Kerry and Bush share same view on Iraq!!! per Matthew Rothschild

[tedzbear]

http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx081104.html

"John Kerry's latest statement on Iraq should startle those anti-war Kucinich supporters and Dean supporters who acted as good little boys and girls at the Democratic Party convention.
He said that he would have still voted to give Bush the authority to go to war even if he knew Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
Why, that's George Bush's view, too, as Bush was only too eager to point out on the campaign trail."



And don't tell me Kerry didn't say that because Mr. Rothschild is an astute political commentator and analyst and he doesn't often get it wrong. In fact, notice his correction at the bottom regarding Lincoln quote.

After Kerry wins the election, it looks like we will have to hold more anti-war demos (maybe even more than with Bush). I am afraid Kerry is going to follow in LBJ's footsteps and escalate the war.

Kerry = :nuke:

[Jim Sagle]

1. Rothschild is a lefty wacko. Fuck'm.

Just more Gore=Bush rubbish, updated for 2004.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. At least let the guy win and

do something you don't like before you jump all over him.

Kerry has a good record on US foreign policy. He activly worked long and hard to turn around US policy on Vietnam and he worked long and hard to turn around US policy on it's secret and illegal wars in Latin America.

Don't poop your pants so easily, Jim.

[JohnKleeb]

8. I think Jim agrees with you

I agree btw with what you say. I walked against this current war twice but I like Kerry because in the overrall scheme of things, he is good on many issues, I disagreed with my primary candiate on a flag burning amendment, didnt hold it against him, I wont hold this against Kerry either because I feel that he had a tough vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Sorry Jim,

The poop your pants should have been directed to Tedthebear

[Jim Sagle]

24. Excuse me, but I think you're agreeing with me.

Not that you necessarily realized it. ;-)

[Melodybe]

2. I agree that saying that was stupid, but I find it very hard to believe

that Kerry will go around starting un-nessecary wars. Maybe he feels that getting rid of Saddam, a friend to the CIA and Poppy Bush (30 years ago) was a good thing.

In this case I'll chock it up to Kerry flip flopping.

[StopTheMorans]

3. great, another "blur the differences between the parties/candidates"

article :eyes:

[noahmijo]

4. You know what? do some research

This has been debunked about a thousand times here. Your "astute" Rothschild doesn't even bother to fully post Kerry's comments in their entirety thereby taking this one line completely out of context.

Karl Rove no doubt sends his gratitude.



Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective. I asked Scott Ritter personally if his seven years in Iraq as an inspector would have been effective without the threat of force. He said the inspections would have been useless without the threat.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Are you in favor of weapons inspectors, backed by a unanimous UN Security Council, going in to make sure VX and other weapons were not being developed?

If you were in favor of weapons inspectors, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE THREAT OF FORCE TO BACK THE INSPECTORS. There is no separating the two. Period.

====

PITT: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

RITTER: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the United Nations, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy – unilaterally, without UN supervision – a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly.

(snip)

PITT: Isn't VX gas a greater concern?

RITTER: VX is different, for a couple of reasons. First, unlike sarin and tabun, which the Iraqis admitted to, for the longest time the Iraqis denied they had a program to manufacture VX. Only through the hard work of inspectors were we able to uncover the existence of the program.

PITT: How did that happen?

RITTER: Inspectors went to the Muthanna State establishment and found the building the Iraqis had used for research and development. It had been bombed during the war, causing a giant concrete roof to collapse in on the lab. That was fortuitous, because it meant we essentially had a time capsule: lifting the roof and gaining access to the lab gave us a snapshot of Iraqi VX production on the day in January when the bomb hit. We sent in a team who behaved like forensic archaeologists. They lifted the roof – courageously, it was a very dangerous operation – went inside, and were able to grab papers and take samples that showed that Iraq did in fact have a VX research and development lab.

Caught in that first lie, the Iraqis said, "We didn't declare the program because it never went anywhere. We were never able to stabilize the VX." Of course the inspectors didn’t take their word for it, but pressed: "How much precursor did you build?" Precursor chemicals are what you combine to make VX. "How much VX did you make? Where did you dispose of it?" The Iraqis took the inspectors to a field where they'd dumped the chemicals. Inspectors took soil samples and indeed found degradation byproducts of VX and its precursors.

Unfortunately, we didn't know whether they dumped all of it or held some behind. So we asked what containers they'd used. The Iraqis pointed to giant steel containers provided by the Soviet Union to ship fuel and other liquids, which the Iraqis had converted to hold VX. The inspectors attempted to do a swab on the inside of the containers and found they'd been bleached out: there was nothing there. But one inspector noticed a purge valve on the end of the containers. The inspection team took a swab and found stabilized VX.

We confronted the Iraqis with their second lie. They took a fallback position: "OK, you're right, we did stabilize VX. But we didn't tell you about it because we never weaponized the VX. To us it's still not a weapons program. We decided to eliminate it on our own. As you can see, we've blown it up. It's gone, so there's no need to talk about it."

We caught them in that lie as well. We found stabilized VX in SCUD missiles demolished at the warhead destruction sites. The Iraqis had weaponized the VX, and lied to us about it.

We knew the Iraqis wanted to build a full-scale VX nerve agent plant, and we had information that they'd actually acquired equipment to do this. We hunted and hunted, and finally in 1996 were able to track down two hundred crates of glass-lined production equipment Iraq had procured specifically for a VX nerve agent factory. They'd been hiding it from the inspectors. We found it in 1996, and destroyed it. With that, Iraq lost its ability to produce VX.

All of this highlights the complexity of these issues. We clearly still have an unresolved VX issue in Iraq. Just as clearly Iraq has not behaved in a manner reflective of an honest effort to achieve resolution. And it's tough to work in a place where you've been lied to.

(snip)

Pitt: Considering everything you've experienced, how do you feel about the Iraqi government in general?

RITTER: The Iraqi government is firmly entrenched, having seen over thirty years of Ba'ath Party rule. The Ba'ath Party has seeped into every aspect of Iraqi life – cultural, economic, educational, political. It's irresponsible to oversimplify what's going on there, to try to somehow separate Saddam Hussein from the rest of the political machinery. It doesn't work that way.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting this

again.

[noahmijo]

11. No problem THANK YOU for posting it originally!

[JohnKleeb]

13. thanks for posting it

glad I got an eye at it.

[tedzbear]

16. Your Kerry comments seem to back Rothschild up...

The question was whether Kerry would have voted the same if he had known what we know now:

Kerry says that even if he knew there were no WMD, he still would have voted for war in order to scare Saddam into proving there were NO WMD! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa??? If nothing else, this is illogical. Why make someone prove something if you already know the answer?

Reading his entire statement, Kerry seems to be saying he feels granting the President war powers is more important than whether the reasons for war are valid or not.

Sorry, but that's how it reads.

[noahmijo]

17. Well you didn't bother to read beyond Kerry's statements and the context

By the way voting for war and voting to authorize war AS A LAST RESORT are VERY different things.

Only you, this hack, the "hate Kerry cause he's not Kucinich or Dean" crowd and Bush seem to not realize this.




The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Are you in favor of weapons inspectors, backed by a unanimous UN Security Council, going in to make sure VX and other weapons were not being developed?

If you were in favor of weapons inspectors, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE THREAT OF FORCE TO BACK THE INSPECTORS. There is no separating the two. Period.

Kerry's statement is one of consistency with his original statements behind authorizing the vote for AS A LAST RESORT.

Did your "astute" Rothschild happen to ever post this?







http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

The "Hate Kerry No Matter What" crowd = Bush Crowd

as far as I'm concerned. Why? because their position is the same as Bush's position when it comes to this issue.

[Pastiche423]

19. How can it be debunked

when it's true?

Kerry voted for it. Kerry said he would vote the same way knowing what he knows today.

Keep on denying the truth, but it isn't helping your candidate w/the undecideds and the anti-war groups.

[noahmijo]

20. How can it be debunked? Another one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=626383&mesg_id=626485&page=

Another one who trusts the views of Bush before looking into the explanation for Kerry's statements.

I gotta hand it to these Republicans they're smarter than we take them for.

[Julien Sorel]

23. Nah, just a few Democrats and others are dumber than you want to think.

Although they certainly think they're smart.

[Pastiche423]

27. I am now an Independent - no longer a Democrat

Moreover, I see nothing smart about supporting pre-emptive war.

[Julien Sorel]

28. I'm sure the "Independents," whoever they are,

rejoice in your conversion every day. In the meantime, the Democrats are crippled by your defection. Won't you please come back? Pretty please?

[Pastiche423]

32. When (if) the Democratic Party becomes an opposition party

I will consider going back.

In the meantime, I am actively campaigning for three Democrats; one locally, one for my State House and for my beloved, Pete DeFazio for the U.S House. Senator Wyden, who is runnung, more or less unopposed, will get my vote in November.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. I'm sure if you asked

Pete, he'd say, "Help me out, vote for Kerry!"

[Pastiche423]

34. Why would I ask Pete?

A little OT -

Today as I arrived at a town meeting w/Pete, I was told he had to return to D.C. for a meeting w/Hastert regarding the 9/11 committee.

Does anyone know anything about an emergency 9/11 meeting?

[geek tragedy]

21. This isn't rocket science.

Kerry's vote was for inspections, which required the threat of force.

Kerry DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR. He only voted to entrust the President with the authority to seek vigorous inspections.

His vote was not an endorsement of the actual war.

[tedzbear]

26. The way Kerry talks it is.

If he only voted "to entrust the President with the authority to seek vigorous inspections" then why didn't he demand that it be written into the authorization? Instead he gave Bush a blank check!

And now he says he would still vote for that same broad authorization knowing what we know now. Kerry is talking out of both sides of his mouth here.


(BTW, I wrote an email to Mr. Rothschild asking him to expand on his interpretation. I am hoping he will respond. I wish you guys would write him too since he is not the enemy. He IS on our side.)

[tedzbear]

53. Here's Mr. Rothschild's response to Democratic Underground...

Dear Ted Franks,
Thanks for your clarification and kind words.
But here's what the Wash Post wrote on August 10:
"Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still wold have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that US and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."
The piece itself quoted Kerry as saying: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a President to have."


It was precisely the wrong authority, and an unconstitutional authority, for a President to have, for the reasons I stated.


Best,
Matt


Matthew Rothschild, Editor

[tedzbear]

35. Here's some research that you omitted...

For some reason you failed to include the second line of Mr. Kerry's answer to the question:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for the president to have."

The only difference, Kerry said, was that he would have used that authority "more effectively" than Bush.
---The Capital Times

This was Kerry's answer when asked whether he would have voted differently knowing what we know now. Obviously he believes the President should be able to go to war even if the reasons are not valid. It even sounds like he is supporting Bush in this.

Scary.

Oops. Here's the link:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-09.htm

[noahmijo]

36. What's scary is that you attack Kerry with the same angle as Bush did

How much clearer or louder do I need to say this? this vote for the authority to go to war was necessary for inspections to take place AND was done on the pretext that Bush would build a coalition and only go to war as a last resort.

So in other words, had he said "No I would've NOT have given the authorization" THEN what he'd be saying is that he wouldn't go to war even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was threatening to nuke all of us.

What do you think the GOP would do if Kerry had given a NO answer to this? what YOU would think now knowing what you know now after what I just told you?

I think even the biggest most peace-loving pacifist on here would be "pro-war" if some madman and his army nuked California and were threatening to do it again.

And don't counter with a simple "But Saddam wasn't!" I KNOW THAT, I'm just saying IF HE WAS, THAT'S what the authority was for. JUST IN CASE HE WAS A THREAT AND NO OTHER SOLUTIONS WERE AVAILABLE, ON THAT PRETEXT WOULD WAR BE JUSTIFIED HENCE THAT IS WHAT KERRY VOTED IN FAVOR OF: AUTHORIZE WAR IF IN FACT HE IS LYING AND PROVES TO BE A THREAT TO US AND A COALITION OF NATIONS (A real one) IS BUILT


Do I have to show you Kerry's statements which coincide with this issue on him still agreeing with the authorization vote or did you read them the first time?


Now take a look at what Kerry supported with his vote STRAIGHT OUTTA THE IRAQI RESOLUTION TEXT:


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.


(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and


(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

What part of that says "We will invade Iraq"

BUSH LIED THOUSANDS DIED

Do you see how now?

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1282.html

[tedzbear]

38. Which just shows what a terrible mistake Kerry is making!

Kerry is looking wishy-washy and rudderless by not taking a firm stand. That's all I'm saying.

[noahmijo]

39. For once I agree with you 100%

And I just said in my newest thread.

Good now we can be friends again.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Rothschild, I'm afraid, has a bad case of the political disease

called the "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" Syndrome.

It's another way of saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough for now"

Kerry may not be the best thing for us, but right now, he's the only one with a chance of beating B*sh.


:kick:

[Julien Sorel]

6. What a genius.

And don't tell me Kerry didn't say that because Mr. Rothschild is an astute political commentator and analyst and he doesn't often get it wrong.


Why not simply read what Kerry said, intead of believing what this individual says Kerry said? That way, instead of me telling you, or this person telling you, you'll actually know, without relying on who corrects what quotation to establish credibility.


Or maybe you were joking? I hope you were joking.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Nice 'one out of ten" graphic

It made me laugh.


IMHO Kerry is running a brillent campaign and the Repos are scared.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Well put.

[Carni]

15. You know..has anyone even bothered to CONSIDER

That the October surprise might be WMD being trotted out in Iraq?

Do I think Saddam had them? No, absolutely not.

Do I think Bush and his PNAC pals could contrive something and plant some to "find" before November?

Hell, yes (and don't tell me they would never get away with it,
that someone would bust them.... because they get away with EVERYTHING they do and most of the world knows and can't do a damned thing about it)

Kerry voted to give Bush the power to go into Iraq after all else failed, based on Bush's lies that Iraq had WMD and could attack the US in 45 minutes.

Sure it was bullshit and he may have thought so (most of Congress probably thought so) but who could PROVE IT? There was a ton of so called evidence being bandied around by bushco stating Iraq had WMD.

I have thought about this a lot and strategically I think maintaining his original stance is the only thing Kerry can do, unless he wants to take the chance of walking right into a trap.

By playing it this way Kerry is at least insulating himself in the event those weapons are suddenly "found" (manufauctured find of course)

Now flame away because I know I will take a bunch of shit for saying this, but it's a distinct possibility IMO that planted weapons will be found before the election.

[JohnKleeb]

18. knowing what I know now about the history of dirty ricks you got a point

I learned last night actually that Nixon or Kissinger pulled one on Humphrey by telling the North Vietnamese, "we'll give you a better offer", I of course know about Reagan's original October surpirse, didnt know baout Dick but wasnt surprised, being he was Mr. Special Tricks.

[Carni]

25. I also didn't know about that!

There's going to be a dirty trick and IMO it isn't going to be UBL.
It certainly could be, but I personally think he's protected by Saudi, either because they are in cahoots with him, or because they have to pacify him, one of the two.

I also cringe however every time "They haven't found Bin Laden" gets used as a talking point.

I don't put anything past bush and company.

[JohnKleeb]

29. I just learned it last night

very interesting.

[noahmijo]

22. I wouldn't flame you for this

I still agree however that Kerry's vote reflected that of a man who put his country before ideology and he wasn't willing to risk even the slightest chance that Bush could be lying in favor of our nation's safety. It's easy for us to just say fuck bush he's a liar, but when you're Kerry in this position you have a responsibility to question all sides which why he didn't simply hand the vote over to Bush without an explanation and without some guidelines which he demanded here:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

I wouldn't put this gang of criminals passed pulling something that you mentioned though.

[JohnKleeb]

30. Ive read that Kerry faced a tough choice

That said I dont agree with the vote but I think he had good intentions, after all Ive seen that quote you've used by him before, and its true.

[no name no slogan]

31. Yet Kerry voted AGAINST Desert Storm....and will continue the occupation!

How could Kerry be so sure about BushCo's motives in 1990, when he voted against Desert Storm -- when there was a much more compelling case to invade Iraq.

Kerry made a purely opportunistic vote to save his political hide if he became the presidential candidate of the Democrats. Even many of his staunchest defenders know this, yet they still think that repeating the same "we didn't know for sure that Saddam didn't have WMDs" excuse somehow makes it a reality.

I could easily forgive Kerry for the IWR vote, if indeed he were to simply admit that going to war in Iraq was WRONG, and that we should get out of the country NOW rather than in 4+ years or so.

...And that hurts Kerry MORE than his IWR vote, IMHO. His plan for Iraq provides little alternative to Bush in this regard. He favors an ongoing occupation of Iraq, in order to enforce some sort of "stability" on the country. In fact, he wants to "expand" the armed forces so we can rotate in "fresh" troops to continue the occupation.

Many of us are holding our noses and voting for Kerry despite these facts, just because the case against Bush is SO overwhelming. It's a fragile coalition that will stick together until November 2. We're giving him the benefit of the doubt this year, because the alternative is clearly so much worse.

But after that, all bets are off. Kerry had better figure out a way to get the US OUT of Iraq ASAP, and abandon all pretenses of a permanent military presence in the Middle East. If he doesn't, Iraq will become HIS war, and he'll face a rising tide of opposition to his left come 2008.

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Matt Rothschild's problem is that any two points on earth look

indistinguishably close to him from his viewpoint, which happens to be on Deneb IV.

[tedzbear]

40. You consider that a worthwhile response?

Can you back up your snide comment with facts or is that too taxing?

[Jackpine Radical]

43. Matt, like Irwin Knoll, his predecessor and mentor at the Progressive,

is an unconditional pacifist. I've heard him speak on a number of occasions and read the mag fairly often, so I have some sense of his positions. I even agree with him on many things, but I find in him a sort of doctrinaire inflexibility that reminds me of nothing quite so much as the old Trotskyites of my academic youth in Madison.

[DrFunkenstein]

41. I Love Howard Zinn, But He's Not Going To Get Elected President

Listen, I read The Nation and The Progressive. On almost every issue, I share their opinion. But I can't help but wonder what shred of pragmatism they have between them. Kerry will be the furthest Left President in at least two generations, but you would be hard pressed to find an article talking about Kerry's Senate fights for Kerry's outstanding environmental record or his quiet battles for consumer rights.

I am a progressive through and through, but I'm not going to sit with my arms folded, whining about compromise at every turn. Progress is made from political action, and we can't turn the tide if we refuse to budge until it is already turned.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[incapsulated]

44. They are "pretending" to ignore this

It doesn't make any sense, so they just keep repeating his explaination of his IWR vote over and over and over. Even though THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. The question was: KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW.

Now, I think I know what is going on here. He didn't want to disavow his vote, for fear of looking like he was flip-flopping or admitting he was wrong. So instead he repeats his justification for the vote, even though that wasn't the question and his answer ultimately doesn't make any sense. If you now KNOW there are NO WMD, there is no justification for the vote, period.

Really, the fuckup was that he shouldn't have taken the bait and refused to answer any questions put to him by the Chimp through the press to begin with.

*sigh*

[tedzbear]

45. Politics should not be this confusing unless they are purposely...

...trying to confuse us. Kerry and Bush want to hide the fact that they will both follow the same general policies set by our imperialistic oligarchy.

:kick:

[latebloomer]

46. Such as saying that the President should have the power to declare war

Scary.

:scared:

[eridani]

52. The Constitution sez CONGRESS declares war n/t

[incapsulated]

47. I disagree completely

Kerry is playing politics. Here he is playing badly. But there is no way he would have invaded Iraq had he been President at the time.

[tedzbear]

48. I hope you're right.

"But there is no way he would have invaded Iraq had he been President at the time."

[incapsulated]

49. Going back to Iraq..

Was the PNAC, Bush, Wolfie, Cheney wet dream. They've been going on about this for 10 years now. Oil men and zealots and neo imperialist nutballs. Kerry is many things, but he isn't any of those.

[Blue_Roses]

50. OMG

this is so ridiculous. There have been many great explanations on this question in this thread. Why do you continue to be so negative on this. It's so exhausting to try to fight the right with their proganda, but to fight with someone who is suppose to be on our side--on a question that has been well vetted--is useless.

Move on ...nothing to see here, but another angry "gloom and doomer."

[Pastiche423]

51. I agree

Almost 1,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis sounds pretty "gloom and doom".

:eyes:

[tedzbear]

54. Kerry DID say it according to the Washington Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Ted Franks,
Thanks for your clarification and kind words.
But here's what the Wash Post wrote on August 10:
"Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still wold have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that US and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."
The piece itself quoted Kerry as saying: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a President to have."


It was precisely the wrong authority, and an unconstitutional authority, for a President to have, for the reasons I stated.


Best,
Matt


Matthew Rothschild, Editor

[slinkerwink]

55. read the DUer's posts debunking this in this thread and do a STFU