(Joe) Wilson says ``conspiracy'' is falling apart (for * administration)

they wanted to make sure that the underlying lie to go to war would not be uncovered. I wish that he would change up just a little and not be so egotistic and know that his story is only a small part of the very big ugly picture and expand the truth rather than just settle for vindication.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nice job of protecting Bush, there.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So many wrong statements. But welcome, we're always happy to share facts with those who are open minded enough to accept them.

First, Joe Wilson never said that Cheney sent him to Niger. I'm amazed that myth is still circulating, it has been debunked so many times. Let me know if you want the facts on that.

Second, you don't know much about the Niger Documents either. Do you know when the breakin of the Niger Embassy in Italy was, eg? Or when exactly and who, passed the forged documents to whom? Or where? And when Cheney went to the CIA about them? I don't want to waste time on stuff that is considered to be 'Treason 101' by now, if you already have done your homework.

Third, Joe Wilson went to Niger at the request of the CIA, to check on the information that supposedly Saddam had tried to buy Uranium from Niger.

http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mecurynews.com

Copy reads "against him". Maybe reporter correct it.

comment removed by author

Bush, like Rove, was a big fan of of Lee Atwater (and his mentor, Donald Segretti). He loves dirty tricks, and is vindictive as they come. There's no way he could resist getting involved in something like this. He probably gave the order.

I have said this from the beginning.
tib

halfway good at.

He first pulled them on Ann Richards in the Texas gubernatorial race (and I had my first deja vu feeling then). After a while, you can pick a Rove smear out. McCain and Cleland were classic Rove (a few things toward Clinton raised an eyebrow for me). I suspected Rove on the Plame case from the beginning, but I gave him more credit for covering up his tracks----he has done so in the past. I thought Rove WAS an underling for Segretti during Watergate. The irony of the similarities between the 2 have not been lost on me. And, like then, we are asking the same questions...what did he know and when did he know it. Bush had to have known from day one and certainly from the time he chewed Rove's ass out.

Actually, I think Rove got his hands dirty well before the Ann Richards campaign.

And I've been a recipient of some of Card's exploits in Massachusetts (as a delegate to a convention he hijacked.)

did Joe Wilson become a Clintonite? He voted for W. in 2000. We need to stop repeating this false meme.

VAYA CON DIOS

When can we say "Bye - Ya Con Neos"?

"Bye ya con neos"! :toast: Ole!

:rofl:

Since it's so easily refuted.

Ambassador Wilson is a former Republican; his uncle, who he still respects highly, was Pete Wilson, Governor of California. He is an expert in Niger, having served as Ambassador there for close to a decade. Speaking French, he rightly claims credit for helping that country transition from dictatorship to democracy by persuading an interim military president to turn the nation over to a civilian government.

Any statement about Wilson "lying about the documents that he couldn't have seen during his trip because they didn't become available until a year later" is completely laughable to anyone who knows anything about this case, including all of the top people at the CIA. So it is exceptionally unlikely they'll try that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Oh, ick. (not a fan of PW AT ALL)

Wonder what ol' pete thinks of the treatment of his nephew?

we got a high ranking republican over to our side..and I'm betting a LOT more!

he is pete wilson's nephew?? has anyone seen pete wilson lately? :eyes:

Plame's "outing" is just the tip of the iceberg, IMO.

the Abramoff trial. It will ensnare many of the behind the scenes crooks and some of those digusting pious hypocrites. Almost anything will be good news, but the waiting sure is hard.

I have to agree with you. Wilson is a bit too self-promoting for my taste. Backing up a little though, we owe him (and her!) a huge thanks for sustaining their role at the epicenter of an issue that seems of the myriad one of the most likely to yield some justice-fruits.

In sum, yes, preferable he deflect more and use screen time to draw attention to the larger issue of mega-crimes. But thanks for being out there, Joe!

"Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson told an audience at Stanford University that a ``conspiracy'' against he and his wife is coming apart."

He and his wife???

...it's plain ugly.

Actually it sounds a lot like several Stanford grads I know. One was one of the laziest engineers I have ever encountered. No project was too simple for him to leave unfinished. Unhappy clients were his stock in trade. Mere grammar issues were way too much for this "entitled" rich boy.

No doubt a good school. Reputation isn't everything.

I love the content of your message but I'm one of those self-appointed grammar police who cringes when there's a glaring grammatical error. You should have written, "conspiracy against him and his wife," not "conspiracy against he..." Against is a preposition and is to be followed by the objective case, him, not the nominative case, he.
Feel free to pick apart my message for errors too.

If so then I hate to be a grammar grammar police but don't attack the messenger, attack the message.

Sheesh!

Your first sentence is a compound sentence and therefore requires a comma after the conjunction "but." Your last sentence requires a comma before the word "too."

Of course, discussion board posts are informal documents and need not be proofread or corrected. The entire point is the content, not the form.

I, too, am anal when it comes to commas and punctuation in general; I especially revere semicolons.

Cheers,

b_b

"Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

We all have our bugaboos and kinks, and Kurt's "transvestite hermaphrodites" just serve to illustrate that fact.

Not, that I use many semi colons, I never know where to put them :silly:

Works for me -- usually.

Hekate

I learned it on DU and took it to new heights. :)

and replaced them with...semicolons!

Wha'cha'gonna'do? :-)

I like the grammar police. I'm only a "deputy", as I am also prone to errors and can use a little help on occasion.

Sorry to have hijacked the thread, sabra. Please forgive us our trespasses. :hi:

Is there are rule for proper grammar on internet forums where we write to emulate spoken conversation sans the human visual ques of voice tone and modulation, facial expression, and hand gestures? :smoke:

Emoticons: the bastard mutant love child of the human brain and the computer keyboard?

There is are a whole new world of communication in the internets.

But he is a different sort of writer than I am (or anyone else).

I really like them; they help segue between thoughts better than a period does at certain times.

b_b

to punctuate it as we went along if the person dictating didn't. We then had to type up our dictation from our shorthand using the old IBM typewriters (no joke) and the amount of copies would vary. We had to use CARBON PAPER for our copies with White Out. It was a class from HELL that was required for my degree. I have never used shorthand in any job I have had.

If we had one error; whether it be spelling, typing, punctuation . . . we got an F. So there was no room for error in our dictation notepad, the transcription of the document, and then the carbon with our explanations.

Once we took our dictation (we had to be able to get at least 120+ words a minute to pass the class), typed it up with one carbon copy, we then had to take the carbon copy and wherever we used punctuation, we had to explain why we put that comma there, or why we used an ellipsis . . . etc.

One girl broke out in hives almost everyday, another got physically sick sometimes (gag), and another would cry sometimes. That one class caused so much stress on some people they just couldn't take it. I know it sounds ridiculous, but some people went nuts in this class.

So yes, I went to college, and I am anal about my own punctuation at times. When I was in college, I could not read a book without either correcting the punctuation, or punctuating it as I saw fit.

Then I found out that different jobs use different rules for their punctuation using "Style" books. Christian Writers would use a different "Style" book then a Medical Transcriptionist would use for medical records. Legal assistants have a different "Style" book of rules for punctuation then basic business grammar style books. It goes on and on.

So yes, I am too anal when it comes to punctuation and I apologize ahead of time. :yoiks:

I thought two years of calculus was bad, but shorthand would be much worse, torture-wise.

Congratulations for surviving.

b_b

shorthand was a much more painful experience. It was an 8 a.m. class as well. I'm so glad it's all over with. However, what I went through to get through college has stuck with me for more than 20 years. Not what I learned, just the pure stress of it all. Finding a job and working afterwords was nothing compared to what was expected by the professors.

can AND DOES cause some serious misunderstandings.

Communications skills matter. Unless you're on FR.

if we get it wrong then the grammer police can correct us.

Precision in language matters even more in the written word because the reader can only guess at inflection, volume, chuckles, smiles and frowns.

I'm confused! :crazy:

The leak requires media participation. Media participation requires a willingness to do an illegal CIA operation, Operation Mockingbird. The CIA is NOT to be doing propaganda-ops domestically, against its own charter.

For special prosecutor Fitzgerald to ignore this egregious violation of the law, and now to be chided from the likes of Rove-dependent pols like Kay Bailey Hutchison for potentially coming out with only picayune charges...

Let's give Sen Hutchison what she wants. Criminal charges that really have MEAT to them. Exposing the ongoing Operation Mockingbird media manipulation to sell an illegal war and thus violate the War Powers Act of 1973, since the act requires truthful 'circumstances' and 'situations', is the basis of a nacent impeachment process.

You said it all.

but thanks for the post.

:hi:

Wilson, if anybody, has earned the right to say "I told you so". Remember, after the initial story broke, how it eventually withered on the vine.

People here in the DU kept asking, "what's happened with the Plame thing?" "Did the story die?" and "maybe Wilson won't get anywhere".

In the meantime, Wilson kept plugging away, making appearances on the Randi Rhodes show, patiently waiting as she blabbed and hogged the airwaves for herself. Without losing momentum, he showed up on talk shows, wrote articles, worked relentlessly to get his story heard.

I've learned an amazing lesson from Wilson. Even if it looks like your cause has died, keep going and it will eventually bear fruit.

probably a characteristic of all people in powerful positions.

Anyway, I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for - as was said upthread - never letting this thing go away.

Maybe egotism can be partly defined as self-determination and unwaveringly confident that you are doing what is right




Or maybe he's a dick.

that Wilson was extremely pissed that the leak destroyed his wife's career. We hear about Valerie Plame, but not from her, so I wonder what she thinks about this whole mess?

stay in the limelight to avoid being "disappeared." Words of wisdom from Daniel Elsberg (The Pentagon Papers).
This hasn't been a Hollywood party for the Wilsons, no matter what BFEE and their MSM want to sell you.

nm

If Wilson hadn't spoken up they would have gotten away with it

No one would have questioned the forgeries and the Downing Street Minutes wouldn't have had the corroboration they have with the Plame affair.

There would be no CIA leak to investigate, etc.

His action and their chickenshit retaliation are a beautiful thing to behold if you don't like Bushco's facist Amerika.

Mr. Wilson was a foreign ambassador - you don't get there if you don't know how to deal with a lot public speaking engagements - Mrs. Wilson on the other hand is more comfortable staying behind the scenes - she's probably the one doing the research and passing whatever she finds on to him. Go team Wilson!

that Wilson and his wife were being Smeared by the rwsmearmachine and people were questioning Wilson's veracity.

There is a great lesson and moral in the Wilsons' story!

and so, all they had to do was wait out the system, and eventually, the truth would come out. This is a relief.

I feel like I'm getting my country back.

:bounce:

:tinfoilhat:

Repressed tin-foiler here...can I come out now? :toast:

of ours. Hope all is well with you.

Tinfoil Hatters Unite

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

...and that is a big improvement! Thank you for your good wishes...

If you're not wearing it, you're nowhere baybee.

black, eh? I guess I'll have to consider how it looks on me..:tinfoilhat:

They were the next to be suicided. They were at ground zero of the most diabolical scheme in American history. Given them a break, for godssakes!

Ego is a healthy thing. It helps you fight back. It helps you stand up for yourself. It is the thing that drives genius and bravery. It's important to transcend it, to see and feel our commonality, to empathize, to be generous, to seek the greatest good. But don't dis the ego, the "I," and its essential function in human health. Egoless people are sick people, if they are not saints (truly transformed). Weak, sniveling, joyless people, who never come to terms with themselves, and just go around feeling powerless and whiney.

So heroes can get a little egotistical? So what? The allegation doesn't compute. So what?

Besides, Wilson has been eloquent on what all this means. Unjust war, lies, suppressing dissent. He's said it all.

too?

I have listened to more spin and deceit from the MSM in the last six years, that I'm tired of all the BS. To me, Brewster Jennings was outed , the network was outed that was tracking WMD's, someone did it and I want them held accountable. I don't give a shit about someone's petty revenge, I care about the security of my country and that someone put people's lives on the line. You know, people can make this into a National Enquirer type moment, but it is more than that. I care about 2,000 dead soldiers based on friggin lies, that kept changing everytime it was exposed. I want the truth about all of the people our country is killing and Americans that are being killed. I, as a mother, have a personal stake in it and my sons or daughter are not going to die so that Cheney or Bush's friends can increase their profit margins. And, if Bush wants to have a BJ, please indulge, because I'd rather him have sex (god forbid) than destroying thousands of American lives across this country! :mad:

The GOPs. The global corporations'. Bush, Cheney and Rove's. The PNAC's.

And by the way, my son's going back to Afghanistan for the second time in February. I have a stake in it, too.

. . anyone here who understands these details (you both seem to have a good handle on it) . . could you please explain to me what Bob Somerby's (The Daily Howler) point is.

The way I understand it is:

Somerby points out that Wilson claims that Iraq never actually bought yellowcake from Niger - but that Wilson did report that, according to one of his Niger sources, there may have been an attempt to buy yellowcake (that was rebuffed by Niger).

Bush in the state of the union only said that Iraq had attempted to buy the yellowcake from Niger.

So, what is it?

Attempted to buy yellowcake - or - bought yellowcake. What did Bush actually claim and what did Wilson actually claim - and where's the discrepancy.

I'm getting more confused about this the more I read. Can anyone here explain this in simple terms? Thanks in advnace.

that the statement about Uranium from Niger should be taken out of the SOTU address. They thought it had been, but someone changed it to the sixteen words that ended up there, which didn't mention Niger.

So, it's obvious that someone wanted to conjure up the idea of nuclear attacks, or 'mushroom clouds' as Condi said to frighten the American people. As Michael Ledeen said, 'you have to scare the people in order to control them' or words to that effect.

After the uproar over the sixteen words, the British and the American Senate conducted investigations. Tony Blair was questioned intensely about his 'intelligence' but never revealed what it was or where he got it, claiming 'national security'.

Too bad these investigations were not done before the war started. Had they been, I doubt this war would have happened.

Anyway, this is a pretty fair account of the facts as they happened. You can see that there never was any conclusive evidence of Iraq seeking to buy Uranium from Africa and it was debunked in the end. It is a good overview of what Bush said and what Joe Wilson said. You can draw your own conclusions from the 'investigations' in Britain and here. Hope it helps.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Since going to war is the most important decision a president can make you would hope that if there is any doubt at all about the reasons for going, he would not rush to war. But these neocons and their corporate friends wanted to go war. And they were willing to lie and cheat to do so. Btw, Tony Blair did promise that he would reveal what the British Intelligence knew when it would no longer threaten national security. Saddam is gone but Tony Blair has yet to tell us what he claimed he was so certain of back then.

I especially liked the link to factcheck.org. What a great resource - it's now bookmarked.

So, it seems to me that Iraq was either looking around for a source of yellow-cake - or was perhaps wanting to establish trade relations with a country that could provide it in the future. Sort of a "getting to know you" kind of relationship. I think Saddam believed he was going to get the UN to drop the sanctions and he'd be able to re-constitute his military - perhaps with some nukes. Dreamer!

I guess there's a remote possibility that he wanted his neighbors (Kuwait, Iran, maybe Syria) to think he had nuke capability even if he didn't - but it seems a real stretch that he'd approach Niger for yellow-cake as a way of spreading that impression. It would seem far easier to let a "secret memo" fall into the hands of his enemies.

Thanks again for your post. I think I understand this much better now.

B-)

. . is Bush* did not lie about Iraq seeking yellow-cake from Niger in his 16 words in the State of the Union.

. . It means that Wilson's editorial was actually his assessment of the intelligence that he had uncovered. The CIA disagreed with him. Wilson used that personal assessment to attack Bush*.

The CIA had two previous reports that corroborated Iraq's feeling for a possible source. Wilson's trip just confirmed for the CIA that:

a) Iraq had made a contact with Niger (probably) to inquire about yellow-cake (in the future).

b) No deal was made or even attempted - as they never even spoke about yellow-cake at the meeting.

Bush* said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Until we have proof that the British intel was based on the forgeries (they say it wasn't) then he was telling the truth.

He said "sought" not "bought".

Therefore, Bob Somerby's right - and we'd be smart not to claim that Bush* lied in his SOU speech about this.

There's plenty more lying that they did do - that maybe we should focus on. IMO there's some danger of losing credibility by throwing everything we can at this administration just to hope it sticks.

Of course, even an outright lie by Wilson attacking the administration does not justify "outing" a CIA noc operative, especially during wartime. (I don't think Wilson lied anyway - as much as he got carried away by it all and his anger at the way we were all snookered into war.)

They are still going to go down in "flames" - pun intended. And it will be for conspiring to out Plame and then covering it up - but not because Wilson uncovered a Bush SOU lie. I now see the lie never really existed. It was in Wilson's mind based on his limited personal view.

that way, and that's exactly how whoever put the sixteen words in the SOTU address intended it to be interpreted, should anyone question what Bush clearly intended to do in his speech, which was to frighten the American people into supporting a war that was never necessary.

When they realized they could not outright lie, because there was no evidence of Iraq either buying, or trying to buy Uranium from Niger, they did what they are very good at, dug deep to find a reason to use the nuclear threat, and got the help of two friendly governments, Britain and we now pretty much know, that the other 'foreign government' was Berlusconi's.

The problem in dealing with these people is that they will lie, and as in this case, when you catch them, they will twist and 'parse' words to suit their needs and to make the other person look like the liar. It's unfortunate in a way that the CIA did not let them use the original words.

The fact is that most experts said that Saddam had been pretty much disarmed in the early nineties and had no nuclear program. Anything he had left was most likely destroyed in Operation Desert Fox in 1998. In other words, he was no threat to the US or his neighbors.

Also, you have to remember that Joe Wilson's report was from months before the SOTU speech and he had every reason to believe that the administration had seen it (Cheney claimed he did not, but now we know he lied about not knowing Joe Wilson).

Joe Wilson was not lying when he challenged those sixteen words. There was evidence that the Yellow Cake in Niger was under the strict control of the French and it would have been impossible for what the Italian (foreign govt.) had claimed that 500 tons, I believe they said, had been purchased.

Of course they changed Niger to Africa, giving themselves a broader range to work with, when they were caught in their original lie. When Bush was questioned about the 'British intel' and the 'foreign country' he would not answer, nor would Tony Blair, because we now know that they WERE in fact, lying. All three governments (or renegades within the governments). Dr. Kelly was Britain's Joe Wilson, in a sense. He knew too, that they had deliberately lied.

In fact Wilson was not the only one shocked by Bush's use of the threat. As I already mentioned, Dr. Kelly, the British scientist who ended up dead four days after Valerie Plame was outed, had also been concerned about the claims being made. Not to mention other experts around the world, familiar with Iraq's nuclear program.

I know I used the word 'lie' when I realized the claims they were making, because all you needed to do was google around and see what UN inspectors and other experts, including the Int. Atomic Energy Assoc. had to say. Yes, they did it cleverly, and they had two friendly governments giving them cover (which many people suspected at the time, which is why Tony Blair was so intensely questioned by the media there) but that doesn't mean that many knew it was all a big lie even if they couldn't get around their clever use of words.


In a way, I wish they had not alerted regarding the first words they intended to use. It would have been easier to refute them. But most of us don't think they way they do because we don't lie, as in the case of Joe Wilson.

However, I do agree that since they were prepared to be challenged on their lies (and Cheney, Condi and the rest of them DID emphasize after the SOTU that if we didn't attack Iraq, we might be hit by a 'mushroom cloud'), we should learn to do what they do and be careful in the use of words.

Unfortunately for them they have been now been found out. The articles in the Italian press this week show that the 'foreign government' was as suspected, most likely Italy. That Hadley met with Polari secretly to get the kind of intelligence they wanted, which was based on the forged documents.

I believed then as I do now, that they deliberately lied and used old or very flimsy evidence to intentionally scare the American people. But, as you say, we have to show more thoughtfulness in uncovering their lies (which Fitzgerald may have done by now) than they did before taking the country to war.

They never once considered the overwhelming evidence that Saddam had no nuclear program, because their minds were up to go to war long before 9/11. And don't forget, they lied about terrorism in Iraq, and gave the impression by always using 'Iraq' and '9/11' together in the same sentence. The Downing Street Minutes will help in this also, and show that Joe Wilson has corroberation for his accusations.

I believe Joe Wilson told the truth. And the facts now prove he was right. His report convinced the CIA there was not nearly enough evidence to take this country to war. I also believe that when they endangered his wife and her network of agents abroad, he became emotional and angry. Sometimes, no matter what words they use, you just know when someone is attempting to deceive you. Most of the world's thinking people, knew this is what they were doing.

I think they will be revealed to be the liars they are. But, yes, you are right, we need to do what they do and take their own words rather than the ones we know they meant, when attacking their statements.

Their intention always was to deceive the American people. Again, to understand them you have to read the writings of Michael Ledeen who states plainly that it is necessary to lie to the people for 'their own good' ~ they do believe we are inferior and that Machiavelli was a hero, and a person to emulate. People who knew their ideology, who read the PNAC and their writings, like Joe Wilson by then, I'm sure, knew they were lying and very dangerous. I wish the media had covered that ideology. Had they, the public would have been more alarmed by the threat they posed to us, than any Saddam Hussein was supposed to be.


Imo, they are very pathological and never should have been anywhere near our government. How dangerous they are is evident by the number of people who have died as a result of their lies.

What they have done successfully so far though, is to distract from the entire context of what they were doing, and focus the public in on a few words, which they carefully crafted to cover their lies. When the public gets the full picture of their criminal acts (which Joe Wilson certainly got by the time of the speech) these few words and their attempts to discredit anyone, not just Joe Wilson, who challenged them will diminish in importance other than to demonstrate how cleverly they got around any objections to using the Nuclear threat.

The fact is, THEY knew it was a lie since they knew what we only suspected, that friendly elements in foreign governments were giving them plausable deniability with 'fixed' or flimsy evidence. The Downing Street Minutes prove that. They would not have removed the sixteen words if they thought they would hold up to scrutiny.

And that's the question to ask anyone who claims they did not lie. Why remove them? I think because they did not want anyone digging into the forged documents, or the 'British intelligence' which I hope will now be uncovered as was the 'foreign country's' intelligence. They knew they were lying, and so did Joe Wilson and so did many, many others. It's only now coming to light, exactly how they did it.

I pretty much agree with all of it.

However, as an afterthought - I doubt that they did not truly believe that Saddam had nuclear and other WMD programs underway.

I know that any sensible person looking at the intel would probably have said no.

But, I have been researching the psychology of politics and belief. I suspect that they so wanted and needed it to be true that they really thought that even if the CIA couldn't find the evidence - that once they invaded they'd find it themselves.

They saw themselves as the heroes. They had visions of the world paying them great adulation for having the foresight to attack Iraq despite the weak intel. They saw themselves standing on top of piles of WMD evidence and taking journalists on tours through underground nuclear weapons factories - all while the world praised them for their foresight.

If that had happened, they would have said "See world, what would have happened if you had listened to those hand-wringing liberals and those government bureaucrats at the CIA. We'd now be at the mercy of maniacal despots." And there would indeed have been a decades long reign of neo-conservatism. It was a vision that had permeated their belief system for thirty years. But they were always repudiated and humiliated - by Watergate, by McCarthy, by Goldwater's defeat, the S&L Scandal, by Iran-Contra, by Bill Clinton. Here was finally their chance to prove once and for all that their ideology was the only true window for seeing the world. So close to the gold ring that vision pushed everything else in their minds aside.

I see we humans as far more an emotional creature than most of us recognize (or admit). Cognitive dissonance is a weak deterrent to strong emotionally based belief systems in the minds of even very intelligent people.

The noecons' emotional attachment to their personal and social identity as the conservative saviors of mankind was far more powerful in their minds than their ability to take a deep breath and look at the evidence.

The voters - who are also usually suspicious of strong ideology - were radicalized first by 9/11 and then especially by the neocon followup that encouraged and took advantage of our inherent human tendency to become very (psychologically) conservative in response to insecurity.

Liberal politicians appear weak and without principles to many of us. IMO we should be thankful that they are mistrustful of ideology (even of the left) - and the blindness that it can cause. Hopefully, current events will show this to be true and voters will re-establish their trust in reality - and (Dem) politicians who have the smarts (now being proven) and the mistrust of ideology to understand it.

They were sooo stupid!!! So vicious and revenge gets ya everytime!!!

Lifes a bitch ain't it!

He gave up his source withpout much of a fight. Does anyone know who he named?