PDA

View Full Version : A VETERAN"S COMMENTS


hort1
April 21st, 2004, 1:48pm
This popped up in my e-mail box today. Not sure if I agree with everything here or not, but figured I would post it. Sorry for the length.
Feel free to light it up, y'all.

_______________________________________________________

Some Dare Call It Treason-Wake Up America!
by Dr. Robert Bowman, USAF Ret.

I am a member of Veterans For Peace, an organization of thousands of combat veterans. All of us have put our life on the line for this country.
Most of us opposed the recent invasion of Iraq. We also opposed the first Gulf War, and the sanctions that followed. We opposed the slaughter
of fleeing Iraqis on the Road to Basra. We opposed the use of Depleted Uranium munitions. And we opposed the lies upon which the first
Gulf War was based. But there was one good thing about that first Gulf War. It ended. And without a wholesale invasion of Iraq. Why?

Here’s what the first President Bush wrote about that in his memoirs:

“Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.
We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another
of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international
response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

My brothers and sisters, it is just too darn bad his son can’t read!

I’ve been severely criticized for speaking out in opposition to this war. So have you, probably. We’re told that we’re aiding and abetting
the enemy. We’re told that we should support the president no matter what. We’re told that patriotism demands that we support the war.
They say that we’re abusing the freedoms that our troops are in the Middle East defending. They say we should be ashamed to be
protesting while the troops are in the desert protecting our right to do so.

Well I say, Hogwash!

I feel an affinity for the troops over there in Iraq. They are my comrades in arms. I admire their sense of honor and sacrifice. I understand
why some of them believe they should be there. They have neither the experience nor the wisdom to see past the lies they have been told.
The truth is, they are not over there protecting our freedoms. Our freedoms are not under attack from Saddam Hussein or the remnants
of his Baathist party. Our freedoms are under attack by John Ashcroft. They are threatened by John Poindexter. They are trampled by
Donald Rumsfeld. They are disdained by Dick Cheney. And they are not even understood by George W. Bush. The battle to preserve
our freedoms is not taking place in Baghdad and Tikrit. It is taking place in Central Park in New York City, in Lafayette Park in
Washington DC, in Ghirardelli Park in San Francisco, and in River Front Park in Melbourne, Florida. The front lines go right down
US 1 and up New Haven Avenue.

It is we, here at home, who are the foot soldiers battling to preserve our cherished freedoms by exercising them, in spite of opposition
and ridicule. It is we who protect our civil rights through speaking out. We are the Minutemen sounding the alarm against tyranny. We are
upholding the spirit of the American Revolution. We are preserving the freedoms that the troops in the desert have a right to come back to.
The troops getting shot at in Iraq are not protecting us. We are protecting them, and their honor and their freedoms. We have just completed
a forced march through hostile territory to defend their freedoms and ours, and the ideals America was founded on. We are protecting this
nation by speaking truth to power. Let us do it loudly and fearlessly and courageously and joyfully, for we are the true patriots!

Here is the truth that we proclaim. This war has nothing to do with national security or freedom or democracy or human rights or protecting
our allies or weapons of mass destruction or defeating terrorism or disarming Iraq. It has to do with money. It has to do with oil. And it has
to do with raw imperial power. It is based on a pack of lies. And it is wrong. Those who forced this war on an unwilling world are guilty of
flagrantly violating the U.S. Constitution, the UN Charter, and international law. What they have done is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional
and TREASON.

It’s been said that somewhere in Texas there is a village looking for their idiot. Now that may be funny, but it misses the point. George W. Bush
is not an imbecile. He is a TRAITOR.

Before this war started, we knew it would fracture NATO, split the United Nations, separate us from our allies, and destroy the great nation
we inherited from our fathers who died in World War II. And it has. We knew it would make our beloved country feared and hated, an
outcast from the world community, a pariah among the peoples, and the number one rogue nation on earth. And it has. It has done so based
on a pack of lies. My sisters and brothers, that is not stupidity. That is TREASON.

We knew this sadistic corporate war would incense the Arab world, provide thousands of new Osama bin Ladens, and enormously increase
the terrorist threat. And it has. We knew it would further endanger the American people and destroy our national security. And it has.
That is not stupidity, it is TREASON.

The cabal of neoconservatives at PNAC who planned this war (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, Jeb Bush) even before W
became president, knew the American people would not stand for it unless there was a new Pearl Harbor. 9/11 supplied that. Our government
was warned. They were warned by the Clinton Administration. They were warned by 11 other countries. And they were specifically warned
by an FBI agent that one of them was planning on flying a hijacked airliner into the World Trade Center.

They not only ignored the warnings, they made sure no fighter jets were scrambled to stop it. If they had just done nothing, and allowed normal
procedures to be followed, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. This is not stupidity,
it is TREASON.

As a combat veteran, I will not stand idly by and watch our security destroyed by a president who went AWOL rather than fight in Vietnam.
Honor requires that I call this by its right name. It is TREASON.

As one who has devoted his life to the security of this country, I will not stand by and watch an appointed president send our sons and daughters
around the world to kill Arabs for the oil companies without calling it by its right name. It is TREASON.

I joined the Air Force to protect our borders and our people, not the financial interests of Folgers, Chiquita Banana, and Exxon. We’ve had
enough corporate wars. No more Iraqs. No more El Salvadors. No more Kosovos. No more Colombias. These are not isolated incidents
of stupidity. They are part of a long, bloody history of foreign policy being conducted for the financial benefit of the wealthy few. It is a new
colonialism. It violates our Constitution. It endangers our people. And it is TREASON.

As a pilot who flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, I can tell you that the best thing our government can do for its combat veterans is to
quit making more of them. Peace is patriotic; a preemptive war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, a war crime, and TREASON. I swore to
uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That includes a renegade president. Wake up, America!
It is time for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the whole oil mafia to be removed from office and indicted for TREASON.

We are the people. We are sovereign. We are the patriots. The whole world is with us. Never allow anyone to intimidate you into silence.
Wake up, America! It’s time to speak truth to power. God bless America, and God save us from the traitors in our government.

Dr. Robert Bowman was a Col. in the USAF and Chief of Technology Assessment under President Jimmy Carter and is a Catholic Bishop
of The Apostolic Society of Franciscan Communities. Web site: www.rmbowman.com. He has been President
of the Institute for Space and Security Studies since 1982. Before that he was Vice-President of Space Communications Company; Manager,
Advanced Space Programs for General Dynamics; and Director, Advanced Space Programs Development for DoD, directing the
“Star Wars” programs.

Defenderofthefaith
April 21st, 2004, 1:51pm
Just goes to show you vets have differing opinions just like the rest of us--isn't America great?

dandylin
April 21st, 2004, 1:57pm
I’ve been severely criticized for speaking out in opposition to this war. So have you, probably. We’re told that we’re aiding and abetting
the enemy. We’re told that we should support the president no matter what. We’re told that patriotism demands that we support the war.
They say that we’re abusing the freedoms that our troops are in the Middle East defending. They say we should be ashamed to be
protesting while the troops are in the desert protecting our right to do so.

Well I say, Hogwash!

I feel an affinity for the troops over there in Iraq. They are my comrades in arms. I admire their sense of honor and sacrifice. I understand
why some of them believe they should be there. They have neither the experience nor the wisdom to see past the lies they have been told.
The truth is, they are not over there protecting our freedoms. Our freedoms are not under attack from Saddam Hussein or the remnants
of his Baathist party. Our freedoms are under attack by John Ashcroft. They are threatened by John Poindexter. They are trampled by
Donald Rumsfeld. They are disdained by Dick Cheney. And they are not even understood by George W. Bush. The battle to preserve
our freedoms is not taking place in Baghdad and Tikrit. It is taking place in Central Park in New York City, in Lafayette Park in
Washington DC, in Ghirardelli Park in San Francisco, and in River Front Park in Melbourne, Florida. The front lines go right down
US 1 and up New Haven Avenue.

Thanks for the post, I especially enjoyed these couple of paragraphs.

Hills333
April 21st, 2004, 4:56pm
I think this stance takes a pretty balck and white view of two things. National security and finiancial security. The war may be financially motivated more than anyone in Washington DC will admit. I will agree with that completely. It would be political suicide for anyone to stand up and say "we are attacking Iraq to confiscate all their oil reserves for ourselves". I do not beleive that is the case anyway. We would not confiscate it for ourselves because that too would not be in our best national security interests.
For a military person to say they signed up to defend the borders and the people, that person must not have ever been shown the bigger picture. The borders are not lines on a map between the US, Canada and Mexico. The people are not just US born and naturalized citizens.
Financial security is a MAJOR part of national security. That includes the oil reserves. Without the oil flow our gas prices go through the roof. The people all start complaining. Jobs get cut. Less money flows through the economy. People cant afford housing any longer and millions of mortgages go to foreclosure. The government gets blamed for all those problems. It is basic economics.
Stabalizing the middle east and sercuring our position within the region allows us better control over our future.
Is that worth the lives of American soldiers? Yes, because they do not have the same tiny view of what they are accomplishing. They know why they are there and that it is for the long haul. The future will be better thanks to their efforts. they know that. They do not want to die. I was lucky enough not to be killed myself. But, they would go back and do the job again tomorrow if called upon. They would charge right up the hill like the heros that fought wars before them.
They would do it for national secuirty as a whole...not just some little piece of what someone decided to say was national security. The days of building castles with drawbridges and moats ended many hundreds of years ago. There is more to our security as a nation that protecting our borders and we better get used to it really soon.

Txsweeper
April 21st, 2004, 5:20pm
I think this stance takes a pretty balck and white view of two things. National security and finiancial security. The war may be financially motivated more than anyone in Washington DC will admit. I will agree with that completely. It would be political suicide for anyone to stand up and say "we are attacking Iraq to confiscate all their oil reserves for ourselves". I do not beleive that is the case anyway. We would not confiscate it for ourselves because that too would not be in our best national security interests.
For a military person to say they signed up to defend the borders and the people, that person must not have ever been shown the bigger picture. The borders are not lines on a map between the US, Canada and Mexico. The people are not just US born and naturalized citizens.
Financial security is a MAJOR part of national security. That includes the oil reserves. Without the oil flow our gas prices go through the roof. The people all start complaining. Jobs get cut. Less money flows through the economy. People cant afford housing any longer and millions of mortgages go to foreclosure. The government gets blamed for all those problems. It is basic economics.
Stabalizing the middle east and sercuring our position within the region allows us better control over our future.
Is that worth the lives of American soldiers? Yes, because they do not have the same tiny view of what they are accomplishing. They know why they are there and that it is for the long haul. The future will be better thanks to their efforts. they know that. They do not want to die. I was lucky enough not to be killed myself. But, they would go back and do the job again tomorrow if called upon. They would charge right up the hill like the heros that fought wars before them.
They would do it for national secuirty as a whole...not just some little piece of what someone decided to say was national security. The days of building castles with drawbridges and moats ended many hundreds of years ago. There is more to our security as a nation that protecting our borders and we better get used to it really soon.

Thank you for your insight, it's nice to hear from those who have served our country.

dandylin
April 21st, 2004, 5:36pm
I think this stance takes a pretty balck and white view of two things. National security and finiancial security. The war may be financially motivated more than anyone in Washington DC will admit. I will agree with that completely. It would be political suicide for anyone to stand up and say "we are attacking Iraq to confiscate all their oil reserves for ourselves". I do not beleive that is the case anyway. We would not confiscate it for ourselves because that too would not be in our best national security interests.
For a military person to say they signed up to defend the borders and the people, that person must not have ever been shown the bigger picture. The borders are not lines on a map between the US, Canada and Mexico. The people are not just US born and naturalized citizens.
Financial security is a MAJOR part of national security. That includes the oil reserves. Without the oil flow our gas prices go through the roof. The people all start complaining. Jobs get cut. Less money flows through the economy. People cant afford housing any longer and millions of mortgages go to foreclosure. The government gets blamed for all those problems. It is basic economics.
Stabalizing the middle east and sercuring our position within the region allows us better control over our future.
Is that worth the lives of American soldiers? Yes, because they do not have the same tiny view of what they are accomplishing. They know why they are there and that it is for the long haul. The future will be better thanks to their efforts. they know that. They do not want to die. I was lucky enough not to be killed myself. But, they would go back and do the job again tomorrow if called upon. They would charge right up the hill like the heros that fought wars before them.
They would do it for national secuirty as a whole...not just some little piece of what someone decided to say was national security. The days of building castles with drawbridges and moats ended many hundreds of years ago. There is more to our security as a nation that protecting our borders and we better get used to it really soon.


I'm sorry but I don't think nation building is at anytime a good idea. And the oil reserves are not "ours" to secure. We don't get to go ravage another country because our "financial security" is in question. You need to have more ominous and direct threat to invade another country.

Hills333
April 21st, 2004, 6:41pm
And I too respect your opinions against the war. THAT is what we fight for.
We can have differing opinions and still have a beer on a Friday night. We can argue over politics or sports or who is best on American Idol and still go to work and provide the best living for our families that we can.

MrDave
April 21st, 2004, 6:59pm
It is refreshing to hear someone in the armed forces who understands the freedoms they fight to protect.

It is also refreshing hearing some logical arguments for the truth behind the war. Politics in the US has degraded to such a level that you have to read between the lines to decipher what the truth behind any decision might be.

Hills333
April 21st, 2004, 9:30pm
oops. I was reading back at what I wrote, and need to clarify something.
I did not mean to come across like I was in favor of the war. I must reserve my opinion on that one. I was only trying to explain that it is not a matter of black and white. I was just saying that the real reasons we invaded (as I see them) DO have an effect on our national security.
I can not and will not pretend to know all the facts behind the decisions made in Washington.
What I can say is that diplomacy should be used first, and extensively. I can also say that I do think there is a point where we have to take action, even if there is not an eminent threat to the lives of our citizens.
Did we reach that point with Iraq? That I am unable to make an informed decision on. If I spent less time sweeping and more time studying the situation, perhaps I would make a call on that. Until then, I think we must trust the people that are entrusted with positions to make them.
If we don't agree then we don't elect them to that position. November is coming quick. Use that constitutional right you have to voice your opinion. Nobody can say that ONE vote does not count after the last presidential election. It was too close for people to not get out and vote this time.
As far as the military personnel...I can say that they do not worry about why. They know the reason is sometimes too difficult to explain and that a lot of it depends on hunches and gut feelings of their leaders. The reason for going to war is rarely as concrete as our entrance into WWII. They understand that they are there to do a job. They WILL do that job. They ar ethe best in the world. I am proud of them and glad they are there to protect all our freedoms.
Speaking of WWII. I was in Hiroshima, Japan a few years ago and went to the real ground zero. (I hate when they call the world trade center site ground zero). That city is amazingly preserved and is one big museum. I was shocked to see the Japanese perspective on the war. In one of the museums they explained why it all happened. It said that Japan was drawn into the war by the United States. Needless to say my first reaction was "they are lying and rewriting history". Then I thought about it. Our country has done things that make the rest of the world mad. Perhaps something we were doing in the Pacific at the time made them feel that the threat to their national security was threatened enough to attack Pearl Harbor. They would not be lying then. Just a different perspective on the circumstances.
Much like our invasion and occupation of Iraq?
I do wish that our leaders would stop making up retarded excuses like WMD and terrorists. Just tell the truth and maybe politicians caould gain some respect back.

Hills333
April 21st, 2004, 10:05pm
OK One more thing. I have another theory that may come to fruition some day. We will see. I have only said this out loud once or twice before. I have never heard this theory outside of my own thoughts, which worries me (if something is not talked about it is usually to not bring attention to it). Here goes nothing.

It is possible that the whole war in Iraq is just a preliminary strike. We all know Afghanistan harbored terrorists. We know they are in Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and many other places too.

We had three places in the middle east from which to base troops. Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia is a place where we base our troops (most of them stationed in the middle east) then how are we supposed to go after the terrorists? Our bases there would be vulnerable if we did anything against the Saudi groups. Kuwait and Israel are too small of an area to be effective for large scall warfighting.

So, we need a large area from which to take out terrorists. Let's build bases in Iraq. It is centrally located between Sauid Arabia, Afgahanistan, Iran, Syria. It has a land link to main land Europe through Turkey (good for logistics).

So, do you think we will just leave Iraq? I doubt it. I think we will have bases there for decades. Much like Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. We will use those bases to further our causes (not all of which will be against terrorists I am sure).

From a strictly military stategic standpoint it makes a lot of sense to maintain bases there.
Once again, I am not saying that I support this, but I can see why someone in the Pentagon would be pushing for it.

Mary Beth
April 21st, 2004, 11:23pm
Hills333,

I have a bad feeling about this war in Iraq. I think it's the first of many. I think that the Bush administration (Cheney especially) wants to take over the whole Middle East. I worry that if Bush is elected in 2004, the administration will invade Iran and Syria next. I'm not even sure that the good friends in Saudi Arabia are safe.

All they have to do is claim that there are terrorists in whatever country they want to invade. Saddam wasn't training al Qaeda terrorists, but over 70% of the people in the U.S. believe that because the administration said it so often. That's scary.

Hills333
April 22nd, 2004, 12:57am
It may well be the first of many. In fact, I kind of hope it is. We vowed to take the fight to the terrorists. That is what we should do until the problem ceases and there is no longer a threat to our citizens.
That, as far as I am concerned, is not why we went into Iraq. Now that we have gone to Iraq it could be beneficial to use it in the war against the terrorists.
I think the problem will be that while we are basing ourselves in Iraq we will be getting less and less world wide support for our actions. We will be making the world madder at us and straining even the strongest ties to our allies.
The terrorists are pretty smart. They dont need to attack us now. Blow up trains in Spain and the Spanish will be pissed at the US. No matter what they do or where they do it the ties to the US will be hurt. Is it our fault the trains were blown up? Nope, but we will get the blame. We are the big boys on the block and we awoke and angered the pests. That is what these other countries will beleive.
We really need to rethink our whole foreign policy and try to understand why we are so hated. We mean well...if you buy the face value of the propganda spewed out of Washington
(Republicans and Democrats alike), yet somehow we end up looking like the bad guys.
Is it greed? Is it a sense of self importance? Is it that we think we have the right to stuff our values down everyones throats? I think we think we are way more important than we really are. It is a good think we are the richest and most powerful nation. If we were not somone would probably kick our butts for acting like the spoiled rich kid country.

LastLaugh
April 22nd, 2004, 2:48am
OK One more thing. I have another theory that may come to fruition some day. We will see. I have only said this out loud once or twice before. I have never heard this theory outside of my own thoughts, which worries me (if something is not talked about it is usually to not bring attention to it). Here goes nothing.

It is possible that the whole war in Iraq is just a preliminary strike. We all know Afghanistan harbored terrorists. We know they are in Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and many other places too.

We had three places in the middle east from which to base troops. Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia is a place where we base our troops (most of them stationed in the middle east) then how are we supposed to go after the terrorists? Our bases there would be vulnerable if we did anything against the Saudi groups. Kuwait and Israel are too small of an area to be effective for large scall warfighting.

So, we need a large area from which to take out terrorists. Let's build bases in Iraq. It is centrally located between Sauid Arabia, Afgahanistan, Iran, Syria. It has a land link to main land Europe through Turkey (good for logistics).

So, do you think we will just leave Iraq? I doubt it. I think we will have bases there for decades. Much like Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. We will use those bases to further our causes (not all of which will be against terrorists I am sure).

From a strictly military stategic standpoint it makes a lot of sense to maintain bases there.
Once again, I am not saying that I support this, but I can see why someone in the Pentagon would be pushing for it.
from another Vet -
I can't envision Bush being re-elected. But if he is i highly doubt he will try to establish bases in Iraq long term. From a military standpoint that would be foolhardy. It would just be asking for more U.S. soldiers to be killed needlessly.
Here is why Japan justified war with America - The U.S. was going to cut off supplies of Indonesian steel and also banned sales of scrap steel to Japan. This was done to curtail the japan's expansionist policy that involved invading Manchuria,China and any other part of Asia that they could get away with. Without large supplies of steel japan couldn't keep the war machine going. Japan said that cutting off Indonesia was an act of aggression. that they still claim this truly amazes me. Ah well, they learned it is not good to awaken a sleeping giant.

LastLaugh
April 22nd, 2004, 2:52am
We really need to rethink our whole foreign policy and try to understand why we are so hated.
possibly because we support tyrannical dictators when it is to our benefit? Saddam Hussein comes to mind.

dandylin
April 22nd, 2004, 9:31am
I really wish that the citizens of this country would stop acting as if we are in the middle of an "action/adventure" movie. I don't think that there are many who can distinguish between reality and their idiot boxes. That is what I find the most frightening.

Michael Moore tried to address in his Bowling For Columbine documentary, the reasons behind why Americans are so violent. Without much success, sadly, it defies reason.

Hills333
April 22nd, 2004, 11:41am
[QUOTE=autodafe20]Here is why Japan justified war with AmericaQUOTE]

Thank you. I figured there must have been a reason, just did not know what it was. There perspective is accurate.
Amazing how our country has completely overlooked all that and makes it seem like we were all getting ready to go to our Sunday picnics when all of a sudden bombs started falling.
It is like June Cleaver was assaulted while buying the family groceries. What we leave out is that June Cleaver was a hooker at night after the Wally and the Beaver were asleep. She failed to pay the pimp so she got bitch slapped.
Ha...what a stupid analogy. Rarely does the hooker come back to nuke the pimp. Whatever. :cool2:

LastLaugh
April 22nd, 2004, 9:19pm
[QUOTE=autodafe20]Here is why Japan justified war with AmericaQUOTE]
There perspective is accurate.
The Japanese perspective is inaccurate. They considered cutting off steel supplies an act of aggression. The steel supplies were not necessary for the defense of the Japanese homeland but were vital for it's prosecution of the war against China. Japan had an expansionist policy equivalent to Germany's lebensraum. By cutting off steel supplies America accomplished two goals. 1. It kept reserves of steel in the U.S. for the lend-lease program with England and Russia. 2. It slowed down Japan's aggression against China.

Japan has been in denial about World War 2 since it ended. Japanese atrocities against civilians and Allied prisoners of war are well documented, yet denied. Similarly the true reasons behind the invasion of Manchuria and China and the bombing of Pearl Harbor are denied.

Hills333
April 23rd, 2004, 2:44pm
I did not mean they were accurate in that they were justified. I only meant that from their point of view, as skewed as it may be, they were drawn into the war.
If we had allowed them to get steel they could continue the invasion or whatever other junk they felt like doing. Since we blocked them they were forced to take action.
They said they were drawn into WWII by the US. I can see a reason why they would feel that way. That is all.
What that does is raise more questions for me about Pearl Harbor. How could we have been so asleep at the wheel as to have no clue that could happen? Especially if we had an expansionist country with military might that we were messing with diplomatically?

oldroses
April 23rd, 2004, 4:08pm
I agree with Dr. Bowman or is it Colonel Bowman(?) Well, said! My husbands a vet and I'm glad to read that other vets like him disagree with the war.

Bottom line-America does need to wake up and smell the coffee or is that oil?!

dandylin
April 23rd, 2004, 9:54pm
I don't agree with everything said here. That's fine by me. I did want to add something though. I firmly believe you can't give another country Freedom. They have to earn it for themselves. It is the Iraqi people who have to be willing to shed their own blood on their own soil in order to be truly free. It's like the rest of things in life, if you didn't earn it--you don't respect it. We cherish our freedom because American blood bought it and we would pay the same price to keep it.

And some would argue that that is exactly what they are doing right now, to liberate themselves from our unlawful entry into their country.

dandylin
April 24th, 2004, 9:26am
The average Iraqi would tell you that they don't want American troops to leave right now. They aren't ready or willing to fight for themselves and would easily fall under another harsh dictatorship.

And where did you hear that? From Shawn Hannity? We don't live in the same reality.