Oh man, BIG New York Times article on Rove, and it's got lots of new stuff

Wow. New article, lots of good stuff.

First, we've got the new fact that Scooter and Rove were working closely together on how to fight back against Wilson and the uproar over the 16 words. That suggests that the special prosecutor might be interested if they conspired, I mean, worked together on preparing their testimony?

At the same time in July 2003 that a C.I.A. operative's identity was exposed, two key White House officials who talked to journalists about the officer were also working closely together on a related underlying issue: whether President Bush was correct in suggesting earlier that year that Iraq had been trying to acquire nuclear materials from Africa....

People who have been briefed on the case said that the White House officials, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby Jr., were helping to prepare what became the administration's primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address six months earlier....

At the same time, they were grappling with the fallout from an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, in which he criticized the way the administration had used intelligence to support the claim in Mr. Bush's speech.

The work done by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby on the Tenet statement, during this intense period, had not been previously disclosed....

Next we find out that all things go through Karl Rove. We knew that, and it made us ask originally how Karl never saw the Plame memo, which is what he suposedly told the grand jury. Hmmmm...

The effort was particularly striking because to an unusual degree, the circle of administration officials involved included those from the White House's political and national security operations, which are often separately run. Both arms were drawn into the effort to defend the administration during the period.

Then we read that Karen Hughes is now feeling some heat, and gosh, right before her confirmation hearings on Friday. Should the Senate really be confirming a woman involved in a criminal investigation involving national security secrets? Hmmmm....

In another indication of how wide a net investigators have cast in the case, Karen Hughes, a former top communications aide to Mr. Bush, and Robert Joseph, who was then the National Security Council's weapons proliferation expert, have both told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they were interviewed by the special prosecutor.

Ms. Hughes is to have her confirmation hearing on Friday on her nomination to lead the State Department's public diplomacy operation. Mr. Joseph was recently confirmed as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. As part of their confirmation proceedings, both had to fill out a questionnaire listing any legal matters they had become involved in....

Then we get to Ari. Ari told the grand jury that he never saw the memo. But last weekend it was reported that Ari was soon walking around Air Force one actually CARRYING the memo. Uh oh.

The investigators have been trying to determine who else within the administration might have seen the memo or learned of its contents. Among those asked if he had seen the memo was Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, who was on Air Force One with Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell during the Africa trip right after Mr. Wilson's article appeared. Mr. Fleischer told the grand jury that he never saw the memo, a person familiar with the testimony said....

Here's where we find out that Rove says he never saw the memo. Uh huh.

Mr. Rove has also told the grand jury that he never saw the memo, a person briefed on the case said.

And then, the piece de resistance - John friggin' Bolton gets involved. Oh yes, it's a dream come true scandal, folks.

Democrats who have been eager to focus attention on the case have urged reporters to look into the role of a number of other administration officials, including John R. Bolton, who was then undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and has since been nominated by Mr. Bush to be ambassador to the United Nations.

In his disclosure form for his Senate confirmation hearings, Mr. Bolton made no mention of having been interviewed in the case, a government official said.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Read the rest of this post...

Looks like Rove and Scooter are in BIG Trouble

Think Progress has the latest from Bloomberg on the Rove scandal...and it's really good (but not for Karl and Scooter):

Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.

These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.

Okay, who has the motive to lie? Not the reporters.

This is very serious. Prosecutors don't take kindly to "discrepancies" -- they consider that lying or perjury. If there are coordinated "discrepancies" that could be conspiracy or obstruction of justice.

No wonder the White House wanted to change the subject. Read the rest of this post...

More On John Roberts

Jeffrey Rosen says that the John Roberts he interviewed three years ago didn't appear to be an ideologue or angry -- the way Scalia and Thomas are -- holding out the slim hope that Roberts could be this Bush's Souter. Wishful thinking, maybe, but Rosen also suggests some tough lines of inquiry to get insight into Roberts' philosophy.

Mario Cuomo uses a USA Today op-ed to denounce ANYONE who tries to stack the courts with activists to achieve goals (like overturning Roe V Wade) they can't accomplish through the Congress and states.

Most political analysts believe that President Bush, by nominating Judge John Roberts, seeks to put on the Supreme Court a justice who will help achieve significant changes in laws through judicial decisions that the political branches of our government have failed to deliver. That would include limitations on abortion and the separation of church and state.

That sounds like Bush, don't it? And what Bush wants sure sounds like an activist judge to me.

Laurence Tribe weighs in via a USA Today article, saying that he too hasn't seen Roberts as a firebrand. (Hey, none of this means one shouldn't examine him extremely closely before making up your mind, but it's better than hearing your worst fears confirmed, isn't it?)

"That makes the (Senate confirmation) hearings all the more important," says Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe. "He doesn't have a long history of writings," as had Robert Bork, the former appeals court judge rejected for the high court in 1987.

"His appearance of decency and friendliness is real. I do think that his substantive philosophy, as much as I see it expressed, raises questions that require exploration."

While Tribe emphasizes the need to learn Roberts' views, he says the nominee does not appear to be a crusader. "I don't think John Roberts is putting on a gladiator suit as he marches toward the court," says Tribe.

And the American people in a poll quite reasonably say, hey, we need more info.

76% said they needed more information before they could decide whether his views were "mainstream."

74% felt it would be appropriate to ask Roberts about abortion at the hearings.

Guess what, the Dems are right in line with the American people. Let's take a a careful look at his (limited) record and hear what he has to say. Doesn't mean they won't bring down fire and brimstone if he proves to be fringe.

Why does Bush think the American people are stupid and wrong to want more information (meaning Roberts can't play dumb and pretend he has no opinion on landmark Supreme Court cases) and why does Bush think the American people are stupid and wrong to think asking about abortion is perfectly ok? Read the rest of this post...

Press goes after McClellan today about Rove, HARD

Man, they're pissed.

From E&P;: (I apologize to E&P;, but I have to grab this entire transcript, it's THAT good)

Q Why does Karl Rove still have security clearance and access to classified documents when he has been revealed as a leaker of a secret agent, according to Time magazine's correspondent?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there is an investigation that continues, and I think the President has made it clear that we're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation.

Q You already have the truth.

MR. McCLELLAN: We're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation through --

Q Does he have access to security documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- through media reports. And these questions came up over the last week --

Q Did he leak the name of a CIA agent?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I was trying to tell you, these questions have been answered.

Q No, they haven't.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David.

Q And they most certainly haven't. I think Helen is right, and the people watching us know that. And related to that, there are now --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me correct the record. We've said for quite some time that this was an ongoing investigation, and that we weren't going to comment on it, so let me just correct the record.

Q If you want to make the record clear, then you also did make comments when a criminal investigation was underway, you saw fit to provide Karl Rove with a blanket statement of absolution. And that turned out to be no longer accurate --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and there were preferences expressed by those overseeing the investigation that we refrain from commenting on it while they're continuing to look at -- investigate it.

Q White House officials have been very clear through their attorneys or through other leaks to make it known that it was essentially journalists who educated them about who Valerie Plame was, what she did, and her role in sending her husband to Niger. It has now come to light that in fact White House officials were aware, or at least had access to a State Department memo that the President's own Secretary of State at the time had with him when he was traveling on Air Force One to Africa, which indicated both who she was, what she did, and her role in the Niger trip. So did the White House, in fact, know about her through this memo, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: I thank you for wanting to proceed ahead with the investigation from this room, but I think that the appropriate place for that to happen is through those who are overseeing the investigation. The President directed us to cooperate fully, and that's exactly what we have been doing and continue to do.

Q But you don't deny that attorneys for Rove and others in the White House are speaking about these matters, creating a lot of these questions, right, that you say you can't speak to?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, we're not getting into talking about an ongoing investigation. That's what the President indicated, as well.

Read the rest of this post...

Friends on the Hill, time to offer an amendment to the Patriot Act about the religious right, hate groups, and homeland security

I've detailed in the post below some proposed legislation that could potentially devastate the religious right. Namely, someone needs to offer an amendment to the Justice Dept appropriations bill, and whomever funds the Dept of Homeland Security, requiring the FBI to track individuals and organizations who enable known hate groups. Unfortunately for the religious right, this would very likely cover several of them - see story below. But how would they fight the amendment? They DON'T want the FBI paying more attention to domestic hate groups? Try selling that argument in post 9/11 and post 7/7 (the London Bombings) America.

I'm quite serious. You political types can work on the details of the legislation.

And may I just say, again, where the hell are the groups who have millions of dollars to watch these kind of organizations? The gay groups, the fight the right groups? You've got the American Family Association promoting the research of a known hate group, and not a peep from our allies. This is the death of the AFA, they will be a pariah if someone smart, with some cash, were to grab this fact and run with it. But they don't. Imagine what the religious right, or the Republicans, would do if WE were cavorting with known hate groups. They'd have a field day. In their place, our groups just sit back and do nothing.

In any case, our friends on the Hill CAN do something about this. And they should. Read the rest of this post...

American Family Association again promotes confirmed "hate group"

One of the lead religious right groups, the American Family Association is again promoting the work of a known hate group, a group that has been put in the same group as the Klan and white supremacists by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That group is the Family Research Institute, run by quack "doctor" Paul Cameron, who was kicked out of various medical professional societies over twent years ago for his embrace of quackery.

This is amazing. Christian fundamentalists are cavorting with groups who are akin to the KKK and white supremacists. That kind of embrace is pretty damn suspicious, especially nowadays. Imagine any other multi-million dollar organization trying to help raise the profile of a known hate group like the Klan, do you think that organization would get a visit from the Justice Department?

Cameron has a new "study" - this guy ALWAYS has new "studies" - this time showing how gays cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Perhaps someone government official, perhaps Homeland Security of the FBI, should do a "study" of groups that enable known hate groups. That's a study I'd love to see. I'm quite serious - someone ought to offer an amendment to the FBI appropriations bill, earmark some funds for the FBI to track organizations who enable known hate groups. If the fundies are innocent, they should have problem with it.

This today from the American Family Association's propaganda organ:

...A Family Research Institute spokesman says a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals some interesting facts about what homosexuals and smokers cost the American taxpayer in terms of health-care expenses. The Institute's Dr. Paul Cameron has taken the CDC numbers and broken them down to an individual level. By his calculations, smokers cost U.S. taxpayers $156 billion a year. "For direct medical costs, days at work lost, all the indirect cost of fires and whatever, it figures out to a little over $3,000 per smoker, per year," he says. But on the other hand, Cameron notes, homosexuals cost American taxpayers $102 billion a year. And since there are so few homosexuals as compared to smokers, he says the individual cost is more than $25,000 per homosexual per year. This calculation is based on the AIDS factor alone, without taking other unhealthy aspects of the homosexual lifestyle into consideration, such as transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases or the high incidence of depression and attempted suicide among homosexuals. [Bill Fancher]

And now I quote the Southern Poverty Law Center writing recently about the Family Research Institute:

Exhibit number one in demonizing homosexuals is the Christian Right's Paul Cameron, a leading "scientist" on the evils of homosexuality who heads the hate group, Family Research Institute. Cameron's work, which has been cited both by the Christian Right and prominent Republicans, falsely claims that gay people are disproportionately responsible for child molestation, for the majority of serial killings, and for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

"Of all the vices," Cameron concluded in one pamphlet, "only homosexuality constitutes a conspiracy against society." Cameron's "science" echoes Nazi Germany in that these disparaging descriptions of homosexuals are reminiscent of themes found in the ugly history of anti-Semitism, where Jews were historically associated with disease, filth, and child stealing. Cameron has been thrown out of legitimate professional organizations for his crackpot and inhuman science.

Cameron's science echoes Nazi Germany - did you catch that? The American Family Association is helping promote a known hate group that publishes science that echoes Nazi Germany.

Paging Homeland Security. Read the rest of this post...

Plame leak hearing Friday 10AM, please ask CSpan to cover it

Read, then contact CSpan. Read the rest of this post...

Illinois GOP caves to religious right interloper with history of pushing Holocaust revisionism

The Cook County (Chicago) GOP, responding to criticism from family values interloper Peter LaBarbera (who moved to Illinois from the east coast after promoting anti-gay bigotry with both the religious right Family Research Council and the Concerned Women for America), pulled their support for the upcoming Gay Games in Chicago.

Funny that the Cook County GOP is willing to listen to a guy who's past includes peddling Holocaust revisionist writings. LaBarbera's former publication, The Lambda Report, had no problem repeatedly pushing literature claiming that gays were behind the Holocaust, when in fact gays were victims of the Holocaust. HateWatch's executive director at the time, David Goldman, who had the distinct honor of being on a top 20 "to be killed" list put together by white supremacist groups, said that what LaBarbera was peddling absolutely fell under the category of Holocaust revisionism. Then why was LaBarbera, a "family values" kind of guy, peddling Holocaust revisionism?

And why is it that GOP commissioners in Cook County, Chicago, are willing to be in bed with someone who tried to peddle lies about the Holocaust? Wonder how their constituents feel about that?

I'm just asking.

More on the story here Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Be open Read the rest of this post...

Senate Gang of 14: Fillibuster On Roberts Unlikely

The NYT quotes some Dems saying that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts isn't extremist enough to justify a fillibuster. So say hello to your new Supreme Court Justice.

Some thoughts: the NYT also has a very lengthy profile that paints Roberts as a life-long conservative, but perhaps a pragmatic one. No one from his childhood or college days sees him as particularly extremist or firebrand-ish -- I haven't made up my mind but it's all food for thought and certainly better than hearing he is a wacko.

Lots of people keep mentioning the fact that more than 150 Republican and Democratic lawyers supported his confirmation as an appellate judge -- implying that if you supported him then you have to support him now. No way. If you think someone would make a solid Congressman or Senator, does that mean you HAVE to believe they'd make a good President? Of course not. The Presidency is a whole new ball of wax and so is the Supreme Court.

And why is it so outrageous to ask a nominees opinions on some of the landmark cases that have come before the Court in the past 100 years? Any first year law student can talk about them intelligently and at length, point to ones they disagree with, explain which arguments on which side appealed to them and so on. Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice be able to do the same?

This is not about future cases that might come before them. This is about LANDMARK cases that serve as the bedrock of our country's laws -- Roe V Wade, Brown V Board of education, the overturning of Texas's sodomy laws. Don't people have the right to know if a nominee believes states can legally deny women the right to vote or segregate bathrooms for blacks and whites or throw ten percent of the population in jail because they're gay? Don't people have the right to know if nominees believe past rulings that said the government could pass laws protecting the environment were wrong and they would have not ruled the same? None of this has to do with future cases -- it has to do with the past.

Clarence Thomas made the absurd claim that he had no opinion on Roe V Wade. I say anyone who claims they have no opinion on any major (or even minor) case decided by the Supreme Court is either lying because their beliefs are radical and extremist or they are so utterly incurious about the law and the Supreme Court that no one in their right mind would want such a person on the court.

This goes for every nominee from now until the end of time -- if they can't intelligently discuss landmark Supreme Court cases, they don't deserve the job. And if they can't name a Supreme Court ruling (or three) that they disagreed with and why, they don't deserve the job. Period. I can do that and the closest I ever got to studying law was watching "Perry Mason" reruns. Read the rest of this post...

Wonder what God's plan says about...

...systematically raping small boys and girl and then covering it up in a criminal conpsiracy for decades, enabling more young children to be brutally raped in a never-ending cycle of violence?

Oh, and by the way, what's God's plan vis-a-vis the Hitler Youth?

Just asking. Read the rest of this post...

Latest on the London bombing

The Economist and more from AP Read the rest of this post...

Rove: Even The Heartland Is Condemning Him

Let us know how the Rove scandal is playing out in your hometown newspapers -- the letters to the editor are denouncing Rove and his lies. Look at the Lincoln Journal Star -- two letters and they both sound like angry bloggers! Cool! (Thanks to threader Jim for pointing it out to us.) Read the rest of this post...

Rove And That Memo: True Irony

Rove is back on the front page of the Washington Post today, as John posted below. The story focuses on the fact that investigators believe this memo is the source of knowledge used to smear Joseph Wilson and expose his covert operative wife. The telling detail is that anyone who looked at it would have KNOWN the info was classified and not to be revealed.

But the irony I love is that anyone actually READING the memo would know Bush lied in the State of the Union address.

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife....

The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

So even before the first of THREE seperate investigations were launched by the Bush administration, the State Dept. had already dismissed the rumour that Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Niger as without merit. Think about that. A rumour -- based on poorly forged documents that the Hardy Boys could have exposed in five minutes -- pops up overseas. The State Dept. investigates and realizes there is absolutely no evidence to back it up -- it ain't even worth investigating. Bush is desperate for "proof" so he can justify going to war and sends the esteemed Joseph Wilson (praised by Bush's father as a "hero" and eminently qualified for the task) to check it out anyway. Wilson comes back and says it isn't true. They launch a second investigation -- still no evidence. They launch a THIRD investigation. Nope -- nothing, nada to back up a shaky rumour the State Dept. had already dismissed as meaningless.

Bush tries to insert it into a speech anyway -- this inflammatory claim that a foreign power is trying to obtain nuclear weapons-grade material that he HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT. The CIA strenuously objects and gets the claim removed. But then Bush goes ahead and makes the claim anyway in his State of the Union address and the American people believe he speaks the truth. Meanwhile, the Downing Street Memo -- minutes of a meeting with the top leaders of the UK -- made crystal clear that our closest ally believed Bush was going to war no matter what and was lying, ie. fixing the evidence to justify it.

Joseph Wilson ultimately comes forward after the war was launched and says simply there was no evidence to back up those 16 words. He is attacked and mocked and smeared. His WIFE is attacked. And national security is endangered, all to smack down the fact that Bush's central evidence in going to war -- the attempt to buy uranium in Niger and the "tubes" -- didn't hold water AND BUSH KNEW IT.

If you don't want to call Bush a liar, if you want to pretend that maybe he didn't know about the State Dept.'s objections (who listens to Colin Powell anyway?) and maybe he didn't know about the first or second or even third investigation into this rumour, the simple fact remains that President Bush took this nation to war and made the most serious claim against a foreign power that he could and did it during the solemn occasion of the State of the Union address on the eve of war and HE HAD NO PROOF TO BACK IT UP.

The info in this story about the memo makes that fact even clearer. And this isn't second-guessing -- EVERYONE AGREED the rumour didn't hold water. NO ONE argued that it did except political hacks who wanted to justify going to war.

Why did Bush tell the American people something as serious as this without being ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it was true? Why did Bush go to war based on "smoking guns" that turned out to be nothing more than water pistols? And the joke was on the American people. This is why Rove smeared a public servant with an impeccable record and endangered national security by outing a covert operative -- the FIRST TIME a politcal hack has done so in our nation's history. What more "evidence" does Bush need? He's gone to war on far, far less. Read the rest of this post...

Hard time getting a straight answer on London

What happened? Terrorist attack or not? Read the rest of this post...

Another Reason Rove thinks knows the media are his patsies

Howard Kurtz explains how the MSM was misled on the Supreme Court nomination:

Did the Bush team put out misinformation on that crazy Tuesday to steer reporters away from John Roberts?

We can't answer the question definitively because the journalists involved have a Matt Cooper problem -- they promised their sources anonymity, regardless of motive. But I can tell you that some of them are ticked and feeling misled.

Then, Atrios explains why that makes the MSM so pathetic:

I really missed the memo when we were told that journalists who promised confidentiality to their sources were obligated to maintain that confidentiality even after learning that they'd been lied to. This isn't about keeping promises, it's about maintaining access and shame on all of them for pretending otherwise.

Lying to the press (and the American people) is standard operating procedure at the Rove White House. They have gotten away with it for years -- with no repercussions.

They must just sit back and laugh about how gullible the press is. Read the rest of this post...

London was attacked again

CNN scroll says 3 subway stations, one bus were hit by small "bombs" --- Police are saying low casualties. Read the rest of this post...

There may have been another attack on the Tube

Hmmmm Read the rest of this post...

Let me just say that Rove is the TOP story in Wash Post

Not just a front page story, as mentioned before, but THE top story. :-)

I think Roberts might have been the shortest diversion in history. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

What do you know? Read the rest of this post...

Hillary Watch: Her Credentials On Defense

USA Today does a fine front page story on Hillary Clinton and the possibility of a female commander-in-chief. Clearly, she's the dem front runner, which presumably makes it all the more likely she'll have to stumble and regain the lead or lose her first time up at bat, which is typical for most future presidents. Certainly a woman can be tough on defense as much as a man -- hello, Margaret Thatcher. And maybe Hillary can add that as a mother, she won't ever send our sons and daughters off to war unless it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Since our troops will still be in Iraq during the campaign, that's guaranteed to draw big applause. Read the rest of this post...

Afghanistan: Mission Crumbling

Putting aside the other problem of a bumper crop of opium, Afghanistan is falling into the "out of site, out of mind" category as so often happens with US foreign policy. The Taliban has been increasingly aggressive and it sounds as though al Qaeda and the Pakistan military intelligence agency (ISI) has been providing assistance, if not training. Karzai has been limited to the capital and the south of the country, including Karzai's home region, are no-go zones due to violence.

The rumors that Pakistan's military intelligence are involved should not be too much of a surprise in light of the recent polling in Pakistan that showed broad support within the country for suicide attacks such as we saw in London. Between our own quagmire in Iraq, our failure to partner with other world powers in the war on terror (El Salvador and Fiji don't really count) and our muddy relationship with Pakistan, our failure to follow through in Afghanistan might just be coming back to create another major headache. Read the rest of this post...

You asked for it, you got it

Read the rest of this post...

Seattle Post-Intelligencer BLASTS Bush over Rove Thursday

No pal left behind, they're calling it. Nasty and spot on. Read the rest of this post...