Bush Defends Iraq Policy

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


The legal justification Bush used to go war has been proven to be false

Where are the WMD?

Exactly. There aren't any. Hence, the reason for going to war is false.

Colin Powell, himself, said it:

When Secretary Powell testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said, "The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements." When asked why the resolution sent by the President to the Congress requested authority to enforce all the U.N. resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the Committee, "That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction."

 

[AcidicFury]

Nice, conjur.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: ELP
It's all in defense of his ego at this point.

Pretty sad for the leader of the 'free' world.

d'ya think? I think Buush is a true believer. The decision to war was made because Buush et al determined it would be good tactics. Since that time, he's been on a mission from his personal Jesus and back-justifying it with whatever's at hand.

The rhetoric-creep is pretty significant, but the consumer doesn't recognize nor do they really care -
<<sleep - obey - consume - USA!USA!USA!>>

 

[AcidicFury]

I've realized that most conservatives really don't care anymore what jurisdiction there was to go to war. They are off in their dream world of trying to Americanize the entire world. What they don't realize is that most of the world doesn't want to be like the US.

 

[conjur]

Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Ari Fleischer September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_sept26.html

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

 

[Shuxclams]

Kerry will do a better job just like the last democrat...

WooHoo! 8 years of prosperity and growth for everyone! Now that is good news


















SHUX

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


The legal justification Bush used to go war has been proven to be false

Where are the WMD?

Exactly. There aren't any. Hence, the reason for going to war is false.

No,

Clinton said there was some.
Clarke said there was some.
Gore said there was some.
Kerry said there was some.
Edwards said there was some.
Putin said there was some.
Chirac said there was some.
Bush said there was some.
Cheney said there was some.
Powell said there was some.

Well, I could go on and on and on, but you get my drift.

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

The failure to find any may lead you to form an opinion that there are not any.

Your opinion could be right. Could be wrong.

 

[Shuxclams]

Thanks for the link Conj! How can the NeoCon's ever be serious... this is a White House Transcript!

QUESTION: What about all this talk last night that Condi engaged in on PBS about connections between Iraq and al Qaeda? That's new. I mean, she went further than you folks have ever gone before. Can you clarify some of what she was saying? I mean, how do we know this? Why do we suspect this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we know it because some of the information we have comes from detainees, and in particular some very high-ranking detainees. And -- Is this in the Roberts/Rockafeller Report? NOPE

QUESTION: Zubaydah?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not going to indicate exactly who. Since -- Since I am lying through my teeth I dont know how to answer that really

QUESTION: It doesn't matter; they're in custody?..

MR. FLEISCHER: Here's what we know, and here's -- let me try to elaborate on what Condi said, or help you understand what Condi said.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some members who have been in Baghdad. And the relationship between Iraqi officials to those al Qaeda members remains unclear, but we know it's there. We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraqi officials going back a decade, and, as Condi said, of chemical and biological agent training. Yeah thats in the report too right?

Reports of such cooperation have increased since 1998. We know that al Qaeda have found refuge in Iraq. There is credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq to acquire chemical and other weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

QUESTION: But today, the President stopped just short of saying that they were linked. Is there a reason he did that? I mean, are they linked, in his mind? I mean, are they -- there are -- Now the lie gets sticky

MR. FLEISCHER: I'd have to take a look at the verbatim of how the President said it. But we're all saying the same thing: al Qaeda and Iraq are too close for comfort, in terms of some of these activities that we've talked about. They all lied and knew they were telling the same lie?

But I want to underscore, the case the President is making about the need for regime change is not directly tied to anything involving al Qaeda. It's tied to Saddam Hussein's history of developing weapons on his own. The President continues to have fears about what Iraq's activities with al Qaeda could lead to. But his case is much broader than that. Just in case I get caught lying

QUESTION: Well, what are these links that go back a decade? I mean, who are we talking about?

MR. FLEISCHER: These are links between al Qaeda and Baghdad. Oh those links... right... OK

QUESTION: But what are the links? I mean --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Condi -- Oh blame it on the colored girl....

QUESTION: -- has Baghdad supplied al Qaeda with training, munitions, supplies, whatever, that has allowed them to carry out attacks against the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as Condi said last night -- I cite her words -- "Iraq has provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development." I didnt tell that lie... but its damn good aint it?

QUESTION: But do we know that that expertise has ever been used in a terrorist attack against -- not only the U.S., but anybody?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the point is to make certain that it's not. Why is Iraq providing training to terrorists that could put anybody at risk? Nice touch... thats pretty scary and stuff

Break in Press Briefing

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.{/q]



Lies after lies after lies... they knew they were lie's and couldnt back it up so they lied some more.... Geezus.


<EDIT FOR SPELLING> <OK, AND A HIGHLIGHT OR TWO>




How the fvck can all this speculative garbage carru so much wieght with this administration yet a breifing Saying "Al Qaeda intent on attacking in America" doesnt get any attention?




SHUX

 

[T2T III]

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

That is the reason for going to war - the suspicion of WMD. However, there were other reasons that should be noted, too. Saddam Hussein struck a nerve with us in lots of areas from his first attack of Kuwait and many other shenanigans that he pulled. Sadly, too much emphasis was placed on the WMD and the attempt to find them.

America would have been better using a line from former President Bill Clinton for the attack. "We've gone after Saddam Hussein - just because." 😉

Just because = we felt like he was a bully and it was time to put a stop to his actions.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


The legal justification Bush used to go war has been proven to be false

Where are the WMD?

Exactly. There aren't any. Hence, the reason for going to war is false.

No,

Clinton said there was some.
Clarke said there was some.
Gore said there was some.
Kerry said there was some.
Edwards said there was some.
Putin said there was some.
Chirac said there was some.
Bush said there was some.
Cheney said there was some.
Powell said there was some.

Well, I could go on and on and on, but you get my drift.

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

The failure to find any may lead you to form an opinion that there are not any.

Your opinion could be right. Could be wrong.

<sigh>

Why is ignorance so prevalent amongst otherwise intelligent people?

Clinton/Gore's statements were accurate at the time they were made based upon current intelligence and work performed by UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. They were made in 1998, not in 2002/2003 in a run-up to an invasion.

Kerry/Edwards' statements were based upon information supplied to them by the Bush administration, specifically, Wolfowitz/Feith and the DIA. Their votes were based upon receiving a final intelligence report just days before the vote to authorize the President to use force.

Chirac/Putin's statements are irrelevant. Chirac/Putin have no authority in the U.S.'s actions, do they?

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell used information known to be false, dubious, or misleading. Also, Powell and Rice even stated in 2001 that Saddam had no WMD programs and his military was in shambles. Go read the Iraq on the Record thread.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

That is the reason for going to war - the suspicion of WMD. However, there were other reasons that should be noted, too. Saddam Hussein struck a nerve with us in lots of areas from his first attack of Kuwait and many other shenanigans that he pulled. Sadly, too much emphasis was placed on the WMD and the attempt to find them.

America would have been better using a line from former President Bill Clinton for the attack. "We've gone after Saddam Hussein - just because." 😉

Just because = we felt like he was a bully and it was time to put a stop to his actions.

WMDs were the ONLY reason which would have justified a pre-emptive invasion. The other items would not have garnered any type of authorization to use force and everyone knows it. Esp. Bush. That's why he's repeated the WMD exists lie over and over and over and....


Powell's full testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9/26/2002:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/sfrc-afternoon-092602.htm


The key part:

SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. : (Aside.) Thank you, Senator (Rockefeller ?). (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, I'm looking at pages 2 and 3 of your statement. Is the United States prepared to go to war against Iraq if it engages in illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program that's been established by the U.N.?

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) -- I'm looking at -- I'm looking at your statement, and you say, "What Iraq must do to repair this breach."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


The legal justification Bush used to go war has been proven to be false

Where are the WMD?

Exactly. There aren't any. Hence, the reason for going to war is false.

No,

Clinton said there was some.
Clarke said there was some.
Gore said there was some.
Kerry said there was some.
Edwards said there was some.
Putin said there was some.
Chirac said there was some.
Bush said there was some.
Cheney said there was some.
Powell said there was some.

Well, I could go on and on and on, but you get my drift.

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

The failure to find any may lead you to form an opinion that there are not any.

Your opinion could be right. Could be wrong.

<sigh>

Why is ignorance so prevalent amongst otherwise intelligent people?

Clinton/Gore's statements were accurate at the time they were made based upon current intelligence and work performed by UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. They were made in 1998, not in 2002/2003 in a run-up to an invasion.

Kerry/Edwards' statements were based upon information supplied to them by the Bush administration, specifically, Wolfowitz/Feith and the DIA. Their votes were based upon receiving a final intelligence report just days before the vote to authorize the President to use force.

Chirac/Putin's statements are irrelevant. Chirac/Putin have no authority in the U.S.'s actions, do they?

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell used information known to be false, dubious, or misleading. Also, Powell and Rice even stated in 2001 that Saddam had no WMD programs and his military was in shambles. Go read the Iraq on the Record thread.

pwned!


LMAOROLFPIMP









SHUX

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


The legal justification Bush used to go war has been proven to be false

Where are the WMD?

Exactly. There aren't any. Hence, the reason for going to war is false.

No,

Clinton said there was some.
Clarke said there was some.
Gore said there was some.
Kerry said there was some.
Edwards said there was some.
Putin said there was some.
Chirac said there was some.
Bush said there was some.
Cheney said there was some.
Powell said there was some.

Well, I could go on and on and on, but you get my drift.

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

The failure to find any may lead you to form an opinion that there are not any.

Your opinion could be right. Could be wrong.

<sigh>

Why is ignorance so prevalent amongst otherwise intelligent people?

Clinton/Gore's statements were accurate at the time they were made based upon current intelligence and work performed by UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. They were made in 1998, not in 2002/2003 in a run-up to an invasion.

Kerry/Edwards' statements were based upon information supplied to them by the Bush administration, specifically, Wolfowitz/Feith and the DIA. Their votes were based upon receiving a final intelligence report just days before the vote to authorize the President to use force.

Chirac/Putin's statements are irrelevant. Chirac/Putin have no authority in the U.S.'s actions, do they?

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell used information known to be false, dubious, or misleading. Also, Powell and Rice even stated in 2001 that Saddam had no WMD programs and his military was in shambles. Go read the Iraq on the Record thread.

You will have to excuse my ignorance, as it comes from following some of your posts.

Now, earlier I asked "where are the WMD" ....

You said "There aren't any"

Then you posted: "Clinton/Gore's statements were accurate at the time they were made based upon current intelligence and work performed by UNSCOM/UNMOVIC. They were made in 1998, not in 2002/2003 in a run-up to an invasion."

Now,this may seem rather circular. But if they were acurate, Where are the WMD?

 

[conjur]

Destroyed.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

you people are missing the point. it's not relevant that everyone "believed" Sadaam had weapons. What is relevant is that this administration took intelligence it knew was shaky and attempted to make a case for war based upon it. Throw out all this Clinton, Senate bs and look at the core of the argument. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowizt and Co. took faulty intelligence that they KNEW was not 100% solid at the time, and made a case for war. Remember the horrific speeches Bush made, with the images of mushroom clouds? They preyed on our fears from 9/11 and misled the entire American public.

 

[CombatChuk]

It's hard to believe that with so much that has happened as the result of this war. The prisoner abuse, almost a thousand troops dead, several more injured. Not to mention all the civilian deaths in Iraq. And to find out that the Bush adminstration has been playing with "shadows and puppets" to garner support for this war. The senate committee has dismissed the ties that Iraq supposedly had with al-qaida (sp?). And then to back it up? It would seem more responsible and just if he just admitted that it was wrong and a mistake. But I don't think terrorism was ever the motivation for this war, just an excuse.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
you people are missing the point. it's not relevant that everyone "believed" Sadaam had weapons. What is relevant is that this administration took intelligence it knew was shaky and attempted to make a case for war based upon it. Throw out all this Clinton, Senate bs and look at the core of the argument. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowizt and Co. took faulty intelligence that they KNEW was not 100% solid at the time, and made a case for war. Remember the horrific speeches Bush made, with the images of mushroom clouds? They preyed on our fears from 9/11 and misled the entire American public.

I wish that someone would have taken the shaky intelligence that we had aquired on al-quada and mislead the entire American public and attacked Bin- laden in Afghanistan and prevented 9/11...........


Why if someone would have done that we could have saved all those that died, but of course, How would we know that if we prevented it????

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur
Destroyed.

Do I have to ask???

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
you people are missing the point. it's not relevant that everyone "believed" Sadaam had weapons. What is relevant is that this administration took intelligence it knew was shaky and attempted to make a case for war based upon it. Throw out all this Clinton, Senate bs and look at the core of the argument. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowizt and Co. took faulty intelligence that they KNEW was not 100% solid at the time, and made a case for war. Remember the horrific speeches Bush made, with the images of mushroom clouds? They preyed on our fears from 9/11 and misled the entire American public.

I wish that someone would have taken the shaky intelligence that we had aquired on al-quada and mislead the entire American public and attacked Bin- laden in Afghanistan and prevented 9/11...........


Why if someone would have done that we could have saved all those that died, but of course, How would we know that if we prevented it????

You mean like how Bush and Co. did absolutely nothing to track down the culprits behind the USS Cole attack despite the CIA's findings in Jan. 2001 that it was Al Qaeda?

At least Clinton went after those who attacked the WTC in 1993 and the US embassies in Africa in 1998. Clinton also attacked Iraq's intelligence HQ after the foiled assassination plot on former Pres. Bush.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
you people are missing the point. it's not relevant that everyone "believed" Sadaam had weapons. What is relevant is that this administration took intelligence it knew was shaky and attempted to make a case for war based upon it. Throw out all this Clinton, Senate bs and look at the core of the argument. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowizt and Co. took faulty intelligence that they KNEW was not 100% solid at the time, and made a case for war. Remember the horrific speeches Bush made, with the images of mushroom clouds? They preyed on our fears from 9/11 and misled the entire American public.

Oh, and this is just an opinion and there is no,,,,How did you put that,,,,,DEFINITE factual evidence that what you say is true..So, by your own definition that would make you a what????😉

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
you people are missing the point. it's not relevant that everyone "believed" Sadaam had weapons. What is relevant is that this administration took intelligence it knew was shaky and attempted to make a case for war based upon it. Throw out all this Clinton, Senate bs and look at the core of the argument. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowizt and Co. took faulty intelligence that they KNEW was not 100% solid at the time, and made a case for war. Remember the horrific speeches Bush made, with the images of mushroom clouds? They preyed on our fears from 9/11 and misled the entire American public.

I wish that someone would have taken the shaky intelligence that we had aquired on al-quada and mislead the entire American public and attacked Bin- laden in Afghanistan and prevented 9/11...........


Why if someone would have done that we could have saved all those that died, but of course, How would we know that if we prevented it????

You mean like how Bush and Co. did absolutely nothing to track down the culprits behind the USS Cole attack despite the CIA's findings in Jan. 2001 that it was Al Qaeda?

At least Clinton went after those who attacked the WTC in 1993 and the US embassies in Africa in 1998. Clinton also attacked Iraq's intelligence HQ after the foiled assassination plot on former Pres. Bush.

Werent the same NeoCon's that are today defending BUSH's actions as legitimate the same ones who took to task everything Clinton did, like Bosnia, Serbia the constant bombing of Iraq? Oh yeah... to much Rush, Hannity and O'Riley...... rots the brain.






SHUX

 

[conjur]

But...but....but....Clinton was only doing that to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal!

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


The legal justification Bush used to go war has been proven to be false

Where are the WMD?

Exactly. There aren't any. Hence, the reason for going to war is false.

No,

Clinton said there was some.
Clarke said there was some.
Gore said there was some.
Kerry said there was some.
Edwards said there was some.
Putin said there was some.
Chirac said there was some.
Bush said there was some.
Cheney said there was some.
Powell said there was some.

Well, I could go on and on and on, but you get my drift.

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

The failure to find any may lead you to form an opinion that there are not any.

Your opinion could be right. Could be wrong.

Yes, but who used this FAULTY intelligence to go to WAR!

A lot of sh!t was said about the Soviet Union having nukes pointed at every major city in the U.S., but no president decided to pre-emptively attack because of this...

I THANK GOD everyday that (this pathetic excuse for a...) President Bush, wasn't president during the Cold War!

Can you imagine?

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


The legal justification Bush used to go war has been proven to be false

Where are the WMD?

Exactly. There aren't any. Hence, the reason for going to war is false.

No,

Clinton said there was some.
Clarke said there was some.
Gore said there was some.
Kerry said there was some.
Edwards said there was some.
Putin said there was some.
Chirac said there was some.
Bush said there was some.
Cheney said there was some.
Powell said there was some.

Well, I could go on and on and on, but you get my drift.

The reason for going to war was because almost everybody believed that Saddam had some.

The failure to find any may lead you to form an opinion that there are not any.

Your opinion could be right. Could be wrong.

Yes, but who used this FAULTY intelligence to go to WAR!

A lot of sh!t was said about the Soviet Union having nukes pointed at every major city in the U.S., but no president decided to pre-emptively attack because of this...

I THANK GOD everyday that (this pathetic excuse for a...) President Bush, wasn't president during the Cold War!

Can you imagine?

You guys were saying the same things about Reagan when he was President as you are Bush now... Accusing him of being reckless, a cowboy, a war monger.. Seems to have worked out pretty well to me..

 

[Michael]

Clinton used the same "faulty" inteligence as justification to bomb and kill Iraqis.

You can try and ignore the truth, but what Bush was stating was the belief of the government of the USA.

He wasn't in power that long before the war and just about 100% of the previous administration was behind him in his decision to attack Iraq. Iraq had long been named as an important danger to the USA.

Look at the votes in the Congres and the Senate - those people have access to more intel than just what the President provides.

Since he was proved wrong about a major selling point for the war, Bush will have to face that fact at the polls.

Eventually Conjur will get over his blind hatred of anything related to Bush and think a little. Of course, eventually I will be dead.

I see more vidence of WMD than Conjur's ability to think.

Michael