« Clinton to Withdraw on Friday Saturday | Main | Democratic Veep Sweepstakes »

Report Confirms Republican White House Lied About Iraq

Lies, and the Republicans who tell them. John McBush is no different.

U.S. President George W. Bush and his top policymakers exaggerated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made their case for war, a Senate committee reported on Thursday.

The Senate intelligence committee said in a study that major Bush administration statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda and provided it with weapons training were unsupported by intelligence, and sometimes contradicted it.

It also said statements on Iraq's weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion were substantiated in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but that they failed to reflect internal debate over those findings.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main case for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- was inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (Sept. 11, 2001) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," intelligence committee Chairman John Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false pretenses."

The report also cited at least one statement -- by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that the Iraqi government operated underground weapons of mass destruction facilities -- that was not backed up by intelligence information.

The 9/11 attack against us was used as a red herring to take this country to war in Iraq.

Knowing that, it's logical to assume that the Bush administration's failure to fully prosecute al Qaeda, and bring Osama bin Laden and his cohorts to justice, is just another extension of their deceitful campaign.

When John McBush stands in front of Americans and tells them the country needs a Republican in the White House for national security reasons he's bullshitting the American public as well. Republicans don't give a crap about national security, and they are willing to lie to us to get what they want, in this case they wanted billions to invade Iraq and to follow that with an invasion of Iran.

They botched the job so badly in Iraq they never got around to Iran, but if John McBush gets into the White House, rest assured that we will be at war with Iran sooner rather than later.

Now some Americans believe that would be a necessary war - that we need to attack Iran in order to protect Israel and our own interests in the middle east.

Fine, let's debate that, but let's not lie and use deceit as Republicans have in the past to prosecute right wing religious wars.

Hopefully this report will move the nation one step closer to possible charges against the current administration for war crimes. I firmly believe that the only way to stop this horrendous abuse of power is to prosecute.

The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent as a "partisan exercise."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino cited Republican objections to the report, but said the issue of inaccurate intelligence had been previously aired.

"We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it," Perino said.

Iran factors into the Republican web of deceit as well:

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iranian issue and not Iraq.

It said Department of Defense officials collected potentially useful intelligence information at the meeting that they failed to share with other intelligence agencies.

Its time to flush this crap right out of Washington.

Update: Here is the "Phase II Report" (pdf) which compares statements made by President Bush and his administration against the known NIE intelligence available at the time.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 1.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 1.8/5 (10 votes cast)


Comments (29)

BPG:

"It also said statements on Iraq's weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion were substantiated in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but that they failed to reflect internal debate over those findings."

Hmmmm, seems we've heard that one before. Lee, you are a fine debater but I am failing to see the 'lie' in this one.

When will Harry Reid be prosecuted for his shady real estate dealings?

When will Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted for conducting her own foreign policy by going to Syria?

When will Jimmy Carter be prosecuted for conducting his own foreign policy by visiting with a State Department-listed terrorist entity?

When will John Murtha be prosecuted for maliciously libeling the soldiers roped into the Haditha incident, for which all but 3 indictments were either dismissed or resulted in acquittal?

I mean, if we're gonna do it, then lets do everybody.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Sounds like the usual Republican answer.

How many Americans died because of Harry Reid's real estate dealings?

How many billions in tax dollars were spent because of Pelosi and Carter's trip to the ME?

At least nobody is arguing that McCain would do anything differently... that would just be another lie.

Mr Ward,

Is it a lie that there have been no attacks on american soil since 9/11?

Do you wish to suggest that to be merely an accident?

What would "fully prosecute al Qaeda, and bring Osama bin Laden and hgis cohorts to justice," consist of, exactly?

How would you capture bin Ladin?

Specifically, how would you get Pakistan to cooperate more fully?

How would you deal with Rogue nations uninterested in negotiation or compromise nor concerned by empty threats?

How would you break the logjam in the UN by countries committed to the status quo, those preventing meaningful sanctions from being imposed upon Iran and other rogue nations?

You claim that, "they are willing to lie to us to get what they want," what exactly is it that the lying, deceitful republicans want?

For those independents such as myself, what specific solutions do you offer?

Lee Ward:

"Is it a lie that there have been no attacks on american soil since 9/11? Do you wish to suggest that to be merely an accident?"

It's irrelvant to our presence in Iraq. How on earth can you suggest a connection?

"For those independents such as myself, what specific solutions do you offer?"

We need a new approach to international relations, not four more years of Bush.

Herman:

"Is it a lie that there have been no attacks on american soil since 9/11?" -- Geoffrey

Yes it is. You do remember that Anthrax attacks, don't you? Note too that since 9/11, Bush has made it easier for Al Qaeda (both main branch and Iraqi branch) to kill off Americans by sending thousands of Americans to the Middle East. The number of Americans killed on September 11th was less than 3,000, which of course has been easily exceeded by the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq, more than 4,000.

With regards to your other questions, let me ask you a question: What exactly has Bush been doing to try to capture Osama been Forgotten? Anything at all? NOTHING????

You do know, of course, from reading your Shakespeare that "nothing will come of nothing."

"It's irrelvant to our presence in Iraq. How on earth can you suggest a connection?"

"We need a new approach to international relations, not four more years of Bush."

The 'connection' is simple. It is a truism in military strategy that the best defense is a good offense.

"International relations'? Please do not be disingenuous or obtuse. I asked you for specifics regarding how you would deal with both rogue nations and most especially the nations in the UN blocking effective sanctions against rogue nations out of short-term financial and geo-political interests.

Without convincingly addressing these factors, 'new' international relations is a joke.

The situation is serious enough that criticism alone is wasted air. Criticism carries with it the obligation to either offer specific solutions or at least acknowledgement of the barriers to resolvement of the problem.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"The 'connection' is simple. It is a truism in military strategy that the best defense is a good offense."

Stuck in the past, old-school, neanderthal thinking. This isn't the 17th century. We don't need to club our enemies before they club us.

What a waste of lives and tax dollars...

"I asked you for specifics regarding how you would deal with both rogue nations and most especially the nations in the UN blocking effective sanctions against rogue nations out of short-term financial and geo-political interests."

I'll vote the Republican clowns out of Washington and rely on someone smarter than John McBush to run our country.

"Criticism carries with it the obligation to either offer specific solutions or at least acknowledgement of the barriers to resolvement of the problem."

People like you are the barrier, Geoffrey, and guess what - in this election you're outnumbered.

Herman,

The Antrax attacks were domestic in nature, there is no evidence of involvement by Al Qaeda. Had they been involved they would certainly have claimed credit, so it is disingenuous of you to attempt to use that as rebuttal.

4,000 American deaths is a tragedy. Nevertheless, it is a plausible argument that their sacrifice has prevented many more.

Al Qaeda has lost many, many more, they are greatly weakened by fighting us in Iraq.

People who were most eager to come here and kill you and yours.

Bush has shifted his focus to the larger WoT, an entirely appropriate strategy. Obama is not forgotten but as long as he hides in Pakistan nothing can be done about it. And that applies just as much to anything Obama might do.

As for your use of Shakespeare, in the future please try to avoid rhetorical nonsense.

Thank you Lee for the specifics: "old-school, neanderthal thinking",a waste of lives and tax dollars,vote(ing) the Republican clowns out of Washington and Peop,le like you are the barrier"

Your inability to mount anything beyond an accusatory, personal attack is a fine demonstration of the degree of geo-political and strategic thinking you possess.

There may well be more of you than of us. It's an interesting assertion that the popularity of a viewpoint is synonymous with it's inherent wisdom.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

And you call Iraq a success? We have different views of what constitutes wisdom, Geoffrey. Wisdom would have suggested to the Republcians in the White House that Iraq did not have WMDs, and that invading Iraq was not the cakewalk they thought it was, and that it would degrade into a civil war.

Wait a minute -- they knew that and just lied to the American public about it so they could go ahead and practice the kind of 17th century neanderthal-style clubbing you seem to cherish.

The Republican approach to dealing with al-Qaeda was to lie about the threat in Iraq and invade there instead. That wasn't very wise.... just ask 80% of the American public.

It's an interesting assertion that the popularity of a viewpoint is synonymous with it's inherent wisdom."

Pssst, we're a democracy - tell your friends...

Our military follows the orders of their civilian Commander in Chief. We need a CiC who understands that invading Iraq was wrong. John McBush isn't that person.... but Barack Obama is.

It's that simple.

Your assertions certainly are simple.

When did I claim that Iraq was a success? Adding false accusations to your resume...tsk, tsk.

Even Bush said that it was going to be a long, hard road to success.

Here's a news flash: Wisdom is not 'relative' Lee, nor is it a matter of 'opinion'.

"Wisdom would have suggested to the Republcians in the White House that Iraq did not have WMDs"

Every major democratic figure, with the exception of Obama who was not privy to Intelligence estimates, is on record after 9/11, stating their belief that Saddam either had or was pursuing WMD's.

The majority of democrats, including all of the major dem players, voted for the invasion of Iraq.

3 months after the invasion, 70% of the American public was in favor of the invasion, even if no WMD's were found. Then the democratic party, moveon.org, etc and the MSM started their drumbeat of negativism...

Historical revisionism is the norm on the left, because for you, it's not about the truth of the matter, it's about the achievement of your agenda.

"Pssst, we're a democracy - tell your friends..."

News flash: we're also a representative republic. The US cannot be accurately described without including that little fact. Psst, tell your friends...

Obama's a fake and a lier. That's a fact, not an accusation. His own behavior and words are factual proof of that observation.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

A representative democracy?

Voting for Republicans is nothing more than giving them a license to lie to the public while they do anything they damn please.

That's not a 'representative democracy' - it's a license to lie and deceive the people of the United States.

"Every major democratic figure, with the exception of Obama who was not privy to Intelligence estimates, is on record after 9/11, stating their belief that Saddam either had or was pursuing WMD's."

Based on the lies the President and his administration told us...

Some people don't learn, but the majority of Americans have learned an important lesson from the last five years, and will vote for Barack Obama as a result. McBush offers nothing but four more years....

Lee Ward:

Donald Rumsfeld:

Feb. 7, 2003: "It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

That was just more Republican lies...

Feb. 20 2003: "'Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?' Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' The News Hour. 'There is no question but that they would be welcomed,' Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces."

Lies....

Mar. 30, 2003: "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Lies, lies and more lies...

And now we have John McBush lining up to be the next Republican Liar in Chief.

No sir, not this time...but feel free to tell us more lies, Geoffrey. Tell us that we're safer now because of the last five years in Iraq. Tell us it's almost over, and we won't have to stay another 100 years as McBush has suggested. Tell us he was lying when he suggested that we could be there another hundred years.

The pot calls the kettle black...

"Every major democratic figure, with the exception of Obama who was not privy to Intelligence estimates, is on record after 9/11, stating their belief that Saddam either had or was pursuing WMD's."

"Based on the lies the President and his administration told us..."

The dems had the same intelligence reports from the same agencies. The administration did not make up those reports.

The quotes you provided are simply Rumsfeld's optimistic opinions, using hindsight you label anything less than 100% accurate a lie. That's intellectually dishonest

We are safer as a result of the invasion of Iraq, but I never said nor implied that it's almost over. That's your lie about me.

You're also lying about McCain's 100 year statement. Any fair-minded person can easily verify that assertion.

One of the foremost leftist tactics is to tell a lie about what your opponent said while accusing someone else of lying. We both know you're doing it and fortunately what I've said is right on this thread.

Everytime you lie about what I've said you merely undermine your own credibility.

But then we've already established what you're about. Just keep saying Bush lied, people died.
It's the entire extent of your argument.

Your first casualty was truth when you engaged in intellectual honesty.

With all the lies you've accused me of, it's clear who's the real lyer.

You make a fine rabel rouser.

BPG:

If the war is "illegal" or "wrong" or "a lie", then why haven't Reid & Pelosi done what they were "elected" to do and stop the war and bring the troops home? They've had 2 years to do it.

What nobody wants to focus on is "What do we do now?" So I'll pose that question to you, Lee - it's June 2008. What do we do now?

Interesting, this play on McCain's name - he's no more like G.W. Bush than you are.


Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"The dems had the same intelligence reports from the same agencies. The administration did not make up those reports."

You're not up on the news, are reading the post you're commenting on, Geoffrey. The Republicans 'cooked the books' and yes, everyone believed them when they lied.

Never again. We're smarter now. NOBODY takes George Bush's word for ANYTHING these days.

As for your repeated attempts to label me a lair, I posted quotes with links.

Where's yours? Let's start here.

"You're also lying about McCain's 100 year statement."

Quotes and links, Geoffrey. Now, please. It's the only thing stopping me from banning you this instant -- the fact that I'm happy to let you prove yourself to be nothing but a loud mouthed ass by watching you twist in the wind as you attempt to prove I've lied about McCain's 100 year statement.

Quotes and links... the clock is running.

You're quite mistaken in my not being up on the news. I did NOT read the post and then comment. And the repubs did not cook the books.

I never disputed the veracity of your links. I disputed your accusing me of lying about what I said in prior posts, on this thread. When you lie about what someone has just said it makes you the lier.

I can provide plenty of links including about what McCain actually said, and I think it quite likely that you know of them.

That will have to await another time as I have a prior engagement.

But before I go, I didn't realize this was your blog as I thought I was still on wizbang.

As for you 'banning' me, be my guest. You can always reach me on my blog but there you'll have to keep a civil tongue in your mouth.

BPG:

Oooh, I have to call this one a tie.

Lee, McCain does say that its fine with him if the U.S. stays in Iraq for 100 years. He says this in the context of how long U.S. troops have been in Saudi (15 years), Korea (50 years), Germany (60+ years), but he does say it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

On the other hand, as far as intelligence reports go, a disagreement is not a lie.
"The Senate report, however, found that intelligence supported most of the administration's statements about Iraq before the war. But officials often did not mention the level of dissension or uncertainty in the intelligence agencies about the information they were presenting."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24994710/

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"Lee, McCain does say that its fine with him if the U.S. stays in Iraq for 100 years."

That's right. He did say that. I was 100% correct, and wasn't lying.

As for Geoffrey the loudmouthed Republican ass...

"I can provide plenty of links including about what McCain actually said, and I think it quite likely that you know of them.

"That will have to await another time as I have a prior engagement.

LOL! How very Republican of you, Geoffrey Britain. Smear and run. What a putz - what a lying Republican putz.

Cornered and challenged, the big mouth, big talking "the best defense if a good offense" swaggering fool is just another lying Republican blowhard, who talks big and runs out of the room the second his big talk is put on the line.

You now realize that I didn't lie about McBush, and rather than admit that you run. Yes, I do know exactly what McBush said, and I gave you a chance to prove me a liar and you couldn't.

Oops, my finger slipped and just banned your pathetic ass. My bad.

Ryan:

At what point do sane people cease to defend the indefensible? It brings to mind women writing love letters to rapist/murderers like Ted Bundy in prison.

MichaelC:

I am weighing in here for the sole purpose of thanking Geoffrey Britain for his selfless act of attempting a civil debate here in the nether regions of the WizBang Empire. Trying to reason with Lee Ward is a thankless task for which there is simply no reward. It is like banging your head against a wall. It only provides relief when you stop.

Mr. Britain you've have displayed a solid integrity in your reasoning and demonstrated a self control superior to my own when in similar circumstances and vastly superior to those with whom you have been "debating".

I note that the person who has been granted control of this blog on WizBang has included much ad hominem and then finally "banning" in lieu of possessing the requisite intelligence and integrity to carry on debate in a civil and respectful manner.

Thank you Mr. Britain, it is always a pleasure to see eloquence thrashing minor thought patterns moving in a downward spiral and this you have accomplished, I imagine, barely raising a sweat.

Fred:

If this report is true, and is not just an election-year gimmick, then it means that Bush lied to McCain.

That would not be McCain's fault.

It really isn't the Presidents job to reflect the debates inside the CIA. When a politician endorses a health plan, they don't emphasize the worries of health economists who disagree. The CIA stuff is mostly secret, and to make sense of the argument between the doves and the hawks in the CIA, you'd need to see the classified material. But we can't. So having the President go 'On the one hand, but on the other...' doesn't help the citizens. They'd complain that it's the President's job to decide.

Jay Rockefeller saw the same classified intelligence reports that McCain, Clinton, and Obama did, and he voted for the war.

Lee Ward:

Ryan: "At what point do sane people cease to defend the indefensible? It brings to mind women writing love letters to rapist/murderers like Ted Bundy in prison."

And to add insult to his self-inflicted injury, Britain lies in his defense of the liars, then displays his inherent dishonesty by running away rather than admit he was wrong in his claim that I lied about McBush.

At this point in history, Republicans seem to be truly bankrupt. Let's hope we can get them out of the White House before their lies bankrupt this great nation of ours.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Fred: "If this report is true, and is not just an election-year gimmick, then it means that Bush lied to McCain. That would not be McCain's fault."

John McBush fell for the lies, Barack Obama didn't.

Lee Ward:

Now: "So, osama bin laden isn't captured. "

Then: George Bush - "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed."

And as long as OBL hasn't been captured the Republicans feel justified in continuing to decimate the nation of Iraq, and planned to move forward and into Iran. They still will make a move on Iran, instead of capturing OBL, if McBush is given four more years.

Looks like the Republican agenda was best served by not finding Osama bin Laden - and by coincidence (wink), that's exactly what happened.

George Bush and the Republican administration cannot or will not find the man Bush himself compared to Hitler and Stalin.

Republicans had their chance and blew it. Just flat-out flubbed it, and drove us into an unnecessary war that cost us 4,000 American lives.

Get the f*ck out of the way, Republicans, and let someone else take a turn at it.

ScrapironParrot:

Arrghhh! Democrats are criminal and evil. Arrgghh! It doesn't matter what the Republican's have done to destroy this country over the past 8 years, it's the Democrats who are the great evil deceivers! Argghhh!

Lee Ward:

Lol... Polly, what a crack-up! lol.

JLawson:

Wouldn't feel so bad about that idea, Lee (specifically - "Get the f*ck out of the way, Republicans, and let someone else take a turn at it.") if I thought the Democrats actually had a clue about what to do in the majority of cases. And I don't believe they think beyond the grand-sounding statements - results aren't important!

What I've seen is that if a problem gets identified (and there's no problem with that) then the solution will be to throw government money at it until it's fixed - no matter HOW long it takes, with a 10% increase each year.

Either that, or no real attempt is ever made to solve the problem, because it can be used the next election cycle to get votes. How's Pelosi's supposed new energy initiatives going? She's been REAL quiet about them, you notice? Any details yet, or were they just another election-year attention getter?

Now, if it's a case where we're suporting an erstwhile ally (Vietnam comes to mind) we'll support them long enough (one, two years) after we withdraw to get them to trust we're not going to pull the rug out from under them, giving great promises of solidarity and brotherhood and support... until it's politically expedient to pull out support and leave them twisting in the wind.

So what if hundreds of thousands might die? Who really cares about those little brown people halfway around the world, anyway? It's not like they can VOTE or anything!

And the sheer ignorance Democrats in positions of power show on technical issues is astounding. When Maxine Waters was haranguing oil company executives, she demonstrated no apparent knowledge of the economic factors behind the oil runup - preferring instead to believe it was price fixing on the part of the oil companies. Didn't matter whether it was or not, and she admitted she had no evidence of any kind supporting that - but it was what she believed, and she had to play the outrage card for the audience at home.

So with all the wonderful examples of Democratic competence we see in Washington, we're supposed to believe that an inexperienced boob like Obama, a city-council grade Chicago-machine controlled politician who's been pushed WAY above his competency level can fix the rampant stupidity and blazing ignorance inside the Democratic Party, AND clean up Washington's culture?

Better apply to Rev. Wright for a miracle.

I'll give Obama points on cool and smooth - he makes a used-car salesman trying to get a lemon off the lot look like 20-grit sandpaper - but he needs a lot more than that and I don't see it there. I'd almost rather see Hillary there instead of him - SHE at least knows what she doesn't know!

Eric:

Isn't this report from the same Senator Jay Rockefeller who was the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, who had access to ALL of the same raw intelligence that the White House had access to, who voted in favor of the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)", who voted in favor of "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243)" and said the following on the floor of the United States Senate?

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!"

and also said

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late... Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail."

Doesn't that make him a liar too? Using the same standard Lee seems to be calling for the Bush to be charged with War Crimes shouldn't Jay Rockefeller be charged with War Crimes?

Shouldn't all of the members of Congress who voted in favor of "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243)" be charged with War Crimes?

In fact since that law specifically cites the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)" and that law states that it is the policy of the United States of America to support regime change in Iraq, shouldn't President Clinton and all of the members of the House and Senate who voted for that law be charged with War Crimes?


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.