[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm]The Washington Times [/url]posted an exclusive late today, claiming that the missing explosives from al Qakaa, as well as many of the other arms long sought by the US military were secretly removed by Russian troops in the weeks leading up to the Coalition assault on Saddam’s regime:

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

Why would the Russian military do this? According to Deputy Shaw, the Russians sold many of the high explosives to Saddam in the first place, probably with money skimmed from the corrupt “Oil For Food” program, where it is now known that Saddam was able to skim $11 billion dollars from for personal and military use.

To make the matter even more interesting, the presence of the RDX and HMX explosives which the I.A.E.A located and identified in 2003 were in clear violation of UN sanctions because of their use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons as well as other military functions prohibited by the UN. Yet the I.A.E.A allowed these weapons to remain in place at the al Qakaa facility!

Here are [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm]a few additional noteworthy details[/url] from the Washington Times article:

1. “The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” Mr. Shaw said. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”

2. Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
3. The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
   “The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division’s arrival at the facility.”

4. A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam’s government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq’s Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
5. Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a “redoubt” in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.

There are many more details and I encourage everyone to read the full article posted now on the [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm]Washington Times Online[/url].

A few additional thoughts:

1. If this is true, it certainly would explain what has been a mystery to everyone, including the UN, regarding the missing WMDs which we were expecting to find in Iraq.

2. If anyone could pull this off, it would be Russian intelligence. Putin is ex-KGB and next to them, the CIA is an amatuer outfit (no offense to any who work for the CIA).
3. I’d be interested to know what we are doing currently to get the Russians to come clean on all of this. Remember that Putin went public a couple of months ago to say that they had reliable intelligence that Hussein was intending to launch terror attacks in the US? It certainly helps explain HOW they could know such a thing.

Let’s call this a developing story…

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

As some of you may already know, I’ve posted several articles to Blogcritics.org which highlight the upward trend of anger and violent politicking that has been occurring in the country for the past couple of years. As an example, here are just a few of my posts:

1. [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/22/120816.php]President Bush Under Seige[/url]

2. [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/07/160810.php]Loss of Civility in Politics? Naaaahhhh![/url]
3. [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/14/003010.php]How Low Can They Go; Pt. Duex! [/url]
4. [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/14/020445.php]The Party Opposing Bush[/url]
5. [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/25/021020.php]No Violence For Peace![/url]
6. [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/17/224350.php]Thugs For Kerry[/url]
7. [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/12/223800.php]Thugs For Kerry - Part Duex![/url]

In the post, [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/12/223800.php]Thugs For Kerry - Part Duex![/url], I stressed my belief that, if DNC leaders do not begin to tone down the rhetoric and urge calm among voters, rather than stoke voter anger with their fear-laced rhetoric and baseless accusations, that the growing level of anger, violence, and aggressiveness we’ve seen could lead to open violence.

Recently, C-Span caught [url=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/25/20041025_162404_dncee.htm]this exchange[/url] on tape between Elizabeth Edwards and an anonymous supporter:

Supporter: Kerry’s going to take PA.

Liz Edwards: I know that.

Supporter: I’m just worried there’s going to be riots afterwards.

Liz Edwards: Uh…..well…not if we win.

**[url=http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/25/20041025_162404_ee.mp3]AUDIO CLIP LINK[/url]**

Now, today, [url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html]The Smoking Gun reports[/url] that a Florida man was arrested for trying to run over former Secretary of State, Catherine Harris and several others who were campaigning in Florida. When questioned, the man stated that he was “exercising” “[url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris2.html]his political expression.”[/url] What?!

So, add this to a list of GOP Campaign office break-ins, harrassment and assualts by liberal activists, and a steady litany of rhetoric which grows angrier and more strident with each passing day and you have the trend that I warned of in my previous post. If Kerry loses the election, what will happen then?

DNC leaders started this fire and have been fanning the flames in hopes to motivate their voters on November 2nd. But using anger as a tool to motivate individuals can have unintended consequences. Do I believe that DNC leaders want to see their supporters turn to violence? Of course not. Regardless, this is what they are going to get if they do not ease up.

Will DNC leaders ease up on the rhetoric? No. Instead, they’ll ramp it up even more, and they have already initiated [url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041027-123332-5663r.htm]9 lawsuits in Florida[/url]! I’m very worried… You should be too.

Which is why I’m going to do my best to track this expanding surge of political aggression and violence over the next several days. The posts will be entitled (as you can already see) “Violence Watch 2004.” Please, if you know of some things that I have not listed, please let me know. I’m interested, of course, in violence from either party.

Thanks.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Perhaps the next assault in this war on terror should be against a hateful group of Brit journalists working at The Guardian Unlimited. On Saturday, October 23, one of their so-called “journalists” [url=http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oIwGEmKpC6YJ:www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html+%22John+Wilkes+Booth,+Lee+Harvey+Oswald,+John+Hinckley+Jr%22&hl=en&start=1]wrote this[/url] after bemoaning the fact that it was likely that George W. Bush would be reelected on November 2nd:

“John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?” Charlie Brooker, Saturday October 23, 2004 - The Guardian Unlimited

Perhaps my reply to “The Guardian” should be something like, “George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin - where are you now that we need you?” But I don’t want to go there, first of all because any good historian knows that the American Revolution occurred through a long list of misunderstandings on both sides of “the pond.” Despite that bump in our history, and a few others, the US and Great Britain have been long-standing allies and, together, a positive influence in this world.

Furthermore, I think British Citizens have the right to question actions that may effect them, just as we would have the right to question them under similar circumstances. The Guardian’s sponsorship of a [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1332041,00.html]letter-writing program to undecided voters[/url] in Clark County, Ohio, though tacky, is an example of that, though, it’s very likely a campaign which will help the President, not hurt him, come November 2nd.

With all that said, what in the hell is Charlie Booker thinking?! The Guardian did pull the article and printed a [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,,1335201,00.html]retraction[/url], but the article itself is still viewable through Google and it’s one of the most blatantly hateful screeds I’ve read this year.

In the text of the retraction and brief apology, Guardian editors mention that, “[a]lthough flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action ” An “ironic joke”… Personally, I have a hard time believing this.

Let’s examine some additional comments from the article, then you can judge for yourself:

• the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming “Please God, not Bush!”

• The internet’s a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey… Quite frankly, the man’s either wired or mad. If it’s the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it’s the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying.
  Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man’s a tool.

• Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he’s not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I’d favour.
• On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses.

I wonder, is this the typical British definition of “humor”? I sincerely hope not!

Truth be told, I’ve heard far less extreme things from terrorists like Zarqawi and bin Laden in public statements calling for the deaths of all Americans. Does this kind of “humor” really make people laugh? If so, then you may want to avoid these kinds of people while walking through dark alleys at night.

They call our President extreme, label him as “mad,” joke about the need for former presidential assassins, should the President win reelection, and we should just laugh? I don’t think so!

Remember this; Brooker’s hate-speech is the exact same kind of thoughtless, arrogant, and self-important rhetoric that helped foment the American Revolution in the first place. I certainly don’t think that Brooker’s words reflect everyone in the UK, at the same time, I’m not going to forget them.

And neither should you. This insane rhetoric, which no doubt gives great comfort to terrorists everywhere, should motivate you to get to the polls on November 2nd to make sure the President wins his second term.

I guess I should thank Charlie Brooker for the fact that he has shown us, once again, exactly how important it is to get out and vote.

Who knows, when Bush wins, perhaps Brooker will be so upset and distraught that he’ll bang his head “against the floorboards,” suffer a massive stroke, and wind up in a permanent vegetative state…

I’m just kidding! Can’t you see the ironic humor here?

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

It’s official; I now take back anything and everything good I’ve ever said about former president, Jimmy Carter. Has he done some good things in his life? No doubt, but the stuff he’s been spouting these past few years defies both logic and sanity. Here is what [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6281513/]our former prez said Monday[/url] on “Hardball With Chris Matthews:”

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about – this is going to cause some trouble with people but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force. Do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?

CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War more than any other war until recently has been the most bloody war we’ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war. Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a non-violent way. I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.

My God the man’s a loon! If the British Parliament had been more “sensitive?” If Carter is the historian he thinks himself to be, he’d know that King George had basically stacked the deck against the Americans by pulling political strings to see to it that his desire to crack down on the colonies received overwhelming support in Parliament.

Both sides had legitimate grievances and, unfortunately, events were what they were and the war happened. Besides, which, it didn’t really address the question given by Chris Matthews in the first place!

The question from Matthews was, “Do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side [in the South during the American Revolution] and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?” Never mind the fact that Matthews is comparing Iraqi terrorists with American revolutionaries, the question offered to former prez Carter has nothing to do with the answer he gives.

So, since the former prez couldn’t seem to gain enough focus to answer what to me is a very simple question, I thought I’d do it for him. the answer, in a nutshell, is NO!

There is NO legitimate comparison between the war in the South during the American Revolution and terrorists in Iraq today. Here’s why:

1. During the American Revolution, the American colonies were rebelling against their own established government, not a foreign power. In Iraq, the insurgents/terrorists are trying to destabilize American and Iraqi efforts to establish a democratic government.

2. The Brits didn’t launch their southern campaign until almost four years into the war, and did it in hopes they could pacify the South, then use it as a base of operations against the colonial army. Overall, though, the Brits were fighting against individual colonies that were cooperating via the Continental Congress and local elected officials, not a preexisting government with a standing army and storehouses of weapons. In Iraq, US forces first toppled the existing government, then appointed an interim government made up of Iraqis, and is now acting to insure, as much as possible, a trouble-free democratic election that will increase Iraq’s stability and independence.
3. In Iraq, the US invaded a nation to topple a ruthless dictator who was sponsoring terrorism and was arrogantly threatening our nation. The plan has always been to build a democratic nation, not to annex Iraq and make it a US colony. This is the exact opposite of what the British were trying to accomplish in America over 200 years ago.
4. The southern campaign was launched in the hopes of gaining some kind of long-term victory against the Americans who, despite losing more than they had won in terms of battles on the field, had managed to frustrate British efforts to bring the American colonies back into the British fold.
5. In Iraq, insurgent/terrorist forces cannot in their wildest dreams hope to field an army capable of taking on even the newly trained Iraqi forces, much less the overwhelmingly powerful American military. During the American Revolution, colonial forces were able to field an army from almost the first major campaign.
6. Though, the Colonial Army in the South, commanded by Nathanael Greene, lost most engagements with the British, ultimately, the Brits’ need to live off the land as they chased Nathanael Greene’s army across the South alienated many who had originally supported their mother country and made their attempts to pacify the South almost hopeless.
7. During the American Revolution, the British were incredibly frustrated with their inability to pacify the colonies. In Iraq, at least 75% of that nation is pacified and ready to assume self-rule, while the insurgent/terrorist strongholds are mainly concentrated in two areas and are slowly being squeezed by American and Iraqi forces.
8. Americans in the mid 1700s already enjoyed the highest average standard of living of any nation in the world. Americans were partly motivated, then, to fight for what they saw to be a direct threat to that standard of living. In Iraq, what are the insurgents/terrorists fighting to keep? Dictatorial rule? The right to force women out of the workplace and into homes where their best hope is to become the property of a reasonable husband?
9. In Iraq, the insurgents/terrorists are willing to saw off the heads of innocent people in public and blow up or shoot up children in public places rather than see Iraq become a democracy. In America, well, it was a different story.

And I could go on like that for another couple of pages but, ultimately, the bottom line is that comparing the resistance of colonials during the American Revolution to insurgents/terrorists in Iraq today is, to say the least, stretching it a bit. Any comparisons offered are, at best, likely to be superficial. At worst… Well, just try imagining Chris Matthews attempting to compare George Washington to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Really, this is one of those situations where common sense dictates the philosophy of “don’t go there!” Besides, I thought liberals were trying to stick to the Viet Nam comparison. I guess it was just too thoroughly debunked.

Regardless… Bad comparison by Matthews during his “Hardball” segment and AWFUL reply by the former president.

Next thing you know, Carter will be on air somewhere telling us that it’s a shame the US was not more “sensitive” to Tojo and Hitler before WWII began. Yeesh!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

The cycle of obnoxious violence from some of Senator Kerry supporters — especially union workers — continues. John Fund, of WSJ’s Opinionjournal.com nicely [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005741]tallies recent occurences[/url] across the country and one other incident he did not mention can be found in another post of mine where I wrote of another occurence where a Bush/Cheney 2004 [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/17/224350.php]sign was torn from the hands of a four-year-old girl [/url]and ripped to shreds at a Kerry rally.

John Fund also does not mention any of the several attempts in NYC to disrupt the Republican National Convention. One partisan tried to rush the Vice President, others tried to scream out messages to drown out speakers, convention delegates were harrassed going in and out of their hotels and at restaraunts, etc.

By themselves, these situations could be labelled a nuisance. Together, these incidents show a rising level of thuggery on the part of liberal partisans as well as a coordinated effort, in some cases, to disrupt the democratic process in America.

And while Kerry, Edwards, McAullife, and other DNC leaders employ scare tactics to incite their base to vote in the upcoming election by spinning tales of Republican efforts to disenfranchise them, their operatives are working across the nation to disenfranchise anyone who would vote for someone other than Kerry. The latest disturbing trend, as highlighted by Fund, is a wave of break-ins which have occurred at GOP Campaign offices throughout the country.

During these break-ins, several volunteers have been assaulted and injured. At one Kerry rally, a [url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/17/224350.php]four-year-old girl was assaulted[/url] by a union member. In one of the GOP Campaign offices in Florida, a group of union workers forced their way into the office, resulting in a broken wrist for one of the volunteers.

Additionally, a GOP Campaign office in tenessee had it’s windows shot out one morning, an office in Ohio was burglarized and laptop computers stolen, and one campaign office director in Florida locked herself in her office and frantically dialed 911 when her office was broken into. Now, for me, the question is, if Afghanistan could carry out peaceful elections in their war-torn country, why can’t we? Perhaps the Afghanis should be looking down their noses at us rather than Kerry/Edwards and company looking down on the Afghanis.

And the true irony here is that all of this is a near-exact parallel to the 2000 Florida recount where Gore first chose to challenge the certified results of the election in court, continually stated his sincere desire to have “every vote counted” and warned of Republican efforts to “disenfranchise” Florida voters, then then sent his operatives across the state to disqualify hundreds, if not thousands, of absentee ballots on technicalities. Absentee ballots were targeted, of course, because they were thought to be pro-Bush military votes.

But there’s a larger worry for me than even this latest and greatest DNC campaign of thuggery… Where might this increasingly agressive behaviour lead?

There is no doubt AT ALL that Kerry and company are inciting anger and outrage in their base in the hopes of getting them to the polls on November 2. When Kerry, Edwards, McAuliffe, and other party leaders continually insist that President Bush “stole” the election, is an “illegitimate” President, is seeking to actively disenfranchise voters, “lied to the American people,” sent our family and friends off to die for nothing, etc., etc., they are trying to get their supporters ANGRY.

Now, if you’re a football team, fine. You can at least, in that case, go out on the field and take out your aggression on the opposing team.

But, as a leader hoping to become President, this has consequences that go far beyond getting people to the polls. And we see those consequences manifest in the thuggish behaviour of Democratic partisans today.

But what happens if Kerry loses the election, or if it LOOKS as if he’s poised to lose? Will that anger just go away, will it intensify, or will it channel itself in some other direction?

The fact is this; anger leads to more anger, and then hatred, then, unfortunately, to regrettable actions. We’ve already seen some violence, but, if this cycle continues unabated, and Kerry winds up losing the election, will there be worse violence than we’ve seen already?

I think so, and I’m very worried about it.

I’m worried that the next step in this cycle of violence is the burning of campaign offices, open assaults on campaign workers who might, for instance, be out distributing flyers, and even deaths; accidental or otherwise. If you get someone angry enough, bad things happen. Well, guess what? DNC leaders have succeeded in getting their people angry, and bad things have already happened.

I realize that there are times when it’s appropriate to be angry, and to want justice, but what DNC leaders are pushing right now is the kind of anger that can quickly burn out of control, causing unintended damage. It’s already causing damage to the democratic system in this country, and that’s bad enough.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Well, two interesting thoughts occurred to me last night as I watched elder statesman and current VP, Dick Cheney, wring Senator Edwards out like an old dish rag:

1. Both Kerry and Edwards have been employing a debate tactic against their rivals of dumping as much negative commentary and accusations as possible with each question they are given so as to either force the candidates to continually defend themselves or force them to leave some of those accusations unanswered, thus making their silence seem like assent.

2. Edwards made the huge mistake last night of thinking that he could use his litigation experience to put Vice President Cheney on trial in front of an international audience.

Edwards came out like an over-eager and smug teenager who thinks himself ready to take on his college professor in a debate, and wound up looking like the freshman that he really is in the world of national politics. Why did Kerry pick this guy? Oh yeah, that’s right, Edwards used his influence to force himself on Kerry. That explains it.

VP Cheney is what he is, an elder statesman and a man of honor who has served his country for a very long time. In many ways, he’s also a policy wonk, just as Clinton and Gore were while in office. Even though he got the site, [url=http://www.factcheck.org]Factcheck.ORG[/url] (not “.com”) wrong, he is, in his own way, his own Factcheck.org.

So, Edward’s attempt to put Cheney on trial and deliver a few well-placed zingers failed miserably last night. Instead, Edwards walked away looking quite the amatuer while VP Cheney may well have stalled the momentum built up last week with Kerry’s win over Bush in their first debate.

Only time will tell on that point. Meanwhile, I’m looking forward to the Second Bush/Kerry debate on Friday. Be there or be a four-sided object with perfect 90 degree angles.

David Flanagan
[url=www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

Well, last night’s debate was a good one. Kerry scored some good points and overall won on style. President Bush held his own on the issues and one hopes that Americans will ultimately see the difference between these two candidates. President Bush has been doing this job for four years and knows how things work, while Senator Kerry has ideas which look great on paper and guarantee nothing.

Here are the points that really stood out for me after last night’s debate:

1. Kerry critisizes Bush for not being multinational enough with Iraq, yet not being unilateral enough with North Korea.

2. Kerry insists that “bilateral” and “multilateral” talks with North Korea, at the same time, could have worked.
3. Kerry attacks the President for “outsourcing” the war on terror, especially in tracking down Osama bin Laden, then chides the President for putting too many American troops in harm’s way and not getting enough troops from other nations to fight with us.
4. Kerry insists we need to win the war in Iraq faster, yet voted against the $87 billion that is helping to make that happen and endlessly complains about the cost of the war. You want to accelerate the war you need to pump in more money.
5. Kerry endlessly claims that he’ll expand the coalition and restore our reputation while actively denigrating our allies, including calling our current partners in Iraq the coalition of the “bribed and coerced” and undercutting Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi’s credibility on national television.
6. Kerry insists that the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes so that businesses can get a tax break and/or incentives to keep jobs here in the US, but he ignores the fact that giving tax breaks across the board, including to the wealthiest Americans, does exactly that already. Many of those wealthy Americans are, after all, owners of small and medium-sized businesses.
7. Kerry voted to cut funding to our intelligence agencies after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and now complains that the President is not rebuilding those agencies fast enough.
8. Kerry calls for a “sensitive” war on terror while al Qaeda terrorists kidnap Americans, cut their heads off, then stream the video over the Internet. Oh yeah, and the terrorists like to shoot fleeing children in the back and blow them up at every opportunity.
9. On the day of the debate, one of Kerry’s very FIRST comments was how his heart went out to struggling Floridians. Yet, while President Bush was out visiting those struggling families, taking stock of their losses and talking with people who had lost EVERYTHING, Kerry was off getting a manicure.
10. and last but not least, Kerry says he will do, basically, everything the President is doing now, only “faster and better.” [pardon my loose quotes]

I think from now on I’m going to begin calling Senator Kerry the “Great On Paper President,” (GOPP). Though, he might be somewhat insulted by the close association between “GOPP” and “GOP.”

Really though, the guy accuses President Bush of living in a fantasy world?! I think we must assume one of two things about Kerry in regards to all of his rhetoric:

1. Kerry really believes all of this and is, therefore, incredibly naive when it comes to foreign policy.

2. Kerry is just blowing smoke to win the election, which was fine on September 10 of 2001 but which is out of step today, especially while we’re still at war.

Feel free to decide for yourself. Personally, I’m thinking option 2, but that’s just me.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com