O'Neill: Plan to Hit Iraq Began Pre-9/11

[phuloi]

January 14, 2004 | Print | Send


Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill had barely cleared his throat for his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday night before the "gotcha" e-mail started filling my mailbox.

Anti-war constituents apparently felt vindicated by O'Neill's assertion that President Bush was mapping out strategies for ousting Saddam Hussein soon after taking office and months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," said O'Neill.

I gathered from the electronic deluge that I was supposed to be shocked by this revelation and writhe like a salted slug in self-contempt and shame for supporting the war in Iraq. To think: Bush knew all along that Saddam was a bad person and wanted to get rid of him.

Also interviewed on the show was Ron Suskind, whose new book "The Price of Loyality: George W. Bush, The White House, and The Education of Paul O'Neill," relies heavily on O'Neill's testimony as well as documentation O'Neill spirited from the White House when he was fired in December 2002.

Suskind said that Saddam was topic "A" for the Bush administration. "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime."

And his point would be?

The question isn't how could Bush have been so focused on Saddam, but how could he not be? Getting rid of Saddam had been U.S. policy for years and was ratified not by Sept. 11, but by the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," which President Clinton signed into law on Oct. 31, 1998.

The Act was predicated upon Saddam's ignoble career highlights, which, briefly summarized, include the:

- 1980 invasion of Iran.

- 1988 relocation and murder of between 50,000 and 180,000 Kurdish civilians.

- 1988 use of chemical weapons against another 5,000 Kurds.

- 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

- 1993 attempted assassination of former President George Bush.

- 1994 posting of 80,000 troops near Kuwait, posing a threat of renewed invasion or attack.

- 1996 beginning of trend to deny weapons inspectors access to facilities and documents as required by the United Nations.

Call me zany, but I'm inclined at this point to stipulate that Saddam Hussein was, indeed, "a bad person." The U.S. policy that evolved from that understanding - that he needed to go - was articulated in the act as follows :

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Clinton's focus was on helping Iraqis overturn Saddam rather than on invading Iraq, but that's where Sept. 11 becomes a factor. Simply put, Sept. 11 underscored our vulnerability and the reality that the United States could no longer afford a wait-and-see attitude in an environment of global terrorism. Strategically, the Bush Doctrine is working.

One day Saddam is crawling out of a spider hole, and shortly thereafter Libya's Col. Gadhafi is inviting inspectors over for tea. For a complete list of ripple effects, read William Safire's Jan. 12 column in The New York Times.

And though Bush gets credit for toppling the Iraqi dictator, using force against Iraq as a pre-emptive measure wasn't a new policy. The purpose of Clinton's 1998 Operation Desert Fox was to force Saddam to comply with weapons inspections and to thwart his continuing to develop WMD.

"Mark my words," Clinton said on the eve of the 1998 bombing. "(Saddam) will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."

Clinton subsequently came under fire from congressional leaders for allowing U.S. policy toward Iraq to "drift." In a letter dated Aug. 11, 1999, several congressmen, including Democratic presidential contender Sen. Joseph Lieberman, wrote:

"There is considerable evidence that Iraq continues to seek to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. The whole point of Operation Desert Fox was that we could not afford to wait until Saddam reconstituted his WMD capabilities."

In other words, concern about Saddam's unconventional weapons program was consistent and serious long before Bush reached office. As it turns out, we may have been wrong about those programs based on flawed intelligence, but belief in those programs preceded Bush's inauguration.

For Bush not to have looked for ways to oust Saddam or a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq in our new connect-the-dots world would have seemed negligent to irresponsible.

[SuperScout]

Thank you enormously for finding and posting this most informative article. Beyond a shadow of doubt, even for those barely able to fog a mirror, the issue of "who started what/when/why" will be forever put to rest. My prediction is that O'Neill's book will slide into the nearest gully of insignificata.

[Gimpy]

STOP IT! You say,,,,,,I think I've addressed your "demands" once before, have I not?

That crap won't work with me.

Now, to give an answer to you, Doc and others who may want one.

If history remembers George W. Bush at all, it will be for his wars. Historians will, however, struggle to understand the logic, given that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were by men not from Afghanistan or Iraq, not from Iran, Syria, or North Korea, but from Saudi Arabia. Bush's wars will only begin to make sense to historians when they unearth the Project for a New American Century 1, while discovering first that top members of George Bush's administration wrote it, then that it envisions a new world order with the United States at the center, with all other countries -- willingly or not -- either aligned with our interests or subservient to them.

Unfortunately, the grandiose plans of Bush's policy makers were foolishly shortsighted. Afghanistan is still a hotbed of violence and revenge. Iraq is still lacking water and electricity, and as of today American troops are being attacked an average of fifteen times a day; Osama bin Laden is still sending tapes to Al Jazeera. Terrorists are flocking to Iraq to kill Americans. Those unspeakable weapons that Bush claimed were poised to attack the free world have yet to be found.

Bush's wars, rather than bring us safety, have made the world a dangerous, cynical place. Many countries, including most of our allies, are now afraid of us and openly critical of our misguided policies.

It's easy to spot strains in the once unwavering relationship between the White House and the armed forces. The blunt assessments of the administration are often scathing. "[Bush] pats us on the back with his speeches and stabs us in the back with his actions," Charles Carter, a retired Navy senior chief petty officer, recently told a Knight-Ridder reporter. "I will vote non-Republican in a heartbeat if it continues as is."

A recent posting on a Military.com chat room bulletin board is not atypical: "It is likely a lot of Active and Retired Military who supported this President will find 'staying home' a strong option at the next election. We put our trust in President Bush and he has let us down."

Even more stinging was this first-person Army account: "For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom." That was published last month in the Peoria Journal Star, by a U.S. soldier named Tim Predmore serving on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division, based near Mosul in northern Iraq.

The harsh words from military men are especially poignant "when you consider how Bush became president by a few military absentee ballots," says retired U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth. "I suspect a huge number of those overseas ballots will not be marked Republican in 2004."

The reason is simple, says Hackworth, a White House critic whose Web sites, Soldiers for the Truth and Hackworth.com, have been documenting the contempt many service men and women feel for the Iraq war planners. "Most military guys who understand war, professional soldiers, they recognize America is engaged in its largest and nastiest war. And like in Vietnam, they don't see any light at the end of the tunnel," he says.

"My e-mail, overwhelmingly from soldiers and vets, says these guys are really pissed off about the handling of the war. And what's amazing is the huge number of folks from this group no longer relating to the Republican Party."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a member of the Intelligence Committee, said the recent Douglas Feith memo reflects an administration increasingly desperate to justify its policies in Iraq.

"Two things have happened," Durbin said. "One is that the evidence so far doesn't support their premise for going to war. Second is that the intelligence agencies, and in particular the CIA, are fed up with making excuses for things that have happened and taking the blame."

The Bush administration's preemptive war policy, wherein he claims the right to overthrow any government suspected of being a danger to the US, goes against international law, specifically the UN Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another unless under imminent threat of invasion. The Guardian, June 7, 2002 link

For more than a year, Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. September 10, 2003 link

Bush went to war in Iraq in spite of the will of the people. According to a CBS News poll before the war, "Americans are willing to wait for that approval: (THERES' YOUR ANSWER, DOC!) a majority wants Congress to wait until the U.N. has acted before voting on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, (THAT SHOWS WHERE YOU WERE WRONG, DOC) even if that would take longer than the few weeks in which the administration wants action." CBS News September 24, 2002 link

In most European countries, 80 - 90% of the people were against the war. Most heads of state were against the war. Britain, Bush's only ally, was carried along on the back of a lie, just as Americans were. BBC February 11, 2003 link

Months after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, when it became clear that Iraq really had not been an imminent threat to anyone, the Bush administration began to seek new reasons to justify the war. As the Bush administration's leading hawk on Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz has been a tireless proponent of the argument that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction was a compelling enough reason for the United States to resort to war. These days, his emphasis is different. Washington Post September 11, 2003 link


At least 7,300 Iraqi civilians were killed and 20,000 injured during the war and the following occupation by US troops. Iraq Body Count September, 2003 link

Over 400 US troops have been killed in Iraq, with many more injured. Rutland Herald December 2003 link

Another fine mess. Post-September 11, George Bush began an unwinnable war on multiple fronts against a nebulous enemy. And two years on, a new study shows, the campaign has had little impact on its targets. September 11, 2003 link

[Bush administration] officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup plan. Knight Ridder Washington Bureau July 11, 2003 link

In order to generate support for the war against Iraq, Bush demonized Saddam Hussein, but did so with references to atrocities he committed a decade ago. Bush, however, implied that Hussein's crimes were new. ABC News January 29, 2003 link

When confronted with his lies about Iraq's weapons, rather than take the blame, Bush started pointing fingers. His loyal Republicans began to fall on their swords, but most Americans saw through the charade; they know where the buck stops. link

In an interview with The Associated Press, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, said that whether Saddam's regime actually possessed weapons of mass destruction isn't really the issue. This is a clear reversal of prior Bush administration claims, and an attempt to justify war after the fact. Salon September 5, 2003 link

"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Iraq had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective." Salon July 15, 2003 link

Bush barred UN weapons inspectors from Iraq after the war. The Sydney Morning Herald April 24 2003 link

The Bush administration is dismissing critics of its war, calling them political opportunists and questioning their patriotism. October 14, 2003 link

President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs (which experts have now concluded were not), said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war. Washington Post May 31, 2003 link

With no WMDs to be found, Bush tried to shift the focus to WMD programs. Did he really think no one would notice? edstrong July 20, 2003 link

There seems little doubt that the Bush administration's prime justification for invading Iraq ? the fear that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction ? was way off base. Nine months of fruitless searching have made that increasingly clear.

But last week three new reports cast further doubt on the administration's reckless rush to invade Iraq. Taken together, they paint a picture far different from the one presented to Americans early last year.

They depict a world in which Saddam Hussein, though undeniably eager to make Iraq a threatening world power, was far from any serious steps to do that. The reports strengthen our conviction that whatever threat Iraq posed did not require an immediate invasion without international support.

And they underline the importance of finding out how far the Bush administration's obsession with the Iraqi dictator warped the American intelligence reports that did so much to convince Congress and the public that the attack was justified.

The likelihood that significant weapons of mass destruction will be found seemed to grow even more remote last week with publication of an investigative report by Barton Gellman in The Washington Post. Mr. Gellman, who perused Iraqi documents and interviewed key Iraqis and members of the American search team, found that Iraq's effort to produce terror weapons had been so thoroughly beaten down by conflict, sanctions and arms embargoes that its forbidden weapons program amounted mainly to wishful thinking.

A program to produce missiles with enough range to reach neighboring capitals, for example, turned out to exist only in designs and computations on two compact discs. Experts estimated it would have taken at least six years to build the missile, if it had worked at all.

A planned genetic engineering lab to design germ weapons was never completed. Most dramatically of all, an internal letter, written by Iraq's top unconventional-weapons official in 1995 to one of Saddam Hussein's sons, asserted unequivocally that Iraq had destroyed its entire inventory of biological weapons agents in 1991, proving the falsity of intelligence estimates that Iraq still possessed large quantities of germ materials.

The failure to find anything significant has particularly disturbed Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton administration national security official whose book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" led many moderates and Democrats to believe that an invasion was justified ? at least in time to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that seemed only a few years away. Now, in an article in The Atlantic magazine, Mr. Pollack anguishes over how estimates of Iraq's capabilities could have been so far off.

He puts most of the blame on the intelligence community, which overestimated the scope and progress of Iraq's weapons programs starting in the late 1990's, partly because a lack of hard evidence led analysts to assume the worst.

But he also condemns the Bush administration for distorting the intelligence estimates in making the case for going to war, particularly by implying that Iraq could have had a nuclear weapon within a year when estimates suggested five to seven years was more likely. Even that number now looks far-fetched given that Iraq's nuclear program was virtually eliminated. Analysts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also found that three intelligence services that are arguably the best in the world ? those of the United States, Britain and Israel ? were tragically unable to provide accurate information on Iraq.

But the Carnegie experts are even harsher in condemning the administration for deliberate exaggerations. They argue that the intelligence community gave reasonably cautious assessments up until mid-2002, when official statements and estimates suddenly became increasingly alarmist. The Carnegie analysts accuse the Bush administration of putting intense pressure on intelligence experts to conform, of minimizing the existence of dissenting views, and of routinely dropping caveats and uncertainties in painting a worst-case picture.


January 13, 2004

The Cato Institute, a conservative Washington think tank best known for pushing the privatization of Social Security, says the war in Iraq was "the wrong war" because "the enemy at the gates was, and continues to be, Al-Qaida. Not only was Iraq not a direct military threat to the United States (even if it possessed WMD, which was a fair assumption), but there is no good evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaida and would have given the group WMD to be used against the United States."


From the U.S. Army War College comes a new study warning that the U.S. war on terrorism is unfocused and may have set the nation "on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States." The war in Iraq, the report says, was "an unnecessary preventative war" which "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al-Qaida."

The most detailed critique comes from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Carnegie's scholars think deeply and well about the reasonable application of power to preserve peace. The war in Iraq was not one of those reasonable applications, they conclude. Findings from the study include:

?[color=red] "There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al-Qaida."

? "There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to Al-Qaida and much evidence to counter it."

? In 2002, a dramatic shift occurred in U.S. intelligence estimates of Iraq's WMD capabilities, suggesting "that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002."

? "Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs . . . ."


As Central Command chief, General Antohny Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD."In my time at CENTCOM, I watched the intelligence, and never--not once--did it say, `He has WMD.'

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military.

"I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, `Where's the threat?'" Their response, he recalls, was silence.
As he walked off the stage in Nashville, Zinni concluded that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into."

Considering all the costs and benefits, there were at least two options clearly preferable to a war undertaken without international support that has nearly destroyed the feeling of compassion and friendship towards the United States that we had gained immediately after the attack of September 11, 2001: allowing the [U.N.] inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of 'coercive inspections' backed by a specially designed international force.

That would be MY "plan" and it looks like a lot of other well versed experts and other folks who have much more "expertise" in field think so as well!

PS..........SuperFella...............And I quote YOU."Gosh, I really wish I'd kept all those quotes by Bill Clinton, Madeline Allbright, Ted Kennedy etc. etc., and how they pontificated about the WMD that they knew SH had. With all your research skills, Mr. Gimpy, I'll bet you could find them in about 15 seconds. I'll wager further that you won't raise a finger to post them, even if you do find them!"...End quote!


The "difference IS...............They "pontificated" using apparently the same incorrect intelligence sources that Bush was guilty of...but did NOT put intense pressure on intelligence experts to conform, or to minimize the existence of dissenting views, and of routinely dropping caveats and uncertainties in painting a worst-case picture like the Bush folks did!


. AND, THEY didn't advocate a FULL SCALE INVASION of IRAQ like GEE-W did either!

[Keith_Hixson]

They could have and should have completed the job in 1991.

Big mistake in hindsight.

Keith

[HARDCORE]

Keith My Friend -

Amen Brother, AMEN!!

VERITAS

[SuperScout]

Here's the scenario: "... an internal letter, written by Iraq's top unconventional-weapons official in 1995 to one of Saddam Hussein's sons, asserted unequivocally that Iraq had destroyed its entire inventory of biological weapons agents..." Now, knowing just how kind and friendly SH's sons were, how much credibility could any fool place in this letter? To cite this horse hocky as proof is to insult the intellgence of anyone who reads it!

Reality Check: "Iraq is still lacking water and electricity..." Would you be big enough, Mr. Gimpy, to admit that there is more potable water and more electricity now than pre-SH?

All your direct cites from Salon.com - and we're not supposed to hold our collective noses to guard against their bias, slanted paradigm, and Bush-bashing?

And we're supposed to believe your horseshit that the world has been made more dangerous by Bush's wars? For every mujahadini, every AlQeada, every terrorist that is killed by Bush's wars has made the world much safer, even if you are so far into denial and hatred as to fail to accept it. And who gives a royal rat's ass if some of these countries don't like us? Bet your sweet ass that they respect us, and that's what really matters - we ain't running in a beauty contest. Most Arab countries, for example, don't like the Israelis, but you can take it to the bank that they respect them, knowing full well that when threatened, the Israelis will respond accordingly. Kindly note what happened to the Iraqi nuclear power plant that got smashed by Israeli jets. And let's see - Libya is humming kumbaya, Syria is sucking up to the Israelis, the Iraqi army has been defanged, and the Iranis have talking nice. How is this more dangerous? enough....

[BLUEHAWK]

Gimpy -
a) All I asked you is what YOU would do if you were in the seat...
b) There is a helluva lot of difference between our troopers (an exact count has yet to be established) taking issue with "Iraq war planners", and dissing the Commander-in-Chief. To my recollection there has not been one war in all of history in which troops failed to "take issue" (i.e. piss and moan!) with war planners, eh Gimpy?
c) I take Col Hack very seriously too, but he had a lot of praise (mostly) for the war planners during the invasion scenarios if memory serves and, what is more, as I said on PF several times a year ago and even before... Dubya did NOT "get" us into this war. The arrogant and juvenile jingoistic strategic planning of The American Enterprise Institute and Project for the New American Century DID and it is THEY who should be the target of your invective! They certainly are of mine!!!!

Even if Howard Dean, by some miracle or sleight of hand, becomes the next Prez... nobody alive and sentient can possibly imagine that he will have control of his party, make perfect selections of cabinet members, produce a spending plan that actually does what it says it will do, conduct international war on terrorists faultlessly, turn his party's hand away from obscene financial donations, not make public statements he regrets, get really really bad advice, etc etc etc. In other words, it'll be the same deal in a different uniform.

In time of war, stick with your Commander-in-Chief until his term is up... which it will be soon enough. For the sake of our armed forces if for no other reason. Unlike Nixon and Slick Willy, G Dubya has done nothing to humiliate and embarass America... his worst mistakes have been in the form of picking advisors.

So, you are the guy walkingup the steps to Air Force One... what do YOU do under the circumstances, Gimpy?

C'mon man...

Congrats. Gimp. poll results can be considered evidence (not proof)that might tend to support your position!I'm both impressed and pleased.Really didn't think you had it in ya.In time I'm beginning to dare hope that you'll learn the diference between opinion,evidence,and proof.

It's almost a shame that Griz's post has pretty much distroyed any credability that your position might have had.Oh well, there'll be other issues.

[Gimpy]

Oh, now I get it! An article (one) written by a REAL "EXPERT" on the subject (yeah right!) of the"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (which BTW NEVER called for a full scale invasion of Iraq!), Kathleen Parker (gimmie a freakin break! talk about a neo-con---right-wing zealot!) is supposed to discredit ALL THE EVIDENCE I POSTED!

I think NOT! I thought you guys didn't allow "opinions" of writers, reporters and so-called biased viewpoints to be used to "support" your point of contention???

Y'all REALLY are stooping close to an all time low, ya know??
Nice try........but "that dog won't hunt" as another said recently!

Have a nice day!

PS----Blue...............I done told ya what I'd do!

[SEATJERKER]

My Fellow Patriots, I know many of you have strong feelings on the subject
of President Bush's visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln,so I thought you might appreciate CDR McIntyre's
letter to Senator Byrd.




Senator Byrd,

As a retired Naval Officer, with two Gulf carrier deployments under my belt, I find your criticism of President Bush's visit to the Lincoln offensive in the extreme! This is the first time that
the Commander-in-Chief took time out of his schedule to pay a visit to thank those who served in the line of fire, in a way that was both dramatic and meaningful to those on the carrier.

Perhaps if LBJ got off his fat ass to do something similar,our troops' morale in Vietnam might not have been so low.

As a Naval officer, I am extremely sensitive to styles of leadership.

That is, after all, our stock in trade. And it was not lost on me that
the President spent about thirty seconds shaking hands with the
Admiral, CO, and CAG (If you don't know these abbreviations just look them up in your Funk &Wagnalls!) He then spent the next forty-five minutes putting himself at the disposal of the people who make that ship work, the yellow shirts, the green shirts, the
purple shirts, the chiefs, the sailors.



If you don't know the significance of those colored shirts, look it up in your Blue Jacket's Manual. Not dressed out in formal uniform (I understand at Bush's request), but in their greasy, smelly, sweaty working uniforms ... working a flight deck is hot, hard work. And yet he, in his flight suit, put himself at their disposal, this was their
moment for 19 or 20 something year old kids a few years out of high
school, to get a picture of themselves with the President of the United
States, his arm draped around their shoulder.

That is a moment that those kids never dreamed would ever happen to them, maybe not even when they knew he was coming aboard. Surely, he would see the brass, not the troops. But it was the troops to whom he gave his time ... and it was the most natural moment in the world. You might have thought it was a family reunion, and in a way, it was...
Bush is one of them, the common man, and while he is still the most powerful man on the planet right now.

he hasn't lost his touch for them.
.

Was it a political moment?



What moment of a president's life is NOT a political moment? Was it grand standing, to come in to an OK pass to a 4 wire, a bit high in close, correcting, left of centerline? Well, hell, he didn't fly the approach anyway, though I understand from the pilots who flew him that he did a pretty good job at formation flying, tucked in close for a lead change. You can always tell a
fighter pilot, you just can't tell him very much. And apparently after thirty years, it all comes back, with a little coaching, I am sure. Frankly, I would have liked to see him come aboard in an FA-18, but the Secret Service vetoed that, and Bush accepted their judgment ... again, a mark of a good leader.

If you had spent some time in the service, instead of the Klan,

you might understand the significance of that moment to all the men and women aboard the Lincoln, and indeed to all the men and women in the service who shared that moment vicariously. But you chose the bedsheet instead of the uniform, and so you don't.

I am half-tempted to move to West Virginia just so I could vote against you in your next election.

Lewis F. McIntyre
CDR, USN (Ret)

...