The Iraq War Resolution, October 11, 2002
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
The Iraq War Resolution ~ October 11, 2002
U.S. House of Represenatives
Party
Ayes
Nays
Republican
215
6
Democratic
81
126
Independent
0
1
TOTALS
296
133
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution, which represented 95% of the total opposition to the bill in the House
only 6 Republican Represenatives voted against the resolution
U.S. Senate
Party
Ayes
Nays
Republican
48
1
Democratic
29
21
Independent
0
1
TOTALS
77
23
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR). Those 21 democratic votes agaisnt the resolution represented 91% of the opposition to the resolution
Only 1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
Amendments Offered to the House Resolution
The Spratt Amendment
Required U.N. Security Council authorization for any use of force against Iraq. In the event that the Security Council would not authorize use of force, the President would be required to come back to Congress for a second vote before acting unilaterally. Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).
Defeated 155 - 270.
The Lee Amendment
Urged the President to work through the United Nations to resolve the dispute peacefully. Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
Defeated 72 - 355.
Amendments Offered to the Senate Resolution
The Byrd Amendment
Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Defeated 14 - 86.
The Levin Amendment
Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Defeated 24 - 75.
The Durbin Amendment
Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Defeated 30 - 70.
so as you can see multiple attempts were also made by democrats to amend the bill to take a more level headed approch or even a peaceful approach. they were all defeated by staunch party line voting by the republicans sprinkled in with Democrats who were buying into the mushroom cloud propaganda and lies being spewed by the administration as fact...
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President. However, the vast majority of Senators did not read the NIE and relied on briefings by the administration. Among those who have stated they did not read the NIE and voted positively for the Iraq Resolution are Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, and former Senator John Edwards.
The Bush Administration pushed this bill very hard. Campaigning day and night from the ultimate bully pulpit on Pennsylvania Avenue and the media outlets. The bill was timed perfectly, approximately 1 year after the devastating attacks on 9/11/01 and only 1 month before a national election. The lies were defeaning, chalenging politicians to dare vote against America's saftey and security only weeks before they were up for re-election. Members of the administration continued to spin intelligence, strecth the truth, tell bold face lies, and purposely lead the country into an illegal war. All possible by taking advantage of America's fears, and ever growing trust and reliance on the administration to be honest and truthful with us during a time of crisis.
I just wanted to remind some people who cry "vote them all out", that the ONLY people trying to block this insane and illegal war were DEMOCRATS, a majority of which voted against the war. Good democrats such as Barbara Boxer and Patrick Leahy. Robert Byrd giving a passionate speech on the senate floor desperately trying to speak sense to a room full of americas "deciders". Long time democrats Ed Kennedy and Carl Levin.
So you may like to play the game of now blaming the democrats for everything, as if they have been complicit all along and voting the republican party line. You may now shift your focus onto the democrats becasue they have a popular candidate for president. You may shift your blame and despise to the democrats because it has become to easy to dissent against the republicans and their barbarian policies. But just remember who were the ONLY politicians in the halls of power fighting to stop the madness we call the Iraq war.
You can call for all of them to be voted out, believe me i am no champion of any political party, but can we please keep the Democrats that had it right in 2002?
U.S. House of Represenatives
Party
Ayes
Nays
Republican
215
6
Democratic
81
126
Independent
0
1
TOTALS
296
133
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution, which represented 95% of the total opposition to the bill in the House
only 6 Republican Represenatives voted against the resolution
U.S. Senate
Party
Ayes
Nays
Republican
48
1
Democratic
29
21
Independent
0
1
TOTALS
77
23
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR). Those 21 democratic votes agaisnt the resolution represented 91% of the opposition to the resolution
Only 1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
Amendments Offered to the House Resolution
The Spratt Amendment
Required U.N. Security Council authorization for any use of force against Iraq. In the event that the Security Council would not authorize use of force, the President would be required to come back to Congress for a second vote before acting unilaterally. Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).
Defeated 155 - 270.
The Lee Amendment
Urged the President to work through the United Nations to resolve the dispute peacefully. Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
Defeated 72 - 355.
Amendments Offered to the Senate Resolution
The Byrd Amendment
Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Defeated 14 - 86.
The Levin Amendment
Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Defeated 24 - 75.
The Durbin Amendment
Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Defeated 30 - 70.
so as you can see multiple attempts were also made by democrats to amend the bill to take a more level headed approch or even a peaceful approach. they were all defeated by staunch party line voting by the republicans sprinkled in with Democrats who were buying into the mushroom cloud propaganda and lies being spewed by the administration as fact...
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President. However, the vast majority of Senators did not read the NIE and relied on briefings by the administration. Among those who have stated they did not read the NIE and voted positively for the Iraq Resolution are Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, and former Senator John Edwards.
The Bush Administration pushed this bill very hard. Campaigning day and night from the ultimate bully pulpit on Pennsylvania Avenue and the media outlets. The bill was timed perfectly, approximately 1 year after the devastating attacks on 9/11/01 and only 1 month before a national election. The lies were defeaning, chalenging politicians to dare vote against America's saftey and security only weeks before they were up for re-election. Members of the administration continued to spin intelligence, strecth the truth, tell bold face lies, and purposely lead the country into an illegal war. All possible by taking advantage of America's fears, and ever growing trust and reliance on the administration to be honest and truthful with us during a time of crisis.
I just wanted to remind some people who cry "vote them all out", that the ONLY people trying to block this insane and illegal war were DEMOCRATS, a majority of which voted against the war. Good democrats such as Barbara Boxer and Patrick Leahy. Robert Byrd giving a passionate speech on the senate floor desperately trying to speak sense to a room full of americas "deciders". Long time democrats Ed Kennedy and Carl Levin.
So you may like to play the game of now blaming the democrats for everything, as if they have been complicit all along and voting the republican party line. You may now shift your focus onto the democrats becasue they have a popular candidate for president. You may shift your blame and despise to the democrats because it has become to easy to dissent against the republicans and their barbarian policies. But just remember who were the ONLY politicians in the halls of power fighting to stop the madness we call the Iraq war.
You can call for all of them to be voted out, believe me i am no champion of any political party, but can we please keep the Democrats that had it right in 2002?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Holy fuck....did Obama really say that?
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)
(")_(")
there are some around here that have switched their main focus from the actual architects of the war and their republican lapdogs, to the democrats and people who actually opposed this war from the beginning. thier new slogan is "vote them all out" as if all of the democrats have been complicit in all of the terrible policies of George W Bush and his republican yes men
Ralph Nader is going the same thing, hardly ever mentioning the republicans or the Republican nominee, instaed he continues to focus on the extremely popular democrat candidate and TRYS to pain the democrats as the exact same as the Republicans.
some on here have even tried to say Obama is the same as Bush. or that Obama is the same thing as McCain. These are the same fools that said in 2000 that Gore was the same as Bush. Gore just picked up a Nobel Peace Prize and GW Bush is soaked in blood and war crimes and has lead the country into desperate times. I think there is a HUGE fucking difference.
yeah, and the problem with that is?
While the Demmiecrats might not have been "complicit" as regards this war, they certainly haven't been strongly opposing it. Non-binding resolutions do not a ceasefire make. If Nader, and others, are pointing the finger at demmiecrats now, it's only because people KNOW Republicans were responsible - but they might not know how many Demmiecrats have voted to keep funding the occupation.
If only more Americans in Congress had been similarly opposed to dumb wars...
wrong...
the house and senate passed a bill mostly fueled democrats to state a clear withdraw date and begin to end the iraq war.
Bush Veto'd it. only the 2nd veto of his 8 years i believe. the hosue did not have enough of a majority to send it back to the senate to try and over ride the veto
the propaganda that the democrats are somehow to blame for his lives on i see, even across the atlantic
the democrats do not have a majority when it comes to the war, alot because of Joe Liberman. harry Reid explained it very well the other night on the daily show. and they certainly do not have anywhere close enough to the 65 votes to verturn a presidential veto. until their is a new president it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop the war.
amen to that
On January 30, 2007, Barack Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 (S 433). The plan would stop the planned troop increase of 21,500 in Iraq, and would also begin a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 31, 2008.
Obama announced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act after President Bush announced an increase in the number of troops fighting in Iraq, and after the State of the Union Address. Obama released a statement saying, "Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said, alluding to Michael Scott Doran's essay "Somebody Else's Civil War" published in the Foreign Affairs journal in 2002. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence."[citation needed]
Barack Obama has been critical of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, and has been an outspoken critic before the war began in 2003. The legislation proposed by Obama is similar to the plan called for in the Iraq Study Group report issued in December, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_De-Escalation_Act_of_2007
cross the river to the eastside
ENdING THE WAR IN IRAQ
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and
undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq:
• In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
• In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
• In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
• In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
• In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
Bring Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that
we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s leaders to reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis – two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form
an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
cross the river to the eastside
Don't forget Republican congressman Ron Paul.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010207A.shtml
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=281230
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280132
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280866
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=278617
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280335
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280150
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5281879&postcount=21
http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Fish_HalfWay3.jpg
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5282032&postcount=26
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5282424&postcount=30
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
Just felt like highlighting this. He was up for reelection just a few weeks after the resolution. It is easy to forget now that everyone is opposed to the war how unpopular opposition was at the time. That guy is one of my heroes. Part of me can't stop believing that vote cost him his life.
yes sir, you are correct.
i try and give credit where credit is due. he has been dead on since day 1 about Iraq.
what i have posted in the OP is not opinion, it is fact. the withdrawl resolution introduced by Obama was fact, not opinion. the fact that the president veto'd the resolution was fact. the fact that congress did not have enough support from the republicans to overrule the veto is fact.
a post from the very first thread you list here:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5300531&postcount=4
and i quote:
"blackredyellow:
The problem is that you say to "pass something rather quickly to support the troops" or "fund a safe and proper withdrawal", but how, if Bush will veto anything less?
Granted, Bush will take some bad press for vetoing a bill that has some funding, but what does he care? Most of the backlash will go against the legislators that are seen as not funding our troops.
The progressive younger generation might see the big picture, but for those who lived through Vietnam, know that if you de-fund a war that a president has no intention of stopping, more and more soldiers will get killed, and they won't have the support and protection that they need. They will go from pretty much screwed over there, to royally fucked, and no one in the white house will really care about it."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
At least, Paul and Kucinich have not voted to fund 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
There were other options as discussed in the links I provided.
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'm partial to this one, myself:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5316688&postcount=11
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
um, that is how this government works. the president has veto power. the only way to over ride a presidential veto is to have a massive majority, 65 votes in the senate, not sure what it is in the house. and they house AND senate did not have enough votes to over turn the veto.
this is 5th grade civics...
thats the way it works. this is how it is set up. once they votesd to give him authority in 2002 that was all she wrote, he called the shots. hence the term "decider"
as far as being a dictatorship, have you missed the last 8 years and the constat consolidation of power into the executive branch with his republican lapdog dominated congress cheering all the way?
WE ALL WANT THE WAR TO END, OBAMA PRESENTED A BILL TO END THWE WAR BY 6 WEEKS AGO, THE HOUSE PASSED IT, THE SENATE PASSED IT, THE PRESIDENT VETO'D IT. THE HOUSE DIDNT NOT HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO TRY AND OVER RIDE THE VETO. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE COULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
like what?
and please dont tell me to go digging through 75 links... cliff notes... the time it takes you to track down the links and paste them you could just type it out
of course you are- it's your OWN. quelle surprise.
:rolleyes:
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
I'm sure you can manage. Why repeat myself when I've already provided it to you so many times? All you have to do it click...but if makes you feel better just pretend the date says today...my thoughts haven't changed.
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've already shown you how they could have handled it differently. I agree with Kucinich and Paul's stance on this matter. I've also posted those for you, as well. Why should I even bother posting it again? So you can just continue to ignore it then ask me again in a couple of weeks when I continue to disagree with voting to fund this war? Hell, there's a link in my sig that works nicely, too. I'm not going to keep typing it for you, I'll just give you the links to where I have discussed it in depth already.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
sorry, i sont read every post written on the MT and i dont always go back to see what everyone has wrote on a subject... i honetstly have not seen how you think it could have been different?
by the way... shouldnt the President be the one getting the ultimate blame here? the poeple want out of iraq overwhelmingly... they voted in 2006 with that purpose in mind... the new congress passed a resolution to end the war and remove all the troops by march 2008 (authored by Obama your so called war monger manchurian candidate)... and the President VETO's it... against the will of the people, against the will of the congress... yet you still blame the democrats? the people and the congress passed a bill that would have had every soldier out of Iraq by 6 weeks ago... the President is the one that blocked those efforts and the will of the people with his veto
thats just what the republicans have been doing since 2006, shift the story and shift the blame to the democrats. the very ones that voted against the war from day 1 and the same ones that have continued to try and end it... and as you can see the president is now blaming EVERYTHING on congress :rolleyes:
i guess propaganda works, on anyone
The funding should have been filibustered and the president should have been impeached.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde