This testimony is clearly at attempt to stall critics of the Iraq War. During the past year, Bush administration officials kept saying "wait until September, wait for the repeat from Gen. Petraeus, etc". According to today's New York Times, it appears as though Gen. Petraeus will recommend we wait until March to talk about major withdrawal....still more stalling.

While this stalling continues, I think we should start looking at options beyond just getting our troops out of there. The current political situation in Iraq is simply unsustainable, but we need to ask whether it ever be sustainable. We need to start thinking about novel solutions like dividing up the country. Perhaps give the Sunni dominated portion to Saudi Arabia, the Shi'a dominated portion to Iran, and somehow convince Turkey to allow an independent Kurdistan. Redrawing the borders is daunting, but it's not like it hasn't been before. It was done in the former Yugoslavia in 1990s and the current borders of the Middle East were crudely drawn by the British and French after WWI.

If we agree to wait until March,the same kind of rhetoric will be waiting then.The president`s clear intention is to leave this war to the next president.After all he has always passed on what should be his responsibility to someone else his whole life..

As a small continuation.Stop enabling this fool!

Let's assume what the majority wants, so It's doesnt mater what the General and the Ambassador said, until the congress reestablish the Law & Order.

The illegal war should be stopped now and this Congress have the last word.

Percy H Florez

This is exactly why Americans need to rise up, take action, and demand that congress do the will of the American people by ending this war. Please get involved and take action. See link below for details. Thank you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/195657/7682

Tell Congress: Bring them home
Congress has the power to start bringing our troops home immediately. It is critical they use it this September. As a friendly reminder if you haven't done so yet please sign this petiton. A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative when you click on the link below.

http://pol.moveon.org/troopshome

the divider-decider put another general between the rock and the hardspot today.

the general is stuck between a rock and a hardspot... his loyalty to america includes same loyalty to the divider-decider. it appears to me that the general said what the divider-decider (who broke the pottery rule, blames the iraqis, the demos, and probably next our vets) wanted said. our congress also has allowed itself to be placed between the decider-divider's rock and a hard spot.

all the while our finest endure 120 plus heat, while the decider-divider parades around spinnin' and grinnin' at pre-staged military installations. ah, the show shall continue until 2008, unless the do nothing congress confronts the divider-decider ... the congress that was elected in 2006 with a mandate to change his course ... still waitin' we are.

Petraeus is just a yes-man. What did you expect him to say? Unfortunately he needs to grow a set before he has the guts to stand up and tell the truth. His retirement income is obviously more important than his soldiers.

Video: Inside the surge
The Guardian's award-winning photographer and filmmaker Sean Smith spent two months embedded with US troops in Baghdad and Anbar province. His harrowing documentary exposes the exhaustion and disillusionment of the soldiers.
Watch the video:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,2125978,00.html

(Note: This video may not be suitable for everyone)

Well today during the Petraeus hearing, my Democratic leaders killed my morale. I am sick and tired of hearing Democrats praise those hand picked by George Bush to do his bidding. The Chair would not make Petraeus answer important questions that were asked by Democrats at the end of their 5 minutes. One Republican after the other praised the chair for being so nice. It is past time to stop being nice. For 6 yrs., the Republicans didn't give the Democrats the time of day much less be nice. I want to know why when Petraeus stated the reason his report was differnt from all other reports was because the others reports weren't up to date, why a Democrat didn't bring up the fact that according to Mr. Walker, he and his independent committee weren't allowed to see data for the last few wks. leading up to Petraeus report. Even I can figure that one out. If Democrats are going to act so fearful of George Bush and his bunch, how are average Americans suppose to feel. I am just about to the point of thinking that Democrats don't deserve my vote. I know the Republicans think most Americans are stupid but its beginning to look like the Democrats think so as well. Duncan Hunter the former Republican Majority leader had more control over the hearing today than the chair, Ike Skelton did. Duncan Hunter is one of the main reasons we are in Iraq. He didn't allow Rumsfeld to be questioned as he should have been. I am just sick and don't know what to think anymore. I really don't think I am alone in my disgust either. Right now, I see the Democrats loosing in 2008. They continue to play right into the Republicans hands. Bush has set them up so many times, I have lost count. As far as I am concerned, Americans are screwed.

History has shown that it is almost inpossible for an invading army to conquer (change) a people who do not want to be conquered.

What I dislike most about the war however is the way Bush and the GOP have used fear to influence the populace. I'm pretty sure the definition of terrorism is using fear to influence a population.

Suppose, just suppose, that President Truman had listened to his top General, Douglad McArthur, rather than making his own decision about continuing the Korean war. Where do you think we would be now? Wouldn't it be nice to have a president with intestinal fortitude? Who is running this country?

Suppose, just suppose, that President Truman had listened to his top General, Douglad McArthur, rather than making his own decision about continuing the Korean war. Where do you think we would be now? Wouldn't it be nice to have a president with intestinal fortitude? Who is running this country?

Suppose, just suppose, that President Truman had listened to his top General, Douglas McArthur, and not ended the Korean war. Where will we be if this wishy-washy president listens to his top general?

Sycophants do not make good generals.

However, people are tired of Bush telling us what to do in Iraq, so he has to get another source, and what better than a commanding general in uniform, medals gleaming?

Seriously, it was an amazingly good political move, contrasting the military figure of Patreas to the overweight/older senators that he had to answer to, especially given their deference to him as commander on the ground.

The one thing the Bush administration is good at is spin and distortion. They're REALLY good at that.

I believe we need to let the Generals run this war. The 60% cited, (even if accurate and I sincerely doubt it), most likely have not had the military experience to make a competent decision about how and when to bring the troops home. Please know the American people will hold the Democratic Party responsible for any bloodbath occuring as a result of withdrawing troops before the time is right. Right now, many of my fellow independents are disgusted by the grandstanding arrogance of the Democrats' questioning of Petraeus and Crocker and the 'White Flag' policies of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Overplaying your hand right now will result in another Republican administration.
P.S.
Your assertion that Petraues simply acted as President Bush's surrogate was demeaning and offensive. The testimony given was the General's own opinion, he stated that was the case and I believe he is a man of honor. The Demcratic character assassination of him is shameful and disgusting and does nothing but reinforce the 'Retreat and Surrender' allegations from those on the right.

You need Independents to win in '08....You're really beginning to make us wonder why anyone would trust you with our national security.

I believe we need to let the Generals run this war. The 60% cited, (even if accurate and I sincerely doubt it), most likely have not had the military experience to make a competent decision about how and when to bring the troops home. Please know the American people will hold the Democratic Party responsible for any bloodbath occuring as a result of withdrawing troops before the time is right. Right now, many of my fellow independents are disgusted by the grandstanding arrogance of the Democrats' questioning of Petraeus and Crocker and the 'White Flag' policies of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Overplaying your hand right now will result in another Republican administration.
P.S.
Your assertion that Petraues simply acted as President Bush's surrogate was demeaning and offensive. The testimony given was the General's own opinion, he stated that was the case and I believe he is a man of honor. The Demcratic character assassination of him is shameful and disgusting and does nothing but reinforce the 'Retreat and Surrender' allegations from those on the right.

You need Independents to win in '08....You're really beginning to make us wonder why anyone would trust you with our national security.

General Petraeus Testimony Ordered to be Made on 9/11 to FALSELY Associate Iraq with the 9/11/01 Attack

A Look At How Petraeus Helped Arm Warring Sunni and Shia Militias in Iraq

As Americans across the country marked the sixth anniversary of September 11th on Tuesday, President Bush's top military commander in Iraq returned to Capitol Hill for a second day to urge the continuation of the war in Iraq.

But over the past two days neither General David Petraeus nor the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker have given any indication that the U.S. has a strategy to end the war that began almost four and a half years ago.

Petraeus predicted at least 100,000 American troops would still be in Iraq a year from now.

One State Department official told the McClatchy Newspapers the U.S. will still have 80,000 troops on the ground during the summer of 2009. And that figure includes only uniformed personnel, not private contractors.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this "sounds to me like a 10-year, at least, commitment to an open-ended presence and war."

When Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus whether the strategy in Iraq was making America safer, the four-star general responded by saying: I don't know.

Later Petraeaus clarified his statement and said Iraq "has very serious implications for our safety and security." President Bush is scheduled to address the nation Thursday night to voice his full support for General Petraeus's recommendations to continue the so-called surge.

On Tuesday Democratic Senator Robert Byrd grilled General Petraeus about why he was ordered to testify on Sept. 11th and about the military's strategy of arming former Sunni insurgents.

* Sen. Robert Byrd (D - WV) questioning Gen. David Petraeus

To talk more about the Petraeus hearings, Arun Gupta joins us in our firehouse studio.

* Arun Gupta, an editor "The Indypendent", a bimonthly newspaper based in New York, is currently writing a book on the history of the Iraq War to be published by Haymarket Press. His most recent article is titled "Meet Gen. David Petraeus: His Militia Strategy Plunged Iraq Into a Civil War, And Now He's Back for More."

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: As Americans across the country marked the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks Tuesday, President Bush's top military commander in Iraq returned to Capitol Hill for a second day to urge the continuation of the war in Iraq.

But over the past two days, neither General David Petraeus nor the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, have given any indication the US has a strategy to end the war that began almost four-and-a-half years ago. Petraeus predicted at least 100,000 American troops would still be in Iraq a year from now. One State Department official told the McClatchy Newspapers the US will still have 80,000 troops on the ground during the summer of 2009. And that figure includes only uniformed personnel, not private contractors. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this, quote, “sounds to me like a ten-year, at least, commitment to an open-ended presence and war.”

When Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus whether the strategy in Iraq is making America safer, the four-star general responded by saying, “I don't know.” Later, Petraeus clarified his statement and said Iraq “has very serious implications for our safety and security.”

President Bush is scheduled to address the nation Thursday night to voice his full support for General Petraeus’s recommendations to continue the so-called surge.

On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd grilled General Petraeus about why he was ordered to testify on September 11 and about the military’s strategy of arming former Sunni insurgents.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I don't think it’s a coincidence that this important hearing is taking place on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There seems to be another attempt to link in the mind of a confused public the war in Iraq to the attacks perpetrated on us on 9/11 by al-Qaeda. Is this just a big sales job? Please answer this clearly and succinctly, so that the American people can understand: is there and was there any connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraq?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Not that I am aware of, Senator.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, it’s getting to be like the change of seasons around here. Every few months someone from the administration comes up and says, “Just give us six or twelve more months, and things will look better.”

Your argument for the surge back in January was that military success would create space for political progress. That didn't work. Now, the new buzzword is “bottom-up.” You’ve talked about military success, but, by the President's own reckoning, that success is meaningless without political reconciliation.

Are six months or twelve months really going to make a difference on the big questions. Why should we keep giving you more and more time? Why? Why should we keep giving you more and more time, General Petraeus?

You’ve touted success in Anbar province. Just a few months ago, the tribes in Anbar province were shooting and killing Americans. Recently they decided they dislike the terrorists there more than they dislike Americans, so they are cooperating with us for the time being, while we give them money and arms. This recalls to my mind our policy in the 1980s in Afghanistan of arming the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. We all know how that short-term policy hurt our long-term interest. What guarantee can you give us that the tribes in Anbar are not going to turn around and use the guns that we gave them against our troops once they feel we no longer serve their interest? Isn't that a short-sited policy?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them. What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have -- they were already well enough armed -- at al-Qaeda, because they had come to reject the Taliban-like ideology and barbarity of al-Qaeda in the Euphrates River Valley.

AMY GOODMAN: That was General David Petraeus responding to questions from Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

To talk more about the Petraeus hearings, Arun Gupta joins us here in the studio. He’s a reporter and editor of The Indypendent, a bimonthly newspaper based here in New York. His most recent article is called “Meet Gen. David Petraeus: His Militia Strategy Plunged Iraq Into a Civil War, And Now He's Back for More.” Arun Gupta is currently writing a book on the history of the Iraq war that will be published by Haymarket Press.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Your assessment of what Petraeus’s message was to Congress?

ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think his message is the same thing the Bush administration has been saying for the last four years, which is “stay the course.” And there is no real strategy that the White House has, beyond trying to stave off defeat for the next year, so it can leave the war to its successor. And all this stuff about, “Well, you know, the surge is working, and we're going to draw it down next summer,” again, it’s part of the same kind of treadmill we’ve been on, the same rhetoric that we’ve been hearing.

Tell us who David Petraeus is. Arun, you’re the first person to mention General Petraeus on our show years ago.

ARUN GUPTA: Yeah. What we were talking about two-and-a-half years ago was Petraeus’s role in helping to set up the Special Police Commandos. In 2004, 2005, he was given the mission to train all Iraq military and police forces. And, in fact, in July 2004, Newsweek had this cover of him, saying that Petraeus was going to train Iraqis to take over the fight. Now, the reality is, is that was, of course, a failure, because three years later he was back with an escalation of US forces.

Now, one of the key things that Petraeus did was they decided -- him and his command decided -- that they were going to create this paramilitary force, the Special Police Commandos. They armed them. They funded them. They trained them. And they also issued the usual denials: “Oh, we're not giving them any weapons. This is an Iraqi initiative.” And so, now he’s saying the same thing with the Sunni militias.

So, anyway, the Special Police Commandos quickly morphed into Shiite death squads that were used against the Sunni insurgency and against Sunnis, in general, throughout Iraq. And this played a key role in terms of stoking and fomenting the civil war, because you had these death squads wearing government uniforms, being armed and trained by the US, going around killing Sunnis randomly. It generally alienated the Sunni Arab population from the government and drove them into the arms of the resistance.

Now what Petraeus is doing is he’s funding and arming these Sunni militias. And there are reports that have stated clearly with these militias saying, like, “Yes, we’re getting weapons from the US government.” And part of it is, is that they do want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is another Sunni-based group. It’s an Iraqi-based group. But their main purpose is they want this money and weapons and aid to fight the Shiite militias.

So here we have them, like in 2004, setting up these Shiite militias, and now he’s setting up these Sunni militias to fight these Shiite militias. And what it portends is just an absolute disaster for Iraq. And, of course, it will also be used as justification: “Well, we can't leave because a bloodbath will result.” But we’re not looking at the fact that it’s the US that’s creating this bloodbath.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about General Petraeus and the missing arms, the missing weapons?

ARUN GUPTA: Also during his tenure, 190,000 weapons went missing. These were Pentagon weapons that were supposed to go to Iraqi Security Forces. A report came out last month stating that there was no proper bookkeeping done. There were more weapons, but what it found was that 190,000 assault rifles and handguns, along with all sorts of body armor and other military equipment, had just completely gone off track. There were no records of it kept. Such simple things as recording the serial numbers were not done.

And, of course, the fear is that this is just going to turn up all sorts of places. The Turkish government has already claimed that it has seized more than 1,000 of these guns in Turkey that are being used by anyone, from criminal enterprises to anti-government militants. And there’s also reports that they’ve turned up as far away as Italy.

So -- and this was part of the Petraeus strategy, that he was just throwing all this money and weapons and aid at the Special Police Commandos, because they were so desperate to create a strategy to defeat the Sunni insurgency. And, of course, by the time he left his mission in 2005 of training Iraqis, there was only one battalion that was considered ready. In one year, that’s what his work amounted to.

And now a report just came out, a commission set up by Congress of four retired US generals, in which they stated that the National Police, which is what the Special Police Commandos are now known as, the National Police are so corrupt, so riven with sectarianism, they’re so hated by the public, the Iraqi military and other police services, that they should just be completely disbanded. And yet, none of this is being talked about in Congress or the media.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about General Petraeus's comments about Iran?

ARUN GUPTA: I don't think there is any real credibility in terms of talking about what Iran is involved with, because this administration clearly has been trying to stoke a war against Iran. And it also beggars the imagination that somehow Iran is going to be supplying groups that it’s hostile with, whether it's Sunni insurgents in Iraq or whether it's the Taliban, who it went to war with in the 1990s. So I think this is just part of the administration's drumbeat to create some sort of military action against Iran before it leaves office.

AMY GOODMAN: Last question: the Democrats' questioning of Petraeus?

ARUN GUPTA: I think they missed a great opportunity, in terms of focusing on Petraeus’s past record, because he's been given a free pass, that he’s someone who has great credibility and impartiality, rather than, you know, really revealing that he played this critical role in stoking the civil war. But more so, you know, what we need to focus on is how Petraeus and Crocker are really just trying to play down the clock so that the Bush administration doesn't have to have a significant withdrawal, so it could dump the problem on his successor, probably a Democratic president, and then leave them the enormous burden of figuring out what to do with Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Arun Gupta, I want to thank you very much for being with us; editor of The Indypendent, currently writing a book on Iraq. Thank you very much.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/121410237

Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter
Inter Press Service

Wednesday 12 September 2007

Washington - In sharp contrast to the lionization of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia - the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

Fallon also expressed great skepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" - a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307L.shtml

---------

yes just imagine where we would be if we did not waste money on failed military campaigns every few years but instead decreaced military spendina and applied the taxes to programs which would actually strengthen our country. Just imagine better education, national health insurance, a country by the people for the people. . . just imagine.
I will never bow down in fear or threat from another. I will believe in what we once were not what we have become. Korea was like vietnam we could still be continueing those fight till this day the United Soviet Socialist Republic would not have colapsed because they would be doing plenty of buisiness. The USSR and China would most likely be more powerfull from supporting the war. Just imagine where we would be.
Generals are trained and employed to fight, of course they want to fight not to mention aiding the corporations who will pay them quite well when they retire from the military. So yes any general will suggest a continuation of any war loosing or winning it is his job. The leader tells him what to do, the populace tell the leader what to do in a democratic society. Just imagine where we would be. .

It would depend on what you view as a success. The GOP will not let the people in on their goals for Iraq, nor have there ever been any clear goals given to the public. Gen. Petreaus answered something like dire consequences on one interview. And what exactly are the consequences. Hussain had no clear ties to Al-qaeda. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There may have been once long before the events of the latest conflict arose, and Iraq disposed of them. Why. Because they could not challenge the might of the US. The same with Korea. Even if they did develope a bomb and did det in the US, our systems are redundant and we could go on, which means we could counter with our own weapons and argue to the world it was justified thus destroying their country. That and the fact they make money off of us why would they attack. No some people fear the boogy man and some don't. My what if post was ment to show that we do not know the future and all the intelligence we gather will be manipulated so that it is corrupted and has little or no value. My guess would be we are in Iraq to creat a staging area for an invasion of Iran. And why exactly are we doing this I would like to know, so would most everyone in this country. I can only see profit. Don't give me the 9-11 bs you use on the common people to instill terror on them either. I would think we could send in operatives who could in less time then we are wasting on a full scale invasion (which is most likely supposed to lead to a secound invasion) and identify targets of al-quaeda and eliminate them individually. Again we're back to trying to gain political countrol of these nations for profit of some people, and great cost to the majority of Americans. Have we not been trying to influence these areas since the 50's?
You are right we did not fail in korea or vietnam. That is if you are looking at the profits made by corporations in the defence industry. And of course slight population control. But if you look at it the other way the lines between communism and capatilism didn't change. We lost hundreds of thousands of young mens lives. And cost the working class greatly in tax dollars that could have supported other things which would have benefited them.
Is it really about terrorist threats or is it about maintaining the status quo?

workingman:

I have concluded that commonjoe is a lumpen-proletariat RIGHT WINGER, who, more than likely, is being paid to try and subvert this democratic blog with his/her conservative RIGHT WING propagandistic opinions.

I have also concluded that independent is a lumpen-proletariat RIGHT WINGER as well.

MarthaA - Do you walk around with tin foil as a hat because "Big Brother" is watching you and can read your thoughts? I ask only because you seem to believe all of these insane conspiricy theories. Then you close your eyes, block your ears and deny anyone else the opportunity to take a point of view other than yours. Then comes the name calling such as "lumpen-proletariat right wingers." It seems to be a pattern. Furthermore judging from what you write, I would surmise that this is the spirit of neo-liberalism in 2007. Silence any opposition to your stance and make everyone else see the world the way you do. Decent is not welcome in the democratic party. You cannot think or have an opinion or solution other than my own. You claim to hold up the Bill of Rights, but you try to silence opposition at the same time. No one is subverting anything. Your just making a case for other swing voters who see this drivel and decide that the DNC is a bunch of kook fringe conspiricy therorists who can't stand other Americans thinking for themselves.

workingman:

I have concluded that commonjoe is a lumpen-proletariat RIGHT WINGER, who, more than likely, is being paid to try and subvert this democratic blog with his/her conservative RIGHT WING propagandistic opinions.

That's kooky. Wearing your tin foil hat, yet?

Since its a republican occupation(not a war).
ONLY send republican kids to die for Iraqi oil.(as greenspan so truthfully said in his new book.) Two good things: 1. We wouldn't have to look at republican bodybags being sent back to the USA.(why can't the liberal press control those pictures?) 2. It would get rid of a lot of stupid people that believe we are fighting for democracy (after republicans steal two elections in the USA, what a joke if it weren't true)in a muslim religious oil rich country. If anyone is stupid enough to believe that, we probably wouldn't miss them anyways. If republicans want to die for the lies and corporate profits lets support them in their efforts. Draft only republican kids and the occupation will Stop!! Draft the decider twins and republican members of congress kids and the occupation will STOP. They would be very patriotic and send their kids 4 and 5 times to fight against ???? How can even stupid people support these liars, crooks and war criminals? They didn't just lie about the WMD's, they made up the lies to invade and kill a lot of innocent people. PS: Are you smart enough to figure out that Osama is still on the payroll and that is why he hasn't been caught and makes tapes at the exact right republican moments. Just in time for the SURGE "moment" for the 4 star IRAQ REPORT. Another propaganda joke if you read the other reports. (the same 1 star in charge of the Iraqi police failure). WoW what a success! BTW! Was 9/11 well planned and executed by Saudi friends of the bush family? Only the oil prices will tell! How rich are the Saudi's NOW?

COMMONJOE, RUSHBABIES COME TO A DEMOCRATIC BLOG SITE AND SPOUT THERE RIGHT WING NARROWMINDED HOGWASH AND WONDER WHY THE GET A NEGATIVE RESPONCE,WHAT A COUPLE OF REAL BONEHEADS.