Memo-gate from the Times; Bush impeachment?

[Questioninggeller]

Here's some more Palast...

The smoking gun?

British memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy

By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott / Knight Ridder

WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided military force should be used to overthrow Saddam's regime.

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls for comment on Thursday.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

Source (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.htm)

Impeachment Time: "Facts Were Fixed."

By Greg Palast / BuzzFlash Guest News Analysis

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a " high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo, uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.


Source (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/05/ana05013.html)
Also at http://www.gregpalast.com/

Eighty-eight members of Congress call on Bush for answers on secret Iraq plan
RAW STORY

Eighty-eight members of Congress have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In a letter, Conyers and other members say they are disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.


Source (http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502)

What the memo says:

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.


This only part, full memo at
The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)

[wahrheit]

I read that memo online one week ago, and since then I wondered why the U.S. media didn't seem to care much about it. Clinton's privates and an intern were media topic #1 back then, one might think talking his poeple into a questionable war should be more important than that.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by wahrheit
I read that memo online one week ago, and since then I wondered why the U.S. media didn't seem to care much about it. Clinton's privates and an intern were media topic #1 back then, one might think talking his poeple into a questionable war should be more important than that.

One reason the U.S. media might be ignoring the memo is because it is dated july 2002 and yet speaks of the Saddam regime in past tense.

[a_unique_person]

The information is old now, despite this being actual documentation. Not enough people care. The Australian Conservative PM won the election on the basis he wouldn't raise interest rates. Everyone knows he's a liar, but that doesn't bother them.

[demon]

Another damning gem from Gordon Brown that the media and hardly anyone else seems to care about...on BBC1's Breakfast programme 03May05, apparently in response to a grieving widow.
He defended the Iraq war on account of "national economic interests"...
Rather than a casual mantra-like excuse that somehow manages to ignore the huge issue in question, I'd rather think of this as a slip of the tongue where the reality is exposed for what it is - consistent lying afterall takes a lot of effort. This was nicely rounded off with the winning assertion: “Iraq, of course, being a democracy means that the Middle East is a safer place.� (note both instances of the present tense).
These guys should be up before the ICC.

Two comments tucked away in the Guardian:
---------------
Guardian, 1 day to go, 04May05
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1475851,00.html

Cashing in

Speaking on BBC1's Breakfast programme about the war in Iraq, Gordon Brown said the government had done what it thought was best for Britain.

"We believed we were making the right decisions in the British national economic interests," the chancellor added.

So was Michael Moore right that it was all about oil? Or is the city commodities market going heavily into date and palm-nut futures?
---------------

---------------
Guardian, Diary, Marina Hyde, 04May05
http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,1475995,00.html

Still, it is an immeasurable delight to welcome to centre stage an entirely new justification for the Iraq war, courtesy of Honest Gordon Brown's interview with BBC Breakfast yesterday morning. "The debate about Iraq has gone on for two and a half years now," declared the chancellor. "We believed we were making the right decisions in the British national economic interests..." The what, love? "It was just a slip of the tongue," insists Labour HQ. Naturally.
---------------


http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05054brown.shtml
---------------
Brown: Iraq invasion was about national economic interest -04/05/05

Comments by Gordon Brown, who has today defended the invasion of Iraq in terms of British national economic interest, will be greeted with sadness by radical Christians.

The comments came as the Labour Chancellor defended Tony Blair after the grieving widow of the latest soldier to be killed in Iraq conflict blamed the Prime Minister for her husband’s death.

Mr Brown said the Government had acted in the British national interest when it went to war.

He was speaking after a devastated Ann Toward said she was in no doubt who was responsible for her estranged husband’s death.

“I have said openly that Tony Blair is to blame,� Miss Toward told the Press Association from her home in Byker, Newcastle upon Tyne.

“The bottom line is if they hadn’t been over there, Anthony would still be alive today.�

Brown has previously been praised by Christian aid agencies and other Christian organisations for putting aside arguments about Britain's economic self-interest in his support for the MakePovertyHistory campaign to cancel debts in the developing world and create fairer global trade.

As recently as last week on World Poverty Day Gordon Brown spoke about his commitment to increasing the aid budget, cutting debt and promoting fair trade.

Yesterday he also refused to commit to the replacement of Trident, a statement which encouraged many church leaders.

Brown, expected to be the next Labour leader is a Christian Socialist and has influenced his political decisions.

However, on the last day of electioneering, the Chancellor appears to have fallen back on old arguments about bringing the best economic results for Britain.

Mr Brown said he understood the feelings of grief over the death of the soldier, but defended Mr Blair.

“Anybody who has suffered grief and loss will understand the feelings and the difficulties that this family is facing today and our thoughts must be, initially, with them,� the Chancellor said.

But he said the Government had acted in what it believed was the British national interest.

“We believed we were making the right decisions in the British national economic interests,� he said.

“Of course we have lessons to learn, as Tony Blair has said, about the way things were done, like the dossier, but at the end of the day we wanted the security of Britain and the British national interest to be advanced.

“Iraq, of course, being a democracy means that the Middle East is a safer place.�

On a campaign visit to Gloucester, Mr Blair said: “I’ve expressed my deep sympathy and condolences to the family.

“I really don’t think there’s anything I can, or should, say more than that and I don’t think it’s right or appropriate to do so.�

Guardsman Wakefield, 24, from 1st Battalion The Coldstream Guards, was the 87th British serviceman to be killed in Iraq.

He died from injuries sustained when a bomb exploded while he was on patrol near the southern town of Al Amarah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

####ing hell!
The media should have been over him for this one...but of course they were not.

*economic* interest.

So a few score british servicemen and 100,000 Iraqis died to keep inflation down.

Why didn't you just say this earlier Gordon?

By the same logic, it would be fine for me to kill Mr Brown and take his wallet and rolex watch as the loss of life would have been perfectly justified in the cause of my economic interest.

Vote Tony, get Gordon.

[CFLarsen]

Bush won't be impeached for that one. There's no sex in it.

[Rob Lister]

So why isn't the tense of the memo important?

What am I missing?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
One reason the U.S. media might be ignoring the memo is because it is dated july 2002 and yet speaks of the Saddam regime in past tense.

The past tense is because this is a report on a meeting that happened in the past.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The past tense is because this is a report on a meeting that happened in the past.

The memo is dated july 2002. The memo speaks of the regime in the past tense. The regime didn't fall until 2003. The tense discredits the autenticity of the memo.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
So why isn't the tense of the memo important?

What am I missing?
The memo is written after the meeting, which is why it's in past tense. I can see why Saddam's regime being referred to in past tense is confusing, but it's not actually his regime that's referred to in past tense, but John Scarletts summery of the situation. From the link:

"John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear." etc.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
The memo is dated july 2002. The memo speaks of the regime in the past tense. The regime didn't fall until 2003. The tense discredits the autenticity of the memo.

RIght up until the week of the invasion, the Australian PM was saying that if Saddam complied with the UN resolutions on WMD the invasion would not go ahead. If you believed that, you would believe anything. Once that whole train of events was set in motion, nothing was going to stop it.

[TragicMonkey]

The tense business could be easily settled by examing the tense used in other memos written by the same person.

If we're going to live in a madcap world of, you know, checking things.

[clk]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
The memo is dated july 2002. The memo speaks of the regime in the past tense. The regime didn't fall until 2003. The tense discredits the autenticity of the memo.

Dude, if they were going to go through the trouble of faking a memo, I think they would atleast get the goddamn tense correct. Unless it was a memo forged by a bunch of 5 year olds.


And Bush isn't going to get impeached. Him and his buddies have already lied their ass off, and they have gotten away with it. How is this news, anyways, that Bush manipulated intelligence? We knew this a long time ago. They've gotten away with lying about what they knew before 9/11 and then they've attacked people who tried to prevent 9/11. I think they will easily get away with a few more Iraq lies.

[Donks]

Originally posted by clk
Dude, if they were going to go through the trouble of faking a memo, I think they would atleast get the goddamn tense correct. Unless it was a memo forged by a bunch of 5 year olds.

Considering the fantastic job done on the Rather memo, I don't see why you'd think they'd have high standards.

[clk]

Originally posted by Donks
Considering the fantastic job done on the Rather memo, I don't see why you'd think they'd have high standards.

If the Rather memo hadn't been posted on the internet for the whole world to see, I think there would not have been a 'Rather-gate', and the memo would never have been shown to be fake. The mistakes in the Rather memo were quite technical, dealing with which fonts were used at what points in time, etc.
Trust me, if someone is going to fake a memo, then they will atleast get the tense correct, unless they are really stupid.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by clk
If the Rather memo hadn't been posted on the internet for the whole world to see, I think there would not have been a 'Rather-gate', and the memo would never have been shown to be fake. The mistakes in the Rather memo were quite technical, dealing with which fonts were used at what points in time, etc.
Trust me, if someone is going to fake a memo, then they will atleast get the tense correct, unless they are really stupid.
Besides the tense is correct as far as I know.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by clk
Dude, if they were going to go through the trouble of faking a memo, I think they would atleast get the goddamn tense correct. Unless it was a memo forged by a bunch of 5 year olds.


And Bush isn't going to get impeached. Him and his buddies have already lied their ass off, and they have gotten away with it. How is this news, anyways, that Bush manipulated intelligence? We knew this a long time ago. They've gotten away with lying about what they knew before 9/11 and then they've attacked people who tried to prevent 9/11. I think they will easily get away with a few more Iraq lies.

Bush can lie all he wants and impeachment will never be an issue. Why? Because (as so many conservative skeptics [can such a creature exist] have told me before) he's NOT UNDER OATH!

Of course, we can't hold him to the oath he took at his inauguration - that's a different oath than the one you take when you're lying about semen stains on a blue dress.

Mephisto

[Ziggurat]

This will all come to naught in the US, and the reason is quite simple. I'm surprised that nobody mentioned it yet. It won't make a difference here because it's (1) a memo a Brit wrote about a meeting of other Brits and (2) doesn't make any new allegations anyways. What it says about Bush is therefore essentially hearsay, regardless of how reliable you personally think the source is. Doesn't matter how bad it looks in Britain (and it looks worse for Blair than for Bush), that's still all it amounts to. Questioninggeller's first source seems to be under the deluded opinion that such hearsay is sufficient to impeach a president. Well, it's not. Bush's opponents would do well to start grounding their strategies in reality.

[thaiboxerken]

Bush can do all kinds of illegal things with his presidential power, and it won't matter if the public knows.. because the public doesn't seem to care. Impeachment seems to have 2 requirements in order to happen, illegal activity AND a public outcry.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Bush can do all kinds of illegal things with his presidential power, and it won't matter if the public knows.. because the public doesn't seem to care. Impeachment seems to have 2 requirements in order to happen, illegal activity AND a public outcry.

I love statements like this: you don't have to back up the claim that "Bush can do all kinds of illegal things ... and it won't matter" because it's hypothetical. You're not actually claiming he HAS done illegal things, so there's no way to disprove this claim. Excellent rhetorical strategy there, my friend.

[thaiboxerken]

Thanks, zig, but my point still stands. It takes more than just illegal activity for a person as powerful as Bush to be impeached. The public has to actually give a damned and demand the impeachment.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Thanks, zig, but my point still stands. It takes more than just illegal activity for a person as powerful as Bush to be impeached. The public has to actually give a damned and demand the impeachment.

I'd say it a little differently: there has to be a public outcry in order for congress to get off its backside and do ANYTHING politically risky, and impeaching any president always carries some political risk. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Bush can do all kinds of illegal things with his presidential power, and it won't matter if the public knows.. because the public doesn't seem to care. Impeachment seems to have 2 requirements in order to happen, illegal activity AND a public outcry.

AND, I'd like to add, it's much easier to garner public outcry about an extra-marital affair than it is about the death of over 1,500 American soldiers.

Mephisto

[brodski]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
One reason the U.S. media might be ignoring the memo is because it is dated july 2002 and yet speaks of the Saddam regime in past tense.

Actually the British civil service (which includes SiS/ MI6), tend to use a very particular style of grammar. It is common to talk about current events in the past tense as you are reporting what was said at a particulate time, it is partially an arse covering exercise to subtly say- this was the situation at the time of the meeting, it may have changed now but were not sure. Career civil servants can get into this habit very quickly, and they tend to stick with it even though it sounds very strange to many people’s ears.

This style of writing and speaking, which also favors the passive voice whenever possible and has a tendency to use double negatives (i.e.� the policy did not remain unchanged�- from the Scot report) is often caricatured as being the "British" language, rather than the "English Language".
Senor civil servants are often said to be speaking Mandarin.

I would not use the style of this memo as a reason to deny its authenticity.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Mephisto
AND, I'd like to add, it's much easier to garner public outcry about an extra-marital affair than it is about the death of over 1,500 American soldiers.

Mephisto

Now now. As any upstanding conservative will tell you, Clinton lied under oath and that is why he was brought up for impeachment.

It's OK to lie as a politician, just as long as it isn't under oath.;)

[gnome]

I think the reason this memo is not truly a "smoking gun" that will lead to any kind of impeachement, is because it is the statement of someone observing the US, not an admission by someone actually manipulating intelligence.

While it raises important questions, it's not a "smoking gun"... it's just a British high official accusing Bush of something...

The "smoking gun" would be memos from the White House ordering post-hoc changes to intelligence analyses, or requesting a specific outcome from the start.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by brodski
Actually the British civil service (which includes SiS/ MI6), tend to use a very particular style of grammar. It is common to talk about current events in the past tense as you are reporting what was said at a particulate time, it is partially an arse covering exercise to subtly say- this was the situation at the time of the meeting,

I read the memo before the rest of this thread, and that's the impression I got. In other words, the memo writer was saying, "At the meeting yesterday, it was said that Saddam's regime was very cruel." If it were written today, it might say, "At the meeting yesterday, it was said that North Korea was ruled by a lunatic." There's no real past tense involved. I got the impression it was written about events as they existed at the time of the meeting.

But this is not the smoking gun and it won't lead to impeachment because of one simple reason. There's no crime.

What would the crime be? "Fixing" intelligence? I'm not sure what that phrase means. It could be as benign as saying, "His gaze was fixed on that point." It would mean, in that sense, that all effort was being brought to bear on the problem of finding the evidence that supported their preconceived notions.

Is there anyone who seriously believes that the contents of this memo are not basically correct? I read it as saying something like the following.

As early as 2002, Bush decided that Saddam had to go, and that he would use the military to do it if necessary.

Legal justification was a necessary formality, but not all that important to Bush.

WMD's were basically an excuse.

He would use the intelligence community to support the course of action that was already determined.

He would manipulate the UN mission if necessary to provide justification.


Is there anyone who doesn't believe that is what happened? Could there be anyone so naive? That is what happened, and there is no smoking gun needed. We already knew that.

It has one thing in common with Rathergate. In that case, forged memos were used to "prove" something that anyone with any sense already knew. In this case, true memos are being used to prove something that anyone wiht any sense already knew.

[clk]

Originally posted by Meadmaker

As early as 2002, Bush decided that Saddam had to go, and that he would use the military to do it if necessary.


Actually, he was pretty much bent on invading Iraq immediately after he got into office in early 2001. 9/11 provided him with the scare tactics necessary to trick the American people into thinking Iraq was a threat to the US.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Now now. As any upstanding conservative will tell you, Clinton lied under oath and that is why he was brought up for impeachment.

It's OK to lie as a politician, just as long as it isn't under oath.;)

Nothing to stop Bush making a statement under oath on this issue any time he wants. It's a very simple process.

[Meadmaker]

In one sense, this memo, if real, vindicates President Bush.

Bush has been accused of fabricating the evidence for weapons of mass destruction, but the memo makes it clear that the Bush administration believed those weapons existed. They can be accused of focusing exclusively on evidence that backed their beliefs. Indeed, they could be accused of deliberately presenting only the evidence that bolstered their case. However, if you accept the authenticity of this memo, you have to accept that they believed that Iraq had WMDs.

I added "if real" to my first sentence due to painful memories of Rathergate. I initially assumed that the Texas ANG memos were real precisely because they were NOT the smoking gun. They said things that everyone already knew. They weren't worth forging. Obviously, I was wrong in that case.

I feel the same way about this memo. Why bother forging this memo? It doesn't say anything that ought to surprise anyone.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Nothing to stop Bush making a statement under oath on this issue any time he wants. It's a very simple process.

Don't hold your breath.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
In one sense, this memo, if real, vindicates President Bush.

Bush has been accused of fabricating the evidence for weapons of mass destruction, but the memo makes it clear that the Bush administration believed those weapons existed. They can be accused of focusing exclusively on evidence that backed their beliefs. Indeed, they could be accused of deliberately presenting only the evidence that bolstered their case. However, if you accept the authenticity of this memo, you have to accept that they believed that Iraq had WMDs.

I added "if real" to my first sentence due to painful memories of Rathergate. I initially assumed that the Texas ANG memos were real precisely because they were NOT the smoking gun. They said things that everyone already knew. They weren't worth forging. Obviously, I was wrong in that case.

I feel the same way about this memo. Why bother forging this memo? It doesn't say anything that ought to surprise anyone.

Even the most sceptical anylists in the intelligence community believed Saddam had something stashed away somewhere, eg, Andrew Wilkie from Australia. The big surprise was that he had nothing. The WMD was only ever a fig leaf. It just turned out to be even inadequate at serving that function.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Don't hold your breath.

Thanks, I was starting to feel dizzy.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by gnome
I think the reason this memo is not truly a "smoking gun" that will lead to any kind of impeachement, is because it is the statement of someone observing the US, not an admission by someone actually manipulating intelligence.

While it raises important questions, it's not a "smoking gun"... it's just a British high official accusing Bush of something...

The "smoking gun" would be memos from the White House ordering post-hoc changes to intelligence analyses, or requesting a specific outcome from the start.

Bingo. It is a memo of someone's opinion about events, not a recording of events.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Bingo. It is a memo of someone's opinion about events, not a recording of events.

It is a memo written by someone who was there, and in on the planning process for the war. It's not a US document, but it is written by an ally. It certainly makes clear that the claims made by many agents that the WMD issue was a sham from the start is true.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It is a memo written by someone who was there, and in on the planning process for the war. It's not a US document, but it is written by an ally. It certainly makes clear that the claims made by many agents that the WMD issue was a sham from the start is true.

A "sham"? In a sense, I suppose. In the sense that WMDs were an excuse, not a reason, for going to war.

But is there anyone who didn't know that already?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
A "sham"? In a sense, I suppose. In the sense that WMDs were an excuse, not a reason, for going to war.

But is there anyone who didn't know that already?

There are a few people here, for a start.

[President Bush]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
But is there anyone who didn't know that already?
http://www.collectmad.com/collectibles/geowbut.jpg
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, what worry, worry me — worry me, what? What me — me what, worry?

[RandFan]

Bump,

This is to acknowledge to Sez me that I saw his post. Thank you for the response. Let me digest it and perhaps do some research. If I don't respond then I will concede your point. Fair enough?

Thanks,

RandFan