Your outrage and anger towards President Bush would simply be more palatable and reasonable if you held all those who were wrong, or in your view LIED, culpable. Fact is that you don't, none of you whiny liberals can accept responsibility for your actions and the actions of your two-faced respresentatives. Biggest bunch of crybabies I have ever seen. It's fucking shameful. Fact is that Bush COULD NOT HAVE INVADED ANY COUNTRY WITHOUT CONGRESS GIVING IT'S CONSENT. See Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution for a refresher. We are in Iraq because Congress authorized it. Congress authorized it because they had a long held belief that Saddam needed to go. Bush didn't trick anyone, didn't lie to them. These fuckers were talking shit before Bush was in office. Of course, if you blamed them then you'd look the fool as well. Whatever. As far as I can see, your choice is to vote for people that lied to you, are so stupid that they were tricked by intel they were too lazy to read, or Dennis Kucinich. Enjoy the 2006 election and look at the bright side. You still have 2 years to convince yourselves that the Democrats are the innocent victims in this drama. Till then, enjoy these:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
— From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities"
— From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
— Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"
— National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."
— Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."
— Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
— Bill Clinton in 1998
: Yes, I relinked it. The way some of you are talking it's clear that you either didn't read the link or forgot quickly what the quotes were.
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
I looked for a democratic quote demanding we invade, send in the marines, etc. I didn't see one. Nor anything from the GOP giving us a realistic cost/benefit analysis who remained in the government.
Quit wasting my time with this specious argument.
I cheered out actions in Afghanistan, until they pulled the rub out ot the effort to divert resources to Iraq. And for every missile and bomb we launched at Hussein's regime, I tallied up the cost per boom and thought we were getting excellent returns on our investments and wanted to make more tomahawks and J-DAM's.
What I can't understand is how you can't see the difference, that a commitment of ground forces is a seriously different type of action.
I never saw a legitimate argument, especially from the dems, that the only way we can accomplish our goals: eliminate the WMD threat, bring stability to the region, dispose of Hussein, was to send in the 3rd ID.
Now notice, I didn't even make the even better argument -- that the administration withheld all the exculpatory intelligence and only let the democrats see the stuff that supported Bush's hard-on for war.
That was stacking the deck, but even then no dem advocated full scale invasion, certainly not without measured responses in the interrum.
Tim,
It's very easy to say something is a mistake after the fact. Hell, I've had many bad hairstyles that I didn't think were bad ideas till they came to fruition. When you show me a quote from any of these experts and politicians that now say invading Iraq is a bad idea but were all for it before, I just laugh. It's a joke. Monday morning quarterbacking at it's finest.
DON'T EVEN compare the experience, competence, and integrity of Powell with Bush, Rice, and Cheney. They aren't even on the same planet - perhaps not even in the same galaxy.
Yeah, well maybe not but all that experience, competence, and integrity didn't stop him from being wrong too.
I can regurgitate with the best of them. In case you didn't bother to click Ara's link the other day, try this recycled counter to your recycled argument,
See, we've already been there and debunked that.
And/But does that absolve Hillary when she says, "I don't regret giving him the authority, I regret what he did with it?" No. But the fact remains -- only George W. Bush went to war on the bullshit intelligence he clung to. No one else. The buck stops with him.
Stop blaming everyone else.
Bet on it.
Condi Rice is now praising the readiness of Iraqi troops. The broohaha over Murtha's comments was just a cover and posturing so that the decision by the administration to cut and run doesn't look like cutting and running.
The Policy has been set and all the rest is drama, much like we witnessed in the build up to the war. Bush was talking about invading Iraq a week after he took office, and he and Cheney have been planning a major draw-down for this summer, just in time for the mid-term elections, right along.
Notice how as soon as the Murtha bear turned around and glanced in their direction, they toned down the rhetoric? They got their reaction, now they can look "reasonable" and talk of some kind of "great progress" as POTUS sets the stage for a reasonable turn over and not an immediate withdrawal that they really tried to paint the dems with.
Awesome job too. I'll never be one to say that these guys aren't master politicians. Statesmen, hardly. Evil, of course, but fantastic operatives. Now they can say, "Hey, we aren't cutting and running like the dems wanted." Slick.
I'll go one further than Ara. The argument has not only left the "Why did you lie us into a war, Daddy?" question behind, but has also gotten beyond how to get out.
The short answer is we'll get out at a time and on a schedule of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's choosing. The debate shall now commence on who gets the credit for ending the war?
Well it's Bush's vase, and he owns this particular Pottery Barn, so I guess he owns the withdrawal too.
Whatever.
2. Putting the words "intelligence" in quotes shows that you are acting startlingly like the Republicans who were convinced that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand. Real intelligence analysis is a lot like bookmaking, handicapping horses or predicting the weather. If all the writers at Sports Illustrated tell me Detroit is going to lose, and I bet that Detroit will lose, and yet Detroit wins, that does not mean their analysis was faulty, nor that I was foolish to bet that way. It means that we are not ever going to have perfect information, and if you intend to run our foreign policy like we will, including the decision to go to war, you are operating in the grip of a harmful delusion.
3. Congress cannot pass the buck here. The buck on the war stops with Congress. Only Congress has the Constitutional authority. Congress has passed additional laws to rein in the President's power as Commander in Chief. That resolution was, Constitutionally speaking, a Declaration of War. Both Congressmen and Senators said so at the time. I would have preferred they use the words "Declaration of War", myself, but they should know what they meant.
4. POTUS and the Pentagon were not planning on keeping 200,000 troops in Iraq forever. They never have been. Murtha may be playing a very irresponsible political game, and has, in any case, done this country an ill service. I hope it was just an honest mistake. I don't know Murtha well enough to tell.
Yours,
Wince
It's not my argument -- it's Bush's.
...we are not ever going to have perfect information, and if you intend to ... go to war, you are operating in the grip of a harmful delusion.
Listen to yourself -- why are we even pretending to gather evidence? None of it is perfect. Why waste the time -- just attack already.
Congress cannot pass the buck here.
Agreed.
POTUS and the Pentagon were not planning on keeping 200,000 troops in Iraq forever.
Cute. Actually, it's more like 135 thousand. But,hey -- Wait a minute! That means they've already withdrawn 65 thousand troops! Wow!!
We will not be cutting and running out of Iraq, contrary to the desire of a few here. The troops will be brought home beginning in 06'. We are still fighting a war there and there will not be a date given for when all the troops will be removed from the country. I am not sure what is so difficult to grasp here.
It's not my argument -- it's Bush's.
No it isn't. George Bush does not post comments on Rosemary Esmay's blog while impersonating Ara Rubyan.
Why waste the time -- just attack already.
It may be impossible to have a rational discussion on intelligence in this country, or with you. One of the big problems of the 9/11 commission and most of the commentary about it is that the following statement needs to be utmost in our minds, "We will never have perfect intelligence."
This fact is so primary and so important, yet, blinded by our supposed 20/20 hindsight, we ignore it to our peril. (Aside: Hindsight is 20/20? Not in my experience! Most of the hindsight I witness is nearly as myopic as the foresight I witness. If hindsight was 20/20 we would not be arguing about the past.)
I work in information systems, Ara. Our architects assume we have perfectly clean data. They make this assumption over and over. Who suffers? Our customers. And the data in our information systems is several orders of magnitude more reliable than that in military intelligence. We could have a discussion about how to make our intelligence systems more reliable in cases where they don't work - when information is wrong, or obscured - when communications fail - when bureaucratic barriers impede. We have a system which routes around failure. It's called the internet. You may have experienced it.
So far our debate about intelligence appears to separate the debaters into two camps. The Democrats angle for political advantage, to defend Clinton and discredit Bush. The Republicans angle for political advantage, to discredit Clinton and defend Bush. And occasionally Wolfowitz and I wander away from camp and wonder if we will ever try anything effective to improve our intelligence abilities. The answer appears to be, "Maybe if one party beats the other into temporary decisive submission."
pam,
Thanks. It's a great list, isn't it.
Yours,
Wince
There. NOW can we stop the diversion tactics and get him out of office please?
Hey, do you remember Clinton appointee Kenneth M. Pollack? Which part of the intelligence deceived him? Do you remember the case he made?
Yours,
Wince
You know what I'm talking about: speech after speech by Bush and Cheney decrying the Democrats for lying about how we got into the war. "They saw the same intelligence we did." No. Just no.
"We will never have perfect intelligence."
And yet...our policy simultaneously states that, since 9/11, we must attack them before they attack us.
Intelligence "less than perfect?" We don't need any intelligence. Our intelligence capactity is apparently completely superfluous. Just attack when I say so. It worked in Iraq didn't it?
Wince, with the willing acquiescence of Congress, George Bush is now the final arbiter of when, and who, we attack. That isn't right, it's wrong. And the sooner it stops the better.
We could have a discussion about how to make our intelligence systems more reliable in cases where they don't work - when information is wrong, or obscured - when communications fail - when bureaucratic barriers impede.
So I have a question for you: if the "intelligence" was less than "perfect," was going to war a mistake?
Just a simple yes or no, please.
I don't want President "Dick" Cheney or President Denny Hastert. Nor do I want President Condi Rice etc. etc. etc.
The Republicans had their chance. They ran the country into a ditch: war, bankruptcy, and corruption.
President Bush is in over his head and "Dick" Cheney is out of control. The best, and only, alternative comes in 2006 when we have a chance at electing a Democratic House of Representatives and/or a Democratic Senate.
Then in 2008, we have a chance at electing Democratic President.
The Republicans had their chance. Now it's time for a change.
I will remind you that the Democrats have been in the past 2 elections and have not won. Maybe if you nominate someone that can win, it would help.
So what? We're adding to our national debt at a frightening clip. Did you know that every baby that's born today will automatically owe the Federal Government $36 thousand?
Republicans might hate the Death Tax. But I'm a Democrat and I hate the Birth Tax.
The deficit is being paid down at a more rapid rate than anticipated, all the while paying for the 2 wars.
Now I know you're on acid.
Pay attention, Pam -- you're wrong. We've been running deficits every year since Bush became President. The national debt is getting bigger not smaller.
You're simply confused -- just because the deficit might be "smaller than anticipated" (whatever THAT means) it does NOT mean the debt is being paid down.
...many people may not like the idea of war but they will go along with one in order to protect themselves.
Pam, Pam, Pam. The majority of Americans now feel that we are less safe, not more, because of the war. They also feel that the war has not been worth it. They also feel that Bush mislead us into the war in the first place. And more and more of them, us, want to get out.
People want leaders not whiny babies
Yep. And Bush and Cheney sound like whiny babies.
I will remind you that the Democrats have been in the past 2 elections and have not won. Maybe if you nominate someone that can win, it would help.
Be careful what you wish for -- you might just get it.
Wrong wrong wrong ara.
You might try reading economic reports every now and again. They tend to give you a better idea of finances than a blog would.
I'll keep an open mind -- can you provide me with those metrics?
As for the polling on the war -- if you don't believe that polling is a science, then we don't have much to talk about regarding public opinion.
As for the polling, no they are not scientific.
Keep looking for some empirical evidence to support your faith-based economic model, but I won't hold my breath.
As if . . .
Here's what your web site says:
In Fiscal Year 2005, the U. S. Government spent $352 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt...So how do we fix this growing debt problem?
Let me guess: by not engaging in deficit spending every year as far as the eye can see?
It is NOT whining to have the courage not only to object, but to actually articulate your opposition to the war. You are not being a whiner when you speak truth to power, a truth nobody in the administration, or its supporters, wants to hear.
There are complex, involved issues that require analysis of conflicting and often ambiguous factors that indicate a different course that this administration's not only ignores, but actively fights. If you are simply dogmatic, unwilling to vary from your initial preconceptions merely because you yourself fear being labeled indecisive or (gasp) mistaken, you are doomed to make mistakes sooner or later.
That kind of lack of introspection, being more concerned with being perceived as right as opposed to doing what is right is the kind of braggadocio that hides true cowardice. The bully who overcompensates for his inadequacies. The growling dog who runs away with his tail tucked when smacked on the nose.
It is not whining to have the courage to voice your opinions for the record, despite the certain knowledge that some will paint you as a coward or unpatriotic.
Indeed, it is craven and despicable to paint with that brush.
They did see the same intelligence. Not the same exact sheets of paper, the same information. This is exactly what I mean. You are grasping at straws. It's, well, stupid. Really stupid. The following also bears no relation to reality: I don't know why you think I am going to treat a rant like that seriously.
As far as the war being a good idea, the answer is: it was and remains an excellent idea. It's wonderful to depose murderous thugs when you can. It's wonderful to create democracy in replace of tyranny. And as far as the intelligence goes: it was and is remarkably accurate intelligence about a Stalinist regime. Remember how we got the intelligence wrong with the original Stalinist regime? We thought he wasn't developing nukes.
So I'm sure you think Truman was a horrible failure. His policy of containment was a massive failure! Look at the useless loss of life in Korea. The South Korean dictatorship lasted for decades! How could we support such a corrupt government.... Ara, if you look honestly at the criticisms you are making of Bush and the criticisms the Republicans made of Roosevelt and Truman you will find that you are acting like the Republicans who accused Roosevelt of knowing about Pearl Harbor.
Yours,
Wince
Aw, stop whining about being called a whiner. You aren't a whiner, you're a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theoists aren't whiny, they're shrill! (Wink.)
Yours,
WInce
Pam, I live an hour from New Orleans. My mother-in-law's family is fourth generation New Orleanian -- 100 years. What's happened to New Orleans is a shocking nightmare. For you to just blow it off...I don't know.
I don't really want to debate this with you.
Yours,
Wince
And this reveals how little you know about polling. The standard disclosures at the end of polling information provide the estimated level of accuracy of the polling method, and are carefully and accurately calcultaed.
On the other hand, some people just trumpet polls they agree with and discard as "unscientific" ones that don't support their preconceptions. There isn't much science behind that kind of thought process, but it's a fact nevertheless. And shows about the same amount of sense in thinking that the deficit is shrinking when it's actually growing, even when approvingly linking to sites that actually say "growing" instead of "shrinking."
I despair of trying to have reasonable discussions with such people, as they're usually delusional.
Talk about whining, I never could quite "get" the concern with hurting the delicate feelings of courageous warriors trained to kill.
I know it's a real phenomenon, else the vitriol spewed at Kerry would truly be inexplicable. Strange nonetheless, almost thin skinned.
I think pam was referring to this, my own disclaimer, since there was no such disclosure in the linked article:
Of course they are polls, so they are only slightly more accurate than the weatherman and slightly less accurate than military intelligence, and public opinion changes almost as fast as the weather....
Polls are very good at predicting election results within the next twenty-four hours. This is only slightly more accurate than the weatherman. But generally public opinion polls suffer from very well known problems such as question selection with which I'm sure you are familiar. And those problems very frequently render particular polls, well, unscientific, regardless of the equally well known scientific principles behind the practice of polling.
I don't know whether the poll I'm quoting is well constructed. There were no raw results linked, nor any questions, and I'm hardly qualified to criticize a particular poll as I'm an utterly rank amateur. So Ara, who is better with polls than I am, or Mark, who is just better than I am except when imprisoned within the grip of a conspiracy theory, or even yourself, who also seem to be quite a careful thinker, not to mention Rosemary, who is smarter, pam, Stephen or many others, may come along with a link to the raw data and an analysis which shows the poll is seriously flawed. Thus, the disclaimer.
Yours,
Wince
If I recall, the exit polls were a case where the people who weren't the scientists took the raw data and failed to apply the science correctly. Hope and science are like oil and water. But generally your personal position that polls should be taken with a big hunk of salt strikes me as wise as long as you can apply it even when the polls match your hopes. The poll you cite shows that Americans are not happy with any of the politicians who are running our government.
Since I am furious at the politicians who are running our government, I can relate.
Yours,
Wince
If a poll is to be taken to reflect the feelings of the country, then 20 people from all 50 states should be polled, based on a poll of 1000 people. And those 20 people should come from different cities within the state.
Yeah, the glitch was, contrary to Howard Dean's error, that all the people with jobs came home from work and voted for Bush.
I do not take any poll, good, bad or indifferent, with any seriousness.
So...do you eat the entire pot of soup to determine if it doesn't have enough (or too much) oregano?
P.S. That looks like a good link, Pam. Have you read it? Do you understand what they're saying?
Bush is the best game in town and scored better than anyone. Hell he got a 34 to the 25 that the democrats earned.
Ain't that something?
Here's a question for you: when polled, what do people say about their own Congressmen/Senators?
In other words, we know that "Democrats in Congress" has an approval rating of 25% (and Republicans scored a couple of points higher), but what about the approval rating for YOUR OWN Congressman?
What do the polls say there?
I think you'll find that most Congressmen/Senators across the country are rated quite a bit higher than a 25% (or 27% or 34%) approval rating.
How could this be? It's simple: my Congressman is fine -- it's all the rest of them that are jerks.
Pam, wrap your head around this fact: with very, very, very few exceptions, no individual congressman/senator has an approval rating below 34%. I guarantee it.
We know this is true because 95% of congressmen get relected when the time comes.
So...Bush's approval rating of 34% puts him near (or at) the bottom of the stack for all Federal officials. Pretty bad, ain't it?
P.S. While I don't put much stock in it, the "generic Congressional ballot" recently showed that 54% of respondents planned on voting for the Democrat while only 36% planned on voting for the Republican. Things can change in 12 months, but that tells you a lot doesn't it?
This is why I do not put stock in polls. You pointed it out very nicely.
It's simple, Pam — both polls are correct. On one hand, people don't hold Congress in high regard, and/but on the other hand they looooooove their own Congressman.
Not so hard to understand.
There are plenty of polls that measure approval ratings of individual Governors, Senators and Congressmen on a state-by-state basis. I believe that Survey USA has been (and will be) doing this sort of polling on a monthly basis between now and November 2006.
My point is that very, very, very few of these individuals are seeing the kind of approval/disapproval numbers now being experienced by the President and Vice President.
Gov. Taft of Ohio is one; Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania is another. There might be a few others, but their names escape me at the moment. I'll try to remember to copy the links the next time SUSA's poll comes out.
their Congress people are working with a group of other Congress people as a tem. It looks like the team is failing based on the poll results.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm simply comparing apples and apples: individual approval ratings of Congress people vs. individual approval ratings of President and Vice President.
The President lands at the bottom of the heap.
And since you can not site the approval rating for each member of the Congress and each member of the Senate, you are assuming that as an individual, the POTUS is at the bottom. How scientic is that?
Pay attention -- please go back to read my prior posts. I've already gone over this once.
You've misunderstood everything I said.
I brought the link up for your benefit. You might try reading it.
I guess you don't cook.
You had no idea how true that was did you? No ara, I really don't. But I married someone that does. (I can bake though, but you can't eat cakes and cookies for dinner)
You had no idea how true that was did you?
Just call it an educated guess. A hunch, if you will...
:^)
Do me a favor -- please ask your husband the question I asked you: "Do you have to eat the entire pot of soup in order to know that it has too much oregano?" It goes directly to the question of scientific validity of polling.
Thanks.
Nice blog, by the way.
Ara loves polls. (Is it because they predict the future, or is it because they allow you to keep score, Ara?) I would be careful arguing baseball with a guy who keeps putting up box scores on his blog. Ara puts lots of poll results up on his. I avoid arguing hockey with Ara for similar reasons. Now, if I were a dyed in the wool hockey fan it would be different....
I haven't figured out what it isn't wise to argue with you about yet....
Ara's also right about your blog.
Yours,
Wince
It isn't that I "love polls." It's because I respect research.
For example: before you go into business you need to be a student of markets. You need to know where the money is being spent, you need to talk to customers. You need to be able to anticipate what might win and what might lose.
You need to do research.
Now, a lot of politicians claim they don't read polls. I suppose they do this to prove how resolute they are, or as a way of showing how brave they are, or what a great leader they are. Usually, these politicians also say they don't read newspapers, or magazines, or watch TV news. I gather they want us to understand that their inner compass is so magnificently powerful that they don't need to listen to any voices outside their own head. That's not only scary, it's just plain stupid.
More information is better, not worse.
Do you lead by following polls? No, not necessarily. After all, the majority of people believe that we should have free beer and peanuts.
Rather, you use polls in order to get feedback. It's a way of improving your communications with the very people you are sworn to protect.
Are polls perfect? No -- to be blunt, people do lie. Or simply refuse to talk to you.
No, if you want something better than polls, you become an expert in direct mail fund-raising. Now THERE'S a science. If you know what you're doing, you can find out very quickly what potential voters want -- because they're putting their money where their mouth is.
And, kids, do we know who the 20th Century Wizard of Direct Mail Fundraising is? Hint: he is one of the most powerful men in this country today, which is a testament to what I'm talking about.
I'll hang up and wait for your answer.
See what I mean? Not only does Ara love polls, he respects their research in the morning!
Ara,
Very well said, and duly noted in case I ever campaign for anything. I was going to say that I thought that you would use polls, if you were ever to run, as a way to shape your preferred policies to meet your preferred goals so that they would appeal to the largest possible swath of the electorate. Sounds like I wasn't far wrong. As love poems go, though, it's a bit, well prosaic. But not all of us are good at iambic pentameter. Also, most love poems do not allude to Karl Rove - at least I believe he is the wizard in question.
Yours,
Wince
The Wings will win the Cup this year!
Not all polls are equally accurate.
You have the idea about questioning polling methodologies and modeling. Everyone does it differently and not everyone gets it right. That's what separates the wheat from the chaff. After a while, one learns to pay attention to the pollsters that "get it right" year in and year out and disregard the rest.
As for the Wings, I'd love nothing more than to see it happen. Well, actually I might love it more if the Pistons won. But that would be a pretty close call.
That is what the Republicans do. I get this every month in the mail!
Fact is, the best direct mail gurus are Republicans -- they've been at it the longest and they really know how to make it sing.
Wince:
you would use polls, if you were ever to run, as a way to shape your preferred policies to meet your preferred goals so that they would appeal to the largest possible swath of the electorate.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps I would use polls in a vice-versa manner, to find where I might be able to shape public opinion in my favor. I can't say.
Of course, if I ever decide to personally run for public office, you hereby have my permission to take me out behind the barn and shoot me before I have a chance to officially declare my candidacy.
IJS.
P.S. Yes, Rove is the Wizard (and one of the most powerful men in the country because of it), but don't tell Shep. He got it wrong on his first guess. He picked Richard Viguerie who is a wizard, but not nearly as powerful as Rove.
But then again, hardly anyone is.