Mood:
cheekyTopic: Yahoo Chat Stuff
Fundraising prowess of Bush, Cheney
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney may be down in the polls but not in dollars raised for Republican candidates and the GOP. A look at the numbers through March 16.
President Bush:
2005: 20 events raising $75.5 million
2006: Six events raising $12.5 million
-----------------------------------------
Vice President Dick Cheney:
2005: 36 events raising $15 million
2006: 11 events raising $1.6 million
Source: Republican National Committee
Boston Globe ~ Associated Press ** Fundraising prowess of Bush, Cheney
Posted by yaahoo_2006iest
at 12:01 AM EST
Updated: Sunday, 26 March 2006 8:52 AM EST
Foreign Minister Claimed Saddam had Dispersed Chemical Weapons "Among Some of the Loyal Tribes"
The other day the Powerline guys noted that NBC News managed to bury a legitimate scoop "beneath a grotesquely misleading headline." They 
You have to read deep into the story to learn that Sabri told the CIA that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons:
Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.
So NBC had a legitimate scoop, and they buried it in a single sentence beneath a grotesquely misleading headline.
Obviously, if Saddam's Foreign Minister admitted that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and leftover poison gas, that would have been seen as the final confirmation of what everyone in the intelligence community already believed. And Sabri's statement that Saddam "desperately wanted a [nuclear bomb]" but would need more than a few months to a year to build one--bizarrely presented as exculpatory by NBC--would hardly have been reassuring.
It's worth noting, too, that NBC's story is based on leaks by anonymous intelligence officials, who, consistent with their usual practice, no doubt spun the story in as anti-Bush a direction as they could. We don't know exactly what Sabri told the CIA.
By rights, this should be the last nail in the coffin of the "Bush lied!" left. But of course it won't be; the "Bush lied!" theory has been deader than a doornail for a long time, but that hasn't prevented it from being retailed by the left.
Today's Washington Post adds 
Publicly Sabri was insisting that Iraq had no prohibited weapons of mass destruction. Privately, the sources said, he provided information that the Iraqi dictator had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.
When it came to chemical weapons, Sabri told his handler that some existed but they were not under military control, a former intelligence official familiar with the situation said. Another former official added: "He said he had been told Hussein had them dispersed among some of the loyal tribes."
To recap, on March 18, 2003, the day before ground forces entered Iraq, the president confronted a broad range of concerns regarding Saddam's weapons programs, his connections to terrorist organizations (see https://0li.tripod.com/06/index.blog?entry_id=1442910">here for latest revelations), his history of aggressive behavior, his use of poison gas, and his failure to comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. resolutions.
American intelligence (which had evidently factored in Sabri's claims into its analysis) and 
The same report noted "a surge of activity in the missile technology field in the past four years" and that while 817 of the 819 Scud missiles Iraq had imported had been accounted for, inspectors did not know the number of missiles Iraq had indigenously produced or still possessed. Similarly, while inspectors had accounted for 73 of Iraq's 75 declared "special" warheads, doubts remained that Iraqi officials were truthful about how many had actually been manufactured. It acknowledged that inspectors had found a handful of 122mm chemical rocket warheads but noted that this discovery may only be the "tip of the iceberg" since several thousand, in the inspectors' judgment, were still unaccounted for. It also stated that no underground chemical facilities had been found but added that such facilities may exist given the size of Iraq and that future inspections in this area would have to rely on "specific intelligence." Finally, the report declared that there appears to be no "choke points" to prevent Iraq from producing anthrax at the same level it did before 1991, that large-scale Iraqi production of botulinum toxin "could be rapidly commenced," and that given Iraq's history of concealment, "it cannot be excluded that it has retained some capability with regard to VX."
don't ask
Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan?
Iraq Archive Document Alleges Russian Official Described Locations, Troops, Tanks and Other Forces Before Operation Iraqi Freedom Began
Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of five documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which the U.S. government has released.
The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.
The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site:
The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document.
This document also includes an account of an amusing incident in which several Iraqi Army officers (presumably seeking further elaboration of the U.S. war plans) contacted the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and stated that the ambassador was their source. Needless to say, this caused great embarrassment to the ambassador, and the officers were instructed "not to mention the ambassador again in that context."
(Editor's Note: The Russian ambassador in March 2003 was Vladimir Teterenko. Teterenko appears in documents released by the Volker Commission, which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, as receiving allocations of 3 million barrels of oil - worth roughly $1.5 million. )
"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.
(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)
"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"
"Election Campaign Laws in France"
"Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team"
including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored
"Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq"
chatty
The doctor who took the Quebec government to the Supreme Court of Canada, causing it to change its policy on wait times and private health insurance, wants to see more privatization.
In his Supreme Court case, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli (left) argued "patients will continue to suffer and die" because of waiting lists.
Last year, the high court ruled in response that some wait times for medical procedures in the province were unconstitutional.
In February, Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced guaranteed wait times for cataract surgery and hip and knee replacements and changes to make it legal for Quebecers to buy private insurance for those three medical services.
On Tuesday, Chaoulli called the move a good first step, while urging the Quebec government to go further with privatization.
"I would like that Quebecers have the best value for the public money they spend," Chaoulli said.
He said the best way would be to allow more private medicine, including:
♣ Allowing doctors to work in both the public and private systems, such as at a public hospital and a private clinic, rather than one or the other.
♣ Privatizing medical schools and hospitals.
China's competitiveness 'on the decline'
The competitiveness of China's manufacturing industries has suffered serious erosion over the past year, according to one of the world's largest trade sourcing companies.
Hong Kong-based 
William Fung, Li & Fung managing director, reported an average 2-3 percent increase in the once unbeatable China price its US and European clients were willing to pay. He pointed to a "double-digit" rise in Chinese labor costs, the revaluation of the renminbi and higher oil and energy costs for the shift
.
"China's costs are all going up," Mr Fung said. "It is no longer the most cost-effective country in the region...Anything [sourced] from China has a higher inflation component than from other places around the world."
Beneficiaries of China's rising prices have included textile and garment manufacturers in India, Bangladesh and Cambodia, which were expected to lose orders to China after the quota regime governing textile production expired in January 2005.
They were saved, however, by a combination of anti-surge "safeguards" imposed by the US and EU on selected Chinese textile exports in the second half of last year, as well as rising cost pressures in China. "[The safeguards] stopped China in its tracks in terms of textiles," Mr Fung said.
"In Bangladesh factories are so overbooked - it's like China used to be," added Bruce Rockowitz, the president of Li & Fung's trading arm, who oversees sourcing operations on four continents.
The inflationary pressure extends to all product categories sourced by Li & Fung, ranging from fashion accessories and furnishings to sporting and travel goods.
Li & Fung, which used to buy 90 percent of its non-apparel products from China, has seen 25 percent of this "hardgoods" business migrate to cheaper locations in south and southeast Asia. It sells about 70 percent of its sourced goods in the US, and another 20 percent in Europe.
At its results briefing on Wednesday, Li & Fung reported an 18 per cent increase in group turnover to HK$55.6bn ($7.1bn), with net profit up 20 percent to HK$1.79bn.
The company also recorded a rare up-tick in its "total margin", which represents the difference between what it pays China-based factories and what it charges overseas retailers. The margin rose to 10.7 percent from 9.6 percent.
Libby to Fitzgerald: If You Won't Name the CIA Leaker, I Will
And what was that Colin Powell said in September 2003?
It's sometimes difficult to remember, given the legal twists and turns it has taken, that the CIA leak investigation was begun to find out who exposed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson to columnist Robert Novak and whether that person violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in doing so. After more than two years of investigating, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with that crime -- if indeed it was a crime -- nor has he publicly answered either question. Fitzgerald has even refused to provide lawyers for the only person indicted in the case, former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, with evidence that Wilson was indeed a covert agent at the time of the July 14, 2003, Novak column,
or that the exposure of her identity did any damage to national security, arguing that that information -- the very heart of the CIA leak case -- is not relevant to the perjury and obstruction charges against Libby.
But now the Libby (right) defense team is attempting to return the case to first things. In an extraordinary 35-page motion filed with Judge Reggie Walton late Friday, Libby's lawyers lay the groundwork for a plan to use his perjury trial as a way to find what happened in the CIA leak affair. After all, just what is it that Libby is accused of lying about? Why was it that all the conversations in question were taking place? Who said what to whom? If Libby's lawyers persuade Judge Walton to order Fitzgerald to turn over some of the reams of information he has gathered in the case, we might finally found out -- most likely over the prosecutor's vigorous objections -- what actually happened in the CIA leak case
.
Libby's motion is, formally, a request for documents relating to the expected testimony of an imposing roster of current and former government officials likely to be called as witnesses in the trial. In the motion, they are listed together (at least publicly) for the first time:
1. Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State
Some of the witnesses are expected to testify that they told Libby that former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, or that Libby told them that -- accounts Fitzgerald believes will help him make the case that Libby lied to the grand jury about how he learned about Valerie Wilson. But in the new motion, Libby argues, in effect, that these people also know the larger story of the CIA leak. And knowing that larger story is necessary to understand Libby's testimony; for Libby's lawyers to question the witnesses about his allegedly false testimony, the lawyers will have to know what was going on at the time. Is one of the witnesses himself Novak's source? Does anyone have a motive to shade his testimony against Libby? And what was the context in which all the talking was taking place? In the court papers, Libby's lawyers suggest that the answers to those questions will demolish Fitzgerald's interpretation of events.
The indictment against Libby contains a series of statements which strongly suggest that the White House's desire to retaliate against Joseph Wilson led to a scheme to expose his wife's identity. But Libby's lawyers say Fitzgerald, tightly focused on Valerie Wilson, missed the big picture of what was happening in May, June, and July 2003. During that time, the motion argues, Libby was preoccupied with the now-famous "16 words" in the president's State of the Union address concerning Iraq's alleged attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger, and also with parrying ferocious Democratic attacks on the administration's case for the war. In addition, the lawyers say, Libby was fighting a rear-guard action against other officials of the Bush administration, specifically those in the CIA and the State Department, who were trying to blame the White House for the Iraq intelligence debacle. Compared to that -- in what was surely one of the most intense periods in an administration filled with intense periods -- the identity of Valerie Wilson, Libby argues, was small potatoes. "The indictment presents a distorted picture of the relevant events," the motion says,
by exaggerating the importance government officials, including Mr. Libby, attributed to Ms. Wilson's employment status prior to July 14, 2003. The prosecution has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA. Doing so makes it easier to suggest that Mr. Libby would not have forgotten or confused his conversations concerning Ms. Wilson and has therefore intentionally lied. In contrast, the defense intends to present a more complete and accurate narrative. The defense will show that during the controversy about the "sixteen words" in the President's 2003 State of the Union address and about Ambassador Wilson's criticism of the Bush Administration, government officials, including Mr. Libby, viewed Ms. Wilson's identity as at most a peripheral issue. To the extent that these officials were focused on Mr. Wilson, they were concerned with publicly disputing mistaken or misleading reports about his trip [to Niger] and his findings, not with where his wife worked.
In another part of the motion, the Libby defense team refers to Valerie Wilson's role in the matter as "minor" and "not important" and also refers to the "falsity" of some of Joseph Wilson's statements. Specifically, the motion says, "Contrary to Mr. Wilson's claims, he did not debunk as forgeries documents suggesting that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Africa." It was claims like that, which received extensive coverage in the press and cried out for rebuttal, the lawyers argue, that demanded Libby's attention -- not the place of Wilson's wife's employment.
"If the jury learns this background information," the Libby motion continues, "and also understands Mr. Libby's additional focus on urgent national security matters, the jury will more easily appreciate how Mr. Libby may have forgotten or misremembered the snippets of conversation the government alleges were so memorable."
And who actually leaked Valerie Wilson's identity to Robert Novak, and was it a crime? The Libby defense team writes that it expects "witness testimony that within the government Ms. Wilson's employment status was not regarded as classified, sensitive or secret, contrary to the allegations in the indictment." And the motion states flatly that "the primary source for Mr. Novak's article" was not only not Lewis Libby but was "an official from outside the White House." [emphasis in the original] As for who that might be, the Libby team points the finger toward the State Department.
Specifically, the top of the State Department. The motion says, "The defense may call Mr. Powell (right) to testify about a September 2003 meeting at the White House during which he is reported to have commented that everyone knows that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA. At the same meeting, Mr. Powell also reportedly mentioned a 2002 meeting during which Ms. Wilson suggested her husband for the CIA mission to Niger." Later, the motion requests "Any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (a) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson's wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger."
In other parts of the motion, the Libby team, echoing recent media reports, suggests that the trio of Powell,
his former deputy Richard Armitage (right), and former top State Department official Marc Grossman knew about Valerie Wilson's job and talked to reporters about it:
Documents pertaining to Mr. Wilson's trip from Mr. Grossman's files must also be examined carefully by the defense because Mr. Grossman may not be a disinterested witness. This week, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post and The New York Times, as well as other media outlets, reported that Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA. There has been media speculation that Mr. Woodward's source and Mr. Novak's source are the same person. If the facts ultimately show that Mr. Armitage or someone else from the State Department was also Mr. Novak's primary source, then the State Department (and certainly not Mr. Libby) bears responsibility for the "leak" that led to the public disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA identity.
As for the CIA, Libby contends that the agency, once the Wilson matter blew up, did its best to undercut Libby and the vice president's office. It appears that Libby believes strongly, but does not have any proof, that the CIA was out to get Libby and his colleagues, and that therefore the testimony of any CIA officials might be suspect. "If CIA officials perceived that Mr. Tenet or the Agency were being unfairly criticized or scapegoated, these officials likely expressed their discontent about this bureaucratic infighting in email messages and other documents," the Libby motion says. "The defense is entitled to review any such documents because they bear directly on potential bias against Mr. Libby by CIA witnesses."
In the end, if Libby's version of events is correct, not only did he not commit any crimes in the Wilson matter, but no one at the State Department or the CIA committed any crimes, either. All anyone is guilty of is cutthroat bureaucratic infighting -- and having the misfortune of seeing that cutthroat bureaucratic infighting become the subject of a special prosecutor's attention.
Fitzgerald (right) will no doubt work hard to keep these issues out of the courtroom during what he contends is a straightforward perjury case. But surely what Libby is accused of lying about will ultimately be part of the trial. And it is in that way that Fitzgerald may have backed himself into a corner. Throughout the pre-trial motions in the case, he has argued, over and over, that it doesn't matter who leaked Valerie Wilson's identity, or why. It doesn't matter if Wilson was covert. It doesn't matter if the leak did any damage. In other words, the CIA leak is not relevant to the CIA leak case. Surely he will continue to argue that throughout the trial itself. But is that what his investigation -- now in its third year -- was really about?
Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of 
While the 9/11 Commission insisted that any relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda was not "operational," others aren't so sure.
In May 2003, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer - a Carter appointee - awarded two 9/11 victim families $104 million based on their claim that Iraq played a material role in the attacks.
.
"This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks," he added.
Related: Documents captured in postwar Iraq --
Bolton: Iran Working With A-Bomb Ingredients
"We would have liked to have seen (Security Council) action (on Iran) today. This will not go beyond next week."
So professed one exhausted one U.S. diplomat as the United Nations Security Council decided to delay any action on Iran's nuclear activities until early next week, NewsMax's Stew Stogel reports from the world body.
The Council, which has been "discussing" Iran's violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since receiving a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, the U.N.'s atomic watchdog) almost two weeks ago, has been at loggerheads as to what to do next.
While the Council could impose military and/or economic sanctions, that effort seemed highly unlikely since Russia and China, two permanent Council members, could veto the action.
The same two members also have nuclear and military advisers in Iran working on various projects, including a $6 billion nuclear power plant on the Persian Gulf coast nearing completion in the next few months.
As such, both Moscow and Beijing have good cause to keep Washington, London and Paris at bay, especially as it regards any military or economic sanctions.
The compromise is expected to come in the form of a Security Council presidential statement, which amounts to no more than a position paper by the U.N. body.
While warnings and deadlines may appear in the final draft, it is still not clear what comes next.
"We do not want to see American bombers flying over Iran," said Andrey Denisov, Russia's U.N. ambassador. While admitting that any military attack was not really in the cards, he did admit that Moscow was concerned about the White House's growing impatience.
Meanwhile, Tehran, seeking to throw a new monkey wrench in Washington's face, has now offered to open a new round of talks with the U.S. on the situation in Iraq.
When asked if the Iranians were engaging in stall tactics and attempting to exploit the splits in the the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told NewsMax:
"If I were as near to Iran as Russia is I'd certainly want to get this resolved quickly. I think in the Russian nuclear Establishment, they know exactly what Iran is doing. ... Several countries said today the IAEA has sent this here for the Security Council to take action ... and that is exactly what we should do."
Meanwhile, Bolton left the U.N. Friday night with an ominous warning:
"The urgency of sending a clear and strong signal to Iran is certainly very much on our (the U.S.) minds, conscious as we are that the Iranian centrifuges are spinning with uranium hexaflouride in them ... (an A-bomb ingredient). ... That is a very serious matter."
Hitchens Destroys DiFi, Hurricane Katrina 
HURRICANE KATRINA: I think this is a sign of desperation, a sign of desperation, war that is unwinnable, is unlawful, unnecessary, and also, you know, you're dealing with the slaughter, possibly, of innocent women and children, and you possibly create more insurgents, the resentment against America is so deep. I think it's very important to understand that we are now -- the United States is -- in a brutal occupation, has us in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. So I think this is a sign of desperation, and it is a very important moment to assess the need to begin to find a way out, with honor and dignity for Iraqis and for Americans who are serving there.
RUSH: You're listening here to a genuine space cadet. You know, you really are. I mean there's no other way to describe it. Hitchens can't even put up with it. Here's what Christopher Hitchens said.
HITCHENS: It's not an attack on Iraq at all. It's an attack on the enemies of Iraq which tried to poison its life and destroyed democracy, and it's absurd to talk about this being an occupation. Would anyone around this table look into the eyes of President Jalal Talibani and say he's occupying his own country? The United States is very nobly acting as the militia now for those who don't have a militia, for those who don't have any thuggery or IED at their disposal. It's the best thing we've ever done, and shame on people who sneer at it.
RUSH: Yeah, just put Hurricane Katrina in her place. Larry King says (King impression), "You agree with that, Senator Feinstein?
DiFi: When Muqtada al-Sadr went to Basra and blamed the Americans for the bombing of Golden Mosque, that, for me, was the straw that broke the camel's back. I now believe that we're in the third year, that Iraq has to begin to really take over, and that we've got to begin to redeploy our troops. We have a war on terror. We need more people in Afghanistan. There are other places in the world where it's very problematic -- and Iraq, at some point, is going to have to be for Iraqis, and we're going to have to be very careful we don't place a target on the backs of our men and women in the middle of a civil war.
RUSH: Okay, so at this point, our old buddy Christopher Hitchens is about to lose it. He goes after Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel again and MoveOn.org and the entire left for blaming Iraqi deaths on America, and he also takes a little swipe at Senator Feinstein.
HITCHENS: It's quite disgraceful to hear anybody say that the deaths involved in this are our fault. Bob Herbert today in the New York Times describes "hideous atrocities committed by sectarian fascists of the worst type, and he says these are the casualties of Bush's war," as if the president was killing them, as if our armed forces were doing these murders instead of trying to kill and capture the people who are committing them. All moral sense is now being lost, it seems to me, by the fans of MoveOn.org and by the people who come on your show and spout their speaker's notes. It's appalling to me that a senator from the great state of California can come and say that her broad back was broken by the straw -- I quote her -- of Muqtada Sadr.
RUSH: Is that not something? Is that not fabulous? He basically said MoveOn.org is a bunch of kooks, all they've got is a bunch of talking notes. He can't believe the lack of morality on these people's parts, and I can't believe that a senator from the great state of California's back was broken by Muqtada "Mookie" al-Sadr. That was Larry King Live last night.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
It's exactly as I told you, folks. The Democrats are invested in defeat. Dianne Feinstein, you just heard her admit to Larry King Live that she wants to cut and run because of something a terrorist said! Mookie al-Sadr. So, "We gotta get out of this. This is horrible. It's all falling apart," because of what a terrorist said! I'm telling you, these people cannot be trusted with this mission. They just can't.
END TRANSCRIPT ♣