by seemslikeadream » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:44 pm
<!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.cursor.org.nyud.net:8090/images/iheartchalabi.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4457345&mesg_id=4457345<br><br><br>Does Anyone Making Decisions at "The NYTimes" Bother to Connect Dots?<br><br>The answer through the Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter of 2002, is not just no, but far worse.<br><br>The answer from January 2003 until now, remains NO and the consequences, irrespective of intent, have been catastrophic.<br><br>I review an item that appeared today at Huffington Post with two VIPS memoranda sent to Bush - one on February 7, 2003 and the other on March 18, 2003.<br><br>"We The People ..." didn't need Michael Smith to publish leaked Downing Street classified documents to have had ample access, prior to the start of Bush's illegal war on Iraq, to the deception being spewed, intentionally, by the Bush administration.<br><br>What "We The People ..." needed was a 4th Estate that was not a full-throated propaganda instrument of Bush and his neoconster buddies.<br><br><br><br>Does Anyone Making Decisions at "The NYTimes" Bother to Connect Dots?<br><br>Who did the editorial writers have in mind --assuming an awareness of Miller’s notorious reliance on anonymous INC sources (and neo-con officials in the administration) in reporting the existence of WMD in Iraq -- when writing “it is true that some journalists have abused and overused unnamed sources over the years”? Tellingly, the editorial argued that secret sources are a means for protecting a whistleblowing civil servant or employee of a private company, but did not add: or a top government official leaking the name of a secret CIA operative. Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc., recently said on Court TV: "A 90-second conversation with the President's spin doctor, who was trying to undermine a whistle-blower, probably didn't deserve confidential source status." <br><br>It is to turn the Plame case on its head to suggest that Miller, of all people, was gathering materials for a story that cast a critical light on the motives and actions of those officials who partook in a potential federal crime in leaking the identity of Plame. It is to make a mockery of the very idea of shielding whistleblowers from adverse consequences. Moreover, it is not possible to separate the extent to which Miller’s WMD reporting played a part in pushing the neo-con agenda in Iraq from the way in which her actions in the Plame affair are effectively protecting her neo-con sources. The Plame scandal is not a separate issue from her WMD reporting, but occurred as part of her WMD activism. Just whom, or what, is Miller protecting? <br><br><clip><br><br>Do the top editors of The New York Times have enough detachment to have an idea of how the kid-gloves treatment of Miller’s role in the Plame affair affects the paper’s place as part of the greater Fourth Estate? That is, we have the leading newspaper in the world engaged in a kind of petty coverup to protect one of its employees-–without a scrap of public evidence that the reporter was reporting, let alone interested in exposing government skullduggery. It is hard not to conclude that either this relates back to the “warhawk” stance of columnist-cum-editor Bill Keller (and others) on the invasion of Iraq; or it devolves into personal relationships, a kind of nepotism. In any case, the newspaper of record has been severely compromised. <br><br><clip><br><br>From What Price Judith Miller to The New York Times? by William E Jackson<br><br>Much more at the link:<br><br>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-e-jackson-jr/what... <br><br><br>Well, a slew of the dots the New York Times Editors and Reporters failed to connect are provided by this document published on February, 7 2003<br><br>The memorandum is essential reading in this "post-Downing Street Minutes" era. <br><br>It provides a perspective on why Judith Miller, the WHIGers (including Condi, Rove and Libby), Bolton, Gonzales, Feith, Perle, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney and Bush belligerently and stupidly outed a CIA covert agent -- not merely to slap Ambassador Wilson for telling the truth, but most likely to destroy a CIA WMD intelligence enterprise that might well have information on just how dishonest Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush were being -- to the Congress, to the American people, and to their allies (something we know from DSM July 23, 2002, folk at 10 Downing St. were aware).<br><br><br>Published on Friday, February 7, 2003 by CommonDreams.org <br><br>MEMORANDUM FOR: The President<br><br>FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity <br><br>Secretary Powell's presentation at the UN today requires context. We give him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq, but only a "C-" in providing context and perspective. <br><br>What seems clear to us is that you need an intelligence briefing, not grand jury testimony. Secretary Powell effectively showed that Iraq is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for not cooperating fully with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. That had already been demonstrated by the chief UN inspectors. For Powell, it was what the Pentagon calls a "cakewalk." <br><br>The narrow focus on Resolution 1441 has diverted attention from the wider picture. It is crucial that we not lose sight of that. Intelligence community analysts are finding it hard to make themselves heard above the drumbeat for war. Speaking both for ourselves, as veteran intelligence officers on the VIPS Steering Group with over a hundred years of professional experience, and for colleagues within the community who are increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence, we feel a responsibility to help you frame the issues. For they are far more far-reaching-and complicated-than "UN v. Saddam Hussein." And they need to be discussed dispassionately, in a setting in which sobriquets like "sinister nexus," "evil genius," and "web of lies" can be more hindrance than help. <br><br>Flouting UN Resolutions <br><br>The key question is whether Iraq's flouting of a UN resolution justifies war. This is the question the world is asking. Secretary Powell's presentation does not come close to answering it. <br><br><clip><br><br>Containment <br><br>You have dismissed containment as being irrelevant in a post 9/11 world. You should know that no one was particularly fond of containment, but that it has been effective for the last 55 years. And the concept of "material breach" is hardly anything new. <br><br>Material Breach <br><br>In the summer of 1983 we detected a huge early warning radar installation at Krasnoyarsk in Siberia. In 1984 President Reagan declared it an outright violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. At an ABM Treaty review in 1988, the US spoke of this continuing violation as a "material breach" of the treaty. In the fall of 1989, the Soviet Union agreed to eliminate the radar at Krasnoyarsk without preconditions. <br><br>We adduce this example simply to show that, with patient, persistent diplomacy, the worst situations can change over time. <br><br>You have said that Iraq is a "grave threat to the United States," and many Americans think you believe it to be an imminent threat. Otherwise why would you be sending hundreds of thousands of troops to the Gulf area? In your major speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, you warned that "the risk is simply too great that Saddam Hussein will use instruments of mass death and destruction, or provide them to a terror network." <br><br>Terrorism <br><br>Your intelligence agencies see it differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists..UNLESS:<br><br>"Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." <br><br>For now, continued the CIA letter, "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States." With his back against the wall, however, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." <br><br>Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario. <br><br>Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially. <br><br>As recent events around the world attest, terrorism is like malaria. You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be inundated with swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a large phalanx of security personnel. <br><br>We recommend you re-read the CIA assessment of last fall (that would be 2002) that pointed out that "the forces fueling hatred of the US and fueling al Qaeda recruiting are not being addressed," and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." That CIA report cited a Gallup poll last year (i.e., 2002) of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased." <br><br><clip><br><br>Casualties <br><br>Reminder: The last time we sent troops to the Gulf, over 600,000 of them, one out of three came back ill - many with unexplained disorders of the nervous system. Your Secretary of Veterans Affairs recently closed the VA healthcare system to nearly 200,000 eligible veterans by administrative fiat. Thus, casualties of further war will inevitably displace other veterans who need VA services. <br><br>In his second inaugural, Abraham Lincoln appealed to his fellow citizens to care for those who "have borne the battle." Years before you took office, our country was doing a very poor job of that for the over 200,000 servicemen and women stricken with various Gulf War illnesses. Today's battlefield is likely to be even more sodden with chemicals and is altogether likely to yield tens of thousands more casualties. On October 1, 2002 Congress' General Accounting Office reported "serious problems still persist" with the Pentagon's efforts to protect servicemen and women, including shortfalls in clothing, equipment, and training. Our troops deserve more effective support than broadcasts, leaflets, and faulty equipment for protection against chemical and biological agents. <br><br>No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic. <br><br>/s/ <br><br>Richard Beske, San Diego<br>Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe<br>William Christison, Santa Fe<br>Patrick Eddington, Alexandria<br>Raymond McGovern, Arlington <br><br>Steering Group<br>Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity <br><br>Link:<br><br>http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm <br><br><br>On March 18, 2003, the VIPS wrote another memorandum to Bush; more dots that the New York Times should have connected then, but still haven't connected, now.<br><br><br>March 18, 2003 <br><br>MEMORANDUM FOR: The President <br><br>FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity <br><br>SUBJECT: Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem <br><br>We last wrote you immediately after Secretary of State Powell's UN speech on February 5, in an attempt to convey our concerns that insufficient attention was being given to wider intelligence-related issues at stake in the conflict with Iraq. Your speech yesterday evening did nothing to allay those concerns. And the acerbic exchanges of the past few weeks have left the United States more isolated than at any time in the history of the republic and the American people more polarized. <br><br>Today we write with an increased sense of urgency and responsibility. Responsibility, because you appear to be genuinely puzzled at the widespread opposition to your policy on Iraq and because we have become convinced that those of your advisers who do understand what is happening are reluctant to be up front with you about it. As veterans of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the posture we find ourselves in is as familiar as it is challenging. We feel a continuing responsibility to "tell it like it is" - or at least as we see it - without fear or favor. Better to hear it from extended family than not at all; we hope you will take what follows in that vein. <br><br>We cannot escape the conclusion that you have been badly misinformed. It was reported yesterday that your generals in the Persian Gulf area have become increasingly concerned over sandstorms. To us this is a metaphor for the shifting sand-type "intelligence" upon which your policy has been built. <br><br>Worse still, it has become increasingly clear that the sharp drop in US credibility abroad is largely a function of the rather transparent abuse of intelligence reporting and the dubious conclusions drawn from that reporting - the ones that underpin your decisions on Iraq. <br><br>Flashback to Vietnam <br><br>Many of us cut our intelligence teeth during the sixties. We remember the arrogance and flawed thinking that sucked us into the quagmire of Vietnam. The French, it turned out, knew better. And they looked on with wonderment at Washington's misplaced confidence -its single-minded hubris, as it embarked on a venture the French knew from their own experience could only meet a dead end. This was hardly a secret. It was widely known that the French general sent off to survey the possibility of regaining Vietnam for France after World War II reported that the operation would take a half-million troops, and even then it could not be successful. <br><br>Nevertheless, President Johnson, heeding the ill-informed advice of civilian leaders of the Pentagon with no experience in war, let himself get drawn in past the point of no return. In the process, he played fast and loose with intelligence to get the Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress so that he could prosecute the war. To that misguided war he mortgaged his political future, which was in shambles when he found himself unable to extricate himself from the morass. <br><br>Quite apart from what happened to President Johnson, the Vietnam War was the most serious US foreign policy blunder in modern times - until now. <br><br>Forgery <br><br>In your state-of-the-union address you spoke of Iraq's pre-1991 focus on how to "enrich uranium for a bomb" and added, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." No doubt you have now been told that this information was based on bogus correspondence between Iraq and Niger. Answering a question on this last week, Secretary Powell conceded-with neither apology nor apparent embarrassment-that the documents in question, which the US and UK had provided to the UN to show that Iraq is still pursuing nuclear weapons, were forgeries. Powell was short: "If that information is inaccurate, fine." <br><br>But it is anything but fine. This kind of episode inflicts serious damage on US credibility abroad-the more so, as it appears neither you nor your advisers and political supporters are in hot pursuit of those responsible. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts has shown little enthusiasm for finding out what went awry. Committee Vice-Chairman, Jay Rockefeller, suggested that the FBI be enlisted to find the perpetrators of the forgeries, which US officials say contain "laughable and child-like errors," and to determine why the CIA did not recognize them as forgeries. But Roberts indicated through a committee spokeswoman that he believes it is " inappropriate for the FBI to investigate at this point." Foreign observers do not have to be paranoid to suspect some kind of cover-up. <br><br>Who Did It? Who Cares! <br><br>Last week Wisconsin Congressman Dave Obey cited a recent press report suggesting that a foreign government might be behind the forgeries as part of an effort to build support for military action against Iraq and asked Secretary Powell if he could identify that foreign government. Powell said he could not do so "with confidence." Nor did he appear in the slightest interested. <br><br>We think you should be. In the absence of hard evidence one looks for those with motive and capability. The fabrication of false documentation, particularly what purports to be official correspondence between the agencies of two governments, is a major undertaking requiring advanced technical skills normally available only in a sophisticated intelligence service. And yet the forgeries proved to be a sloppy piece of work. <br><br>Chalk it up to professional pride by (past) association, but unless the CIA's capabilities have drastically eroded over recent years, the legendary expertise of CIA technical specialists, combined with the crudeness of the forgeries, leave us persuaded that the CIA did not craft the bogus documents. Britain's MI-6 is equally adept at such things. Thus, except in the unlikely event that crafting forgery was left to second-stringers, it seems unlikely that the British were the original source. <br><br>We find ourselves wondering if amateur intelligence operatives in the Pentagon basement and/or at 10 Downing Street were involved and need to be called on the carpet. We would urge you strongly to determine the provenance. This is not trivial matter. As our VIPS colleague (and former CIA Chief of Station) Ray Close has noted, "If anyone in Washington deliberately practiced disinformation in this way against another element of our own government or wittingly passed fabricated information to the UN, this could do permanent damage to the commitment to competence and integrity on which the whole American foreign policy process depends." <br><br>The lack of any strong reaction from the White House feeds the suspicion that the US was somehow involved in, or at least condones, the forgery. It is important for you to know that, although credibility-destroying stories like this rarely find their way into the largely cowed US media, they do grab headlines abroad among those less disposed to give the US the benefit of the doubt. As you know better than anyone, a year and a half after 9/11 the still traumatized US public remains much more inclined toward unquestioning trust in the presidency. Over time that child-like trust can be expected to erode, if preventive maintenance is not performed and hyperbole shunned. <br><br>Hyperbole <br><br>The forgery aside, the administration's handling of the issue of whether Iraq is continuing to develop nuclear weapons has done particularly severe damage to US credibility. On October 7 your speechwriters had you claim that Iraq might be able to produce a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Formal US intelligence estimates, sanitized versions of which have been made public, hold that Iraq will be unable to produce a nuclear weapon until the end of the decade, if then. In that same speech you claimed that "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program"-a claim reiterated by Vice President Cheney on Meet the Press on March 16. <br><br>Reporting to the UN Security Council in recent months, UN chief nuclear inspector Mohammed ElBaradei has asserted that the inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Some suspect that the US does have such evidence but has not shared it with the UN because Washington has been determined to avoid doing anything that could help the inspections process succeed. Others believe the "evidence" to be of a piece with the forgery - in all likelihood crafted by Richard Perle's Pentagon Plumbers. Either way, the US takes a large black eye in public opinion abroad. <br><br>Then there are those controversial aluminum tubes which you have cited in major speeches as evidence of a continuing effort on Iraq's part to produce nuclear weapons. Aside from one analyst in the CIA and the people reporting to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, there is virtually unanimous agreement within the intelligence, engineering, and scientific communities with ElBaradei's finding that "it was highly unlikely" that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material. It is not enough for Vice President Cheney to dismiss ElBaradei's findings. Those who have followed these issues closely are left wondering why, if the vice president has evidence to support his own view, he does not share it with the UN. <br><br>Intelligence Scant <br><br>In your speech yesterday evening you stressed that intelligence "leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And yet even the Washington Post, whose editors have given unswerving support to your policy on Iraq, is awash with reports that congressional leaders, for example, have been given no specific intelligence on the number of banned weapons in Iraq or where they are hidden. One official, who is regularly briefed by the CIA, commented recently that such evidence as does exist is "only circumstantial." Another said he questioned whether the administration is shaping intelligence for political purposes. And, in a moment of unusual candor, one senior intelligence analyst suggested that one reason why UN inspectors have had such trouble finding weapons caches is that "there may not be much of a stockpile." <br><br>Having backed off suggestions early last year that Iraq may already have nuclear weapons, your administration continues to assert that Iraq has significant quantities of other weapons of mass destruction. But by all indications, this is belief, not proven fact. This has led the likes of Thomas Powers, a very knowledgeable author on intelligence, to conclude that "the plain fact is that the Central Intelligence Agency doesn't know what Mr. Hussein has, if anything, or even who knows the answers, if anyone." <br><br>This does not inspire confidence. What is needed is candor-candor of the kind you used in one portion of your speech on October 7. Just two paragraphs before you claimed that Iraq is "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program, you said, "Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem." <br><br>True, candor can weaken a case that one is trying to build. We are reminded of a remarkable sentence that leapt out of FBI Director Mueller's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 11 - a sentence that does actually parse, but nonetheless leaves one scratching one's head. Mueller: "The greatest threat is from al-Qaeda cells in the US that we have not yet identified." <br><br>This seems to be the tack that CIA Director Tenet is taking behind closed doors; i.e., the greatest threat from Iraq is the weapons we have not yet identified but believe are there. <br><br>[]bIt is not possible to end this section on hyperbole without giving Oscars to Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, who have outdone themselves in their zeal to establish a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. You will recall that Rumsfeld described the evidence-widely recognized to be dubious-as " bulletproof," and Powell characterized the relationship as a "partnership!" Your assertion last evening that "the terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed" falls into the same category. We believe it far more likely that our country is in for long periods of red and orange color codes. <br><br>Half-Truth <br><br>Here we shall limit ourselves to one example, although the number that could be adduced is legion. <br><br>You may recall that a Cambridge University analyst recently revealed that a major portion of a British intelligence document on Iraq had been plagiarized from a term paper by a graduate student in California — information described by Secretary Powell to the UN Security Council as “exquisite” intelligence. That same analyst has now acquired from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the transcript of the debriefing of Iraqi Gen. Hussein Kamel, son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, who defected in 1995. <br><br>Kamel for ten years ran Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile development programs, and some of the information he provided has been highly touted by senior US policymakers, from the president on down. But the transcript reveals that Kamel also said that in 1991 Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. This part of the debriefing was suppressed until Newsweek ran a story on it on February 24, 2003. <br><br>We do not for a minute take all of what Kamel said at face value. Rather we believe the Iraqis retain some chemical and biological warfare capability. What this episode suggests, though, is a preference on the part of US officials to release only that information that supports the case they wish to make against Iraq. <br><br>In Sum <br><br>What conclusions can be drawn from the above? Simply that forgery, hyperbole, and half-truths provide a sandy foundation from which to launch a major war. <br><br>Equally important, there is danger in the temptation to let the conflict with Iraq determine our attitude toward the entire gamut of foreign threats with which you and your principal advisers need to be concerned. Threats to US security interests must be prioritized and judged on their own terms. In our judgment as intelligence professionals, there are two are real and present dangers today. <br><br>1-- The upsurge in terrorism in the US and against American facilities and personnel abroad that we believe would inevitably flow from a US invasion of Iraq. Concern over this is particularly well expressed in the February 26 letter from FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley to Director Mueller, a letter well worth your study. <br><br>2-- North Korea poses a particular danger, although what form this might take is hard to predict. Pyongyang sees itself as the next target of your policy of preemption and, as its recent actions demonstrate, will take advantage of US pre-occupation with Iraq both to strengthen its defenses and to test US and South Korean responses. Although North Korea is economically weak, its armed forces are huge, well armed, and capable. It is entirely possible that the North will decide to mount a provocation to test the tripwire provided by the presence of US forces in South Korea. Given the closeness of Seoul to the border with the North and the reality that North Korean conventional forces far outnumber those of the South, a North Korean adventure could easily force you to face an abrupt, unwelcome decision regarding the use of nuclear weapons—a choice that your predecessors took great pains to avoid. <br><br>We suggest strongly that you order the Intelligence Community to undertake, on an expedited basis, a Special National Intelligence Estimate on North Korea, and that you defer any military action against Iraq until you have had a chance to give appropriate weight to the implications of the challenge the US might face on the Korean peninsula. <br><br>/s/ <br><br>Richard Beske, San Diego<br>Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe<br>William Christison, Santa Fe<br>Patrick Eddington, Alexandria, VA<br>Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA <br><br>Steering Group<br>Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity<br><br>Link:<br><br>http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0319-08.htm <br><br><br>That was sent to Bush on MARCH 18, 2003<br><br>In conclusion, the VIPS memorandum of February 8, 2003 concluded with the prescient and cogent recommendation to Bush that he " ... widen the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic. <br><br>He didn't take the advice and now he must be held accountable because:<br><br>The Iraqi people are living those 'unintended catastrophic consequences,' every minute of every day.<br><br>America is perceived as a rogue super-power, a state that sponsors torture, and has expanded the ranks of those who hate us, not for our freedoms but because of our obvious crimes -- further 'unintended catastrophic consequences.'<br><br>A mother had to stand in a ditch to bring broad attention, finally, to the costs in lives, shattered and over, that Bush and the neoconsters have needlessly subjected our honorable and brave Armed Forces -- catastrophic consequences, in_deed.<br><br>The New York Times still will not print the banner it should have printed on March 18, 2003 and certainly no later than on the day Ambassador Wilson published his report on Niger -- "AMERICA: YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED. STOP THE WAR"<br><br>So, Bush, the neoconsters and the New York Times must be held accountable. For the New York Times I recommend one final and honorable act -- print the banner -- "AMERICA: WE HAVE ENABLED BUSH TO DECEIVE YOU, WE APOLOGIZE & WE DEMAND BUSH RESIGN"<br><br>And that should be the last 'ink' the New York Times ever uses.<br><br><br>Peace. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seemslikeadream@rigorousintuition>seemslikeadream</A> at: 8/25/05 3:45 pm<br></i>
