Naples. The guy could not possibly have answered you any better. It was about the fullest rebuttal it was possible to make to the original premise of the thread you started.
If you think he's wrong tell him why. Don't get all snippy when the unstoppable force of your argument and the unimpeachably solid facts you're counting on are called into question.
I like the way you twist what I say just so you can argue. I asked why the media did not mention it when reporting claims of secret bush plan.
Some of the reasons you gave could be reasonable, but when you start claiming you know exactly why I started this thread you discredit yourself. You chose to do that, not me.
See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Please, if I am missing it show me where.
jesus! it was reported.....it's right there in your links.....you're just pissed because you think it should be headlines like it's some smoking gun against president clinton when it's clearly not....it's history, not news.
besides all that president clinton has been fairly supportive of president bush with regards to the war.
Naples. The guy could not possibly have answered you any better. It was about the fullest rebuttal it was possible to make to the original premise of the thread you started.
If you think he's wrong tell him why. Don't get all snippy when the unstoppable force of your argument and the unimpeachably solid facts you're counting on are called into question.
Lame.
I started this thread based on some info I ran across. I then expanded so as not to project an anti-clinton attitude. I then re-clarify my point. I don't know, I think I did it again. Point is noone seems to want to talk about that, which is ok, but now it is turning into a "your obviously this or that" and another bash bush/defend Clinton thread.
I am sorry, but when people start telling me what I do and don't know or what my motives are, I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.
I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.
jesus! it was reported.....it's right there in your links.....you're just pissed because you think it should be headlines like it's some smoking gun against president clinton when it's clearly not....it's history, not news.
besides all that president clinton has been fairly supportive of president bush with regards to the war.
You need a time out or something, man, breeth. I am not attackingt Clinton, jeez.
You guys are way too touchy, I mean you can't seem to grasp what I am pointing out here, and it has nothing to do with who is right or wrong politically.
If this thread is to remain open the personal jabbing needs to stop all the way round. This seems to be a thread where the horse is being beaten to death as it were. There are those on one side of the issue and those on the other. After a while there is nothing to add to the discussion and I am not so sure that this point in time has not already been met and exceeded. Proceed without personal immaturity or do not proceed.
I started this thread based on some info I ran across. I then expanded so as not to project an anti-clinton attitude. I then re-clarify my point. I don't know, I think I did it again. Point is noone seems to want to talk about that, which is ok, but now it is turning into a "your obviously this or that" and another bash bush/defend Clinton thread.
I am sorry, but when people start telling me what I do and don't know or what my motives are, I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.
I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.
That's right, and the man answered your post by refuting the comparison between Clinton's and Bush's plan. Are you going to answer his post or not?
You need a time out or something, man, breeth. I am not attackingt Clinton, jeez.
You guys are way too touchy, I mean you can't seem to grasp what I am pointing out here, and it has nothing to do with who is right or wrong politically.
i have never once accused you of attacking clinton, you say your problem is with the media, i say the media has reported it, it's referenced to in your links. you have yet to address my argument.
I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.
Because the two are not comparable.
One was for backing of the neocon INC, while the other was for a full-scale US-led war.
i have never once accused you of attacking clinton, you say your problem is with the media, i say the media has reported it, it's referenced to in your links. you have yet to address my argument.
Ok.
Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, breafly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contension is that they overzealously covered the it while conveniantly leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.
Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, breafly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contension it that they overzealously covered the it while conveniantly leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.
WRONG. And I am correcting you.
And providing support to the INC is extremely different than planning and executing an all-out, US-led invasion.
I got tired of reading the back n forthness of the majority of this thread, so pardon me if I'm on the wrong track, but thought this article might have some relevance...
Quote:
THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, briefly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contention is that they overzealously covered the it while conveniently leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.
clinton's plan wasn't done in secrect, and for that matter i don't think what president bush did was all that wrong, (but they've been overzealously secretive on any pre 9/11 plans and contingencies) i read the book that the charges sprang from and i'm not sure that an invasion was ever planned at that time, (it wasn't made clear in the book, perhaps it was on the authors site devoted to o'neill's papers and notes) it merely may have been an extension of what president bush (sr) and president clinton both supported at one time....the aiding and abetting of an overthrow. president bush sr. changed his mind because he thought (according to his memoirs) that iraq was just a big mess waiting to happen and pulled any american involvement at the last minute.
Thank you for adding something useful. I mean that.
"However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary."
Is the only place in the article that they mention it, but only as a contingency plan. It actually was a policy that was being implimented by The Cinton admin. But yeah it's an example of what I asked for.
Seems to me you were doing a little more than just asking:
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Quote:
I never saw it. I had to do some digging to find this info. So I can only assume that it was passed over by the big media. I ask why?
...
Full discloser would dictate that you as a reporter would say something like: "Charlie Rangel asserts that 'the Iraq war was planned in Texas and implemented by this crooked presidency' but our researchers here at CNN/CBS/ABC found there was a plan that was public domain, implimented by the Clinton administration to facilitate an internal coup to topple Saddam Husain. However we found no such record attached GWB before his election."
Quote:
Let me make it clear that my analisis is really focused on the media not at least mentioning this.
Quote:
I am disturbed more by the fact that recent history has been totally forgotten by the media, is not this in part a responsibility of the media? Pointing out facts.
and on and on.
This from the Boston Globe article:
Beginning in the Clinton administration, official US policy called for "regime change" in Iraq, which had flouted United Nations resolutions put in place after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration cast its campaign against Hussein as part of the war on terror.
This from the NYT article:
Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq. Even before taking office, Mr. Bush had spoken to exiled Iraqi opponents of Mr. Hussein about his desire to drive the Iraqi leader from power.
And this from the washinton post article:
However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary.
So basically, you jumped to a conclusion and didn't even bother to look to see if that major stories actually did include info on Clinton Iraq policy. Why isn't it in the headlines? Because it was 7 year old info.
Seems to me you were doing a little more than just asking:
and on and on.
This from the Boston Globe article:
Beginning in the Clinton administration, official US policy called for "regime change" in Iraq, which had flouted United Nations resolutions put in place after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration cast its campaign against Hussein as part of the war on terror.
This from the NYT article:
Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq. Even before taking office, Mr. Bush had spoken to exiled Iraqi opponents of Mr. Hussein about his desire to drive the Iraqi leader from power.
And this from the washinton post article:
However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary.
So basically, you jumped to a conclusion and didn't even bother to look to see if that major stories actually did include info on Clinton Iraq policy. Why isn't it in the headlines? Because it was 7 year old info.
It's good to learn from mistakes.
No, I researched it (over the last day or so) and could not find what I was looking for, and posted my findings.
The sad thing obout this is it took how many posts for someone to post meaningful information. To be honest I am pleasantly surprized it was you. A whole lot of foolishness and unnecisary name calling could have been avoided with a smart stroke of the keyboard. I have told you that I am here to learn and discuss, so yes I learned something.
I do hope that you and everyone reading this has learned something also, that we are all just wasting everyones time, when we come with the purpose to argue and spout rhetoric. Just read over this thread if you want a perfect illustration of this.
. . . I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.
Like you dimissed my post. . . . and yet, whether you want to see it or not, the logic implied in your first post is this:
"I support GWBush and the iraq war
but it is a BLAMEworthy affair entirely
and so
I blame Clinton"
which means that, since you can, and do, dislike Clinton it is ok to feel that the war is something that is blameworthy . . . that's half right . . . it is a blameworthy event that happened but CLinton is not to blame.
and remember, as I always say: when you Blame you Be Lame!
A whole lot of foolishness and unnecisary name calling could have been avoided with a smart stroke of the keyboard.
Or you could have just not lashed out at everyone who criticized your wild conspiracy accusations.
Quote:
I have told you that I am here to learn and discuss, so yes I learned something.
Really?
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You both are mindless. This thread is about how the media has failed to counter the lies spread by certain parties by just bringing out some obvious facts...Go thread crash somewhere else. Get a life.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
1. The news media reported widely on accusations of a sinister plot to remove SH by the bush neo-cons.
2. At the same time they totally ignored the fact that a regime change policy was signed into law by clinton.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Quote:
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
and you were wrong about that, "the media" did report it, your links are proof of that, you either just missed it or weren't paying attention.
See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Anyway, the points have all been made. Nice doing business with you.
Comments
If you think he's wrong tell him why. Don't get all snippy when the unstoppable force of your argument and the unimpeachably solid facts you're counting on are called into question.
Lame.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I like the way you twist what I say just so you can argue. I asked why the media did not mention it when reporting claims of secret bush plan.
Some of the reasons you gave could be reasonable, but when you start claiming you know exactly why I started this thread you discredit yourself. You chose to do that, not me.
JUST
ANSWER
THE
MAN'S
POST.
Damn.
Originally posted by NaplesX
See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Please, if I am missing it show me where.
jesus! it was reported.....it's right there in your links.....you're just pissed because you think it should be headlines like it's some smoking gun against president clinton when it's clearly not....it's history, not news.
besides all that president clinton has been fairly supportive of president bush with regards to the war.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Naples. The guy could not possibly have answered you any better. It was about the fullest rebuttal it was possible to make to the original premise of the thread you started.
If you think he's wrong tell him why. Don't get all snippy when the unstoppable force of your argument and the unimpeachably solid facts you're counting on are called into question.
Lame.
I started this thread based on some info I ran across. I then expanded so as not to project an anti-clinton attitude. I then re-clarify my point. I don't know, I think I did it again. Point is noone seems to want to talk about that, which is ok, but now it is turning into a "your obviously this or that" and another bash bush/defend Clinton thread.
I am sorry, but when people start telling me what I do and don't know or what my motives are, I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.
I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
jesus! it was reported.....it's right there in your links.....you're just pissed because you think it should be headlines like it's some smoking gun against president clinton when it's clearly not....it's history, not news.
besides all that president clinton has been fairly supportive of president bush with regards to the war.
You need a time out or something, man, breeth. I am not attackingt Clinton, jeez.
You guys are way too touchy, I mean you can't seem to grasp what I am pointing out here, and it has nothing to do with who is right or wrong politically.
Thanks,
Fellowship
Originally posted by thegelding
ha, from the man who has called people, "spineless", "mindless", "maroon" etc in this thread...i worst i did was suggest you might be catholic...
time to re-fill the prozac there nappy boy
g
I did assert the midless thing.
I told someone to "show some backbone", I did not call him spoineless.
Maroon? Come on that was a bugs bunny word, were you offended by that?
Calling certainb people Catholic could be enough to start a fued. Haha. But it was a lame attempt to marginalize me.
weird
Originally posted by NaplesX
I started this thread based on some info I ran across. I then expanded so as not to project an anti-clinton attitude. I then re-clarify my point. I don't know, I think I did it again. Point is noone seems to want to talk about that, which is ok, but now it is turning into a "your obviously this or that" and another bash bush/defend Clinton thread.
I am sorry, but when people start telling me what I do and don't know or what my motives are, I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.
I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.
That's right, and the man answered your post by refuting the comparison between Clinton's and Bush's plan. Are you going to answer his post or not?
Originally posted by NaplesX
You need a time out or something, man, breeth. I am not attackingt Clinton, jeez.
You guys are way too touchy, I mean you can't seem to grasp what I am pointing out here, and it has nothing to do with who is right or wrong politically.
i have never once accused you of attacking clinton, you say your problem is with the media, i say the media has reported it, it's referenced to in your links. you have yet to address my argument.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I simply am not comparing actions by the two presidencies, just the fact that they had/have similar plans and when the media mentions the so called "secret bush plan" they have, by my estimation, not mentioned clintons plan.
Because the two are not comparable.
One was for backing of the neocon INC, while the other was for a full-scale US-led war.
As for not reporting on clinton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
It's right there!
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i have never once accused you of attacking clinton, you say your problem is with the media, i say the media has reported it, it's referenced to in your links. you have yet to address my argument.
Ok.
Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, breafly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contension is that they overzealously covered the it while conveniantly leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, breafly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contension it that they overzealously covered the it while conveniantly leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.
WRONG. And I am correcting you.
And providing support to the INC is extremely different than planning and executing an all-out, US-led invasion.
THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Damn Hawkish presidents! :P
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=2873
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok.
Correct me if I am wrong, the media did cover it, briefly and separately from the "underground secret Bush Iraq preplan" accusations. My contention is that they overzealously covered the it while conveniently leaving out the fact that Clinton had one also, not to mention Bush 1, Reagan, and possibly Carter, as brought out.
clinton's plan wasn't done in secrect, and for that matter i don't think what president bush did was all that wrong, (but they've been overzealously secretive on any pre 9/11 plans and contingencies) i read the book that the charges sprang from and i'm not sure that an invasion was ever planned at that time, (it wasn't made clear in the book, perhaps it was on the authors site devoted to o'neill's papers and notes) it merely may have been an extension of what president bush (sr) and president clinton both supported at one time....the aiding and abetting of an overthrow. president bush sr. changed his mind because he thought (according to his memoirs) that iraq was just a big mess waiting to happen and pulled any american involvement at the last minute.
Originally posted by giant
Because the two are not comparable.
One was for backing of the neocon INC, while the other was for a full-scale US-led war.
As for not reporting on clinton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
It's right there!
Thank you for adding something useful. I mean that.
"However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary."
Is the only place in the article that they mention it, but only as a contingency plan. It actually was a policy that was being implimented by The Cinton admin. But yeah it's an example of what I asked for.
Thanks.
Originally posted by NaplesX
But yeah it's an example of what I asked for.
Seems to me you were doing a little more than just asking:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
I never saw it. I had to do some digging to find this info. So I can only assume that it was passed over by the big media. I ask why?
...
Full discloser would dictate that you as a reporter would say something like: "Charlie Rangel asserts that 'the Iraq war was planned in Texas and implemented by this crooked presidency' but our researchers here at CNN/CBS/ABC found there was a plan that was public domain, implimented by the Clinton administration to facilitate an internal coup to topple Saddam Husain. However we found no such record attached GWB before his election."
Let me make it clear that my analisis is really focused on the media not at least mentioning this.
I am disturbed more by the fact that recent history has been totally forgotten by the media, is not this in part a responsibility of the media? Pointing out facts.
and on and on.
This from the Boston Globe article:
Beginning in the Clinton administration, official US policy called for "regime change" in Iraq, which had flouted United Nations resolutions put in place after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration cast its campaign against Hussein as part of the war on terror.
This from the NYT article:
Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq. Even before taking office, Mr. Bush had spoken to exiled Iraqi opponents of Mr. Hussein about his desire to drive the Iraqi leader from power.
And this from the washinton post article:
However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary.
So basically, you jumped to a conclusion and didn't even bother to look to see if that major stories actually did include info on Clinton Iraq policy. Why isn't it in the headlines? Because it was 7 year old info.
It's good to learn from mistakes.
Originally posted by giant
Seems to me you were doing a little more than just asking:
and on and on.
This from the Boston Globe article:
Beginning in the Clinton administration, official US policy called for "regime change" in Iraq, which had flouted United Nations resolutions put in place after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration cast its campaign against Hussein as part of the war on terror.
This from the NYT article:
Since the Clinton administration, the official position of the United States, backed by bipartisan votes in Congress, has been to call for "regime change" in Iraq. Even before taking office, Mr. Bush had spoken to exiled Iraqi opponents of Mr. Hussein about his desire to drive the Iraqi leader from power.
And this from the washinton post article:
However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary.
So basically, you jumped to a conclusion and didn't even bother to look to see if that major stories actually did include info on Clinton Iraq policy. Why isn't it in the headlines? Because it was 7 year old info.
It's good to learn from mistakes.
No, I researched it (over the last day or so) and could not find what I was looking for, and posted my findings.
The sad thing obout this is it took how many posts for someone to post meaningful information. To be honest I am pleasantly surprized it was you. A whole lot of foolishness and unnecisary name calling could have been avoided with a smart stroke of the keyboard. I have told you that I am here to learn and discuss, so yes I learned something.
I do hope that you and everyone reading this has learned something also, that we are all just wasting everyones time, when we come with the purpose to argue and spout rhetoric. Just read over this thread if you want a perfect illustration of this.
Originally posted by NaplesX
. . . I dismiss them, as I expect them to do with me if I do the same.
Like you dimissed my post. . . . and yet, whether you want to see it or not, the logic implied in your first post is this:
"I support GWBush and the iraq war
but it is a BLAMEworthy affair entirely
and so
I blame Clinton"
which means that, since you can, and do, dislike Clinton it is ok to feel that the war is something that is blameworthy . . . that's half right . . . it is a blameworthy event that happened but CLinton is not to blame.
and remember, as I always say: when you Blame you Be Lame!
Originally posted by NaplesX
A whole lot of foolishness and unnecisary name calling could have been avoided with a smart stroke of the keyboard.
Or you could have just not lashed out at everyone who criticized your wild conspiracy accusations.
I have told you that I am here to learn and discuss, so yes I learned something.
Really?
Originally posted by NaplesX
You both are mindless. This thread is about how the media has failed to counter the lies spread by certain parties by just bringing out some obvious facts...Go thread crash somewhere else. Get a life.
Originally posted by NaplesX
1. The news media reported widely on accusations of a sinister plot to remove SH by the bush neo-cons.
2. At the same time they totally ignored the fact that a regime change policy was signed into law by clinton.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
and you were wrong about that, "the media" did report it, your links are proof of that, you either just missed it or weren't paying attention.
See this is where you are wrong, I cannot find any instance where the "secret plan" was reported that it was mentioned that clinton also had a similar plan.
Anyway, the points have all been made. Nice doing business with you.
-