Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

[Mr. Shaman]

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

A dishonest quibble from leftwinger.

Congress couldn't possibly "order" the President to go to war. ALL they have ever had the Constitutional authority to do is AUTHORIZE him to use our nation's military might.

In this instance, we got attacked.

Ah, yes.....the ol' Saddam Hussein/terrorists collusion excuse!!!!!!



​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

Pathetic. Come back when you're ready to address the fact that the previous admin and the Israeli and British intel agencies (among many others) believed there to be WMD's in Iraq.

This nonsense got old years ago.

After George Bush launched that War, he insisted "NOW isn't the TIME...." to discuss how/why that War was launched!!!!

NOW'S the time.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

How quickly & conveniently you folks forget-about what he actually did.....​

"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support [for] efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well."

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998​

Gee.....no mention of War!!

You've gotta quit relying on Porky Limbaugh for your "quotes".

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And this is fucking hilarious:

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

....Yet, no War.



*

I guess Bill Clinton didn't feel as much NEED, like Lil' Dumbya, to be considered a Commander-In-Chief.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

This is even funnier:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Thats odd...

I didn't see Clinton asking to invade Iraq

Bingo!!!!

​

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton that led to giving Liberty to Iraq, a disaster, not at all. To label it as such shows lack of knowledge.

Consider, eight years of Bill Clinton gathering intelligence on Iraq, eight years of failed Democrat polices, like intelligence, it was Bill Clinton's intelligence that gave us the U.S. Cole being sunk in Yemen as well as Bill Clinton's CIA that gave us 9/11.

Was it not Boxer, Kerry, and Pelosi who sat on a committee and they all stated the intelligence showed Iraq was producing WMD's, this was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Yes, Liberal's gave us 9/11 and Iraq yet they want us to beleive that Iraq was nothing but a lie and a disaster. Pure lies.

Far from a disaster, Iraq, if we do not desert Iraq, is about the best thing that has happened in the Middle East since Israel declared independence from England.

Actually it was the unholy union of the ACLU and the Republicans that blocked most of Clintons Anti-terrorist bill of 1995. Many of the provision he ask for were implemented after 9-11.

Better check your intel, the USS Cole was not sunk. 17 sailors died in an attack on her and Clinton should have damn well dropped the whole Israeli/Palestine peace BS and taken care of business. But then again Bush had nearly 8 months to do something about the Taliban's guests too. But they opened negociations for the pipeline with the Taliban.

It was President GHW Bush that gave us Iraq. Had he told Saddam in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if it were our 51st, Saddam would not have dared invade.

Al Queda gave us 9-11. Not Bush, not Clinton. Americas interventionist policies however can be questioned when the motive of these sick fucks come up.

I think the democracy in Iraq is going to vote for us to leave, post haste.

England quit it's Mandate for Palestine because they were tired of fighting a three way battle. Tired of its' ambassadors being assassinated and tired of its' soldier being kidnaped and killed, yeah they quit. Soon after, the Jewish settlers declared themselves to be an independent state. Then they defended their independence with weapons.

The USS Cole was not sunk, your right, I better check my facts.

Clinton would of saved us if only the Republicans would of not stopped Clinton,

Yea, that is why Sandy Berger, United States National Security Advisor, under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 stole Top Secret documents from the National Archives. I am sure those were the documents that showed Clinton did all he could, right or is it you think wire tapping could of stopped 9/11.

Just think, after the Federal Building was blown up in Oklahoma, after the Word Trade Center was attacked in 1993, after our embassies were blown up in Africa, after Black Hawk Down, after the USS Cole was sunk, Bill Clinton could of stopped it all if only he could of tapped a phone?

You are right about the USS Cole, that boat did not even come close to sinking.

You forget the ACLU the Republican and I forget the NRA all applied pressure to defeat the stringent anti terrorist bill President Clinton submitted. It's history. Yes federal authorities would have had more tools, including wire tapping international calls routed through the US, to combat and possibly identify the threat before it happened.

Burger was guilty of intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document. A misdemeanor.

Funny when terrorist first attacked the WTC you didn't see the President blaming his predecessor did you?

Don't blame Clinton - Joe Conason - Salon.com

 

[asterism]

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Bingo!!!!

Former weapons inspector:
Iraq not a threat

Ex-U.N. arms inspector Ritter arrested in online child-sex sting -

 

[Mustang]

That was the point, wasn't it? GET Congressional approval. And to get that approval, the administration was willing to site any source, regardless of its merit.

As I recall, the supporters of the measure also used post 9/11 fear to help get that approval. That was a pretty questionable tactic seeing as how Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. But then again, the administration DID push the since discredited "intelligence report" that Saddam had someone meet with a member of al Qaeda in Eastern Europe.

The administration even played the patriotism card in the most cynical way. Or don't you remember those campaign ads that ran in GA which suggested that triple amputee Vietnam war veteran Sen Max Cleland was somehow soft on terrorism by showing pictures of bin Laden in the ad.

Yeah, the message was clear. Vote to give the president the authorization to use force to oust Saddam or you would be labeled as unpatriotic in the coming election.

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

I'm shocked and in awe of this revisionist history.

 

[Intense]

Hm. How about that? If that's true, then the Dims who voted in favor of the authorization must have been more inclined to vote against it, but found it expedient in a gutless, cowardly, spineless way, to cave in to mere political expediency. That's some lot of pussies you guys have over there at the Democrat Parody.

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

I'm shocked and in awe of this revisionist history.

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

 

[Mustang]

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

I'm shocked and in awe of this revisionist history.

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Bingo!!!!

Former weapons inspector:
Iraq not a threat

Ex-U.N. arms inspector Ritter arrested in online child-sex sting -

March 11, 2003​

"Years before George W. Bush entered the White administration of House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the President George W. direction of his presidency, a group of influential Bush neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam’s Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward’s book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy."

Neo-Conservatives’ Blueprint For
Iraq War​

 

[Jarhead]

I'm shocked and in awe of this revisionist history.

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

 

[drsmith1072]

The more intelligent - and slightly less partisan - among the board - might be tempted to ask some hard questions, rather than use this thread as yet another 'let's blame Bush' bonanza.... Questions about why we were not and still are not putting more effort into our clandestine services. Had we had a decent clandestine network, we would have been in a better position to verify information, develop further information and generally would not have made such a fucking mess of things.

However, I'm sure it's easier... and much more fun.... to just scream about Bush et al.

Here is a question.

Wasn't Bush suppsoed to fix all of that??

 

[Jarhead]

The more intelligent - and slightly less partisan - among the board - might be tempted to ask some hard questions, rather than use this thread as yet another 'let's blame Bush' bonanza.... Questions about why we were not and still are not putting more effort into our clandestine services. Had we had a decent clandestine network, we would have been in a better position to verify information, develop further information and generally would not have made such a fucking mess of things.

However, I'm sure it's easier... and much more fun.... to just scream about Bush et al.

Here is a question.

Wasn't Bush suppsoed to fix all of that??

No.

Seems only the left expected Bush to be the ideal leader and were disappointed that he couldnt do more.
The rest of us were aware that the President can do "just so much"

 

[Mustang]

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

What happened is in the recent past. So, nobody has to review 50 year old archival records to recall that the disbanded Iraqi Army kept their weapons when they went home to find themselves with no income to support their families while the crime rate in the streets was soaring and the availability of electricity and clean water was wholly unreliable.

And I'm quite sure that people can remember that key industries, museums, and armories were left unguarded and were subsequently looted.

Who made the decisions about how many (how few) troops to send to Iraq? Who was in charge of post war Iraq? Who was in charge of the reconstruction? It was the administration.

 

[drsmith1072]

SNIP:

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

read the rest here.
Democrat Quotes on WMD

Yep, people need to understand both parties are at fault for the Iraqi disaster and react accordingly.

Good post.

Yeah sure, IF you ignore that pretty much everytime prior to W taking office that anyone on the left mentioned iraq and WMD's they were accused by the right of "wagging the dog."
So it's quite hilarious that the right is willing to use what they once called lies as justification for W choosing to invade iraq. LOL

Yes those who voted in favor of it either because they were too cowardly to take a stand or relied on the false information that they were given without questioning it do deserve some of the blame however, who was CIC and who made the final call to invade?

 

[Jarhead]

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

What happened is in the recent past. So, nobody has to review 50 year old archival records to recall that the disbanded Iraqi Army kept their weapons when they went home to find themselves with no income to support their families while the crime rate in the streets was soaring and the availability of electricity and clean water was wholly unreliable.

And I'm quite sure that people can remember that key industries, museums, and armories were left unguarded and were subsequently looted.

Who made the decisions about how many (how few) troops to send to Iraq? Who was in charge of post war Iraq? Who was in charge of the reconstruction? It was the administration.

No sir. We do not need to review 50 year old archived records.
We need to be open minded and not guided by ideology and love of party to interpret what happened.
First of all...Bush and his closest advisors were not war mongers. They did not WANT to go to war. They beleved they had to. Only partisan losers who look to knock the other party would think otherwsie. There is nothing in Bush's history to say he enjoys death.
Second....we had a history of war with Iraq a mere 10 years earlier. They rolled over and surrendered in a matter of hours. There was valid reason to believe the same would happen again.
Third...we were faced with an enemy that employed acts of warfare never imagined. They used hospitals and schools as protection. They used innocent civilians of their own land as decoys.
Fourth....our Presidents insistance to do whatever is necessary to minimize collateral damage made things even more difficult...especially in light of my third item.
Fifth...The President got approval from congress to take the action. Only partisan losers believe the "cherry picked intel" excuse that politicians used as an excuse on the campaign trail
Last.....Thr CiC is adivsed by people on the ground. He is rarely if ever at the front itself.

Get off it already.

Bush did what he believed needed to be done. He did not do just for the sake of doing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

Yeah.....Rummy really had crowd-control all-figured-out, for Baghdad.

July 12, 2003​

"The small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to prepare for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.

The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup plan.

One senior defense official told Knight Ridder that the failure of Pentagon civilians to set specific objectives - short-, medium- and long-term - for Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction after Saddam Hussein's regime fell even left U.S. military commanders uncertain about how many and what kinds of troops would be needed after the war.

Ultimately, however, the responsibility for ensuring that post-Saddam planning anticipated all possible complications lay with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, current and former officials said.

The Pentagon planning group, directed by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official, included hard-line conservatives who had long advocated using the American military to overthrow Saddam. Its day-to-day boss was William Luti, a former Navy officer who worked for Vice President Dick Cheney before joining the Pentagon."

Pentagon Civilians' Contributed To
Chaos In Iraq​

"WE'RE in-charge, around here!!!!"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The more intelligent - and slightly less partisan - among the board - might be tempted to ask some hard questions, rather than use this thread as yet another 'let's blame Bush' bonanza.... Questions about why we were not and still are not putting more effort into our clandestine services. Had we had a decent clandestine network, we would have been in a better position to verify information, develop further information and generally would not have made such a fucking mess of things.

However, I'm sure it's easier... and much more fun.... to just scream about Bush et al.

Here is a question.

Wasn't Bush suppsoed to fix all of that??

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.....that's "General Decider", to you!!!!!



​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The more intelligent - and slightly less partisan - among the board - might be tempted to ask some hard questions, rather than use this thread as yet another 'let's blame Bush' bonanza.... Questions about why we were not and still are not putting more effort into our clandestine services. Had we had a decent clandestine network, we would have been in a better position to verify information, develop further information and generally would not have made such a fucking mess of things.

However, I'm sure it's easier... and much more fun.... to just scream about Bush et al.

Here is a question.

Wasn't Bush suppsoed to fix all of that??

No.

Seems only the left expected Bush to be the ideal leader and were disappointed that he couldnt do more.

Yeah.....THAT'S what happened!!!!!!