Bush v. Kerry: The Official Elections 2004 Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth Mischievous, Mar 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 7-7-7 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 15, 2002
    star 4
    Say hello to George Soros for me, 7-7-7.

    That was uncalled for.

    This statement is simply nothing other than stupid

    I can't take anyone who would trust a traitor seriously


    Bush actually knew about 9/11 beforehand and didn't tell anyone. Sure.

    Weren't you paying attention? He knew there was going to be a terrorist attack involving jet airliners in the weeks beforehand. He DID order certain individuals to take private flights beforehand instead of flying commercially (as has been the tradition since '96) He did not, however, bother to step up security measures at airports on on airplanes,


    It's just simply more of the lunatic far-left's conspiracy theories, and quite insulting at that.

    Its a tragedy that any arguement against the traitor Bush which is backed up with facts and has proof and witnesses is a "Far-left conspiracy theory" while the propoganda of cowards like Michael Moore and the deceptions of the criminals Ashcroft, Bush, and Hatch are taken as serious arguements.

    You're probably someone's dirty JC sock.

    Um, yeah. This is my Christmas and Lental season sock. I use my original name between easter and october (Sevrance Tann), and my halloween sock (6-6-6) after that. I do take offense to being called dirty, though.


    And please, before you go about flaming and spamming, check your fact, and know what your actually posting about. It brings the respectability of the entire forum down when people go about posting drivel and wasting space like that. Please, do some investigation of your own. You might be surprised at what you find.
  2. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    You're calling Bush a traitor.

    That's a serious charge, and quite meritless.

    Since you say you're not a sock, you sure you're not Al Gore? (See Gore's famous angry rant: "He beeeetraaaayeeeed this country!!!!").
    I can't take anyone who would trust a traitor seriously


    That's ripe.

    You're accusing the President of the United States of treason - a crime worthy of death. Obviously, you don't know what treason means, because if you think W commited treason or anything of the sort - you're beyond the pale in the land of the ideologically extreme.

    criminals Ashcroft, Bush, and Hatch are taken as serious arguements


    You sure you're not from North Korea? C'mon, tell me your name isn't Kim!

    Either way, you're doing George Soros proud.

    ----

    (Disclaimer: for the regular posters here whether you're on the left or on the right, I remain in the sincere hope that common sense and sanity prevails in the discussion here - for which it has in the most part. For commentary as above, this is an example of what extremism is like in it's most virulent form).


  3. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Are you saying you think Bush had no idea a terrorist attack was being mounted? That's a pretty good endorsement for him and CIA/FBI...
    E_S
  4. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Bush didn't know about 9/11 beforehand.

    Period.

    If he did or any other US President, Clinton or whoever, something would have been done - people would have been warned.

    I'm sure he knew that terrorist organizations were active, but I'm sure he knew nothing about 9/11 or antying imminent to that effect.

    No one expected it.
  5. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    So the intel services were totally blind and lying about their CX related to terrorist attacks against the US; and certainly about when they were monitoring flight schools...

    Has Bush done any wrong with 9/11 DM, or are you just too reticent to concede any of it?

    E_S
  6. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Here we go yet again with the rhetoric with obligatory false assertions, E_S. //sigh

    Of course, Bush and everyone else didn't do enough pre-9/11 (inlcluding that US terrorist Czar who recently wrote that book deriding W but being soft on Clinton, including George Tenet, and so on).

    Ever since the 1993 bombing of the WTC, not enough was done.

    However, to assert that Bush knew anything about 9/11 beforehand is simply bovine excrement to the extreme. Besides, the plans were being formulated long before Bush even got to office. Clinton didn't know about them either, or I think he'd certainly have tried to put a stop to it as well (although by what method, I don't know, because he did little to nothing after the 1993 WTC attack). Sure, the CIA was monitoring possible terrorist activities - and the failures in intelligence were plainly evident after 9/11. The lack of airline security was also quite profound (with easily accessible cockpits, et cetera).

  7. Rock_Sock Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Bush didn't know about 9/11 beforehand.


    Yes he did, the miserable puke.
  8. TripleB Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    7-7-7 said

    That was uncalled for.

    This statement is simply nothing other than stupid

    I can't take anyone who would trust a traitor seriously

    Weren't you paying attention? He knew there was going to be a terrorist attack involving jet airliners in the weeks beforehand. He DID order certain individuals to take private flights beforehand instead of flying commercially (as has been the tradition since '96) He did not, however, bother to step up security measures at airports on on airplanes,
    Its a tragedy that any arguement against the traitor Bush which is backed up with facts and has proof and witnesses is a "Far-left conspiracy theory" while the propoganda of cowards like Michael Moore and the deceptions of the criminals Ashcroft, Bush, and Hatch are taken as serious arguements.

    Um, yeah. This is my Christmas and Lental season sock. I use my original name between easter and october (Sevrance Tann), and my halloween sock (6-6-6) after that. I do take offense to being called dirty, though.

    And please, before you go about flaming and spamming, check your fact, and know what your actually posting about. It brings the respectability of the entire forum down when people go about posting drivel and wasting space like that. Please, do some investigation of your own. You might be surprised at what you find



    [image=http://www.alz.org/images/bjstimeless1.jpg]
  9. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    I do think that there were warnings flying around the CIA and DOD a month before 9/11/2001. Now, whether or not President Bush was fully aware of them, or whether they constitued an actual, concrete warning about an attack that was going to take place, is another story, one that I don't know much about.

    I remember reading about it in The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn (which, despite the title and the author, is actually quite factual), but I don't have a copy of that book with me.

    Darth Mischievous:
    Nah, I would say Joe Leiberman is a hair left of center.

    For you though, he (Joe Leiberman) probably would be as conservative as Ronald Reagan is and Reagan would be as far right as a dictator.


    Actually, I agree that Sen. Lieberman is a hair left of center. But I do disagree about Jimmy Carter. IMO, Carter's about where Lieberman is. Maybe just a little bit to the left.

    I don't think Ronald Reagan is that far right (that's more like Rush Limbaugh territory) but he is pretty conservative.

    Can you imagine if the President of FOX News Channel and the Editor of the Wall Street Journal met with President Bush in some apartment -- there would be outrage.

    ......I would have no problem with that.

    Sometimes I think this whole "media bias" accusation show is overblown, and is just a red herring used to derail arguments that one can't come up with an answer to. I haven't really had that many problems with media reporting. Even FOX News and CNN are okay, even though they've been slagged with accusations of bias. I think it really comes down more to which stories the news outlets choose to emphasize, rather than on the actual rhetoric or detailing that the stories themselves use.

    Gonk:
    And, for the record, we were always at war with Eurasia.

    [face_laugh]
  10. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Wow, I've been gone a few days, did I miss something. [face_mischief]

    I'll admit that I have only had a chance to glance at the last few pages, so forgive me if I state things that have already been addressed.

    Mr44 -

    I hope for his sake, Kerry doesn't let Carter start defining him...

    That would just be political suicide..

    (no offense to DS77...


    None taken. :) As I have said, even my folks, who like me are die-hard Democrats, didn't vote for Carter in 1980.

    Naturally Carter has a right to speak his mind, but I certainly wouldn't want him to be Kerry's primary 'spokesman'. Either way, the GOP has its share of people that aren't the most desirable promoting Bush (i.e., Pat Robertson).

    And I don't think Bush knew about 9/11 before hand. These same accusations have been leveled for years about FDR and Pearl Harbor. IMO there needs to be some strong evidence before such an accusation is made.
    Whether or not his, or any other administration was ineffective in the months leading up to 9/11 (or since 9/11), is a different issue. Otherwise, to suggest in bold terms that Bush knew about it and let it happen as some sort of 'conspiracy' is utter nonsense.

    Ever since the 1993 bombing of the WTC, not enough was done.

    I'd say well before that, since the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 (1984?).

    Kerry released a new ad that will be aired in a bunch of states. Its short, but has a positive tone.
  11. sellars1996 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2002
    star 3
    Geez, as much as I am trying to be reasonable and objective about this election, the Dems are making it hard for me and are getting even my fairly moderate Republican/conservative juices flowing again by dragging out Teddy Kennedy, the best swimmer in Congress, and Jimmy "Swats a Rabbit Swimming in the Middle of the River with an Oar" Carter. (Does anyone else remember that, or am I showing my age?) If Terry McAuliffe starts pulling out Hillary, Hanoi Jane, or Babs Streisand to stump for Kerry, it will all be over for me. I may end up like ranting like Triple B before long the way this is going. ;)

    (An aside here ... my RNC membership will probably be revoked for this, but I voted for Carter in my 5th grade class election in 1980. Young and misguided, but at least I knew then that TESB was the greatest movie I would ever see ... Anyway. I started reading a book by Douglas Brinkley about Carter a few years back and my perception of the man and his policies has changed quite a bit. He was all in all a decent man who presided during a difficult time. He has not deserved all of the vilification he has received since the 1980 election, but as president, he really seemed powerless and directionless and shaped more by events than interested in taking action. To be fair, though, all of the foregoing could be said about Ford. It is interesting that in the years after leaving office, Ford and Carter have spoken out together on many issues. Like Dole and Clinton twenty years later, they weren't that far apart despite running against each other and are entertaining to watch when they speak together.)

    Thanks to cyprusg and DS1977 for talking economics with me ... since it was my minor in college, I feel somewhat qualified to talk about it, as opposed to things like foreign policy, the Patriot Act, and the military (which I will leave to Ender Sai, Mr44, and DS1977). At any rate, it's good to have a substantive discussion.

    Good column by Cronkite, OWM. Good to see you back again. :)
  12. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    He has not deserved all of the vilification he has received since the 1980 election, but as president, he really seemed powerless and directionless and shaped more by events than interested in taking action. To be fair, though, all of the foregoing could be said about Ford. It is interesting that in the years after leaving office, Ford and Carter have spoken out together on many issues. Like Dole and Clinton twenty years later, they weren't that far apart despite running against each other and are entertaining to watch when they speak together

    Very well said. My folks more or less said the same thing about Carter, that while they may have overreacted at the time, they found him to be ineffective. And they agree about Ford, a decent, honest man who was in office during very difficult times.
  13. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I dunno about calling Bush a TRAITOR, that's rather extreme. Event with Richard Clarke's allegations (which seem to be pretty solid regardless of motive) the main focus seems to be that the Bush administration is incompetent. That's hardly a death penalty, or even prosecutable offense. I'm not sure you could even impeach him on that. I mean, I'm not particularly opposed to impeaching Bush but with what happened to Clinton it seems like a petty tit-for-tat with each party's respective president.

    But you can sure as heck vote him out of office.
  14. Master_Fwiffo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2001
    star 3
    *reads 7-7-7 and Rock_Socks posts*

    .....


    Yes, Ive got a large collection of Tin-Foil hats I've been saving just for the occasions. How many do you guys want?

    Conspiracy theories have no place in a debate like this.
  15. sellars1996 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2002
    star 3
    Thanks, DS1977. The 1980 and 1984 elections were really the last times the parties offered clearly different choices in terms of ideology and leadership. Carter was hampered by this image that he was directionless, much like Bush was in 1992, especially ironic since Bush heaped so much scorn on Carter in the 1988 elections for bad economic times.

    P.S. Just thinking about Reagan's run for president in 1976 ... it was not his time yet. Just as Clinton's legacy would not have been as powerful had he presided in a different time, presidents are a mirror of the times as much as they shape the times. In the 1980 elections, Reagan came across well and offered a clear vision for the future and looked like a strong, decisive leader. (Clinton did the same in 1992.) Reagan would not have done as well had he won in 1976. I see many parallels between that and John Edwards' run this year. Edwards is the one to watch of this year's candidates, and I really expect to see him in the White House some day.
  16. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Yes he did, the miserable puke.

    I don't know if that's 7-7-7 or not, but I have to say, again specifically this time (or I might sound redundant) that there's no way Bush could have specifically known about 9-11. If he did you'd probably see even MORE administration officials coming forward (though 2 + 1 CIA incident is bad enough). Things would have to get far more worse than this.

    However, there is a very valid charge with specifics that now stands that whatever stance Clinton had on terrorism, and however unthorough it was, he took international terrorism more seriously than GWB did pre-9/11. It may very well be that if Clinton's measures and concerns were still in place, 9/11 may not have happened and the huge spending sprees the Bush administration has gone under in order to protect the nation are unnecessary, have ballooned the deficit and if anything, has fallen into precisely the place the terrorists wanted.

    I seriously doubt Clinton would not have done exactly what Bush did and invade Afghanistan after 9/11. I also seriously doubt Bush would have invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the WTC, Cole or Embassy bombings. You needed something as drastic as 9/11 to justify all these invasions.

    But it's not the invasion of Afghanistan I'm blaming for the out of control spending. There's Iraq, to be sure, but mostly its all the internal spending on national security, the creation of homeland security and other bureaucracies, that makes the deficit what it is. It seems to be rather reactionary when it may well be that Clinton's own general methods were, if not ideal, preferrable.
  17. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    P.S. Just thinking about Reagan's run for president in 1976 ... it was not his time yet. Just as Clinton's legacy would not have been as powerful had he presided in a different time, presidents are a mirror of the times as much as they shape the times.

    Is this to say the Clinton's legacy is remarkable for the time HE was in, or the time WE are viewing it in?

    Personally I think the only presidents in the last 50 years who will be remembered by history are JFK and Nixon. Just like FDR seems to be the only one really remembered in the first half of the 20th Century (even Wilson and TR are rarely mentioned).

    Proper historians, of course, remember all of them.
  18. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    From Mark Shields at CNN:

    ...The Republicans' message in March of this election year goes like this: "We can't really talk about what we've done, and we can't really tell you what we will do, but we will happily tell you just how awful the other guy has been and would be."

    Nowhere is this approach more brazenly employed than in the Bush-Cheney campaign's assault on the combat record of John Kerry in Vietnam. The campaign has distributed a letter by retired Col. William Campenni, who served with George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard from 1970 to 1971.

    Campennii defends Bush's service record, which is fine, but then argues that Kerry's service to the nation (which included his earning three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in Vietnam) was not as valuable to the defense of the nation as was George W. Bush's winning the Battle of Amarillo.

    Campenni wrote: "While ... Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we (Campenni and Bush) were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over ... the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico."

    This is more than a real reach for the Bush-Cheney team. As Mark Russell, the Mark Twain of Our Time, observes, "This is a campaign between two American military heroes: One was wounded three times in combat in Vietnam, and the other was 'missing in action' in Alabama."


    Regarding the letter distributed by the campaign. [face_laugh] [face_laugh] [face_laugh] **wipes tear** [face_laugh] [face_laugh]

    Whats next, a campaign interview with Dick Cheney's babysitter stating that his five deferments were far more important than any medal won in combat by any 'liberal'?

    Also from the WP:

    On Sunday, Hagel, a maverick Republican with a reputation similar to McCain's for speaking his mind, criticized the Bush campaign ad that called Kerry "weak on defense." Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Hagel said: "The facts just don't measure [up to] the rhetoric." He said it is unfair to isolate one or two votes over a 19-year career to make such a sweeping assessment of Kerry. "You can... take any of us, and pick out the different votes, and then try to manufacture something around it," he said.

  19. sellars1996 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2002
    star 3
    If you have never seen him, watch Mark Russell's specials during elections on PBS (if he's still doing them). The man is hilarious. He plays the piano and sings humorous songs about the candidates and issues; he takes shots at both sides.

    I can't remember his name (Pat Paulson?), but there was a guy on the Smothers Brothers that also used to give political humor as well. They did a special in 1988 and made fun of the Democrats running then for president. He walked among cardboard cutouts of them all and paused at Jesse Jackson and said if it wasn't for Jesse, all the candidates would look alike. Funny stuff.
  20. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    However, there is a very valid charge with specifics that now stands that whatever stance Clinton had on terrorism, and however unthorough it was, he took international terrorism more seriously than GWB did pre-9/11. It may very well be that if Clinton's measures and concerns were still in place, 9/11 may not have happened and the huge spending sprees the Bush administration has gone under in order to protect the nation are unnecessary, have ballooned the deficit and if anything, has fallen into precisely the place the terrorists wanted.

    I seriously doubt Clinton would not have done exactly what Bush did and invade Afghanistan after 9/11. I also seriously doubt Bush would have invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the WTC, Cole or Embassy bombings. You needed something as drastic as 9/11 to justify all these invasions.


    -Just gotta agree with everything said here.

    On my flight I bought this special addition TIME by Hugh Sidley I think his name was, and it was a special edition dedicated solely to Sidley's essays and editorials on the Presidents and their Personalities, from FDR to Bush. He seems to LOVE Dubya. Anyway, he offered an interesting and I guess standard interpretation of Carter.

    This anecdote I think sums up a lot about Carter. When he was planning the botched rescue effort to free the hostages, he requested detailed intelligence on the gaurds, if they were hardened evil soldiers, then lethal force was allowed, if they were just peasents forced into duty by circumstance, then they were not to be killed.

    Carter was too moral a man to President at that time. I think men are defined by their times, it's interesting to think that President Reagan might not have existed after President Ford's first elected term, (Ford just barely lost to Carter), since he would not have been eligible for reelection, I wonder who would have won the GOP nomination? . I also read a recent article that said that essentially, untrustworthiness is the third most important quality in a successful President. The ability to be liberal with the truth, which this administration has mastered.
  21. Vezner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 29, 2001
    star 5
    Yes he did, the miserable puke.

    that was the lamest post ever.

    I would take the Bush haters more seriously if they didn't make such outlandish claims. Most of what they accuse him of is so far in left field that it just seems ridiculous at this point. Conspiracy theorists are scary people IMO.
  22. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    On a side note: Anyone see this Sunday's Simpsons? They did a hilarious parody of Star Wars fans and of the prequels. I have enjoyed the prequels and I still thought it was hilarious.

    A side note of my side note: Purchasing Tivo was one of my better ideas. Now I can watch shows at my convenience. Granted I sleep even less now, but at least I can catch shows that I miss because their regular time slot is not condusive to my schedule. It is great for people who spend a lot of their weekends and free time with their family...I'm looking at you Sellars! :)
  23. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    ..Clinton had on terrorism, and however unthorough it was, he took international terrorism more seriously than GWB did pre-9/11. It may very well be that if Clinton's measures and concerns were still in place, 9/11 may not have happened

    What were those specific measures, Gonk, that were so effective? I'm not looking for a "opinion war," but any examples you can provide that illustrate your point.

    But it's not the invasion of Afghanistan I'm blaming for the out of control spending. There's Iraq, to be sure, but mostly its all the internal spending on national security, the creation of homeland security and other bureaucracies, that makes the deficit what it is.

    And do you recognize any benefits from the consolidated homeland security department?

    Because I'm not sure if people understand that the DHS simply put previously existing agencies under a single umbrella. For example, the Coast Guard already existed as a service. It was simply transfered to the DHS.

    It seems to be rather reactionary when it may well be that Clinton's own general methods were, if not ideal, preferrable.

    And again, I am interested in any concrete examples you can provide. What seems to be missing here are actual illustrations that can be compared.
  24. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    What does everyone think about Richard Clarke's allegations and how (if) they will affect the terrorism issue? Keep in mind that he has served four Presidents, three of which were Republicans, and is himself a registered Republican.
  25. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    If you watched former Secretary of State Madaline Albright's testimony, she went into a lot of it in great detail. Mr. 44, you seem quite capable of asking thoughtful important questions of democrats, pointed but fair questions. How come you never do so with the Republicans? Do you investigate their claims with as much detachment as the Dems? Or do you sort of just give them the benefit of the doubt, as most partisans?

    Anyway, I'm sure you can find the Madaline Albright testimony with a good google search. That ought to answer SOME of your Clinton questions.

    EDIT:

    This article relates to what DeathStarr just touched on, and also what Mr. 44 was asking about:Clarke rebuffs White House attacks
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Defends allegations that Bush used 9/11 to start Iraq war

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former White House counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of going on the offensive against him to "divert attention from the truth" that the administration did "virtually nothing about al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001."

    Clarke, author of the newly released book, "Against All Enemies," also said the administration focused on alleged Iraqi ties to the terrorist attacks while there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was involved.

    "The White House is papering over facts, such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, even though they knew at the time -- from me, from the FBI, from the CIA -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," Clarke said. (Transcript)

    Clarke, a 30-year White House veteran who served under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton before the current president, referred to Bush's own comments to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, author of "Bush at War," in which the president said he "didn't have a sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.

    "He is saying that," Clarke said. "President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say this."

    "They're trying to divert attention from the truth here," he said. "... And they've got all sorts of people on the taxpayers' rolls going around attacking me and attacking the book and writing talking points and distributing them to radio talk shows and what not, around the country."

    But the facts, Clarke said, are that "the administration had done nothing about al Qaeda prior to 9/11 despite the fact that the CIA director [George Tenet] was telling them virtually every day that there was a major threat."

    On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made various news media appearances defending the administration, while other administration officials did the same in news conferences. In most cases, they tried to turn the attention back to Clarke and away from an important issue in the president's reelection campaign -- national security.

    Rice -- whom Clarke says ignored his memo requesting an "urgent" meeting on the al Qaeda threat in January 2001 -- accused Clarke of "retrospective rewriting of history."

    "To somehow suggest that the attack on 9/11 could have been prevented by a series of meetings -- I have to tell you that during that period of time, we were at battle stations," she said.

    "The only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993 and the first attack on the World Trade Center, in [1998] when the [U.S.] embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit," Cheney told conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

    "The question that has to be asked is, 'What were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counter-terrorism efforts?'"

    Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action an
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.