Drudge Report: FCC Chairman Michael Powell to join many other friends who want to "spend more time with the family" *wink*
Joining a few others like:
-Karen Hughes (White House aide)
-Paul O'Neill (Secretary of the Treasury)
-Thomas White (Army Secretary)
-Richard Perle (Chairman, Defense Policy Board)
-Jay Garner (Reconstruction/Iraq Humanitarian Aid)
-Barbara Bodine (US coord. for central Iraq)
-Ari Fleischer (White House press secretary)
-Christine Todd Whitman (EPA Administrator)
-Rand Beers (White House counterterrorism adviser)
-Rosario Marin (U.S. Treasurer)
-General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff, US Army)
-John Brady Kiesling (US Diplomat / Greece)
-Martin Sullivan (Bush cultural advisor)
-Eric Schaeffer (head of EPA Regulatory Enforcement)
-General Tommy Franks (Commander/CENTCOM)
-Mitch Daniels (OMB Director)
-Larry Lindsay (Bush Chief Economic Advisor)
-Steve Griles (Dep Int Secy--Well, not yet, but I'll bet he'll be gone soon...as Bill Moyers has said, Griles has more conflicts of interest than a dog has fleas.)
-John Brady Kiesling ( US Diplomat/Greece)
-Victoria Clarke (Pentagon spokesperson)
Very important information for all voters of New York State who are not currently registered Democrats:
You have until October 9th, 2003 to register as Democrat in order to be eligible to vote for your favorite Democratic candidate in the primary.
Go to NY State Board of Elections websitefor instruction.
Here is a clickable map to access information about your local county Board of Elections in NY State.
Dalai Lama Calls War
'Legalized Violence'
By Deepti Hajela / AP Writer
Sept 21, 2003
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Dalai Lama called war "legalized violence" and said Sunday he wished he had visited Iraq and pushed for a better dialogue between countries before the war started in an effort to avert it.
In a speech to thousands of people in Central Park and later in an interview with The Associated Press, the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader stressed the importance of compassion and peace. He said war is an outdated concept in a global society, and people should instead learn to communicate.
"We have to make every effort to promote human affection," the Dalai Lama said. "While we oppose violence or war, we must show there is another way - a nonviolent way."
He said in an interview he regretted not following the example of his fellow Nobel Peace laureates, Nelson Mandela and President Carter, who visited Iraq before the war. He said maybe together they would have been able to avoid war.
"Violence is very unpredictable," the Dalai Lama said. "Although your motivations may be sincere, violence ... easily can be out of control."
The more I learn about Clark, the more I say "Give Us Howard Dean"
As much as the press and Dean's Democratic rivals like to showcase him as a guy who spouts off and later has to explain himself, I have never seen him waffle on the issue of Iraq.
Regarding Clark, I was dismayed to read this FAIR piece, which says, in part:
".... After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."...
Pass me the syrup, please.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, Mr Bush,
nobody likes being dissed.
Learn from your deathly blunders.
If you don't genuinely have it IN you, at least FAKE a smidgen of humility for the sake of the people you "lead" and "represent".
"..When you think about it, the Congress and the French have about the same reaction to our Iraq policy: 'You didn't ask us, so why should we pay?' "
Lost Trust:
Mr. Bush Has Lied So Many Times We Just Don't Know What to Believe Anymore
This is what Bush said that day on the aircraft carrier, bedecked in the flight suit:
"...... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 - and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology - gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed....
.....The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
....In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th - the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
When truth takes flight, only an empty suit remains.
....Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.
Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
...Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world - and will be confronted......."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what he said two days ago after VP Dick Cheney once again misled the public on Meet The Press about the Saddam/9-11 connection:
Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th....What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida....
And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.”
Note: Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda. He ONCE received medical care in Baghdad. If this and the faulty legend of one of the suicide bombers meeting with Iraqi intelligence (never proven) is all they've got, it's flimsy at best.
In a Sept. 6 interview with The Washington Post, Paul Wolfowitz said hundreds of fighters from al-Qaeda and other groups were now in Iraq....after we took out the Hussein regime. You will note that Wolfowitz acts as if this was an unexpected consequence of taking Saddam out of the picture...but I beg to differ.
Wolfowitz has said: "There are some thousands of former Baathists and some hundreds of al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists who are ... killing Americans and Iraqis and U.N. officials and moderate Shiite leaders in order to destabilize Iraq.''
It seems to me, after we look back at the failure to locate WMDs and the flimsy (highly changeable) reasons and false references to the Iraq/9-11 connection, that the Bush administration had their own reasons for attacking Iraq.
Amazingly, they never bother to share the real reason.
Bush said in his last speech to the nation:
"...Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated."
This leads me to believe Bush intended for Iraq to become the "central front" for the war on terror. It seems we did not go as moral defenders of the people of Iraq...and we know now that Iraq did not pose a significant threat to us...(it's more dangerous for America today than it was before the war).
It seems we went into Iraq because we knew Saddam's regime was weak...and we bet that his people were weakened by years of sanctions. Previously contained, it would be an easy government to roll over.
What we seem to have gone into Iraq for was to PROVOKE terror.
We seem to have desired to make Iraq the central front for terror.
How moral is that?
How just is that for the people of Iraq?
Is this what Bush means by American justice?
Is it any wonder the Iraqis have a groundswell of resistance? (Or "terror", as the Bush administration prefers to call it, being allergic to the word "resistance").
WHY THE HELL DID WE REALLY GO TO WAR, MR. BUSH?
Have you defrauded America?
My darkest moments when considering Wesley Clark--
Serbia 1999
General Wesley's Got Some 'Splainin' to do
There are going to be a lot of hard questions coming from the right in the next few months about both the Waco David Koresh) incident and about NATO operations in Serbia, 1999.
They are questions that I admit are valid and need to be brought to light.
Waco should still bother more than just the ugly right-wingers and the "wacky militia types".
There's a lot of dust America likes to sweep under its carpet.
A genuine patriot cannot let untruths be swept under or go on existing as untruths.
I'll be listening closely to General Clark's replies to the hardest questions.
I dreamt last night that General Clark came to power in this nation and was revered as a hero and a savior of a land that had nearly died from division. In my dream, there was a nation of angry, divided souls without geographic dividing lines from which to create "sides". In the dream, I knew there would never be another conceivable civil war...only chaos and eventual apathy with a citizenry too tired and helpless to resist the money-machine dictatorship of those who disdain the democratic ideals of our forefathers. Our beloved nation, a wee shadow of its former self, was beaten down to
a neo-monarchy...not a lot dfferent from the tyranny from which we had triumphed long ago.
I awoke and wondered if enough people today consider this nation worth saving?
Most people you speak with could care less about what's happening with the powers-that-be in this country.
The ones who DO care are so deeply divided that I can see my dream coming true.
America will die soon..she's on a terminal course.
The only way General Clark can mend us, in my opinion, is to show us that war is an obsolete concept...and that world cohesion does not mean relinquishing your nation's best interests or unification.
We good people of this world all need one another, regardless of our borders.
We need a leader who has integrity and vision for a peaceful and cooperative world.
More than anything, the people of our nation (as well as the people in this world) need an American leader they can trust.
With the shady, lying Bush administration who obviously harbor contempt for the poor in their own country, we don't have leadership we can trust.
Could a man with a military background accomplish something like this?
Will he be able to explain his past without glossing over the hard facts? If he can't, he won't gain my complete trust.
Can he transform these corporations into businesses who will develop alternative energy technologies and 21st-century peace-keeping apparatus?
General Clark is an economist as well as a military man. His upcoming speech on the economy should be very interesting.
But he really has a lot of explaining to do about Waco and Serbia.
My ears are open. If he is right for this country, I want him to succeed.
Illogical Republicans Ensure Renewal of Arms Race
OR:
"What about Box-Cutters?"
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism''
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned box-cutter to keep a terrorist from hijacking a plane with a box-cutter is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism."
Iddybud, Blogstress Extraordinaire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If smaller, more precise weapons could do the job, wouldn't people of goodwill want it?"
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
One of the more-blatant lies VP Dick Cheney told on Meet The Press Last Sunday:
He Says He Has Cut Financial Ties With Halliburton?
Uh....Sorry, Dick... Don't Think So.
Oil services firm paid Cheney as VP
No Halliburton ties? -- Is he telling lies?
~~~~~~~~~~~
The VP must think we're retarded out here to assume we'd swallow these stories about his distance from and lack of vested interest in Halliburton's fiscal health. He's made far more dough from Halliburton than he's made during his time as VP, regardless of WHY he's raking in the dough.
You can call his statements "word-parsing"...or maybe "misleading"...where I come from, we call them lies.
Prettied-up lies.
When Dick opens that envelope and out pops a fat check from Halliburton and he takes it to the bank....well, is that 'getting paid' or is that 'cutting financial ties'?
You decide!
In truth, Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton Co., has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company since taking office while asserting again and again...most recently to Tim Russert...that he has no financial interest in the company.
ZZZZZZAP!
Caught you lying, VP Dick Cheney!
"The vice president needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has 'no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind' with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton."
Senator Tom Daschle
U.S. Senate defies Bush, votes to undo FCC media-ownership liberalization-
Senate votes 55-40 to undo changes to Federal Communications Commission regulations
Of course, Mr. Bush is threatening to veto any legislation of this nature...and why wouldn't he?
Think of the Clear Channel pro-war rallies that might be negatively affected by this!
Think of the potential loss of propaganda!
Think of the continuation of those desperate haters out there writing anti-American sentiments in liberal newsrags
like that Madison Capital Times!
"We have to ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy."
Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Click HERE to see a cool promo for Salam Pax's new book: "The Baghdad Blog"
"SALAM PAX WAS THE ANNE FRANK OF THE WAR... AND ITS ELVIS"
Peter Maass, Slate
Here comes the General!
From:Veep Moves
"...the possibility of a Dean/Clark ticket will set off other possibilities before the January 27 New Hampshire primary: ..."
CNN's Top War Correspondent Christiane Amanpour Slams Iraq War Coverage
Tuesday 16th September, 2003
USA Today
CNN has no comment on this:
"....."I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.".."
Christiane Amanpour
FOX News proves they prefer censorship and propaganda. FOX News also proves they prefer filtering the truth- -endeavoring to hide some of the facts from the American public:
"....Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
William Rivers Pitt:
NEW YORK, You've Been Used.
Excerpt:
".... If we are to win this War on Terror, this new Cold War, we will not do so by bombing decrepit countries and slaughtering Muslim civilians. We will not do so by swaggering across the planet and slapping the international community across the face. In this struggle, I look to one of my favorite Red Sox fans, President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was by no means a foreign policy prince; he pulled crap that would make Richard Perle blush. Yet Kennedy understood something fundamental about the Cold War struggle, from back when that struggle was as hot and dangerous as it ever got, that resonates in roaring truth today. Kennedy understood that to win the Cold War, America did not simply have to defeat the Soviet Union by force of arms, or threaten to be able to do so. America had to give the rest of the world, especially those regions where communism stood a good chance of taking hold, the belief and understanding that we had a better way. We had to convince the world that were right, and righteous, and though we were not perfect by any means, the hope and goodness of what we represented had to be carried to the corners of the world with something besides a bayonet and a bomb. Hatred of America does not take root when America shows its best face. The bastion of immigration that is New York City proves this beyond doubt. We are not perfect, but we can be very good, and bringing this simple truth to the world will defang these thugs, period.
That is the final failure of this administration, and of these boys from the Project for a New American Century. They believe we can defeat terrorism by kicking ass and taking names, by being violent and unilateral, by basically shoving the worst aspects of our country and our system into the international community’s face and demanding, at gunpoint, that they be with us or against us. Machiavelli said, long ago, that given such a choice, the attacked would always choose to be against. Kicking ass in Iraq, while being exposed as liars and bullies, has proven to be the greatest recruiting poster al Qaeda could have ever asked for. We can defeat these thugs if we go after them properly. We can cut off their funds and their ability to bring in people who will die for the privilege of watching you die. But when we do what we have been doing, when we follow the PNAC plan, we create an unending tide of furious humanity that will, in the end, bury us.
You’ve been used, New York. Your pain and woe has been used to justify a course of action formulated years before those Towers fell. The fear caused by those falling Towers has been used against you, on purpose, to drag us all along on a suicide ride that fulfills the extremist dreams of a tiny minority while filling the coffers of defense and petroleum companies that do not, and will never, have your best interests in mind. Those companies exist to serve themselves, and with the rise of PNAC, they have found their champions. At your expense. "
Reservists say they remain in Iraq with no mission
By Bill Burke, The Virginian-Pilot
September 14, 2003
Dick Cheney Denies Joe Wilson Three Times
How very strange:
VP Dick Cheney denies knowing former ambassador to Africa Joseph Wilson
According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."
The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."
Today on 'Meet The Press':
Vice President Cheney, when asked by Tim Russert what he knew about Joseph Wilson's findings, replied simply that he did not know Joseph Wilson and he did not know who hired Joseph Wilson.
CHENEY'S WORDS: "No. I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I'd heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?" They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement. And Joe Wilson--I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back........I don't know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that, but I guess--like I say, I don't know Mr. Wilson... I probably shouldn't judge him... I have no idea who hired him and it never came... .."
Tim Russert: "The CIA did."
Cheney: "Who in the CIA, I don't know."
Later in the same 'Meet the Press' interview, Cheney prided himself on asking a "hell of a lot of questions" when it came to U.S. intelligence.
After all, he said, "that's what he's paid for".
Cheney has avoided the questions as to who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report....(conveniently saying he doesn't know Wilson--he must think we're total idiots out here...)
Cheney has avoided the question as to what efforts were made by his office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense.....
..and whether or not his office regarded Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate...
Let's face it, his reticence and usual cloak of secrecy and avoidance serve to make him appear to be hiding something from us. If it looks like a duck...walks like a duck...
We should remember to vote like ducks in November 2004.
Another comment: Buzzflash
My Message to Other Howard Dean Suppporters:
These are just some thoughts from a post I recently wrote about conversations I'd read on my local Howard Dean Yahoo forum:
"...In a most practical sense, we need to back a candidate who has a damn good shot at actually beating George Bush in the next election...by a wide margin so there can be no doubt (no risk of cheating the American people out of another election)... even if it risks exclusion of some intellectual or idealistic aims.
I think we should be realistic for the health of our democracy.
A second Bush term may well decay democracy to a point of no return.
This may well be the most important American election in history.
We really do need to find a way to unite as Democrats, Greens, Progessives, Independents...the strength of the party of Karl Rove is unifying the base.
This next election will be war...let's be prepared for battle.
The American dream of our forefathers will never continue until we awaken from our current nightmare.
I deeply admire and appreciate candidate Kucinich's ideals. The hope for and the goal of progressive idealism will not ever be reached in this nation, however, by promoting a candidate who is not pragmatically electable in 2004.
I happen to think Dennis Kucinich is one of the most truly decent souls in the entire field of democratic candidates.
I have the utmost respect for his ideas.
But I'll tell you this..and I believe it's true.
Americans will not elect Dennis Kucinich.
I do not consider myself to be a shallow person, and some of you won't like what I'm going to say here.
But I must say it.
American voters tend to be very shallow. In all brutal honesty, America is not ready for a candidate with an elfin appearance who takes the far left pulpit.
I know America too, too well.
How I wish it could be different.
I saw what happened in the last election...I felt that Ralph Nader had fantastic ideas. So did many others.
Unfortunately, we saw what happened in Florida..which may well have been avoided had some of our idealistic voters chosen to consider the sheer pragmatism of the situation and the danger of the fast-encroaching radical right-wing...and voted for Gore rather than Nader.
I wonder, knowing what they know now, if many of the Nader voters would have changed their vote.
Idealism, Kate Harris, and five crooks on the US Supreme Court got us one "George W Bush" in 2000.
What a prize.
It's time for Americans to elect a new President.
I'm with Howard Dean all the way.
I believe in him.
I may not agree with him on every single issue, but he is the candidate I most closely match up with on the most important issues.. and also a candidate for whom I carry the belief in standing a decent chance against the Republican machinery.
I firmly believe he is electable.
I see that many, many other Americans are leaning the same way.
I think we should do all we can to promote it rather than fight one another on single issues.
If collective truth emerges as a practical consequence of belief, then Howard Dean will be our next President...because looking at current developments in the Dean campaign, I haven't seen this much belief in and hope for a candidate in a long time.
As for General Wesley Clark, I believe the fact that he came from a Military background will hurt his chances to be a front-runner, but I believe that most Americans will view him as a fitting running mate for Howard Dean. (since our mainstream journalists are beating the drums about Deans foreign policy inexperience)..."
Michael Kinsley column: An Apology Would Help
I found this to be a well-written column. I can't help but to agree with Mr. Kinsley.
Kinsley points out the fact that Mr. Bush--lacking honesty, grace, and high-mindedness--appears to prefer falsehood and pride over regret or truth.
".....What's going on here is something like lying-by-reflex. If the opposition accuses you of saying the world is round, you lunge for the microphone to declare your passionate belief that it is flat. Or maybe it has something to do with the bureaucracies that political campaigns have become. The truth, whatever its advantages, is messy and out of control. A lie can be designed by committee, vetted by consultants, tested with some focus groups, shaped to perfection. Anyone can tell the truth. Crafting a good lie is a job for professionals....."
".....This $87 billion request is a minefield of embarrassments, through which a simple "We got it wrong" would have been the safest route. After all, Bush either knew we'd be spending this kind of money for two or more years after declaring victory and didn't tell us -- or he didn't realize it himself. Those are the only two options. He deceived us or he wasn't clairvoyant in the fog of war. Apparently Bush would rather be thought omniscient than honest, which is a pity, since appearing honest is a more realistic ambition. Especially for him....."
Kay scheduled to feed America more bullshit
In my opinion, David Kay is not to be trusted--he has positioned himself as the definitive 'anti-Scott Ritter'--
and to be honest, when the smoke clears, I simply believe Scott Ritter is the honest one of the two.
Kay is a symbol of gullibiity, innuendo, deception, and mistrust.
It hurts to know that he stands to make money off his new deceptive report.
If you consider this "new report" closely, all he is saying is that he and the Bush administration
were nothing more than gullible saps for believing those who informed them about pre-war Iraq.
Boy, oh boy, do I ever feel more confident in our American leadership NOW!
".....officials are beginning to spread the word that Kay's team is prepared to claim that the Hussein regime purposefully "spread nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons plans and parts throughout the country to deceive the United Nations." Citing senior Bush administration and intelligence officials, the Globe reports that Kay will argue that after hoodwinking the UN inspectors, Hussein would quickly reassemble all the information and materials and "manufacture substantial quantities of deadly gases and germs."
The loyal David Kay appears poised to hand in a report marked by speculation, innuendo and circumstantial evidence. Kay's September surprise: He morphs into a weapon of mass deception..."
Read more about Kay:
Did David Kay Engineer WMD Evidence for Bush I - and Now Bush 2?
A Weapons Cache We'll Never See
Do we recall how Kay was fired from his UN/IAEA job because of his connections with the U.S. intelligence community?
Think of how BAD that intelligence has turned out to be, to boot. And we trust Kay now? -- WHY?!
BE SURE TO SEE "THE KAY REPORT COMEDOWN"--The Carnegie Analysis
