McCain’s Hypocritical and Shameful Use of his Military Record to Deflect Legitimate Discussion

Sometimes it’s best just to say what’s on your mind. I’m sure that Barack Obama, if he were aware of what I have to say here, would be the first person to criticize me for it. Whether that would be for political reasons or because he truly objects to what I have to say is something that I cannot know. That’s fine. I wouldn’t want the Obama campaign to say these things. But these things need to be discussed.

The utter hypocrisy with which John McCain and his campaign makes use his military record for political purposes, and the hero worship with which our corporate news media honors that record is astounding and sickening. Comparison with the utter disdain with which they treated John Kerry’s military record in 2004 and Al Gore’s military record in 2000 is stark.

The American people should consider a few things:

The hypocritical outrage over General Clark’s remarks on McCain’s fitness to be President

The false outrage over Wesley Clark’s comments on McCain’s military service is absurd. Let’s first consider a few of those stupid remarks:

McCain: "I think it’s up to Senator Obama now, not only to repudiate him but to cut him loose"

McCain campaign chairman Rick Davis: “I think you have to question why the Barack Obama campaign would place Wesley Clark on that show as an official surrogate of their campaign with an understanding that he is likely to talk in this fashion about John McCain's service to our country.”

McCain spokesman Bryan Rogers: “It would be good if (Obama) would condemn those remarks… it’s been clear over time now… his words really don’t match up with the reality of how he’s run his campaign.”

Republican Senator John Warner: said to be “utterly shocked” at how Clark talked “in a disrespectful way” to “attack a fellow career officer.”

Ok, let’s get some things straight here. First of all, General Clark did not denigrate McCain’s war time service nor speak of him in a “disrespectful” manner or attack him, and he said nothing that was the least bit untrue. What he said about McCain’s military service was “I certainly honor his military service as a prisoner of war… He was a hero to me…” That’s about it. Anyone who can twist that into an attack or disrespect is being highly disingenuous.

He did say that getting shot out of a fighter plane is not a qualification to be President. He did not say that out of the blue. The context in which he said it was in response to Bob Schaeffer on “Face the Nation”, when Schaeffer, commenting on Obama, said “Nor has he (Obama) ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.” Clark answered that irrelevant comment of Schaeffer’s by stating the obvious – that getting shot out of a fighter plane is not a qualification to be President. An incredulous sounding Schaeffer interrupted him at that point, saying “REALLY?!!!”

One could honestly disagree with Clark’s comments that McCain’s military experiences do not qualify him to be President. But to repeatedly express outrage over them and claim they are disrespectful and constitute an attack on McCain is absurd and hypocritical in the extreme.

And furthermore, Clark was not speaking for the Obama campaign when he made those remarks. Obama has made clear how he stands on the issue of McCain’s military service when he said “No one should ever devalue that service.” Enough said about that.

McCain’s denigration of Obama for “Not serving in uniform”

Of all the hypocritical and obnoxious statements that McCain has made – and there are plenty of them – his denigrating of Barack Obama for not serving in the military, for the purpose of avoiding hard questions about his own positions on veterans’ benefits, is the most disgusting, in my opinion.

A few weeks ago, Obama criticized McCain’s opposition to Jim Webb’s GI bill, which had just passed in the Senate by a 75-22 vote, saying “I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can't understand why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue.”

Whatever one’s stance on Webb’s GI bill, no reasonable person could argue that Obama statement was not a legitimate issue to bring up in this campaign. John McCain has consistently voted against benefits for veterans, just as Obama has consistently voted for them. Those votes certainly are relevant to any consideration of how McCain would act as President.

Yet, rather than responding to the substance of Obama’s criticism, McCain avoided that by playing his military service card, as he has so many times in the past:

Republican John McCain said Thursday that Democrat Barack Obama had no right to criticize McCain's position on military scholarships because the Illinois senator did not serve in uniform.

"And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," the Arizona senator said in a harshly worded statement issued Thursday.

Well, let me tell you something John. Serving in the military is not the only way to serve our country. No, it was not Obama’s responsibility to “serve our country in uniform”. As a young man, prior to attending law school, he worked for three years as a community organizer with a church-based group in poor neighborhoods. Many would argue (including me) that that was a more valuable service to our country than your participation in a war that is now largely recognized as one of the worst mistakes in our nation’s history.

McCain’s hypocritical use of his military record to immunize himself against scrutiny

McCain’s statement that Obama should repudiate and “cut (Wesley Clark) loose” for the comments that Clark made about McCain’s military experience not qualifying him to be President is so typical of McCain. Clark had every right to state his opinion that McCain’s military experience doesn’t qualify him for the presidency. McCain has the right to answer that statement and explain to the American people why he believes his military experience is relevant to his qualifications for the presidency. But if he wants to make that point honestly, it would behoove him to answer questions about his record in the U.S. Senate with substantive answers rather than with the absurd claim that nobody has the right to ask him those questions.

His contention that Barack Obama has no right to discuss issues relating to veterans’ affairs because he has not served in the U.S. military is absurd. No candidate for President of the United States has ever had personal experience in all matters that s/he would be responsible for if elected President. Yet, all presidential candidates are expected to be knowledgeable and have opinions on these issues. McCain’s denigration of Obama on this matter represents no more than a cynical attempt by him to avoid answering hard and legitimate questions about his record in the U.S. Senate.

And it isn’t only in response to Obama or his supporters that McCain does things like this. In a recent response to a reporter who dared to enter upon the sacred issue of McCain’s military experience, David Wright notes:

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency. "Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

But Wright’s question was perfectly legitimate, as Jon Soltz, co-founder and Chair of VoteVets.org, explains:

It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always – always – get the same first question: “What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress?”

It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it. As veterans of the current conflicts, they have a unique perspective on the wars that should be part of the debate on the floor of Congress, and a vote that helps shapes our security policy.

Clearly, John McCain doesn’t feel that it’s a legitimate question. But it’s funny how differently he felt about this issue when John Kerry ran for President in 2004:

During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief." McCain said, "Absolutely not. History shows that some of our greatest leaders have had little or no military experience… It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary.”

McCain’s excessive and hypocritical dwelling on his military record

McCain pretends that he’s too humble to bring his military record into his political campaigns. He has said:

One of the things I’ve never tried to do is exploit my Vietnam service to my country because it would be totally inappropriate to do so.

Yet, as David Brock and Paul Waldman explain in their book, “Free Ride – John McCain and the Media”:

Yet, from the very beginning of his political career, McCain has known just when to pull out his POW history for maximum effect.

Brock and Waldman go on to cite several pages of examples of how McCain has done this. One example is from McCain’s first Congressional race, when McCain responded to an accusation of carpetbagging by saying “As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi”. After relating numerous similar examples, Brock and Waldman sum up the press reaction with this observation:

What is striking is that reporters continue to insist on McCain’s reticence when it comes to the topic, echoing the same dishonest assertion McCain makes.

The swiftboating of John Kerry

The vigorous national news media coverage of the phony challenges to John Kerry’s service record in Vietnam, right before the 2004 election, provides a striking contrast to the fake outrage against any questioning of the relevancy of John McCain’s military service to his qualifications for the presidency. Not only did our corporate news media not consider Kerry’s heroic military service to qualify him for the presidency, but they gave volumes of press coverage to completely unsubstantiated lies about Kerry’s Vietnam War record, which included three Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.

Despite the fact that all official documents substantiated Kerry’s heroism, the fact that all of the crew members who served with Kerry and the man whose life he saved corroborated those official accounts, and despite all of the inconsistencies in the undocumented stories of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”, the national news media treated the accusations of the “Swifties” very seriously in the months before the 2004 election.

Eric Boehlert, in his book “Lapdogs – How the Press Rolled Over for Bush”, describes how this was done: CNN mentioned the stories in almost 300 news segments. The New York Times printed more than 100 articles on the subject. And the Washington Post ran 12 front page stories on the accusations of the Swifties during a 12 day period in August 2004.

An example of the hypocrisy with which the national news media lent legitimacy to the story is provided by an episode of Meet the Press, where Tim Russert innocently asked a guest, “If the substance of many of the charges from “Unfit for Command” (the book that John O’Neill used to assassinate Kerry’s war record) aren’t holding up… why is it resonating so much?” Duh, Tim. It’s resonating because media whores like you keep talking about it as if it was a legitimate story, without discussing the numerous holes in it.

How John McCain’s military service does or does not qualify him for the Presidency

Like any other experience, the question of how John McCain’s military experience qualifies him for the U.S. Presidency is not simply a matter of the experience itself, but what he learned from the experience.

The Vietnam War was a great national mistake. Robert S. McNamara, the U.S. Secretary of Defense during that war, learned from his mistakes. In his book about the Vietnam War, “Argument without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy”, he explains that:

The United States Government could have "won" the war, only if genocide is winning or risking all-out nuclear war is winning. In other words, McNamara does not hide that the military killed 3.8 million Vietnamese, lost 58,000 Americans and still did not persuade the Vietnamese people of the U.S. imperialist way of life.

John Kerry also learned a lesson from the Vietnam War, as shown by the anti-war protests he led upon his return and by the efforts he led to develop a plan for withdrawal from our current war.

But John McCain learned little or nothing of importance from his Vietnam War experience, except how to use his war record for political purposes.

The fact is that John McCain is a war monger who has little respect for international law, or for the lives that his country destroys in pursuit of their imperialistic aims.

That is evident in his persistent and unstinting support for George Bush’s war, as when he proclaimed that “No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.”

It is evident when he acknowledges that he believes that gaining control over another country’s oil is a legitimate reason for war, as when he says:

My friends, I will have an energy policy… which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will… prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

It is evident when he says that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years.

And it is evident when he makes jokes by singing about bombing Iran, and when he tries to set the stage for a war against Iran by lying about Iran harboring al Qaeda, despite being corrected about that lie several times.

In summary, John McCain is not the least bit hesitant to invoke his war record to deflect a multitude of legitimate questions about him. That should be unacceptable to the American people. McCain should be willing to honestly answer questions about his woeful and consistent lack of support for veterans’ benefits, his unstinting support for imperialistic wars, and how his war experience qualifies him to be President. These are all legitimate issues that should rightfully be explored during this Presidential campaign.

Last night I watched a clip of him on MTP with Russert. They were talking about heath care. Russert pointed out that McSame has had government health care his whole life. McSame told him to look at how other countries' heath care is mess. Then he had to point out the fact that he had another country's health care for 5 years.

He can't even talk about his health care plan without bringing up the fact that he was a POW. He has nothing else.

fooled by him, versus to what extent they're consciously trying to throw the election to him by not calling him on this crap.

they love him :loveya:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/alterman

"But even though we might be taken with McCain personally, we would like to think that we would resist the urge to offer the sort of spontaneous testimonials to his character that have gushed from the pens of so many MSM journalists. These would include calling McCain "a cool dude" (Jake Tapper, Salon); "an original, imaginative, and at times inspiring candidate" (Jacob Weisberg, Slate); "a man of unshakable character, willing to stand up for his convictions" (the late R.W. Apple Jr., New York Times); "a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage" (Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek); "blunt, unyielding, deploying his principles.... What he does do is what he's always done, play it as straight as possible.... The maverick candidate still" (Terry Moran, ABC News's Nightline); "worldly-wise and witty, determined to follow the facts to the exclusion of ideology...willing to defy his own party and forge compromise...pragmatic in the service of the national interest...rises to passion when he believes that America's best values are at stake" (Michael Hirsch, Newsweek); "kind of like a Martin Luther" (Chris Matthews, MSNBC's Hardball); "the perfect candidate to deal with what challenges we face as a country" (Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC's Morning Joe); "rises above the pack...eloquent, as only a prisoner of war can be" (David Nyhan, Boston Globe); "the bravest candidate in the presidential race" (Dana Milbank, Washington Post); "an affable man of zealous, unbending beliefs" and "the hero still does things his own way" (Richard Cohen, Washington Post); and who, in "an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties...is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest" (David Broder, Washington Post).

Believe us, we could go on (and on and on...). Suffice it to say that no candidate since John F. Kennedy, and perhaps none since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has enjoyed such cozy relations with the press."

Without help from the press, Obama would win by 20 percent. The corporate media is trying to make it a closer race, but so far they're not succeeding.

I'm glad his background is coming to the foreground. He's a lying piece of shit and is unfit to serve.

That’s another thing. There needs to be a lot more discussion of his many ties to lobbyists and the many favors that he’s done for them, at the public’s expense.

I know it all comes out in the wash. I hope it comes out in the next couple of months though.

The MSM hasn't mentioned the Keating 5 very much, if at all (at least when I've watched network news programming).

'reporting for duty' salutes at the repuke convention!

down? What in that experience qualifies him to become Pres.?

Plus his role in the Forrestal fire. I can’t say that I understand it all, but McCain certainly doesn’t seem to have been a very good pilot:

http://judicial-inc.biz/82jjohn_mccain_and_the_uss_forr...

we’d have literally millions of people in our country qualified to be president. And I can tell you that George W. Bush would not have been among the top 270 million applicants for the job in our country.

Certainly McCain’s Congressional experience is a lot more relevant than his military experience. But I think that judgment is a lot more important that experience. The man with more experience than almost anyone in our country is George W. Bush. Some people, including Bush and McCain, wouldn’t be any good, no matter how much experience they had.

Can you all imagine if John Kerry had demolished that many jets, along with almost taking out a Naval ship???

And yet... there is NOTHING reported about this by the corporate MSM, so a lot of people don't even know about it.

Republicans are most afraid of. The Republicans can't compete against logic or reason and they know it. Therefore, they must turn the discussion in to an emotional issue, ie; fear, anger or patriotism; aka nationalism.

This is what all the false outrage as you so aptly stated is about, this is their "tempest in a teapot" attempt at stirring up emotions to overrule logic or reason.

In a way they used the same strategy in 2000 by appealing to the American People's emotion to overrule their reason, only in reverse. Terrorism was never brought up during the debates except when Al Gore mentioned it. The Republicans and their corporate media propaganda machine wanted the people to be complacent, feeling safe, this is why the question of "Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" carried such prominence. They knew by using logic or reason, that is the candidate's achievements, and experience in government, Al Gore was imminently better qualified than Bush to be President. The only way the corporate media could counter this was to create an emotional feeling of distrust in Al Gore's stellar record by smearing his credibility, that's what the continuous slander and libel they used against him of "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet was all about".

They did the same thing to Kerry by creating feelings of distrust regarding his military record because it suited the corporate media's agenda.

Now with McCain, just the mere fact of military service is sacrosanct, because it suits the corporate media agenda. Anyone using logic or reason as General Clark did in his statement scares the corporate media poo out of them, because the corporate media's propaganda is most effective when based on emotion and that's where they want to keep the discussion only so long as the emotions engendered further the corporate media cause.

I believe the primary lesson, people should take from all this is, the corporate media doesn't represent the American People, they represent corporations in general and their master corporations in primary, any representation of the American People's interest, if it occurs is just a necessary evil for them.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

I tend to think of it in the simple terms that the corporate media is manipulating the American people with fear. But the corporate media itself is probably also driven by fear -- of anything that threatens to cut into their power.

I remember that when Clark ran for President in 2004 many (including me) considered him a likely bet to get the nomination -- and the Presidency. But the corporate media targeted him from the very beginning. I remember Tim Russert going after him like a pit bull, trying to get him to disavow Michael Moore's support of him.

And most people think of Russert as a serious journalist :rofl:

nomination. At no time was Clark ever a threat.

My feelings exactly -- Thank you for presenting them for me. :toast:

Glad you liked it.

And welcome to DU Rocky. :toast:

McCain & the emperor's media got nothin'..., except each other.

The man is phony as a three dollar bill, and we should call his bluff. Hear that Democrats? Obama can "stay above the fray"..., everyone else: grow a spine! The issue of veteran's benefits alone would alienate 75% of the population from the phony flag wavers.

There were some excellent points about General Clark today, in a thread by Tom Rinaldo. (The thread had a somewhat unfortunate title, but it didn't sink it). I think folks would do well to consider them, in addition to your thesis.

feel that McLame is more qualified to be CIC & more patriotic than Sen. Obama.

These are the main reasons that McLame's Navy record needs to be front and center. His Navy career was mediocre, at best. His POW status has to be left out of the discussion. That will only bring a backlash. McLame's claim that he would be a better Pres. than Sen. Obama must be challenged. McLame would be an extension of GW Bush & maybe even worse.

John McCain embraces GW Bush & his failed policies.

The short list

Iraq,

Top end tax cuts

Privatization of Social Security

Unraveling employer based health care,

Cuban embargo.

Illegal Spying on Americans

Busholini Policy of Torture

Veto of new GI Bill

Offshore oil drilling

Denying Habeous Corpus

and then arrogantly claim to be immune from even discussing the issue when Obama criticizes him.

I too liked a lot of what Tom Rinaldo had to say about the Clark issue. It makes me sad when Dems turn their backs on someone like him, who has such important things to say. I was planning on voting for him in 2004, but he dropped out of the race before the MD primary.

"Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11",
"Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11",
"Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11", "Vietnam" "9/11" ...

They would love to have Jeb but the Bush name is shit now.

He hardly learned anything cept prison life....a 6 year intellect void....and I don see signs of him catching up.

What books has he read?

What subjects can he speak on?

What tools does he own and use?

What are his Hobbies?

McCain's conduct as a POW was highly questionable. That's what this is all about -- an effort to head the real questions off at the pass.

McCain, even by his own account, collaborated with the enemy. He says he made one propaganda video; others (US Senate staff) say he made 30. He signed a statement in which he referred to himself as a "black air pirate." That's more than name, rank and serial number. There's much more, and that's what the McCain campaign is afraid of -- that it will all come out. If he loses his reputation as a war hero, and instead is viewed as a war collaborator, he loses the only strategic advantage he has.

That's why these counter-attacks have been so vicious. There's a lot at stake, for him.

And that's why the Dems have to step up the attacks. Get to the core of it. Require him to release his full military record. The people have a right to know.

McCain's conduct as a POW may have been questionable, but I've had very little success in finding solid information on that. Apparently, even the most ardent Democratic journalists seem willing to concede that McCain did refuse early release as a POW, in loyalty to other prisoners there. I don't think I would question that unless I had pretty solid evidence. As far as cooperating with the enemy in the making of propaganda filsm, there are very few people who could refuse to do that under torture.

I think that it is enough to point out, as Clark did, that his experiences in Vietnam do not qualify him to be President. More important, they certainly should not immunize him for arrogantly refusing to answer tough questions about his record in the U.S. Senate, especially his woeful record in voting against veterans' benefits. That is information which is 100% solid. Make him try to explain that.

a 527 group just like the Swiftboaters should write a book and start an ad campaign going after him so the media CAN'T ignore it. Do I approve of those tactics? Not before 2004. But given they did it to Sen. Kerry (and using lies no less), and that the Repukes are going to stop at nothing, including character assassination, I say go for it. Find a why to make it front and center so he has no choice but to confront it. I'd also like to see Gen. Clark's valor and bravery made known to the masses, although he seems to not want it to be.

Your post is very well put together and documented. I have been saying for months that we need to make John McCain's war record a liability instead of allowing him to frame the debate and claim he is a hero. John McCain should be framed as a victim of torture who is now broken an unstable because that is the absolute truth of the matter.

There are a great many liabilities that McCain has, if only our corporate news media would explore them and speak about them. Fortunately, most Americans seem to have seen through him on their own:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

His life and career epitomize the crisis and decline of our country.

It's even worse.	justgamma	Jul-04-08 01:20 PM	#1
Jesus! One has to wonder to what extent our corporate news media actually like him and are	Time for change	Jul-04-08 03:38 PM	#3
they don't like him	hfojvt	Jul-05-08 03:35 AM	#18
That article makes a lot of similar points to those made in David Brock's book	Time for change	Jul-05-08 07:44 AM	#22
McCain is running on his broken wing and hasn't done shit since Viet Nam except swindle the public.	Metta	Jul-04-08 01:50 PM	#2
Swindling the public	Time for change	Jul-05-08 02:45 AM	#17
Absolutely right.	Metta	Jul-05-08 11:07 AM	#26
Don't forget about his involement with the Keating 5. eom	Fla Dem	Jul-05-08 11:58 AM	#28
I was just thinking the same thing...	addreamgirl	Jul-05-08 04:09 PM	#33
Next thing we know, He'll be doing one of those	deaniac21	Jul-04-08 03:43 PM	#4
What was McLame's Navy record before his plane was shot	Disturbed	Jul-04-08 04:07 PM	#5
By his standards then, Jessica Lynch is over qualified to be president.	Riddler	Jul-04-08 04:15 PM	#6
I guess so is Captain James Yee...	ColbertWatcher	Jul-04-08 04:30 PM	#9
I believe he crashed at least 4 other planes. n/t	ColbertWatcher	Jul-04-08 04:28 PM	#8
This article says 5 planes.	Time for change	Jul-05-08 08:34 AM	#23
If McCain’s experience in the military qualified him to be president	Time for change	Jul-05-08 10:15 AM	#24
Here's another link...	addreamgirl	Jul-05-08 04:15 PM	#34
General Clark used nothing but logic or reason in his statement, and this is what the	Uncle Joe	Jul-04-08 04:26 PM	#7
You nailed it Uncle Joe	Time for change	Jul-04-08 11:29 PM	#14
I think most people felt that John Dean would get the	deaniac21	Jul-05-08 08:29 PM	#36
Beautifully presented	Rocky2007	Jul-04-08 05:46 PM	#10
Thank you	Time for change	Jul-04-08 08:30 PM	#11
Perfectly laid out...	Psyop Samurai	Jul-04-08 09:41 PM	#12
Mainly because of the US Corp Media most Americans	Disturbed	Jul-04-08 10:24 PM	#13
Here are some discussion points on some of those issues:	Time for change	Jul-05-08 10:57 AM	#25
Thank you – Yeah, I just don’t see how he can get away with voting against veterans’ benefits	Time for change	Jul-05-08 12:57 AM	#16
Imagine if he picks Giuliani as his VP	aint_no_life_nowhere	Jul-05-08 12:11 AM	#15
The Bush Crime family wants Romney as VP.	Disturbed	Jul-05-08 04:02 AM	#20
OK, so he spent 6 years in Hanoi....no books. radio, TV, Library, newspapers,etc	opihimoimoi	Jul-05-08 03:59 AM	#19
Gen Clark didn't go far enough	jeanpalmer	Jul-05-08 04:05 AM	#21
I don't know about that.	Time for change	Jul-05-08 12:54 PM	#30
Sounds to me like...	ImForGore	Jul-05-08 01:30 PM	#31
Great Post!	kpominville	Jul-05-08 11:41 AM	#27
Thank you.	Time for change	Jul-05-08 12:48 PM	#29
McCain is a failed warrior	mix	Jul-05-08 02:41 PM	#32
it's the repug thing to do.	samsingh	Jul-05-08 04:57 PM	#35