So, Bush shares top secret info with a terrorist. *Yawn* - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 04-19-2004, 10:37 AM

This is from Bob Woodwards, one of the guys who brought down the Nixon Presidency, new book.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml

Quote:

But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.

"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, 'So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?'" And Cheney who has said nothing says the following: "Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast."

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, "I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn't enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. "Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, 'Their message is my message'" says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4661093/

Bush shared the TOP SECRET plans for war with Iraq with Prince Bandar before he showed some of the most important members of his own cabinet. Including Powell Doesn't that seem ODD to anyone else here?

It's just...
Hell I don't have the strength to express the outrage that america should be feeling over this President.

I'm sorry. I guess it all just means I am a partisan who will find fault with anything Bush does. It's just sharing secret war plans with someone we all know has been funnelling money to terrorists for years. Whatever.

Just move on to the next outrage I guess.

onetime2 · 04-19-2004, 10:42 AM

There seems to be some dispute over the assertion that Powell was briefed after Bandar.

The President has the right to share such information with those people he deems fit.

Superbelt · 04-19-2004, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam -- and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

"Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible," says Woodward.

"Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. ...Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."

Misappropriations is bad.

Superbelt · 04-19-2004, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
There seems to be some dispute over the assertion that Powell was briefed after Bandar.

The President has the right to share such information with those people he deems fit.

Actually no.

Quote:

'Top secret. No foreign.'

iccky · 04-19-2004, 11:34 AM

Well, right, but the president is the comander in chief. If he wants the change that to "Top Secret - No Forigen, except Prince Bandar" he can. We can argue about the wisdom of doing this, but he doesn't need to get permission from anyone to do this (who would he get permission from anyway?)

Now if the assertion is that Cheney did this without the president's knowledge, that would be a different story. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

seretogis · 04-19-2004, 11:54 AM

How is Prince Bandar a terrorist? He's a diplomat from Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting that every Arab is a terrorist, or are you simply trolling for some negative responses?

irateplatypus · 04-19-2004, 12:30 PM

right on seretogis.

and just because it appears in a bob woodward book doesn't make it fact. he has everything to gain from arranging or describing the events in such a way as to create controversy.

Sen · 04-19-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
The President has the right to share such information with those people he deems fit.

This is absolutely correct. The Executive Branch is the one that classifies and controls classified information. The President can classify and declassify at will.

Sparhawk · 04-19-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Are you suggesting that every Arab is a terrorist, or are you simply trolling for some negative responses?

Maybe he's doing both! Mwuahahahhaha... Mwuahahahaha... Mwuahahah... Mwuah... Mwu... Hah.

Seriously, seretogis, don't you usually whine about questions that are phrased like that?

Sparhawk · 04-19-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
How is Prince Bandar a terrorist? He's a diplomat from Saudi Arabia.

From Human Rights Watch, the first thing I googled from a search of "saudi arabia human rights":

Quote:

In April, the government closed an Internet cafe in Mecca that was popular with university students. The action came as a result of a court complaint that the women-only cafe was being used for "immoral purposes," the BBC reported, citing Arab News. "What was uncovered was against both our religion and our traditions," charged Brigadier Yousef Matter of the civil police, adding that the court had empowered him to shut down other cybercafes in Mecca.

Capital punishment was applied for crimes including murder, rape, armed robbery, drug smuggling, sodomy, and sorcery. In most cases, the condemned were decapitated in public squares after being blindfolded, handcuffed, shackled at the ankles, and tranquilized. By late September 2000, at least 104 Saudis and foreigners had been beheaded, exceeding in nine months the total of 103 that Amnesty International recorded in 1999. Two of the foreigners beheaded in 2000 were women: a Pakistani in July for heroin smuggling, and an Indonesian in June for murder.

Saudi courts continued to impose corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for robbery, and floggings for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance" and drunkenness. The number of lashes was not clearly prescribed by law and varied according to the discretion of judges, and ranged from dozens of lashes to several thousand, usually applied over a period of weeks or months. A court in Qunfuda sentenced nine Saudi alleged transvestites in April. Five drew prison terms of six years and 2,600 lashes, and the other four were sentenced to five years and 2,400 lashes. The floggings reportedly were to be carried out in fifty equal sessions, with a fifteen-day hiatus between each punishment.

These people aren't terrorists?

djtestudo · 04-19-2004, 06:14 PM

Islamic Law. Not terrorism.

seretogis · 04-19-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
From Human Rights Watch, the first thing I googled from a search of "saudi arabia human rights":

These people aren't terrorists?

Seemingly barbaric compared to our judicial system, yes. Terrorism, no.

Quote:

Capital punishment was applied for crimes including murder, rape, armed robbery, drug smuggling, sodomy, and sorcery.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if we beheaded those who commit murder, rape, armed robbery, or drug smuggling. It would be quite the deterrant. Instead, we pay through the nose for them to sit in prison for years and years only to be released and re-offend. I suppose this part of the discussion belongs on another thread, though.

Feel free to prove to me that this thread is anything but a shameless troll. Until that point, our large green friend will look on, tongue out and club ready:

analog · 04-19-2004, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Feel free to prove to me that this thread is anything but a shameless troll. Until that point, our large green friend will look on, tongue out and club ready

Well, the thread is actually about a book that suggests Bush had shared "Top Secret" information with a questionable person and allegedly before even Powell got a hand on it, and the possible misappropriations of funds to back the preparation for this war.

Somehow it's derailed towards ruminations on whether or not Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state, what their laws are compared to ours... pretty much everything but the subject matter.

If it doesn't straighten up, it won't matter if it's a troll, because it'll be locked for being horribly off-topic.

Just a friendly warning.

Superbelt · 04-20-2004, 03:11 AM

Well Sere, I DID provide everyone with a link to the very substantial suspicions about Bandar's connection to terrorism. It was my second link. I reprint it here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4661093/

Let us go specifically to this:

Quote:

A federal investigation into the bank accounts of the Saudi Embassy in Washington has identified more than $27 million in "suspicious" transactions—including hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Muslim charities, and to clerics and Saudi students who are being scrutinized for possible links to terrorist activity, according to government documents obtained by NEWSWEEK. The probe also has uncovered large wire transfers overseas by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

and this

Quote:

Among the payments that have drawn scrutiny, documents show, were $19,200 in checks between December 2000 and January 2003 from the Saudi Embassy to an Islamic cleric, Gulshair Muhammad al-Shukrijumah. The Florida-based imam has been on the FBI's radar screen for some time

etc.

Is it proven? No, but there is an ongoing investigation. And there is a litany of evidence of the Saudi's paying out to terrorist organizations throughout the world. So rationally, here, I think we can all drop the pretenses and admit this guy is dirty.

Maybe you didn't bother to check all the links before you declared this post a troll. Be more careful next time.

The President has the right to show his Top Secret war plans to whoever he wishes. But it is really fucked up when he shows someone being investigated for funding terrorist organizations these plans before his own Secretary of State, who will be expected to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq after the military blows it up.

Any comments on securing a promise from Bandar of lowering oil prices in time for the November elections? Or the misappropriation of 700 million dollars meant for Afghanistan?

Superbelt · 04-20-2004, 03:53 AM

Playing politics with america's energy supply.

Quote:

QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President’s reelection?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --

QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.

QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.

MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.

QUESTION: We’re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --

QUESTION: Is there a deal?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I’m telling you --

McClellan won't even deny it. Just dodges the question repeatedly.

maximusveritas · 04-20-2004, 04:44 AM

Don't understand the point of calling Bandar a terrorist. It really just gives the conservatives on this board a way out from facing the real issues that Woodward's book presents. Of course, they'd probably still come up with a response like "Clinton did it too" or "Woodward is just trying to sell a book", but at least they'd have to think about it. I'd like to hear something from them since all I've heard from conservatives elsewhere is silence.

Superbelt · 04-20-2004, 05:03 AM

I'm sorry. I see him as a terrorist. He may not actively plan any attacks but his funding makes him just as cuplable. If everyone prefers I can just start calling him a terrorist funder, though, I don't see the difference.

onetime2 · 04-20-2004, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas
Don't understand the point of calling Bandar a terrorist. It really just gives the conservatives on this board a way out from facing the real issues that Woodward's book presents. Of course, they'd probably still come up with a response like "Clinton did it too" or "Woodward is just trying to sell a book", but at least they'd have to think about it. I'd like to hear something from them since all I've heard from conservatives elsewhere is silence.

I ignored the assertion that he's a terrorist since it's all hearsay and no progress would be made on such a discussion.

I discussed the fact that there is a difference of opinion about the assertion that Powell wasn't informed.

and

I corrected the mistaken impression that the President couldn't share information with those he deemed appropriate.

I think I offered more than a Clinton did it too. Although I strongly suspect that Clinton did share Top Secret information with foreign representatives (since I'm 99.9% sure that every President has done the same).

The assertion that he's trying to sell a book is true. Otherwise why write it and get paid for it? The fact that someone is making money on offering their opinion should at least be considered when you're trying to judge the reliability of the source and the possible biases involved. Just as the motivations of conservative authors should be called into question.

Superbelt · 04-20-2004, 06:55 AM

There's an awful lot of people with insider acess to the Bush White House who are lying just to sell a book.

boatin · 04-20-2004, 09:16 PM

to your point of "yawn. just move on to the next outrage", I say:

Why change horsemen mid-apocalypse? Bush-Cheney 04...

Superbelt · 04-21-2004, 06:59 AM

I would like to hear a Bush supporter explain Bush's misappropriation of 700 million specifically earmarked to the Afghanistan war, (y'know, the one that was supposed to catch those responsible for attacking America) but instead used towards preparations for the iraq war.

Anyone?

onetime2 · 04-21-2004, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I would like to hear a Bush supporter explain Bush's misappropriation of 700 million specifically earmarked to the Afghanistan war, (y'know, the one that was supposed to catch those responsible for attacking America) but instead used towards preparations for the iraq war.

Anyone?

When details of it are offered I will gladly make an assessment. Right now there sure seems to be lots of speculation around it and no substantive facts associated with the assertion.

Superbelt · 04-21-2004, 07:33 AM

Bob Woodward disclosed in his book that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress

According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this” leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement."

The Constitution gives Congress the purse strings and both supplemental bills that Bush drew this 700 million from had specific language in it. Bush had discretion with how to spend the money but was obligated to inform congressional leaders.

9/11 emergency appropriations
The President had discretion to spend this $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds.

The WH used vague and misleading words to describe how it was spending this money. Never mentioning Iraq whatsoever in the descriptions.
It used wording like "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture"
Link 1
Link 2

In the Aug '02 supplemental. Bush moved several hundred millions of dollars.
The wording of the supplemental stated that: the funds could be moved "15 days following notification to the appropriate Congressional committees."
Aug Supplemental

The administration cannot provide one shred of evidence of a transfer notice for supplemental funding that mentions Iraq. Source

On Tuesday Senator Roberty Byrd said that the Admin "the Bush White House provided no consultations as required by law" Byrd was the chairman of the appropriations committee at the time (2002)

onetime2 · 04-21-2004, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Bob Woodward disclosed in his book that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress

According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this” leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement."

The Constitution gives Congress the purse strings and both supplemental bills that Bush drew this 700 million from had specific language in it. Bush had discretion with how to spend the money but was obligated to inform congressional leaders.

9/11 emergency appropriations
The President had discretion to spend this $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds.

The WH used vague and misleading words to describe how it was spending this money. Never mentioning Iraq whatsoever in the descriptions.
It used wording like "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture"
Link 1
Link 2

In the Aug '02 supplemental. Bush moved several hundred millions of dollars.
The wording of the supplemental stated that: the funds could be moved "15 days following notification to the appropriate Congressional committees."
Aug Supplemental

The administration cannot provide one shred of evidence of a transfer notice for supplemental funding that mentions Iraq. Source

On Tuesday Senator Roberty Byrd said that the Admin "the Bush White House provided no consultations as required by law" Byrd was the chairman of the appropriations committee at the time (2002)

What you've got there is Bob Woodward's opinion of what happened and people's interpretation of what "should" have been done without any knowledge about if anything else was done. There is no specific information about what $700 million it was, who transferred it, what notice was required, when that notice was required to be given, what form that notice needed to take, etc, etc, etc.

It's far too soon to make any statements about it beyond, I will be interested in seeing what all the details are. Anything further is pure speculation and it's not worth discussing.

yournamehere · 04-21-2004, 08:54 PM

Prince Bandar is a member of the Saudi Royal Family - the same Royal Family that sponsored a national telethon to raise $150 M for the surviving family members of palestinian suicide bombers, and regularly makes large contributions to "charities" known for being fronts for terrorist organizations Do you really have to connect a lot of dots to get from there to "possible security threat?"

The information was given to him because the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family have been in bed together; making each other very rich for decades. Prince Bandar is just doing his part in lowering oil prices before the election to help out his business partner, Bush.

Please don't tell me anyone is surprised by this.

Oh - and diveritng $700M for his war, without the approval of Congress, was not "executive privilege," it was <i>illegal</i>.

Assuming, of course, that Bob Woodward (and the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Comittee) didn't make all this up.

losthellhound · 04-22-2004, 04:07 AM

I think the real issue is not if someone is a terrorist, or that someone moved around alot of money illegally.. The original topic here was that Bush felt it more important to tell a buddy (leader of a country or not, he is still a buddy) about the war plans before he knew he could go to war (the President can't send the country to war, he doesn't have that right under the consitution).. I think of all people, Powell should be the outraged. This is the what.. fifth time? He has made Powell look like an idiot.. I'll sit back and wait for Powell's book ( I can see "Following the chain of command: how I was led around the world to promote war - The Colin Powell story)?

04-19-2004, 10:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	There seems to be some dispute over the assertion that Powell was briefed after Bandar. The President has the right to share such information with those people he deems fit. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

04-19-2004, 11:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	How is Prince Bandar a terrorist? He's a diplomat from Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting that every Arab is a terrorist, or are you simply trolling for some negative responses? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

04-19-2004, 12:30 PM	#7 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	right on seretogis. and just because it appears in a bob woodward book doesn't make it fact. he has everything to gain from arranging or describing the events in such a way as to create controversy. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

04-19-2004, 06:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Islamic Law. Not terrorism. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

04-21-2004, 07:33 AM	#23 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	We give details Bob Woodward disclosed in his book that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this” leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement." The Constitution gives Congress the purse strings and both supplemental bills that Bush drew this 700 million from had specific language in it. Bush had discretion with how to spend the money but was obligated to inform congressional leaders. 9/11 emergency appropriations The President had discretion to spend this $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. The WH used vague and misleading words to describe how it was spending this money. Never mentioning Iraq whatsoever in the descriptions. It used wording like "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture" Link 1 Link 2 In the Aug '02 supplemental. Bush moved several hundred millions of dollars. The wording of the supplemental stated that: the funds could be moved "15 days following notification to the appropriate Congressional committees." Aug Supplemental The administration cannot provide one shred of evidence of a transfer notice for supplemental funding that mentions Iraq. Source On Tuesday Senator Roberty Byrd said that the Admin "the Bush White House provided no consultations as required by law" Byrd was the chairman of the appropriations committee at the time (2002) Last edited by Superbelt; 04-21-2004 at 07:35 AM..

04-19-2004, 11:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
iccky Psycho Location: Princeton, NJ	Well, right, but the president is the comander in chief. If he wants the change that to "Top Secret - No Forigen, except Prince Bandar" he can. We can argue about the wisdom of doing this, but he doesn't need to get permission from anyone to do this (who would he get permission from anyway?) Now if the assertion is that Cheney did this without the president's knowledge, that would be a different story. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

04-20-2004, 04:44 AM	#16 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Don't understand the point of calling Bandar a terrorist. It really just gives the conservatives on this board a way out from facing the real issues that Woodward's book presents. Of course, they'd probably still come up with a response like "Clinton did it too" or "Woodward is just trying to sell a book", but at least they'd have to think about it. I'd like to hear something from them since all I've heard from conservatives elsewhere is silence.

04-20-2004, 05:03 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'm sorry. I see him as a terrorist. He may not actively plan any attacks but his funding makes him just as cuplable. If everyone prefers I can just start calling him a terrorist funder, though, I don't see the difference.

04-20-2004, 06:55 AM	#19 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	There's an awful lot of people with insider acess to the Bush White House who are lying just to sell a book.

04-20-2004, 09:16 PM	#20 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	to your point of "yawn. just move on to the next outrage", I say: Why change horsemen mid-apocalypse? Bush-Cheney 04...

04-21-2004, 06:59 AM	#21 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I would like to hear a Bush supporter explain Bush's misappropriation of 700 million specifically earmarked to the Afghanistan war, (y'know, the one that was supposed to catch those responsible for attacking America) but instead used towards preparations for the iraq war. Anyone?

04-21-2004, 08:54 PM	#25 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Prince Bandar is a member of the Saudi Royal Family - the same Royal Family that sponsored a national telethon to raise $150 M for the surviving family members of palestinian suicide bombers, and regularly makes large contributions to "charities" known for being fronts for terrorist organizations Do you really have to connect a lot of dots to get from there to "possible security threat?" The information was given to him because the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family have been in bed together; making each other very rich for decades. Prince Bandar is just doing his part in lowering oil prices before the election to help out his business partner, Bush. Please don't tell me anyone is surprised by this. Oh - and diveritng $700M for his war, without the approval of Congress, was not "executive privilege," it was <i>illegal</i>. Assuming, of course, that Bob Woodward (and the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Comittee) didn't make all this up. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

04-22-2004, 04:07 AM	#26 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	I think the real issue is not if someone is a terrorist, or that someone moved around alot of money illegally.. The original topic here was that Bush felt it more important to tell a buddy (leader of a country or not, he is still a buddy) about the war plans before he knew he could go to war (the President can't send the country to war, he doesn't have that right under the consitution).. I think of all people, Powell should be the outraged. This is the what.. fifth time? He has made Powell look like an idiot.. I'll sit back and wait for Powell's book ( I can see "Following the chain of command: how I was led around the world to promote war - The Colin Powell story)? __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death