Constitution Says Democrats Can End the Iraq War
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
Can Democrats End the Iraq War?
Media flunk constitutional question on war funding
6/1/07
Summing up the media's conventional wisdom about the congressional vote to approve funding for the Iraq War with no timeline for withdrawal, the Los Angeles Times wrote on May 25: "Unable to overcome the president's veto of their plan to set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops, Democrats have been left to focus on what to do next."
That, in a nutshell, is what was wrong with the coverage of the war funding debate. In fact, if the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to force the Bush administration to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it didn't have to pass the bill over Bush's veto—it just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming. Given that the Constitution requires Congress to approve all spending, Bush needs Congress's approval to continue the war—Congress does not need Bush's approval to end the war.
Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed political costs of such a strategy, but news coverage should have made clear that this was a choice, not something forced on them by the lack of a veto-proof majority.
Unfortunately, some leading pundits instead gave deeply misleading, unhelpful summaries of how the American constitutional system works. Here's New York Times columnist David Brooks on CNN's Reliable Sources (5/27/07):
Listen, the Democrats were quite up-front saying, "We're going to fund the troops at the end of the day.... If we have to cave in, we will cave in." And the reason they caved in is because of the Constitution. The Constitution gives the president power to wage war and really to manage this thing. And the Democrats never really had a potential to reverse that.
Actually, the Constitution gives Congress the power "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." The limit on the length of military appropriations was explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers (No. 24) as "a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity." In Federalist No. 26, he elaborated:
The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents.
Mark Shields, the "left" on PBS's NewsHour (5/25/07), declared: "The Democrats had a majority. They did not have enough votes to overturn. Without any change in the administration's policy, the president was going to prevail in a showdown over funding troops." This is true only if you suppose that funding the Iraq War was more important to Congress than to Bush.
Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will was one of the few pundits who got it right, declaring himself (ABC's This Week, 5/27/07) to be in rare agreement with a prominent anti-war group: "MoveOn.org happens to be right.... They're correct as a matter of constitutional fact, which is that the Democrats could stop the war if they chose. They choose not to."
Media flunk constitutional question on war funding
6/1/07
Summing up the media's conventional wisdom about the congressional vote to approve funding for the Iraq War with no timeline for withdrawal, the Los Angeles Times wrote on May 25: "Unable to overcome the president's veto of their plan to set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops, Democrats have been left to focus on what to do next."
That, in a nutshell, is what was wrong with the coverage of the war funding debate. In fact, if the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to force the Bush administration to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it didn't have to pass the bill over Bush's veto—it just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming. Given that the Constitution requires Congress to approve all spending, Bush needs Congress's approval to continue the war—Congress does not need Bush's approval to end the war.
Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed political costs of such a strategy, but news coverage should have made clear that this was a choice, not something forced on them by the lack of a veto-proof majority.
Unfortunately, some leading pundits instead gave deeply misleading, unhelpful summaries of how the American constitutional system works. Here's New York Times columnist David Brooks on CNN's Reliable Sources (5/27/07):
Listen, the Democrats were quite up-front saying, "We're going to fund the troops at the end of the day.... If we have to cave in, we will cave in." And the reason they caved in is because of the Constitution. The Constitution gives the president power to wage war and really to manage this thing. And the Democrats never really had a potential to reverse that.
Actually, the Constitution gives Congress the power "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." The limit on the length of military appropriations was explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers (No. 24) as "a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity." In Federalist No. 26, he elaborated:
The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents.
Mark Shields, the "left" on PBS's NewsHour (5/25/07), declared: "The Democrats had a majority. They did not have enough votes to overturn. Without any change in the administration's policy, the president was going to prevail in a showdown over funding troops." This is true only if you suppose that funding the Iraq War was more important to Congress than to Bush.
Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will was one of the few pundits who got it right, declaring himself (ABC's This Week, 5/27/07) to be in rare agreement with a prominent anti-war group: "MoveOn.org happens to be right.... They're correct as a matter of constitutional fact, which is that the Democrats could stop the war if they chose. They choose not to."
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Foreign policy hasn't changed significantly in over 60 years. That alone should make people consider a third party vote.
Congress Must Admit Its Mistake and Repeal the Authorization to Go to War
The War Funding Bill
By Rep. RON PAUL
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation-- the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.
We won't solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won't help our troops.
Here's a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.
If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.
The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We're so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution-and avoid wars that have no purpose.
The claim that it's unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.
We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.
It's amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.
Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It's time we woke them up.
We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.
In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda's goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, "come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range."
Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year's budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We're dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy--an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.
And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it's supposed to protect-- for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.
Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Media Misrepresent Dems' Options on Iraq War
Confusing 'can't' and 'won't'
9/13/07
Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May (FAIR Media Advisory, 6/1/07), major media outlets continued to "explain" the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways.
The point made by these media outlets again and again is that the Democrats have little power to affect policy in Iraq because it would be difficult to pass legislation over a potential Republican filibuster, and even harder to pass a bill over a presidential veto. This sentiment is also voiced by many Democratic politicians, many of whom consider themselves opponents of the war. But passing a filibuster- or veto-proof bill is not their only option.
As the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz (9/10/07) put it: "Because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid faced an almost impossible challenge. Even if all his troops stood together, he started with just 49 votes."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared that the Democrats' powerlessness was built into the constitutional system on NBC's Chris Matthews Show (9/2/07):
Politically, what the president has been trying to do is to keep discipline among the Republicans because as long as he can keep most of the Republicans in the Senate, in the House with him, there's no way to overturn the policy because of the way the Constitution reads.... I hate to keep coming back to the Constitution. Sixty votes to stop a filibuster, 67 to overturn a presidential veto in the Senate.
This sort of analysis was used to explain the Democrats' need to compromise with Republicans, watering down a firm withdrawal date in the hopes of winning bipartisan support. "Senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail," reported the New York Times' Carl Hulse (9/5/07). "Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster."
This approach was endorsed in an Associated Press report (9/11/07) by Matthew Lee:
If Republican support for the war holds, as it might for now, Democrats would have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal. But they remain under substantial pressure by voters and politically influential anti-war groups to settle for nothing less than ordering troop withdrawals or cutting off money for the war--legislation that has little chances of passing.
The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq--it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41--the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War--if they choose to do so.
The Democratic leadership may believe--rightly or wrongly--that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation--by confusing "can't" with "won't."
See FAIR's Archives for more on:
Iraq Occupation
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Bush was threatening to close bases and cut over 200,000 civilian jobs to free up the funds to continue.
Sure, normally when a president realizes they aren't going to get what they want they might do the smart thing and prepare for it. Maybe prepare for redeployment, or come to a compromise for funding with a phased withdrawal, or funding determined by benchmarks.
He was basically saying that if he lost this fight, he'd let things get really screwed up to continue the war as long as possible, and if the country gets hurt by it, so be it.
Which is the best case I've heard for impeachment yet...not that there isn't a good case for it already without that.
What would be a good enough reason to impeach for you?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Me personally? I'd like to see impeachment, though I know that it would probably be unsuccessful. Even if he got booted, they'd have to impeach Cheney next anyway.
It'd sure be entertainment though, until they find they don't have the supermajority needed to out him.
I agree with you though, the Republicans in the government right now are horrible. Hopefully they'll lose many seats in the House/Senate this year, as well as the Executive branch.
And like Ron Paul said, take back the power to declare and keep this war going from the President and put it back where it belongs. Congress has the power of the purse and would then be in complete control of ending this war. No one is listening or bothering to make the needed moves to get things done. Of course, in reality, that's the last thing congress wants to do. They just want to make it appear they are so powerless and unable to be effectual....what are they there for then??? It didn't seem to hard for Ron Paul to figure out and his voiced his opinion enough about it...along with others. Congress has no excuse for keeping this war going...the blame is on them, as well
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree, that is why I am 100% against Republicans winning any seat in congress. A few more of them voting in the right direction and the war would be over.
It's not just the Reps keeping this war going. You're being shortsighted if you can see how the Dems are to blame, too.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It is the Reps that want to continue the war. They proudly admit it.
I don't understand why you redirect the blame to the people trying to end the war, thereby helping the people who actually want it.
'Don't vote for Dems! they don't really want to end the war, even though they voted to end it.' Ok, so what is the alternative?
I hope Nader gets his 5%, but that isn't going to end the war.
-->
The Reps (except Ron Paul as abook posted above) do continue to vote for the war, no question. The Dems remain complicit by going along for the ride. There really isn't debate about the Reps, but the Dems seem to think they can just point the finger to the other side of the isle and be absolved. The Dems are afraid they may get bad PR by taking away funding from the troops. That tells me that their PR is more important to them than the issue itself.
The alternative would be for people to stop altogether voting for candidates who don't deserve their vote. Until then, you're going to keep getting what you deserve.....pathetic and ineffectual leadership. If you don't stand up for yourself and fight for what you think is right and not just less evil....who is going to do it for you?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well said.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Things that make you go hmm eh?
really hmm
the good cop bad cop illusion...let em fight it out amongst themselves they say...let them feel as if they have a choice....it keeps their heads spinning and busy while we float from above undetected.
Kinda like training and arming the indigenous population after the invasion, so they can go on killing themselves...brilliant...and seems to work so many times, in so many places, by so many who control.
Program their feeble minds, wind up the key in their backs, and point the population in a certain direction. The primitive forces of nature somehow then overtakes all higher thinking.
The main salvation to this is coming to terms with, and properly evaluating the cause and effect.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
At least the Republicans are honest about it as opposed to the Dems saying they are against it, but doing nothing to stop it.
My question for all those who want to bring the troops back home immediately - do you all not think that there would be some negative consequences to that for the Iraqi people?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Do you honestly think that things would have been the same if Gore had been elected in 2000? Or even Kerry in 2004?
(This is an honest question by the way)
The negative consequence has already happened from 10 years of bombing back to the stone age, shock and awe ,and a full on aggressive occupation.
Saddam wasn't anywhere near that bad....not even close...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I do not disagree with the first part of your statement, but that doesn't really answer my question.
I personally believe if we just pulled all of the troops out today - and I do oppose the "war" - that a lot of innocent Iraqi civilians will suffer many more negative consequences in the chaos that ensues.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree 100% a bit frightening
I think so many Iraqis are already dying due to our forces being there and the insurgency fighting them off. Not mention how we keep arming both sides of this infighting. The longer we stay there, imo, the longer it takes for Iraq to properly heal and move on. Our presence is hindering them getting back on their feet. Our methods are too abrasive to bring any closure to this horrible situation. I think peacekeeping troops should assist the Iraqis and they should receive aid until they are capable of running the country on their own. We can't afford to keep borrowing from China and sinking deeper into debt to keep this occupation going indefinitely.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yeah, I agree. I think they are between a rock and a hard place.
It sucks when you have to choose the good of the country over political points with the far left. Either continue the war without the financial backing needed, or with. Not much of a choice.
There are a few Democrats that are too far to the right on some issues though, just as there a few Republicans who are further to the left on certain issues.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Haliburton may not have gotten the no bid contracts but someone would have.
"War is over, if you want it," declared John Lennon in the thick of the Vietnam nightmare. To the extent that Lennon's "you" referred to the US Congress, he was right, then and now. The House and Senate have the authority to end the war in Iraq quickly, efficiently and honorably. Claims to the contrary by George W. Bush and his apologists are at odds with every intention of the authors of the Constitution. Which part of "Congress shall have the power to declare war... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" does the White House fail to understand? Unfortunately, it may be the same part that cautious Congressional leaders have trouble comprehending.
Democrats gained control of Congress in November with the charge to bring the occupation to a swift conclusion. Yet, as we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the story of the 110th Congress still seems to be one of an opposition party struggling to come to grips with its authority to upend a President's misguided policies. Nothing has illustrated the lack of direction so agonizingly as the debates over nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop surge; weeks went into advancing measures that, as their names confirmed, were inconsequential. For a time, it seemed as if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been so effective on the domestic front, was ceding any real leadership role on foreign policy.
With the announcement of spending legislation that includes benchmarks for progress in Iraq, and a plan to begin withdrawing troops if those benchmarks are unmet, Pelosi has begun to define a Democratic opposition to Bush's policies. But she has not gone nearly far enough. While Democratic leaders are finally arguing for a withdrawal timeline, it is not the right one. Theoretically, the plan would create the potential for withdrawal of some troops in six months. Realistically, because it lacks adequate monitoring mechanisms--Pelosi says determinations about the benchmarks would be a "subjective call"--the best bet is that even if the Democratic plan were to overcome all the hurdles blocking its enactment, there would be no withdrawals for more than a year.
Forcing Americans and Iraqis to die for Bush's delusions for another year while emptying the Treasury at a rate of more than $1 billion a week is unconscionable. That is why House members who have battled hardest to end the war are so frustrated with Pelosi's approach. "This plan would require us to believe whatever the President would tell us about progress that was being made," says Representative Maxine Waters, speaking for the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey has been blunter, saying of the legislation, "There's no enforcement mechanism."
Waters and Woolsey are right. While we respect efforts by antiwar Democrats like Jim McDermott and Jerrold Nadler to negotiate with Pelosi in hopes of improving the legislation, conservative Blue Dog Democrats have already signaled that the price of their support will be the removal of any teeth put into the plan by progressives. Worse, they have tampered with the legislation in ways that may even encourage Bush's interventionist tendencies: The Democratic proposal for a timeline originally included a provision that would have required Bush to seek Congressional approval before using military force against Iran. But under pressure from conservative members of her caucus and lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Pelosi removed the language. By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval for a wider war.
The haggling over compromises points up the flaw in Pelosi's approach: It is too soft, too slow, too open to lobbying mischief and abuse by a President who has done nothing but abuse Congress for six years. America and the world are not crying out for a timeline that might begin extracting troops from Iraq a year from now. Almost 200 American soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis, have died since the Democrats took control of Congress. To accept that the war will go on for another year, at the least, is to accept that the death toll will continue to mount.
Democrats should recognize that the time has come to use the full power accorded Congress in time of war: the power of the purse. As Senator Russ Feingold says, "Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our servicemen and -women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger."
Instead of negotiating with Bush to give him another year of his war before facing consequences, Democrats should refuse to write another blank check. They should instead support Representative Barbara Lee's proposal to fully fund the withdrawal of US soldiers and military contractors from Iraq. Lee would give military commanders the resources they need to withdraw all troops by the end of the year by mandating that emergency supplemental funding be used only for that purpose.
There may not be enough Democratic and renegade Republican votes to win House passage of Lee's legislation--at least not initially. But tremendous educational and practical progress can be made by just saying no, as loudly as possible, to a President who has not gotten enough resistance from Congress. Setting up a conflict between Bush's desire to keep troops in Iraq through the end of his presidency and a plan to bring them home this year sharpens the debate at a time when the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that a majority of Americans now favor setting a clear deadline. Even as Bush blusters on about staying the course--or whatever the slogan of the moment may be--he is feeling the pressure to end this war. Indeed, he has already split with Vice President Cheney and other Administration hardliners on the issue of engaging diplomatically with Iran and Syria.
No matter what the ultimate exit strategy, engaging in regional diplomacy to help contain the civil war in Iraq and provide more international assistance to the Iraqi people is an essential step in repositioning the United States to be a constructive force in the region, as opposed to serving as a catalyst for a wider sectarian war. The Bush Administration's dawning recognition of this fact will be heightened and extended only if war foes maintain their resolve. If the debate in Congress is about whether to attach a few soft benchmarks to Bush's request for more money to maintain the occupation on his terms, he will feel little sense of urgency. But if the debate is about whether to provide only the money needed to bring the troops home, Bush will understand that time is running out for his strategy--and that he can no longer afford to casually dismiss diplomacy and the logic of withdrawal.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
and the next sentence:
Guess why it didn't pass when voted on?
I wonder why this one didn't pass?
Feingold says they can and should end funding for the war without putting the troops in danger. They have the money for a withdrawal. Bush can not keep a war going that has no funding. Bush can veto, the Dems can filibuster...they are not powerless to do anything about it except keep voting yes to keep fiund the war.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
With all due respect,
i believe you would have much more success with your approach if the information you posted was not so lengthy and "wordy".
Could you dumb it down to "soudbytes" for me?
Thanks.
-dbts-
ps - also, quoting congressmen from Texas (is this even still a state?) that are known racists only detracts from your case.
If I opened it now would you not understand?