Polls show Americans are 'confused'

you know what the problem with liberals and progressives is?

Many progressives in and out of the media accept the Right's basic "narrative" in this affair and apparently, most others, and just nod their heads and go "tsk, tsk" when the facts don't fit the narrative spewed by the Busheviks in power.

Progressives, by intellectual training and by emotional inclination, aren't willing street fighters and shun the rough and tumble of fighting the Right Instead, they attempt to be fair and see both sides. They think of issues from the points of view of interests other than their own and don't mind conceding that the other fellow has a point. They want to believe that reasonable people can disagree in good faith.

But, in this case, the other fellow, aWOL Bush has no point, has produced NO facts to support him, has been unreasonable and still many in the press are unwilling to speak the truth because it might make them look like a progressive. That is the progressive disease.

This self-destructive disease of intellectual comity has allowed the Right to hit the Left with lies and bombast and all the Left does is grin like idiots and take it. We saw it when the rabid wolverines, bought and paid for by millionaire right wingers set up an entire industry to get Bill Clinton, and normally progressive journalists bought the hype about Whitewater, Trooperegate and a myriad of other lies manufactured to destroy Clinton.

And while the Right calls the Washington Post and New York Times "liberal" both newspapers were on the forefront in attacks on Bill Clinton, and the Times recently fired editor Harold Raines called for Clinton's resignation and attacked him personally in editorial after editorial. So much for the myth of the "liberal" Washington Post and New York Times, so much for the myth that these newspapers skew news coverage to the Left.

I would ask one to reflect on what most media comments from alleged progressives were about Bill Clinton and Whitewater or Troopergate, and if they used their wonderfully fair, progressive minds to call for cautious analysis when the hysteria from the Right swept this country into a frenzy and led to the impeachment of a president over nothing but consenting sex between adults.

Why, of course they did. NOT. They had bought the narrative of the Right wing, hook, line, and sinker.

What gave the Left its strength were its traditional alliances with the civil rights movements and labor. Both of these had strong, articulate voices made all the stronger by experience in decades long struggles with foes that wanted them dead or dismembered.

Fighting such adversaries makes one stronger. The Left is now filled predominantly with intellectuals who have never had their heads cracked open on a strike line by management goons or had police dogs attack them while marching for their civil rights.

They have felt little pain, and without the experience of such pain they are unaware of the consequences of their inactions when the Right attacks them and the things they hold dear.

I adhere to "the Chicago Way" "If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue." That's the Chicago Way, and if one is not willing to actually fight for their principles, they don't have any.

oh, scrat, you are so full of it. those missiles had a range of a few kilometers longer than was defined by the armistice of 1991. yet they did not even have fuel to propel them. that the UN inspectors found them was exactly the point of the inspections. inspections that your idols considered to be ineffective. you cant have it both ways. where you use evidence that the iraqis were breaking treaties and submit that the inspections that found them were useless. that's pretty goddamned stupid.

bush did NOT, powell did NOT even mention them while giving their lie-filled speeches at the UN.

the trailers the americans found were sold to the iraqis by the british, the british examined them and said they were being used exactly as the iraqis said they were, for generating hydrogen for weather ballons. the iraqis even mentioned them in their reports up to the start of the war. the americans decided that they were not used for the intended use the iraqis claimed they were because the americans thought them to be too inefficient to be used to generate hydrogen. maybe the american would not use such inefficeint methods to generate hydrogen, but did you ever even stop to think that after a 12 year embargo on anything of a technical nature that the iraqis were using them even if they were inefficent?

no, you did not, you did not even stop to use your brain to think logically because you just KNEW those dirty little bastards were up to no good and you ignored a logical analysis of the data..

this is what is so disgusting about the rightwing, that they grasp at anything that confirms their illusions.

get on to something more substantive.

it appears you are scraping the bottom of the barrel because everything else you have proposed has been shown to be pure bull$hit.

In reading your post, I'd say you were down there with him.


So, how many kilometers would be ok in your mind, kuvasz?


That goes for you as well, kuvasz.

(Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.)


You are referring to the banned weapons Iraq had that can send a missile more than 90 miles... maybe 120 miles with a good tailwind? You surmise that some of these self-described Republicans who "follow international affairs closely" MIGHT CONSIDER those short-range missiles to be weapons of mass destruction? Hmmmmmmmm.

Perhaps they might!

I've lost a lot of my initial surprise over what people think. Stupid me, I'm just a liberal, but I thought it was pretty obvious that a weapon of mass destruction would mean an atomic bomb, a nuclear bomb, or a large-scale biological or chemical weapon that would kill lots and lots of people. I'm pretty sure that's what it means. At least that's where the "mass destruction" part comes in....

But you're right. Those pollsters may have confused folks by not fully explaining just exactly what those words mean.

oh yeah, well you seem to be adverse to the truth here. not that your side ever cared for it in the first place.

show me where i, like your bedfellow cobbled a set of unrelated data, exaggerated them, used them to string a fatuous argument and made a cause for war on repeated posts when repeatedly those facts have been shown to not lead to the conclusions stated.

BTW the poster right after me gave you the details of the missiles' ranges.

but it took less than 30 seconds to doa google search for the facts.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article2092.html

The U.N. inspectors swarming over Iraq's missile industry found an infraction last week: The short-range Al Samoud 2 sometimes flies a few miles farther than allowed.

But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears.

In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic "eyes and ears."

Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix gave Iraq until Saturday to begin destroying the Al Samouds, and Baghdad was reported Thursday to have agreed in principle to go ahead with their elimination --- via explosives, crushing, cutting or other means.

Blix called it an important test of Iraq's cooperation with U.N. disarmament efforts.

The Iraqis must also eliminate the design data and equipment to build the weapons --- a damaging blow to their young missile industry.

Under the U.N. arms control regime that followed the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), Iraq was forbidden to have missiles that could travel beyond a 150-kilometer range --- 93 miles.

That's considered the outer limit of short-range or "battlefield" missiles.

Blix reported the newly developed Al Samoud 2 exceeded that limit on 13 test flights, by no more than 20 miles.
On 27 of 40 flights, the missile tested short of the permitted threshold, Blix told U.N. diplomats behind closed doors.


so when your side puts up deceitful and dishonest data to prove a point, i assume you are okay with that, and when i call them on it with the real details, i am akin to them for showing them to be liars.

get a life.

you did read the papers in march? bush said that the iraqis could launch missiles that could reach the States with WMD, that they could attack us within 45 minutes. that the iraqis posed , in bush's words "an immenent threat." you believe that tripe?

now tell me again where i was having it both ways. i was not the one who made up things, that was done by your buddies, not me. all i did was call them on it.

you just seem put off that the rhetorical devices your buddies use are being pointed dierctly back at them and now you decry such use? i did not hear you mention this when they went off to alice's wonderland with their statements. so i guess as usual with your side you dont like it when people show what hypocrites your side has on its team.

you might wish to admonish your buddies for making it up as they go along.

Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant, the fact that a majority of both sides of the aisle in Congress believed it, and the Administration believed it is relevant, and that is the point.

To hypothesize with wild conjecture that Bush was complicit in duping the American people and the rest of the World regarding the WMD in Iraq requires a departure of reality the likes of which I am not willing to take.

Why is it so important that they be found in Iraq, when even a dim-witted republican knows that they have been transported elsewhere.

To continually maintain that there was not an active and ongoing Weapons Program (and yes, I know the difference between banned weapons and WMD, although I think the distinction is irrelevant, Piffka, though I won't quibble with you on it) requires even a further removal from reality.
What were those Scientists working on, hmmmm?

The bile that rises up with such vigor and stench from the organs of the liberal that materializes in the "Where are the WMD's???" Rant is far beneath you, kuvasz.

And it is that duplicity that I am calling you on, good buddy.

The only reason we supposedly sent armies of US soldiers to Iraq was to find & destroy weapons of mass destruction. For the Brits -- they were looking specifically for chemical weapons. They still are ... and getting more and more desperate. To say that the difference between that and a small-scale missile is shocking. I can only assume the poison ivy has affected your noodle because you just implied it was fine to go to war, to kill 3000 or more for a short-range missile? Yikes.

I'd rather have just gone into Iraq because Hussein was a bastard. At least, THAT makes sense.

HA ha ha ha !

No, fortunately neither one of my noodles are afflicted :wink:

So, do we count you among those who wished we would have waited until the WMDs were actually used against us before we went in?

You have stated that the truth does not matter if others do not believe the truth.

If this is what passes for a logic system to you, let us both hope for the sake of you and your family that if you are diagnosed with cancer that you will get a second opinion.

You have mentioned that the Congress has decided that there were wmd, when the data they were shown is now revealed to have been tainted by its being twisted under the lens of the ideology of right wing hawks in the defense dept and others in the executive branch.

The agreement of congress with the executive branch was last fall, when they gave bush the authorization to attack Iraq. The stipulation there was to first have the UN inspectors go in and find out what the Iraqis had. The inspections were working. Bush said they weren't and attacked Iraq. The subsequent two months have shown NO THING that was mentioned by Bush, which he used to dismiss the inspections from proceeding and which triggered the attack, has been shown to be true. NO THING.

You have the right to think that this was all a big mistake. I don't. I think that they purposely dismissed data, which would undermine their conclusions, and knowingly took this nation to war on evidence they knew full well was countered by far stronger evidence that would conclude that the US did not need to attack Iraq for American security. I consider it to be entirely reasonable to state that Bush wanted a war with Iraq and his people made sure the congress and the public was given ONLY that information that would support such a decision, and hid the rest which countered such claims.

Where I come from it is anathema to state a conclusion then weed out the data, dismissing evidence to the contrary to arrive only with data that supports one's conclusions. Scientists who do that are usually fired on the spot when such shenanigans are revealed. In the sciences, anyone doing it would be called a liar, and as a result, I think Bush and his gang are liars.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/opinion/13KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof

"…while Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet may not have told Mr. Bush that the Niger documents were forged, lower C.I.A. officials did tell both the vice president's office and National Security Council staff members. Moreover, I hear from another source that the C.I.A.'s operations side and its counterterrorism center undertook their own investigations of the documents, poking around in Italy and Africa, and also concluded that they were false ?- a judgment that filtered to the top of the C.I.A.
"Meanwhile, the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, independently came to the exact same conclusion about those documents, according to Greg Thielmann, a former official there. Mr. Thielmann said he was "quite confident" that the conclusion had been passed up to the top of the State Department.
"It was well known throughout the intelligence community that it was a forgery," said Melvin Goodman, a former C.I.A. analyst who is now at the Center for International Policy.
"Still, Mr. Tenet and the intelligence agencies were under intense pressure to come up with evidence against Iraq. Ambiguities were lost, and doubters were discouraged from speaking up.
"It was a foregone conclusion that every photo of a trailer truck would be a `mobile bioweapons lab' and every tanker truck would be `filled with weaponized anthrax,' " a former military intelligence officer said. "None of the analysts in military uniform had the option to debate the vice president, secretary of defense and the secretary of state."

That is the point, viz. that the administration did not actually analyze the data to find out the truth. All they did was glean from it what they wanted and dismissed evidence to the contrary. Ideology was at work when logic and reason were called for, and it is not what anyone wants from a president.

Your comments about the transport of alleged wmd are without basis and no one has shown any data to show that it has happened. No scientist has come forth to claim the CIA's $200,000 bounty to show where these things are hidden or even to say that they worked on such projects.

Accusations by people like rumsfield that wmd were shipped to Syria have been shown to be mere speculation, not facts, which act as a cover for the absence of them in iraq. The Syrians have vigorously, almost hysterically have denied it (thinking the Americans would attack them next) and have been willing to meet with the Americans to discuss this allegation.

The British intelligence community has nearly revolted against Tony Blair for his mis-use of data, both their foreign and domestic heads of MI-5 and MI-6 have threatened to resign in protest of the misuse of intelligence data and have accused 10 Downing Street of exactly what I have accused here from the White House,viz., that the data was not analyzed in search of the truth, but in search of a plausible reason to attack Iraq, all the while the data showed a reasonable analysis would led to an opposite conclusion than what was used to go to war.

"For many months before the 'Did Blair lie?' frenzy, people inside the intelligence services were sucking their teeth about the Government's public use of their material. These were not the low- level 'rogue elements' railed against by John Reid, the Cabinet's rogue elephant, in an inflammation of the controversy from which Number 10 swiftly retreated for fear that attacking the spooks as seditious will only provoke them into retaliatory leaking. These were extremely senior figures in MI6 who didn't want the Government to publish anything claiming to have their endorsement to justify its case for going to war.
"This was partly because they didn't want to jeopardise their sources. It was partly from the very human instinct to cover their own arses. MI6 is rather proud that, unlike its domestic cousins in MI5, the work of the Secret Intelligence Service has not previously been a cause of all that much political contention. The more that the work of MI6 is drawn into the public domain, the more its judgments will be exposed to challenge, the more its mistakes will be revealed to scrutiny and the more the calls for it to be made accountable will swell."

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,972954,00.html

"Labour's willingness to abuse intelligence reports so angered the spy chiefs that both Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, and Eliza Manningham-Buller, his counterpart at MI5, came close to quitting. The main source of contention was reportedly the September dossier which claimed Saddam's weapons could be operational within 45 minutes. Downing Street has insisted the information was 100 per cent reliable."

http://www.news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=637182003

"A six-page dossier was drawn up for him by staff from the joint intelligence committee (JIC) and presented in March 2002. But it contained no evidence that the threat from Iraq had increased significantly since the end of the Gulf war in 1991. It merely confirmed that Saddam had made fresh attempts to upgrade his arsenal, including biological weapons and long-range missiles. That dossier has never seen the light of day.
"According to insiders, a template for a new dossier was drawn up by Campbell and Sir David Manning. Once again, the JIC staff were tasked to produce the goods.
"The new dossier went back and forth between Campbell and the JIC secretary, John Scarlett, at least six times. Much of the debate during last summer was over questions of presentation. MI6 was dismayed by Downing Street's attempts to turn finely judged assessments into hard facts.
"So fraught was the process that the day before Blair addressed parliament on the dossier, one of his foreign policy advisers wrote to senior officials with a copy of his speech asking them to let him know of any facts that were "false".


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-706384,00.html

perhaps, because I read the foreign press as well as the domestic press I have more information than most americans who rely on the cheerleader press faux news and msnbc

Oy vey, now it's raining red herrings and straw people too.
I hope my galoshes can keep me dry!


I look for trends and forces within society. The things that shape our system, regardless of left, right, middle or upside down. So, just one mental exercise, re: Larger Corporations.

What happens as they get larger and larger, more powerful than we've ever experienced and known before? As companies grow to exceed to size of most nations then corporate mechanisms surplant government mechanisms. Private wars outweigh public ones. The world goes behind closed doors.

As companies begin to wield greater power than most governments, they don't have the opaque checks and balances that we expect of public institutions.

As it grows and becomes more extreme, what would naturally happen? Governments go private. Corporations rule. Perhaps we're back to kingdoms and fiefdoms, doing anything we can get away with. That's the law of the jungle. It's a breeding ground for strategies, scams, and back-room deals, unfair to democratic principles and placing disorganized free individuals at a severe disadvantage.

Corporations and governments become one and the same, and it becomes the people versus the institutions, more than ever. Polls are not performed by free individuals, so it's like asking the wolf to educate the sheep.



Given that most Americans are asleep under all that wool, how can we change the system ... so that natural forces take increasingly better care of people and society? We have work to do(!), things to take care of in the world, rather than ruthless power-grubbing politics.

What would motivate every institution to do work, rather than politics?

I don't know. I'm just fishing in my galoshes. Beautiful day out though.

maybe if you start looking for facts instead of trends you might see more.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/med1-m14.shtml

What the network reports do not discuss

US networks, Congress whitewash media role in 2000 election

The various reports on the television networks' election coverage fail to make reference to two of the most remarkable, and interconnected, developments that took place on election night: the extraordinary governor's mansion press conference held by Bush, and related Republican efforts to pressure the networks into retracting their call for Gore in Florida; and the role played by Bush's first cousin, John Ellis, head of Fox News' decision team.

The projection made by all the networks by 8 p.m. of a Gore victory in Florida was considered a fatal blow to Bush's hopes, particularly when it was followed by the declaration of a Gore triumph in Pennsylvania. At this point panic reportedly set in within the Texas governor's camp.

Instead of continuing to watch the returns at the Four Seasons Hotel in Austin, Bush and his entourage abruptly moved to the governor's mansion. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother, telephoned his cousin, Ellis, at Fox and asked him about the networks' claim of a Gore victory in Florida. "Are you sure?", he asked Ellis, to which Ellis reportedly replied, "We're looking at a screen full of Gore."

The Bush forces began a campaign to reverse the networks' call in Florida. Mary Matalin, a Republican media operative, raised doubts about the Gore call on CNN. At around 9:30 p.m. Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, went on NBC and admonished the networks. "I would also suggest that Florida has been prematurely called," he declared. "First of all, I thought it was a little bit irresponsible of the networks to call it [for Gore] before the polls closed in the western part of Florida. Florida is still split among two time zones, eastern and central. You all called it before the polls had closed in the central part of the country."

This was the first reference to what was to become a minor right-wing rallying cry: the claim that the networks cost Bush votes by projecting a Gore victory before the polls were closed in the more heavily Republican northwestern corner of Florida. While there is an issue of principle here?-candidates and voters have a right to expect that the networks will withhold their election calls until the polls in any given state have closed?-in relation to the outcome of the 2000 election, the "early" call in Florida is essentially a red herring.

The polls in Florida's eastern time zone closed at 7:00 p.m.; at that point, only 5 percent of the voting-age population, according to the CBS report, had not voted. Moreover, the networks actually began calling the election for Gore at 7:50 p.m. in the east (6:50 central time), only 10 minutes before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle.

Rove's appearance on NBC was followed by an impromptu press conference held by Bush in the governor's mansion at around 9:50 p.m., an event unprecedented in US election night annals. Bush chastised the networks for their calls in Florida and Pennsylvania, saying both states were too close to call. This extraordinary intervention by a presidential candidate has been all but forgotten (or passed over) in the media coverage of election night. None of the networks' reports even refer to it, and a supposedly hard-hitting article in Brill's Content by Seth Mnookin ("It Happened One Night") simply mentions in passing "a defiant appearance by Bush."

Former GE topper Jack Welch most certainly influenced NBC News coverage on Election Night 2000 by allegedly distracting editorial staff, doing his own computer analysis of sensitive voter data and, ultimately, insisting the race be called for fellow Republican George W. Bush.

A rumor about GE Chairman Jack Welch
It is apparently common knowledge within media and government circles that certain events on election night point to something more culpable than inadvertent error on the part of the networks. At the February 14 Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, according to a report in the Washington Post, Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, "asked about what he termed a ?'rumor' that Jack Welch, chairman of General Electric, NBC's corporate parent, ?'intervened to call the election for George Bush.' He offered no proof. NBC's [news division president Andrew] Lack called that ?'untrue,' ?'rather foolish' and ?'just a dopey rumor,' saying Welch was watching the coverage in the newsroom but not calling the shots. Waxman said the panel might subpoena an internal tape of Welch made that night."

Lack's response is significant. He concedes that the Welch story is circulating and that the corporate boss, one of the most powerful figures in American business, was seated in NBC's newsroom. Welch's readiness to intervene at the network is apparently legendary.

The very fact that NBC News allowed the head of its corporate parent to sit in its newsroom and monitor its election day coverage is a damning indictment of the network. It makes a mockery of the supposed impartiality of the network's news coverage. The fact that no media outlet has raised so much as a peep about this revelation is indicative of the corrupt and compromised state of the entire media establishment. How many other corporate bosses at other networks "sat in" while their high-paid employees spun the election day news to the public?

As for Welch's ties to Bush, the Dallas Morning News reported January 4, 2001 that Bush had hosted a meeting with executives from "General Electric, Eastman Kodak, Cisco Systems, Boeing, Enron, Wal-Mart and General Motors. Many were contributors to Mr. Bush's campaign ... GE chairman Jack Welch said the ?'fiscal stimulus' of the Bush tax cut would complement the monetary benefit of the interest rate cut. ?'We raised a glass of water to Mr. Greenspan for taking that action,' Mr. Welch said after what he described as a positive meeting with the president-elect."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/med2-m15.shtml

nope, nothing going on here, move along people, move along.

Those are excellent facts, thank you!
So what do you think of the forces involved?

And what might prevent this from happening over and over again
with one person or another?

Well, I'm glad you've left the chemical plant out, this time - I guess that means you did read my post, then.

You know, as a matter of procedure, say, it would be nice if, when you boldly challenge others to come up with "even ONE" example, and they promptly do so, to at least acknowledge it. Not just a Q of basic civility, but also to keep up the point of discussing, kinda. It may sound like I'm nitpicking here, of course, but otherwise it just becomes a trick, of course, to go: "I bet you wont even come up with one example". Because you know that, by now, no, they wont make the effort of finding the appropriate quotes and drafting a response, because they know you wont even "see" it, anyway. If that in the end gains you the rhetorical victory of being able to go - "see! no-one gives me any example, they're just talking", its a very hollow one. Reason noone else did, this time, for example, was cause they already did it a zillion times, and dont see the point anymore.

Then concerning the two examples you did still use.

Considering the missiles found by the UN inspections, I'd think that 'find' proved the point of the UN, who suggested inspections would indeed do the job - rather than that of the US, who said it would find so much more if it got the chance of waging war to do so.

The second thing you mention are the mobile labs. As it turns out, the "some" who do still think these constitute WMD apparently even do not include your own allies in the British government anymore. (And this is the very last time I'm going to paste in this article below). That leaves you with no examples of what WMD the Americans have found, whatsoever.



See http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

With all respect, Max, you are making a rather large assumption here -- and, in light of what we both know about politicians, I think an unwarranted assumption.

It is more likely, in my estimation, that a majority of both sides of the aisle DID NOT "believe" it -- but found it politically expedient to pretend they did.

I don't KNOW that -- it is essentially a guess. But I think one that ought to be considered.

Not only that, but it IS the point that a great many of them did believe it! Do you, Max, feel it's ok that a bunch of professional politicians at the top of the power grid did fall for the hype and lies? It scares me a bit. I'd almost rather believe what Frank says above - they were watching their backs.

The main point as I see it regarding this issue is intent.

Was it the intent of the present administration to deceive to further their objective as is argued here and elsewhere?

Or was the present administration, operating on information obtained from UN weapons inspectors (being the news/political junkies that you are, I know I was not the only one who heard Hans Blix's report stating that Iraq had not provided the proof of destruction for literally tons of WMD that they allege were destroyed, have you all forgotten that as well?) and intelligence from the previous two administrations, operating on good faith that this information was accurate.

The critical point is not why aren't the WMDs in Iraq, but where are they?

I refuse to believe that the intelligence derived under 41,42 AND 43, as well as the UN weapons inspectors were all wrong.

To buy into your argument requires one to do just that.

kuvasz, et al - My simple point was that some who answered that poll might have considered these items "weapons of mass destruction" and this may have been the reason for their answer to that question. That remains my only point, your rants notwithstanding.

One of the great things about "believing" something -- is that you can do any believing you want to.

Blix did note deficiencies in the reports from Iraq -- but Blix also noted that they were cooperating -- and that the inspections were working.

In any case, the Bush reasoning before the war was more than "these things are not totally accounted for" -- but rather that they definitely are there; and they present a real and present danger to our nation.


I think any reasonable assessment of this administration's pronouncements before the war would lead one to assume that they were purposefully deceptive.

If there is the naivete' that you inferred in your post, Max, it is on the part of folks like you -- not on the part of those of us on the other side of the issue.

Try to get that straight.

Re: (Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.)

Cool! We agree.

Thanks for putting aside your bias and considering my point with an open mind.