THE TRAGEDY OF THE US IN IRAQ ( Scott Ritter)

[Zlatko Waterman]

( A finely crafted, succinct summary of the tragedy created in Iraq by the US. Ritter, as usual, tells the truth and matches it to Bush's lies about Iraq.)






Let history judge

Posted by Scott Ritter at 2:20 PM on January 23, 2006.


Iraq has come to this: a human and social disaster of enormous scale, where unified central governmental authority is not only non-existent, but unachievable under current conditions.

Stung by growing criticism of his Iraq policy which has manifested itself in all-time low public opinion ratings, President Bush last month embarked on a tour in which he delivered five speeches outlining his "Plan for Victory" in Iraq, as well as offering a defense of his decision to invade Iraq. "It is true that much of the intelligence [used to justify the invasion] turned out to be wrong", Mr. Bush said in the fourth of these speeches. "As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

While taking responsibility for his actions, Mr. Bush has not taken well to any criticism of his role in over-selling the case for war, and in his speech was quick to attack those who dared hold him to account. "Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence", he said, "have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These charges are pure politics."

But it is the President, through his speeches, who is engaged in politics of the most puerile sort. Mr. Bush failed to address his role in the Niger yellowcake forgery, the aluminum tube exaggeration, the rush to embrace "Curveball", or any of the myriad of politicized intelligence pushed by the White House in the lead up to war with Iraq. The President continued to exploit in the basest fashion the death of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. As has been his style since that horrible day, Mr. Bush hid behind the memory of so many fallen to mask his administration's shortcomings and disguise its true intent.

"Given Saddam's history", the President said (conveniently omitting that the CIA today states that Iraq had destroyed all of its WMD by the summer of 1991), "and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power." But even the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, used by the Bush administration to sell its Iraq war to the US Congress, failed to identify Saddam Hussein as a threat.

The White House pushed hard to find intelligence information that backed the assertions made by President Bush in the fall of 2002 that Hussein's regime was an "ally of al-Qaeda" and posed a direct terrorist threat to America. "This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaeda," he said, referring to Saddam Hussein. "This is a man who would like to use al-Qaeda as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace."

But neither the FBI nor the CIA were able to produce any intelligence to back up the President's rhetoric. Indeed, both agencies provided assessments that directly contradicted the claims of Mr. Bush, noting that any alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden was highly unlikely. These findings were included in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document kept secret from the American public and most members of Congress. However, in a declassified version of the NIE made public, all mention of the de-linking of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were excised, freeing up the President and his administration to sell the Iraqi war on the basis of not only the existence of WMD in Iraq, but also the probability that Saddam Hussein would transfer these weapons to his ally, Osama Bin Laden, who "on any given day" could unleash hell on American soil.

"And when the history of these days is written", the President said, concluding the fourth and last of his Iraqi policy speeches, "it will tell how America once again defended its own freedom by using liberty to transform nations from bitter foes to strong allies. And history will say that this generation, like generations before, laid the foundation of peace for generations to come."

History will tell another tale. Far from the revisionist and heavily redacted version of events offered up by President Bush, historians will write of an America which squandered the good will of the world in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, to instead push aggressively for a policy of pre-emption and hegemony. In a speech made before the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point in 2002, the President told the future officers of the US Army (many of whom have gone on to fight and, tragically for some, die in Iraq) that, "Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." He went on to say that "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge."

These twin policies of hegemony and pre-emption went on to be codified in the National Security Strategy of the United States, published by the White House in September 2002. The 33-page document outlined a new and muscular American posture in the world -- a posture that relied on preemption to deal with rogue states and terrorists harboring weapons of mass destruction. It stated that the United States would never allow its military supremacy to be challenged as it was during the Cold War, noting that when America's vital interests are at stake, it will act alone, if necessary.

President Bush has tried to justify his embrace of hegemony and pre-emption as a tragic necessity in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. But the facts do not add up. The triple-threat outlined by the Bush administration as the justification for this new policy -- Saddam Hussein's WMD, the Hussein-Osama Bin Laden alliance, and the transfer of WMD technology from Iraq to Al Qaeda for the purpose of attacking America -- could not be backed up either in the form of intelligence data or intelligence analysis. The fact that the Bush administration pushed so aggressively for pre-emptive war in the face of no viable threat speaks volumes about the nature and intent of the President and those who advise him.

In 1946, the Nuremburg Tribunal rejected the German defense of pre-emption when it came to the invasion of Denmark and Norway in 1940. The Germans had cited the imminent occupation of these two nations by the armed forces of France and Great Britain, which would have threatened the German northern front, as just cause. This defense was rebuked by the tribunal, led by US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who instead identified the German action as constituting a "war of aggression." Judge Jackson went on to say that "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Judge Jackson's words, and my steadfast allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, motivated me to give testimony this past Saturday at the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration, in particular in support of the first count put forward by the commission: that the Bush administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.

I'm not a big fan of un-mandated tribunals, but given the absolute lack of attention on the part of Congress regarding the decision to invade Iraq (a lethargy encouraged somewhat by Congress' own culpability in abrogating its responsibilities under the Constitution when it comes to war powers and holding the Executive Branch in check), I felt that my participation in the Commission's work would help create a record that might someday in the future motivate the representatives of the American people who occupy the Legislative Branch of government to carry work that not only serves the interests of their respective constituencies, but also defends both the letter and intent of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend. America should not be looking to any international commission or tribunal to hold President Bush and his administration to account; that is the job of the American people.

When historians look back on the policies enacted by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, starting off with the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, they will be passing judgment on a United States that has violated international law as egregiously as any power in modern history. The final chapters have yet to be written on the Presidency of George W. Bush, but even if time stopped still at the present, the crimes of America and its leader are many, and terrible.

Iraq today is very much a nation under foreign occupation, which makes the very processes of democracy the United States seeks to impose on the Iraqi people questionable from a legal basis, as it is a violation of international law for occupying forces to impose their will on the processes of law and self-governance of an occupied people. It would be tragic comedy of the blackest sort for anyone to try and make a case that the Bush administration has not imposed itself in a significant and meaningful fashion regarding the drafting of the new Iraqi Constitution, the conduct of Iraqi elections, and the formulation and implementation of the Iraqi court system (especially as it concerns the ongoing trial of Saddam Hussein).

The end result of all of this illegitimate intervention on the part of the United States in Iraq is the creation of a failed nation state in Iraq today. Legal niceties aside, the end result of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq are a human and social disaster of enormous scale, where unified central governmental authority is not only non-existent, but unachievable under current conditions.

Civil war is ongoing, and threatens to explode to levels of violence several orders of magnitude greater than the horror already unfolding in Iraq on a daily basis. Those who postulate the "what ifs" of American policy ("What if democracy takes root, the Iraqi economy turns around, the insurgency fades away, and Iraq emerges as a symbol of freedom for the Middle East") have just had the nails hammered into the coffin of their false hopes. The Bush administration's refusal to continue funding of Iraqi reconstruction programs has thrown into the trash bin any hope of building an Iraq that could withstand the stresses of occupation and insurgency by winning over the hearts and minds of a deeply traumatized Iraqi populace.

This action by the United States not only seals the ultimate defeat of America in Iraq by guaranteeing the increase in chaos and anarchy upon which the insurgency thrives, but also certifies yet again the status of the Bush administration as a violator of international law, in this case Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions to ensure the well-being of the occupied population by respecting their rights to life, health, food, education, and employment. Having invaded and destroyed Iraq, the United States now adds insult to injury by walking away from its responsibilities to rebuild Iraq at least to the standard that existed under Saddam Hussein's rule before March 2003.

While emotionally one can state that getting rid of Saddam Hussein bettered the lot of the average Iraqi citizen, intellectually this is a case that is unsustainable by fact. On every benchmark used to judge the effectiveness of a nation state, Iraq under American occupation fails to meet even the mediocre standards of Iraq as governed by Saddam Hussein, both before and during the time of sanctions. Iraq's education, health, transportation, security, infrastructure (especially water and electricity) and economy have all digressed since the US-led invasion.

Finally, I would be remiss not to comment here on the Bush administration's record of suppressing freedom of speech and expression, especially when it comes to the issue of Iraq. Within the United States we have the ongoing saga surrounding the President's decision to authorize unwarranted wiretaps, enabling the secretive National Security Agency to monitor and record the conversations and communications of American citizens without first going through special courts established for this purpose.

The President has justified his actions by noting that the courts in question imposed a dangerous time impediment, which impacts America's ability to rapidly respond to any emerging terrorist threat. He also emphasized that such intercepts only involved communications between US citizens and known Al Qaeda connections. The legality of the President's actions are questionable, and under current review by members of Congress.

However, given the Bush administration's proclivity to use the Al Qaeda label freely and often without cause (witness the repeated efforts to link Saddam Hussein's regime to Al Qaeda, and the ongoing description of Arab media outlets critical of US policy in the Middle East, such as Al Jazeera, as being propaganda organs of Al Qaeda), the scope of justification of these wiretaps could go far beyond any real threat that might exist from Al Qaeda, and include any anti-war movement in America that has communicated with citizens inside Iraq, or any journalist or columnist who communicates with or writes for Al Jazeera, or anyone who questions or opposes the policies of the Bush administration when it comes to the war in Iraq or the Global War on Terror.

Far from protecting America, the President Bush's frontal assault on the freedoms and protections afforded by the US Constitution have placed the United States, and indeed the world, in greater peril than any terrorist plot could ever aspire to.

If, by writing a book exposing the lies about Iraqi WMD or submitting an essay to Al Jazeera (or for that matter, to AlterNet or any other outlet that publishes a dissenting view), the Bush administration construes my actions as representing a threat to the United States and as such worthy of covert monitoring, so be it, for it is their actions that are seditious to the ideals and values set forth by the Constitution, not mine. When faced with the scale of the criminal activity undertaken by the Bush administration in the name of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people or defending America, the only real sedition I could commit would be to remain silent.

Scott Ritter served as a Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his resignation in 1998. He is the author of, most recently, Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein (Nation Books, 2005).


« The AlterNet Blogs « The Mix « Scott Ritter

[whimsicaldeb]

"And when the history of these days is written", the President said, concluding the fourth and last of his Iraqi policy speeches, "it will tell how America once again defended its own freedom by using liberty to transform nations from bitter foes to strong allies. And history will say that this generation, like generations before, laid the foundation of peace for generations to come."

This history is still being written as we speak, and in the end ... these words Bush spoke, may indeed ring true; only not in the way Bush had it planned, but instead in the way “we the people” have decided things will be, or stay.

His attacks against our own country, our own constitution, our own liberties may actually be the very foundation that brings all of us; all us own left & right'ers, as well as middle of the roaders together, for our countries sake, for the sake of our shared liberty, and continued freedom.

And that is what is being written now, for those history books to come. This is all very much still a work in progress/process … it’s not over yet. Even if in Bush's mind, he thinks it is. He's wrong.

Good article, and good to see you again, missed you, and your input.

[Zlatko Waterman]

Dear Deb:


Comments, remarks, invective, insults, loving caresses . . .

but never "input."

I know the rest of the world uses machine language as a matter of course, but I deny it a warm spot in my cortex.

Nothing personal, just one of my hundreds of nasty quirks.

Thank you for the nice thoughts. I miss you and all of you, but I must fade again for a few weeks.

I just thought Scott Ritter "nailed" it all in his strong precis ( no proper accents on this computer!) of the whole rotten mess.

With warm thoughts toward you and your family, Deb,

I am,

your sometimes semi-ectoplasmic,


Zlatko

[whimsicaldeb]

Input! More Input!

Opps ~ sorry Z... I seemed to have Short-Circuited (again)
~with love...

[Zlatko Waterman]

With respect and affection:

I recall well when the "input" and "feedback" locutions became common. Then, via television, everyone began using those expressions, about the same time I heard "impact" everywhere for "affect" and "influence." At the time, I was teaching English in a small college.

I simply oppose the impoverishment of the English language, something for which I have cultivated ( with difficulty) a deep, abiding love these many years.

English set me free, made my living, pays me a pension and helped me see the world and immeasurably expand my knowledge of it.

It replaced my parents and the support I never received from that quarter.

I try to treat English with respect and loving kindness, and refer to people as though one could differentiate them from machines.

I like you very much and respect your intelligence and your contributions to StudioEight.

No disrespect to you is meant in my comment about these common usages.

It is also common to bomb and maim children , and likewise you and I do not approve of those actions.

As George Orwell pointed out, language is just about all we really have when it comes to discerning the truth of things in ordinary circumstances.

I have many such language quirks; these quirks are standard equipment for me and help to defend against advertising and the illimitable and continuous fecal flow from all the lying sources around me in society who want my dollar and my soul, but never my real attention.

Your friend,


Zlatko

[jimboloco]

I'm not a big fan of un-mandated tribunals, but given the absolute lack of attention on the part of Congress regarding the decision to invade Iraq (a lethargy encouraged somewhat by Congress' own culpability in abrogating its responsibilities under the Constitution when it comes to war powers and holding the Executive Branch in check), I felt that my participation in the Commission's work would help create a record that might someday in the future motivate the representatives of the American people who occupy the Legislative Branch of government to carry work that not only serves the interests of their respective constituencies, but also defends both the letter and intent of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend. America should not be looking to any international commission or tribunal to hold President Bush and his administration to account; that is the job of the American people.

Here's another nail, he nailed it for sure.

We use input and output in nursing
drinks and piss

i think that the English language has aslo an ability to structure and describe and I don't mind at all the usage of these words in any situation

Spanish is so much more beautious
Boca Raton y la casa del sol

When the congress gets enough input from the people
the output will change

but we also need visionaries with courage to emerge
and garner succor, i demurrr

[Zlatko Waterman]

If that's you in the photo, Jim my friend, then you look like you're posing for a lobby still in a French "Nouveau Vague" film of 1967.

Let us use whatever language we please, only tell the truth when it keeps people from getting killed.

In peace and comfy satisfaction with whatever you post, you drawin' wizard, you.

Your friend,


Zlatko

[jimboloco]

well if maybe the prez had used a bit of the "nursing process" things might have gone better

Assessment
Planning
Intervention
Evaluation
A.P.I.E. is better'n a lie.

off to work!

[whimsicaldeb]

"If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, I help you become that.” Author: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Source: The Forbes Book of Business Quotations

Norman ... I understand, and no offense taken. The word input has a different feel (history of memories) for you (and others I’m sure) than it does for me - and there is know way I could possible have known that without you telling me! I didn't realize I was stepping on one of your verbiage toes, until you yelped … but I could tell that you knew I didn’t know by the way you did express yourself.

I'm grateful that you think of me as some ‘capable’ of learning … otherwise you would not have bothered even speaking out. And it was clear in how you responded to me that you realized that I did not mean to offend you, yet inadvertently … I did. To me, your posting spoke of caring.

You are right, my vocabulary is limited, and it's also dated, and I can also understand how to someone in your profession, the way I express must, at times, sound as off key and painful in tone as those squeaking chalk strokes on a blackboard. But I’m only ‘locked into’ being that way by those who won’t speak up and say what’s on their minds and hearts and why; not by those of you who do.

I can’t help but wonder, how many others have felt this same way (about different words perhaps) … but instead of speaking up, caring enough to speak out about their feelings to me, instead chose to speak about me and what I was doing.

I happen to be one of the those types of people who actually WANTS to know this type of thing! I want the truth, even if I don’t like, even if it hurts. And at times, it does hurt … but pain’s a part of healthy life and it’s in trying to avoid it, that in the long, only stunts growth and what is or will be, but doesn’t destroy it.

Norman, you need to know something …

I never realize I was ‘intelligent’ until they identified Eric as ‘gifted’ when they causally mentioned that “It runs in the family…” and both the teacher and my husband turned and looked at me .. And I looked back at them with “what?!”

I grew up being told and treated as some who was, dumb, stupid, because I could not “fit in” no matter how hard I tried. On the surface, I don’t think my ‘intelligence’ was readily recognized for what it was, so it was never notice or mentioned as a positive and instead was treated as a negative. So I believed them all, and took what they believed of me to heart, as well as accepted truth. On top of that, my mom was an alcoholic, my dad an authoritarian totally focused on work, and while we were never poor; we didn’t have a lot of extra. So we didn’t live in the best of areas, or towns and due to my dad’s promotions, we ended up moving around a lot … thus my education was hit & miss; during my K-12 years I went to three different elementary schools, two different junior highs (both in rough parts of Sacramento) and would have gone to 2 different high schools if I hadn’t got pissed and said ‘no, I will not take my last 6 months of high school in a new city!’ … and took an early (mid-term) graduation for the illustrious “Yuba City HS.” So my focus was on survival … not education.

I realize I was smart when I began working (at the age of 17) because when I was motivated, I found things easy to learn… and I did take some JC courses off & on during my younger years to help me be a better accountant … and thus make more money. But again, I limited myself to that goal.

But intelligent … perhaps having more to offer … I only found that out about 9 years ago now.

I have been the bane of every English teacher whose ever had the unfortunate circumstance of getting me in their life and I never fully understood why, until now. How frustrating it must have been, it must be, to see that intelligence laying there under the surface, and me not using it. To see that intelligence being presented so poorly.

But just like I never knew about all the deeper feelings attached to the word ‘input’ … they never new about all of my feelings as being big, dumb and stupid, and unable to fit in … because I never gave them the chance to know, and because I could hide them so well, and because I never told any of them, until now. I didn’t have the courage, because I was ashamed. So I let my shame limit myself, and frustrate others.

When I began working, when I began living in the greater world/society beyond school; that’s when I first became aware of how my lack of formal education, and the inconsistent mediocre quality of my K-12 education showed in everything I did. So I began teaching myself .. And I’m lucky, because I love to read. But as good as my intentions may be … in point of fact, I’m a lousy teacher.

I enjoy the articles you pick to share, the information you bring because it helps me not only see the bigger picture, but because it personally helps me. So in the end, I’m selfish. But this also explains why the feed back you give me, that each here give me, is so valuable … because it touches and enhances a multitude of my inner layers.

Thank you, each of you.

[whimsicaldeb]

~ugh!~ I didn't mean to kill the conversation....

Input or "whatever"
Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays
~so what~
let's move on ...

The people in Iraq as well as the people in this country are being lied to; and it takes honesty -- repeated honesty to even begin to keep this from not only continuing but spreading beyond where it's already flowed.

Quote from Ritter ...

If, by writing a book exposing the lies about Iraqi WMD or submitting an essay to Al Jazeera (or for that matter, to AlterNet or any other outlet that publishes a dissenting view), the Bush administration construes my actions as representing a threat to the United States and as such worthy of covert monitoring, so be it, for it is their actions that are seditious to the ideals and values set forth by the Constitution, not mine. When faced with the scale of the criminal activity undertaken by the Bush administration in the name of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people or defending America, the only real sedition I could commit would be to remain silent.


Two things;

First - If our truths are trumped up; or enhanced to make our case - like Frey's ... then our "truths" become just like Bush & Co's; twisted 1/2's mushed together to make a good novel designed to sell and swag the public.

Second: If our truths are as they are; nothing more - but nothing less -- and if we want those truths to be known -- and if we want this administration and those who support him 180, or at the very least the majority that are/do ... then having them listening in and reading over our shoulders may actually help us. Work to our favor ... for it certainly puts the information in eyes and ears of those who need to know it the most. And it's a known fact that repeated exposure to anything ~ including the truth ~ has an effect.

Since they already are ... I say, let's it to our advantage and instead of shutting and complaining -- start talking, emailing, writing even MORE!

Freedom is when the people can speak,
democracy is when the government listens.
---Alastair Farrugia

Well, they are listening! Democracy is on the line; and while we still have our freedoms .... I'm going to use um. And if that's a problem for Bush & Co then Good. He still has a lot left to learn.

It is in the whole process of meeting and solving problems that life
has meaning. Problems are the cutting edge that distinguishes between
success and failure. Problems call forth our courage and our wisdom;
indeed, they create our courage and our wisdom. It is only because of
problems that we grow mentally and spiritually. It is through the pain of
confronting and resolving problems that we learn.

M. Scott Peck

[jimboloco]

wow.

I always thought of myself as a complete introvert
social learning is another aspect,I mean my normal developmental process was fucked before, then mutilated by my anger out of Vietnam.
Today I have joked with many folks, worked well in a complex group scenario. A people person, not a partier, a companyero.
I was taught to be an elitist but became a proletarian.

Man I will tell you there are different kinds of intelligence. There are people with modest educations who are more complex, more awake. The process of self discovery is unique to all. I am somewhat amazed by Zman's ability to thrive in academia coming out of his dysfunctional family and I still believe that he had a mentor at some juncture in his formative years who gave him a spark of insight.

I believe that now I could pass those physics and calculus classes with a much better performance and understanding than I had when I was struggling at Michigan in the late 60's.

I had too many blocks, poor self esteem.

Deb is whimsical for a reason, no doubt. Me too. we see the forest and the trees, that's what counts.

Man,thank God for real patriotic Americans like Ritter and Kuwaitwowzki.

[Zlatko Waterman]

I agree with all you have written above, Jim. My experience in academia ( as you put it) confirms exactly what you have said.

Personally, I substituted the university for the family that I felt had failed me. I left home ( at 19 and supported myself thereafter, including working my way through college . . .) joyfully and became a thriving ( but very impoverished) adventurer in studentdom followed by a job as a researcher ( while working the hospital and orchards in the summer as a farm laborer) in the English Department, then a teaching assistantship, graduate school, more graduate school and then my own teaching.

The school was a way to remain uninvolved in business, whose M.O. I have always despised, and get paid for reading books, which I showed some aptitude for.

As I have stated on this board before, I was never able to play the academic game of self-promotion and scholarship. I am not a scholar and read what pleases me and what helps my art to this day.

I am also a passable actor and imitated a college professor the way a sitcom actor might pretend to be a scurrilous villain dismembering victims while secretly planting and cultivating orchids as his avocation on his own time.


--Z

[whimsicaldeb]

As I have stated on this board before, I was never able to play the academic game of self-promotion and scholarship. I am not a scholar and read what pleases me and what helps my art to this day. -- Z

Wow!!!

I'm glad you repeated yourself. I did not know this. During the spring and summer months especially I'm too busy to read all the posts, so I'm glad you re:wrote is out again.

But I have to strongly disagree with you... you are most definitely a scholar; not a pretender – a genuine one. Uncredited perhaps, but in no way ‘fake.’

You see the forest & the trees, you see what counts and then best of all, you present what you see in clear, easy to understand, precise ways. Another of your fortes, artistic strengths.


Deb is whimsical for a reason, no doubt. -- JB

thank you


~~~~

I don't want to 'hi-jack' this thread, or take it off topic, so ...

[jimboloco]

Yes Zman, you are a rather literate fellow.
i like yer style, dude.

It's like the doctors, some of them are snobs and some of them are real people.

My second V.A. counselor once told me, "you are an elitist."

so much bull shit to wade thru. His pet client had brought a gun over to my little pad and had waved it in my face, all the while smiling. I told him to get the fuck out. And the counselor had his little impresario up to NYC to see a play. I felt for the guy, his 2 brothers had committed suicide and he needed help, but does that make me asn elitist? My step-father always told me how self-centered I was. What fuckups.

so in becoming a real person, one knows what pitfalls to avoid in the generative phase of life, when we can give so often in subtle ways.
Warm whimzical fuzziez to all youze dudes and wranglerz!
Thanks for this post of Ritterz. I am gonna send it out.