your favorite Wednesday night drama where everything gets tied up neatly in a bow at 7:58.

I think Neal Boortz said it best today, better than I could:

If you were fighting a war, what would be the easiest way to hand a victory to your enemy?  It would seem the fastest way would be to announce the date you were going to quit fighting.  "Hey, you folks over there shooting at us.  If you'll just sit still and be quite until next October 25th, we'll pack up and leave!" .  Dumb idea, right?  Well, not according to Republican Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina.  He plans to offer legislation setting a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  This, without question, would be a total disaster.

If we announce that on such and such a date we're pulling out, what are the Islamic terrorists we've been fighting going to do?  They'll wait us out.  They will sit there waiting for the magic date to arrive, then attack whatever Iraq forces we leave behind.  Setting a date in advance amounts to cutting and running.

In the two years since we invaded Iraq, things are going well overall.  Yes, we have lost 1,700 American soldiers' lives and 12,000 have been seriously wounded.  But all of that will have been in vain if we just leave on some future date that we announce.  The Baathists would just lay in wait until the moment came.

The only way to handle Iraq is to stay the course, finish the job and then leave.  Not a day before. 

[Piglet 0]

We captured Saddam. We elected a new government. What is "the job" we still have to do before leaving? End violence in the middle east? Make the Iraqi government strong enough to keep down the insurgents by themselves--when right now, their police have to wear masks to hide their identities so they won't be killed in their homes when off duty? Seems like that's gonna take a while.

If Boortz is right, then the Baathists might as well just be figuring the US has gotta pull out sometime, and they'll be ready then. I suppose having a certain date is worse, but not having a certain date doesn't stop them either.

Instead of a timetable with dates, like "leave on October 25", how about one with objectives, like "reduce US presence to 10,000 troops once such and such domestic Iraqi security force is attained".

And yeah, it does seem kinda pointless in 2005 to be arguing about whether we should go in in 2003.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, this thing has gone FAR past whether or not being in Iraq is the right or wrong thing to do.

That isn't anywhere in my argument. But, so I'm clear on your position, we the people shouldn't be concerned that our country was taken to war based on lies because too much time has passed and it won't change the outcome anyway? Is that it, because that sure sounds like what you're saying to me?

The bottom line is that now, for whatever reason, lies or not (and I still say NOT) we are there. We started it, now we are going to finish it, and the overall benefit will be to make the world a better place.

There we have it...Jenny says "Not" so it must be so.

IF the US is going to be thrust into this role by the UN when they see fit to spend our money and use our troops, then we should also be able to assume that role as we ourselves see fit.

The US wasn't THRUST into Iraq by the UN, Jenny. You don't get to blame them. In fact, we were trying to get a UN resolution passed authorizing invasion and when it became apparant that we weren't going to get it, we pulled it off the table.

Politicians, esp Congressmen who are up for relection every two years, are incredibly shortsighted.

Unless, of course, they're selling more of what you've already bought and then they're a "learned insider" who's seen the evidence and know what they're talking about. No character issues or ulterior motives then, huh?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Al, this thing has gone FAR past whether or not being in Iraq is the right or wrong thing to do.

That isn't anywhere in my argument. But, so I'm clear on your position, we the people shouldn't be concerned that our country was taken to war based on lies because too much time has passed and it won't change the outcome anyway? Is that it, because that sure sounds like what you're saying to me?

I still don't understand why someone would HONESTLY think GWB and his administration are so evil and so corrupt as to deliberately and open and with malice aforethought LIE just to take out Sadaam. Hindsight is 20/20 and only those who hate this President and what he believes in would be silly enough to continue to think that this is some kind of conspiracy. The inteligence was faulty, but it sure is funny that it wasn't just the US that had this same evidence and it wasn't just the US that bought into it and it wasn't just this Administration that gave it credence.

The bottom line is that now, for whatever reason, lies or not (and I still say NOT) we are there. We started it, now we are going to finish it, and the overall benefit will be to make the world a better place.

There we have it...Jenny says "Not" so it must be so. Spare me the sarcasm, Al. I am entitled to an opinion, just like you. My opinion is that no one lied. You and anyone out there can agree or kiss my foot, whichever you choose.

IF the US is going to be thrust into this role by the UN when they see fit to spend our money and use our troops, then we should also be able to assume that role as we ourselves see fit.

The US wasn't THRUST into Iraq by the UN, Jenny. You don't get to blame them. In fact, we were trying to get a UN resolution passed authorizing invasion and when it became apparant that we weren't going to get it, we pulled it off the table. I never SAID that the UN thrust us into Iraq - you can't read. I said that the UN wants to use the US troops and US money when IT sees fit (Kosovo) so why can't the US also be able to decide where it wants to use its own money and its own troops (Iraq, Grenada, Panama)

Politicians, esp Congressmen who are up for relection every two years, are incredibly shortsighted.

Unless, of course, they're selling more of what you've already bought and then they're a "learned insider" who's seen the evidence and know what they're talking about. No character issues or ulterior motives then, huh? I am not even sure of what you are saying. However, I would sure as hell put more faith in the Administration than some Congressman of ANY party who has gone to Washington and decided he likes his job and the perks that go along with it, and now decides he or she will do anything and everything to keep said job. Maybe this guy is an honest man, who really believes he is right, and we were deliberately misled, well, then more power to him. If he takes this position and then gets re-elected, then he is truly a representative of his constituency. But you should also consider that maybe he is what I say he is - pandering to keep his job. In my book, either one is equally likely. And if his so-called "change of heart" does anything to cause harm to US troops, then I say he needs to go.

163893[/snapback]

[Tiger Al 0]

I still don't understand why someone would HONESTLY think GWB and his administration are so evil and so corrupt as to deliberately and open and with malice aforethought LIE just to take out Sadaam. Hindsight is 20/20 and only those who hate this President and what he believes in would be silly enough to continue to think that this is some kind of conspiracy. The inteligence was faulty, but it sure is funny that it wasn't just the US that had this same evidence and it wasn't just the US that bought into it and it wasn't just this Administration that gave it credence.

No hindsight needed as far as intelligence goes. Hindsight just confirms what the "average Joe" who ventured away from FoxNews suspected all along. The powers that be knew beforehand that, at the very least, the intelligence they had chosen to look at was wrong and, therefore, knew that the reasons given, WMD's, were a farce but chose to invade anyway. Why is the thought of a president lying to go to war so unbelievable? Haven't you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident???

I never SAID that the UN thrust us into Iraq - you can't read. I said that the UN wants to use the US troops and US money when IT sees fit (Kosovo) so why can't the US also be able to decide where it wants to use its own money and its own troops (Iraq, Grenada, Panama)

That's exactly what you said. "IF the US is going to be thrust into this role by the UN when they see fit to spend our money and use our troops, then we should also be able to assume that role as we ourselves see fit." And I would tend to agree with you up to the point that we lie and manipulate to justify assuming that role. If it's on the up-and-up, we don't need anyone's permission or blessing to defend our country.

I am not even sure of what you are saying. However, I would sure as hell put more faith in the Administration than some Congressman of ANY party who has gone to Washington and decided he likes his job and the perks that go along with it, and now decides he or she will do anything and everything to keep said job. Maybe this guy is an honest man, who really believes he is right, and we were deliberately misled, well, then more power to him. If he takes this position and then gets re-elected, then he is truly a representative of his constituency. But you should also consider that maybe he is what I say he is - pandering to keep his job. In my book, either one is equally likely. And if his so-called "change of heart" does anything to cause harm to US troops, then I say he needs to go.

You know exactly what I mean. As long as a Congressman, Senator, Mayor or radio talk-show host is saying what you want to hear, then their word is gold. However, if they should change their mind, they're only panning for votes, selling a book, hating America or any of the multitude of (non)defenses you guys come up with.

[AURaptor 1,125]

First, Clinton didn't believe that Saddam was enough of a threat to start a war with Iraq and, second, Clinton didn't have the foresight of UNMOVIC to verify his "facts" before the planes took off and the bombs fell. You can ignore the fact that we knew there were no WMD in Iraq if you like, but, it still won't go away.

No, Clinton only thought Saddam was enough of a threat to lob a few dozen Cruise Missles at....what? Iraq's (alleged) WMD sites. Now, either Clinton was ONLY using Iraq as his Wag the dog option to draw attention away from MonicaGate..OR he really believed that blowing up things in other countries was worth the risk..Impeachment or not.

A small thing like 9-11 occured since Clinton was in office, and that changed the nature of how we dealt w/ the Middle East.

Oh, and finally, we DIDN'T know there were no WMD's there. Only we knew that Saddam had not COMPLIED w/ UN resolutions. You want to give Saddam a pass, but not anyone else, not even President Bush. It's just that simple.

[Tiger Al 0]

No, Clinton only thought Saddam was enough of a threat to lob a few dozen Cruise Missles at....what? Iraq's (alleged) WMD sites. Now, either Clinton was ONLY using Iraq as his Wag the dog option to draw attention away from MonicaGate..OR he really believed that blowing up things in other countries was worth the risk..Impeachment or not.

I don't know anything about lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq, other than to destroy the Intelligence Ministry as retaliation because of an alleged plot to assasinate H.W.Bush. Again, he didn't think he was enough of a threat to commit any ground troops.

A small thing like 9-11 occured since Clinton was in office, and that changed the nature of how we dealt w/ the Middle East.

So, 9/11 makes it OK to lie?

Oh, and finally, we DIDN'T know there were no WMD's there. Only we knew that Saddam had not COMPLIED w/ UN resolutions. You want to give Saddam a pass, but not anyone else, not even President Bush. It's just that simple.

Raptor, you're smart so don't play dumb. If our best intelligence was proven wrong before we ever attacked, at the very least, don't you think that if disarmament was on Bush's mind he would've waited until WMD was found or Saddam quit cooperating? That's what he said he'd do.

[Piglet 0]

It looks to me like at worst, Bush did the same thing the Johnson Administration did with the Gulf of Tonkin. It didn't get LBJ impeached, and no one much cares about it now, so why is it a big deal?

You keep saying Bush LIED about it. I ain't convinced. Lying is strong words. He was wrong, and for the right reasons, making a judgment call that erred on the side of protecting Americans. That isn't underhanded, just a bit quick on the trigger. Aren't you willing to consider the possibility that Bush might be as dumb as the Democrats keep saying he is, and made a dumb mistake?

[AURaptor 1,125]

So, 9/11 makes it OK to lie?

There was no lie. You know it, and yet you perpetuate this nonsense for the sole purpose of attempting to score political 'gotchya' points w/ Bush. Sorry, but that horse you're beating has turned into dust. Give it up.

Oh, and finally, we DIDN'T know there were no WMD's there. Only we knew that Saddam had not COMPLIED w/ UN resolutions. You want to give Saddam a pass, but not anyone else, not even President Bush. It's just that simple.

Raptor, you're smart so don't play dumb. If our best intelligence was proven wrong before we ever attacked, at the very least, don't you think that if disarmament was on Bush's mind he would've waited until WMD was found or Saddam quit cooperating? That's what he said he'd do.

How many ******* times are we going to have to go over this??? ]The burden of proof was on SADDAM!!!!! NOT THE U.S.!! 17 UN RESOLUTION WERE PASSED AND THERE WAS A 15-0 SECURITY COUNCIL VOTE APPROVING FOR THE USE OF FORCE IF SADDAM DIDN'T COMPLY. HE DIDN'T COMPLY. GAME OVER!

[Tiger Al 0]

So, 9/11 makes it OK to lie?

There was no lie. You know it, and yet you perpetuate this nonsense for the sole purpose of attempting to score political 'gotchya' points w/ Bush. Sorry, but that horse you're beating has turned into dust. Give it up.

Oh, and finally, we DIDN'T know there were no WMD's there. Only we knew that Saddam had not COMPLIED w/ UN resolutions. You want to give Saddam a pass, but not anyone else, not even President Bush. It's just that simple.

Raptor, you're smart so don't play dumb. If our best intelligence was proven wrong before we ever attacked, at the very least, don't you think that if disarmament was on Bush's mind he would've waited until WMD was found or Saddam quit cooperating? That's what he said he'd do.

How many ******* times are we going to have to go over this??? ]The burden of proof was on SADDAM!!!!! NOT THE U.S.!! 17 UN RESOLUTION WERE PASSED AND THERE WAS A 15-0 SECURITY COUNCIL VOTE APPROVING FOR THE USE OF FORCE IF SADDAM DIDN'T COMPLY. HE DIDN'T COMPLY. GAME OVER!

163959[/snapback]

There was no such Security Council vote. Please show me. Why do you call "unfettered access" noncompliance?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Link to that which Tiger Al thinks never existed.

"The resolution sets out in clear terms Iraq's obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in ensuring the full and final disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction," said Annan. "It leaves no doubt as to what these obligations are, nor as to how they must be fulfilled. Iraq now has a new opportunity to comply with all the relevant resolutions of the Security Council."

"If Iraq's defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities," said the secretary-general, a reference to the possibility the council could eventually decide to authorize force. "It reflects a renewed commitment to preventing the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the universal wish to see this goal obtained by peaceful means."

It's all there... use of force, compliance on IRAQ's part, WMD.... how soon SOME folks forget.

[Tiger Al 0]

That's Resolution 1441. It does not authorize the use of force. If it did, this would make absolutely no sense:

a reference to the possibility the council could eventually decide to authorize force.

Why would the council "eventually decide to AUTHORIZE force" if 1441 authorized the use of force? Because, 1441 doesn't. This was to get UNMOVIC unconditional and unrestricted access into Iraq which it got and was getting. Bush and Powell then tried to get another UN resolution authorizing force, but, weren't getting the votes to get it passed so they withdrew the resolution. Remember the allegations of spying???

[AURaptor 1,125]

That's Resolution 1441. It does not authorize the use of force. If it did, this would make absolutely no sense:

a reference to the possibility the council could eventually decide to authorize force.

Why would the council "eventually decide to AUTHORIZE force" if 1441 authorized the use of force? Because, 1441 doesn't. This was to get UNMOVIC unconditional and unrestricted access into Iraq which it got and was getting. Bush and Powell then tried to get another UN resolution authorizing force, but, weren't getting the votes to get it passed so they withdrew the resolution. Remember the allegations of spying???

163968[/snapback]

Allegations of spying ? :huh: By who? Saddam? Please, you embarrass us both by that comment.

What's to argue about this? I've already shown you what you claim doesn't exist. There WAS such a Security Council vote, and Saddam did NOT comply. End of discussion.

[Tiger Al 0]

Allegations of spying ?  By who? Saddam? Please, you embarrass us both by that comment.

If you haven't heard about it, don't assume facts not in evidence. No, not by Saddam.

What's to argue about this? I've already shown you what you claim doesn't exist. There WAS such a Security Council vote, and Saddam did NOT comply. End of discussion.

Is it your position that we invaded Iraq because he did not comply with Resolution 1441? 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Allegations of spying ?  By who? Saddam? Please, you embarrass us both by that comment.

If you haven't heard about it, don't assume facts not in evidence. No, not by Saddam.

What's to argue about this? I've already shown you what you claim doesn't exist. There WAS such a Security Council vote, and Saddam did NOT comply. End of discussion.

Is it your position that we invaded Iraq because he did not comply with Resolution 1441? 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.

163970[/snapback]

Yes. Along w/ resolutions 678 and 687. *

Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here.  This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam.  Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith.  Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.

Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days.  He didn't make it.  In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait!  I forgot Resolution 678!  Forgive me!  Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference.  Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait.  This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.  Iraq didn't.  George H.W. Bush made him.)  So ... even if you went to a government school;  hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq.  We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.

Sorry, but 'Yes' or 'No' won't suffice. It was a culmination of over 10+ years of U.N. Resolutions

*LINK

I'm officially done w/ this thread.

[Tiger Al 0]

The use of "any means necessary" was for 678 to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait. That was a loophole Negroponte was trying to use to justify invasion in 2003, otherwise, there would've been no reason to secure another resolution after 1441. But, EVEN IF ANOTHER RESOLUTION WAS UNNECESSARY to authorize the use of military force after 1441, Iraq was fully cooperating with UNMOVIC as per the conditions of 678 and 1441, which is what everybody supposedly wanted. Bush, Blair, Powell, Cheney, Rice and everybody else said that military force was a last resort only to be used in the event weapons were discovered, Iraq stopped cooperating with UNMOVIC or in defense of Iraqi aggression. Bush/Blair thought that either Iraq wouldn't cooperate or would respond to our "spikes of activity" meant to goad them into attacking us. That didn't happen, either. Iraq screwed their plans up by fully cooperating. So, before public opinion turned, UNMOVIC was pulled out and "Shock and Awe" began.

[CCTAU 3,327]

You've got weak convictions when it comes to security, Al. I hope your family isn't relying on you to protect them. I'm not sure the perpetrators will sit around long enough for you to figure out if there is any danger or not. I'd rather jump the gun and make a statement that we will not tolerate even the hint of threat than to sit around and wait for another attack. Saddaam had financed many attacks before, it was only a matter of time till he started back up. You are doing nothing but repeating tha same old lies that have been around since before the election. You lost then and you lose now.

PPPFFFFFTTT! GO AWAY!

[Tiger Al 0]

You've got weak convictions when it comes to security, Al. I hope your family isn't relying on you to protect them. I'm not sure the perpetrators will sit around long enough for you to figure out if there is any danger or not. I'd rather jump the gun and make a statement that we will not tolerate even the hint of threat than to sit around and wait for another attack. Saddaam had financed many attacks before, it was only a matter of time till he started back up. You are doing nothing but repeating tha same old lies that have been around since before the election. You lost then and you lose now.

PPPFFFFFTTT!  GO AWAY!

164068[/snapback]

Is that you...John Wayne???