jane!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for being here today, Charles.

A reminder to commenters — for Film Salon, please keep your comments on topic and if you want to go OT, please do so on the previous thread.

Zedster?
Off to read post and notify downstairs.

Thank you for having me on your blog, and for your kind comments about the film. I would be very happy to answer any questions.

Charles Ferguson

Charles-how is this being distributed?

Also-how do you deal with the rethug backlash-personal attacks etc

ruffian @ 5

Charles-how is this being distributed?

The film is being distributed normally, by Magnolia Pictures, a good independent distributor…we’ll be in about 75 theaters by Aug 24, and hopefully well over 100 by Labor Day…

How did you get Armitage to agree to do the film? And why do you think he saw fit to do so right now? I’m assuming the release of the film was planned before it was known that there would be a September day of reckoning, and that it was rather serendipitous.

charles ferguson @ 7

ruffian @ 5

Charles-how is this being distributed?

The film is being distributed normally, by Magnolia Pictures, a good independent distributor…we’ll be in about 75 theaters by Aug 24, and hopefully well over 100 by Labor Day…

a site listing locations available on line?

I just mentioned this downstairs but by my count (using icasualties) 689 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since Bush announced the “surge” on Jan. 10, 2007.

ruffian @ 6

Also-how do you deal with the rethug backlash-personal attacks etc

I’ve received very few personal attacks thusfar. Those few have come primarily from the very extreme left, to my surprise. The Administration has not commented publicly at all.

ruffian @ 9

charles ferguson @ 7

The film is being distributed normally, by Magnolia Pictures, a good independent distributor…we’ll be in about 75 theaters by Aug 24, and hopefully well over 100 by Labor Day…

a site listing locations available on line?

Yes, on the film’s website, http://www.noendinsightmovie.com and also on the normal film websites, aolmoviephone, rottontomatoes, et cetera.

Thank you Charles.

There’s just more and more evidence that the 30 percenters have to ignore. It must be getting harder and harder to cling desperately to their failed ideology.

Hugh @ 10

I just mentioned this downstairs but by my count (using icasualties) 689 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since Bush announced the “surge” on Jan. 10, 2007.

Yes, American casualties have been high recently, in part because of the surge, in part because of more advanced insurgent weapons, perhaps also because some of the surge troops are relatively inexperienced.

SufiLizard @ 13

Thank you Charles.

There’s just more and more evidence that the 30 percenters have to ignore. It must be getting harder and harder to cling desperately to their failed ideology.

I have certainly been interested by the fact that the Administration has not commented at all, and that there have been media reports that indeed the Administration is afraid of the film.

Mod, could you correct Charles’ link in #12? The URL has an extra comma causing a “cannot load page” error.

Thanks!

FunnyDiva

Not to throw a monkey wrench in things, but as a Brookings scholar Mr. Ferguson what was you take on the NYT op-ed by your Brookings colleagues and noted Iraq war critics O’Hanlon and Pollack?

Jane Hamsher @ 8

How did you get Armitage to agree to do the film? And why do you think he saw fit to do so right now? I’m assuming the release of the film was planned before it was known that there would be a September day of reckoning, and that it was rather serendipitous.

I’m fascinated by this question, and wanted to make sure it wasn’t missed.

charles ferguson @ 15

SufiLizard @ 13

Thank you Charles.

There’s just more and more evidence that the 30 percenters have to ignore. It must be getting harder and harder to cling desperately to their failed ideology.

I have certainly been interested by the fact that the Administration has not commented at all, and that there have been media reports that indeed the Administration is afraid of the film.

In my experience, Sidney has very good sources.

Thanks for being here, Charles. What is your background (military, government, showbiz)?

Funnydiva2002 @ 16

Mod, could you correct Charles’ link in #12? The URL has an extra comma causing a “cannot load page” error.

Thanks!

FunnyDiva

If you mean the film’s website, it is:
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com

It shows up fairly high if you google the title of the film, also.

charles ferguson @ 15

I have certainly been interested by the fact that the Administration has not commented at all, and that there have been media reports that indeed the Administration is afraid of the film.

You’ve got plenty of company here at FDL vis a vis “interested” people.

Thanks for being here, and I’ll look forward to seeing your work.

FunnyDiva

JF @ 20

Thanks for being here, Charles. What is your background (military, government, showbiz)?

I was a policy analyst early in my career – I have a Ph.D. in political science from MIT, and my thesis advisor, Carl Kaysen, was deputy national security advisor for President Kennedy. Later I took a detour into high technbology, which made me some money. This is my first film.

It’s wonderful that you had Samantha Power in the film. She’s luminous.

wow-trailer amazing
THANK YOU!

charles ferguson @ 21

Funnydiva2002 @ 16

Mod, could you correct Charles’ link in #12? The URL has an extra comma causing a “cannot load page” error.

Thanks!

FunnyDiva

If you mean the film’s website, it is:
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com

It shows up fairly high if you google the title of the film, also.

Thanks. Just wanted the linky _here_ to work first try for everyone.

FunnyD

Armitage has always been a “spook”, and he signed PNAC and he “burned” Valerie Plame, with malice. If he was so honest he would admit how Cheney and Feith “cooked the books” to start the Iraq war. We should not believe anything that lying neo-con warmonger says. There is a place for Armitage at the Hague.

Jane Hamsher @ 8

How did you get Armitage to agree to do the film? And why do you think he saw fit to do so right now? I’m assuming the release of the film was planned before it was known that there would be a September day of reckoning, and that it was rather serendipitous.

As to Armitage, I simply asked and he agreed. My background may have helped, as perhaps did the fact that I showed him the (very long) list of people we had already interviewed.

As to the timing, yes it is entirely coincidental. We finished the first cut just in time for Sundance, and then finished the final version about two months later, so this was the earliest time the film could be released.

Jane Hamsher @ 24

It’s wonderful that you had Samantha Power in the film. She’s luminous.

She is a very powerfully articulate woman. She is now writing a book about Sergio de Mello, the Brazilian diplomat killed in the August 19, 2003 bombing of the UN compound in Baghdad

I want to echo Jane’s welcome of Charles. I was watching the film today and there’s this powerful setup at the beginning that introduces the story of people who saw where the wreck was headed but felt powerless and disempowered to stop it. By showing their faces, it’s very compelling, as their aching regret seems writ large with every facial muscle and twitch.

However, some of these folks seem a little too attached to the “incompetence dodge” (”good war, badly executed”) for my tastes, even if the film itself does not seem overtly to take a position on this.

There are a number of voices saying the whole effort needed more troops for peacekeeping and reconstruction planning, but I did not notice anyone actually saying how the number of troops needed for such a thing were never available under any scenario in the first place. There was never any scenario under which we had Shinseki’s numbers of troops available: not as US forces, and not as an international force.

This was not just a misguided war choice poorly planned: it was a stupid and immoral foreign policy idea hatched by delusional crooks in the first place.

It’s an important documentary, nevertheless, and it may help to move more insider elite opinion away from the idea that there are any ways we can be a productive influence there now, as the last interviewees in the movie express. This will be especially true if, as Jane says, Powell comes forward. It’s just repugnant that the foreign policy elites are so far behind reason on this.

So, on the merits and content of the core critique, in my view, the sum of the film gives too much credit to the standard incompetence dodge put forward by the Friedmans and other “liberal hawks” who helped foist this unconscionable bloodbath on the world in the first place. Simultaneously, the film is very well edited and produced, and is worth watching carefully.

Frank33 @ 27

Armitage has always been a “spook”, and he signed PNAC and he “burned” Valerie Plame, with malice. If he was so honest he would admit how Cheney and Feith “cooked the books” to start the Iraq war. We should not believe anything that lying neo-con warmonger says. There is a place for Armitage at the Hague.

I found Armitage to be a complicated man. He was evasive about some things, yet strikingly honest about others. I did not ask him about Valerie Plame; that emerged just around the time we interviewed him, but I didn’t want to distract from the policy and factual issues that were my focus.

Mr Ferguson,
Did you attempt to get Colin Powell to answer questions? What was his excuse to avoid it?

Mr. Ferguson,

I read Computer Wars: The Fall of IBM and the Future of Global Technology when it came out. Great book! I’m looking forward to seeing your movie. In your interviews with Richard Armitage, did you get around to discussing his activities during the time period 1975 to 1978?

Pachacutec @ 30

I want to echo Jane’s welcome of Charles. I was watching the film today and there’s this powerful setup at the beginning that introduces the story of people who saw where the wreck was headed but felt powerless and disempowered to stop it. By showing their faces, it’s very compelling, as their aching regret seems writ large with every facial muscle and twitch.

However, some of these folks seem a little too attached to the “incompetence dodge” (”good war, badly executed”) for my tastes, even if the film itself does not seem overtly to take a position on this.

There are a number of voices saying the whole effort needed more troops for peacekeeping and reconstruction planning, but I did not notice anyone actually saying how the number of troops needed for such a thing were never available under any scenario in the first place. There was never any scenario under which we had Shinseki’s numbers of troops available: not as US forces, and not as an international force.

This was not just a misguided war choice poorly planned: it was a stupid and immoral foreign policy idea hatched by delusional crooks in the first place.

It’s an important documentary, nevertheless, and it may help to move more insider elite opinion away from the idea that there are any ways we can be a productive influence there now, as the last interviewees in the movie express. This will be especially true if, as Jane says, Powell comes forward. It’s just repugnant that the foreign policy elites are so far behind reason on this.

So, on the merits and content of the core critique, in my view, the sum of the film gives too much credit to the standard incompetence dodge put forward by the Friedmans and other “liberal hawks” who helped foist this unconscionable bloodbath on the world in the first place. Simultaneously, the film is very well edited and produced, and is worth watching carefully.

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I concur with many though not quite all of them…I asked many people – including nearly everyone I interviewed – whether this could have worked, whether it could have turned out differently or was doomed under any scenario. There was a wide spectrum of opinion, but the overwhelming majority of those with whom I spoke, particularly those with knowledge of the region and/or the issues – and even those who opposed the war – felt that it didn’t have to turn out this badly. That if we had used more troops, had sent in an international police force, had used the UN and Arabic peacekeepers in a serious way, and of course had not disbanded the Iraqi Army, Iraq could have become a more or less stable country. Not a perfect place, by any means; but not what it is now…

Sorry for my long answer…

If Colin Powell has an opportunity to redeem himself, he should take it. The sooner, the better. Before more lives are unnecessarily lost.

I am certainly glad the film is out there and making certain people “uncomfortable” but…

I am not thrilled by the basic premise of the film that it was OK to go after Iraq in the first place and that all would be ponies and candy if only they had planned, and acted, properly. How about SOME question on the validity of, you know, violating the Nuremberg Principles and invading a non-threatening sovereign nation in a bald act of aggression? From that initial “flaw” one could move on to the endless string of flaws that came on fast and furious thereafter.

I just can’t get past the idea that no matter what you do subsequent to an illegal act of aggression, you can’t make that act right…even with GREAT planning. It is now forced upon us that we have to allow any ole country to invade any other country for whatever reason they deem fitting…goose and gander, etc.

Pach #30, I agree about Shinseki and the troop numbers. I have not seen the film but I would also add the total abandonment of every tenet of the Powell Doctrine (as opposed to Powell himself whom I see as a thoroughly discredited figure).

Ed*ard Teller @ 33

Mr. Ferguson,

I read Computer Wars: The Fall of IBM and the Future of Global Technology when it came out. Great book! I’m looking forward to seeing your movie. In your interviews with Richard Armitage, did you get around to discussing his activities during the time period 1975 to 1978?

I did not ask Armitage about ANY of his earlier experiences, either in Vietnam or later. He alluded to Vietnam once, when he said that he was slow to advocate use of force, but wanted to use it powerfully when it was used, and we discussed the issue of experience in war as a factor affecting judgments regarding Iraq.

But Armitage’s debut in particular has the White House fuming and fretting that it somehow signals Powell’s emergence as a full-throated critic in the middle of the September P.R. offensive.

Of all public figures, Powell is one who strikes me as capable of turning the tide and starting the unraveling of this horror. Restore democracy, return integrity, revive morale, and redeem oneself in one fell swoop.

Do you think he will?

Michael Harold @ 35

If Colin Powell has an opportunity to redeem himself, he should take it. The sooner, the better. Before more lives are unnecessarily lost.

I could not agree more. I find his silence to be very disturbing. We of course tried to interview him for the film; he declined.

Hey, Charles. Thanks so much for coming.

I keep wondering if we’re related. My name is David Ferguson and my Dad is a Charles Ferguson as well.

Charles, we have accounts of Dick Cheney fancying himself quite the military strategist after viewing the Ken Burn’s doc on the Civil War.

http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/01/daily.html

Who made the decision to disband the Iraqi Army?

Prior to investigation, I’d have to bet Dick.

Do you think Colin Powell buys into the ideology enough that he doesn’t want to speak out? Or what do you think his motivation (or lack thereof) is?

Praedor Atrebates @ 36

I am certainly glad the film is out there and making certain people “uncomfortable” but…

I am not thrilled by the basic premise of the film that it was OK to go after Iraq in the first place and that all would be ponies and candy if only they had planned, and acted, properly. How about SOME question on the validity of, you know, violating the Nuremberg Principles and invading a non-threatening sovereign nation in a bald act of aggression? From that initial “flaw” one could move on to the endless string of flaws that came on fast and furious thereafter.

I just can’t get past the idea that no matter what you do subsequent to an illegal act of aggression, you can’t make that act right…even with GREAT planning. It is now forced upon us that we have to allow any ole country to invade any other country for whatever reason they deem fitting…goose and gander, etc.

I don’t think that the film endorses the idea of going to war against Iraq. I certainly hope it doesn’t. I tried very hard to make the film completely independent of the question of whether it was legal, moral, justified to invade Iraq. I wanted the film to be a chronicle of what actually happened.

I will say, however, that I do think that military force is sometimes, unfortunately, required in the world. In part I hope that the film serves as a cautionary tale about what happens when war is entered into casually and arrogantly and sloppily, as opposed to carefully and humbly.

I’m doing reverse ketchup on this thread, so if this has already been answered, ignore it – but is there a way, other than calling the local theater chain, to try to get it playing locally? I’m in the Evanville IN area, which so far makes Lousville the closest place I’ve seen it scheduled to play – and they are not only a couple hours, but a different time zone.

Second question – are some of the current issues – - like how we are NOT set up to be operating Iraq based “detainment” facilities for thousands and thousands, addressed or is this more a historical perspective?

And how hard was it to get these people to talk frankly and on camera? IOW – is the reason we didn’t hear this before related to their recalcitrance to speak publically or to a lack of interest and journalistic focus by the media to date?

charles ferguson @ 34

Pachacutec @ 30

I want to echo Jane’s welcome of Charles. I was watching the film today and there’s this powerful setup at the beginning that introduces the story of people who saw where the wreck was headed but felt powerless and disempowered to stop it.
…
This was not just a misguided war choice poorly planned: it was a stupid and immoral foreign policy idea hatched by delusional crooks in the first place.

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I concur with many though not quite all of them…I asked many people – including nearly everyone I interviewed – whether this could have worked, whether it could have turned out differently or was doomed under any scenario. There was a wide spectrum of opinion, but the overwhelming majority of those with whom I spoke, particularly those with knowledge of the region and/or the issues – and even those who opposed the war – felt that it didn’t have to turn out this badly. That if we had used more troops, had sent in an international police force, had used the UN and Arabic peacekeepers in a serious way, and of course had not disbanded the Iraqi Army, Iraq could have become a more or less stable country. Not a perfect place, by any means; but not what it is now…

Sorry for my long answer…

Except…how do you bring in the UN at the start of this when the UN had pretty much concluded that it was illegal? UN Peacekeepers after an illegal invasion would run contrary to the UN conclusion that the war was unjust and violated international law. To then turn around and offer peacekeepers would be to give their tacit blessing to an illegal act and I just can’t see how it would ever have happened.

TRex @ 41

Hey, Charles. Thanks so much for coming.

I keep wondering if we’re related. My name is David Ferguson and my Dad is a Charles Ferguson as well.

Wow! I have no idea…

Charles, understood.

However, if the best defense of all this is that, if a number of low probability events had all occurred then the situation might not be as bad as it is now, then this to me supports my argument that the invasion and occupation were a very bad idea, purely on pragmatic grounds, leaving alone the moral and strategic wisdom of imperial aggression.

What are your thoughts about Michael O’Hanlon and his role now in supporting the surge as a “former war critic” after embarking on a DoD choreographed junket?

Jane, Thank you for hosting this and everything you do.

Mr. Fergusun,

Have your distributors reached out to campus film and peace organizations to have this shown during the fall semester? I think things will be very active on campuses next spring if things haven’t changed dramatically and the film could be good to help inform the debate.

Praedor Atrebates #36,

That gets back to my point about the Powell Doctrine. If it had been followed we would never have gone into Iraq. But even if the criteria for the Doctrine had been met for a war, we would have gone in very differently.

Cliff Varnell @ 42

Charles, we have accounts of Dick Cheney fancying himself quite the military strategist after viewing the Ken Burn’s doc on the Civil War.

http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/01/daily.html

Who made the decision to disband the Iraqi Army?

Prior to investigation, I’d have to bet Dick.

While Cheney may have been consulted, the decision to disband the Iraqi Army was primarily made by Bremer and Walter Slocombe, who was senior advisor for handling the Iraqi ministry of defense. Slocombe recommended disbanding the Army to Bremer, who discussed it with Wolfowitz, and Bremer passed it by Rumsfeld. Apparently Rumsfeld didn’t inform Bush until the day before it was publicly announced. And they didn’t consult with the people on the ground in Iraq, either civilian or military.

charles ferguson @ 47

TRex @ 41

Hey, Charles. Thanks so much for coming.

I keep wondering if we’re related. My name is David Ferguson and my Dad is a Charles Ferguson as well.

Wow! I have no idea…

Hey, I’m a Ferguson too. My Ferguson’s came from Glascow and immigrated to Canada.

Can’t wait to see your movie.

I don’t think that the film endorses the idea of going to war against Iraq. I certainly hope it doesn’t. I tried very hard to make the film completely independent of the question of whether it was legal, moral, justified to invade Iraq.

I actually think the film itself succeeds in preserving this position, though it is difficult to do, and the preponderance of voices interviewed appear to support the “good war, badly executed” argument, though of course one can never account for what gets editied in and out.

This is not to suggest in the least that the film in any way distorts or tries to distort anyone’s views. I don’t expect at all that it does. I just mean that you can’t fit everything in, and I don’t want to presume I fully understand the nuanced thoughts and opinions of everyone interviewed based on the film.

Ooh, also, does the movie cover General Petraeus allowing hundreds of thousands of weapons to go into insurgent hands?

Pachacutec @ 48

Charles, understood.

However, if the best defense of all this is that, if a number of low probability events had all occurred then the situation might not be as bad as it is now, then this to me supports my argument that the invasion and occupation were a very bad idea, purely on pragmatic grounds, leaving alone the moral and strategic wisdom of imperial aggression.

What are your thoughts about Michael O’Hanlon and his role now in supporting the surge as a “former war critic” after embarking on a DoD choreographed junket?

I have found O’Hanlon and Pollack to be quite intellectually dishonest, and I’m very disappointed in the role they have played. Factually, their recent comments are quite dubious, and were based on a very brief trip completely supervised by the U.S. military.

Pachacutec @ 53

I don’t think that the film endorses the idea of going to war against Iraq. I certainly hope it doesn’t. I tried very hard to make the film completely independent of the question of whether it was legal, moral, justified to invade Iraq.

I actually think the film itself succeeds in preserving this position, though it is difficult to do, and the preponderance of voices interviewed appear to support the “good war, badly executed” argument, though of course one can never account for what gets editied in and out.

This is not to suggest in the least that the film in any way distorts or tries to distort anyone’s views. I don’t expect at all that it does. I just mean that you can’t fit everything in, and I don’t want to presume I fully understand the nuanced thoughts and opinions of everyone interviewed based on the film.

I found it very difficult to edit the film for these reasons. I think we did a good job; but we had over 200 hours of interviews, much of them very interesting, and deciding what to put into a 100 minute film was very hard.

We do plan to publish our 2,500 pages of interview transcripts on the web and/or in a book.

Praedor Atrebates @ 46

Except…how do you bring in the UN at the start of this when the UN had pretty much concluded that it was illegal? UN Peacekeepers after an illegal invasion would run contrary to the UN conclusion that the war was unjust and violated international law. To then turn around and offer peacekeepers would be to give their tacit blessing to an illegal act and I just can’t see how it would ever have happened.

Actually at the time, I think the UN expected for Iraq to be dumped into its lap and Kofi Annan was surprised when it wasn’t.

carmen @ 54

Ooh, also, does the movie cover General Petraeus allowing hundreds of thousands of weapons to go into insurgent hands?

The film does cover the fact that huge unguarded munitions caches were raided by insurgents and criminals, and there are some testimonials about this. We actually had many people tell us about this, we couldn’t put them all in the film.

Hugh @ 57

Praedor Atrebates @ 46

Except…how do you bring in the UN at the start of this when the UN had pretty much concluded that it was illegal? UN Peacekeepers after an illegal invasion would run contrary to the UN conclusion that the war was unjust and violated international law. To then turn around and offer peacekeepers would be to give their tacit blessing to an illegal act and I just can’t see how it would ever have happened.

Actually at the time, I think the UN expected for Iraq to be dumped into its lap and Kofi Annan was surprised when it wasn’t.

Although Kofi Annan and the UN were indeed very skeptical and negative about the war, they could have been far more involved, particularly if the US had tried hard to bring them in. It was in my view a serious mistake that they didn’t, and that they didn’t try hard to get a substantial Arab peacekeeping force into Iraq through the UN.

Do we find out where the 9 billion went?

*grin*

Mr. F,
I’ll read as many long answers as you’re willing to write. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Reading Pach’s review and your reply, I’m not sure the two of you disagree that much. Or maybe I mean that you disagree as to whether or not anyone ultimately in charge _ever_ seriously considered “[using] more troops, …an international police force, [and]…UN and Arabic peacekeepers in a serious way, and of course …not [disbanding] the Iraqi Army…”

I guess I’m saying that there are a couple of types of incompetence. One is the “honest mistake” type, that takes responsibility as soon as possible and makes changes necessary to correct things. If that’s ever been in play in this Administration, it was a loooong time ago and has been replaced with the “bad faith” type so evident in the prosecution of this misbegotten occupation of Iraq. “Bad faith” incompetence makes every possible blunder at every possible opportunity in spite of any good advice offered.

So, although the occupation may not have been “doomed under any scenario”, I believe that it _was_ doomed under any scenario acceptable to Buscho and its minions.

And now, I apologize for _my_ long comment.

FunnyDiva

charles ferguson @ 34

Pachacutec @ 30

I want to echo Jane’s welcome of Charles. I was watching the film today and there’s this powerful setup at the beginning that introduces the story of people who saw where the wreck was headed but felt powerless and disempowered to stop it. By showing their faces, it’s very compelling, as their aching regret seems writ large with every facial muscle and twitch.

However, some of these folks seem a little too attached to the “incompetence dodge” (”good war, badly executed”) for my tastes, even if the film itself does not seem overtly to take a position on this.

There are a number of voices saying the whole effort needed more troops for peacekeeping and reconstruction planning, but I did not notice anyone actually saying how the number of troops needed for such a thing were never available under any scenario in the first place. There was never any scenario under which we had Shinseki’s numbers of troops available: not as US forces, and not as an international force.

This was not just a misguided war choice poorly planned: it was a stupid and immoral foreign policy idea hatched by delusional crooks in the first place.

It’s an important documentary, nevertheless, and it may help to move more insider elite opinion away from the idea that there are any ways we can be a productive influence there now, as the last interviewees in the movie express. This will be especially true if, as Jane says, Powell comes forward. It’s just repugnant that the foreign policy elites are so far behind reason on this.

So, on the merits and content of the core critique, in my view, the sum of the film gives too much credit to the standard incompetence dodge put forward by the Friedmans and other “liberal hawks” who helped foist this unconscionable bloodbath on the world in the first place. Simultaneously, the film is very well edited and produced, and is worth watching carefully.

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I concur with many though not quite all of them…I asked many people – including nearly everyone I interviewed – whether this could have worked, whether it could have turned out differently or was doomed under any scenario. There was a wide spectrum of opinion, but the overwhelming majority of those with whom I spoke, particularly those with knowledge of the region and/or the issues – and even those who opposed the war – felt that it didn’t have to turn out this badly. That if we had used more troops, had sent in an international police force, had used the UN and Arabic peacekeepers in a serious way, and of course had not disbanded the Iraqi Army, Iraq could have become a more or less stable country. Not a perfect place, by any means; but not what it is now…

Sorry for my long answer…

charles ferguson @ 51

While Cheney may have been consulted, the decision to disband the Iraqi Army was primarily made by Bremer and Walter Slocombe, who was senior advisor for handling the Iraqi ministry of defense. Slocombe recommended disbanding the Army to Bremer, who discussed it with Wolfowitz, and Bremer passed it by Rumsfeld. Apparently Rumsfeld didn’t inform Bush until the day before it was publicly announced. And they didn’t consult with the people on the ground in Iraq, either civilian or military.

The story I think does not stop there but goes back to Chalabi and the INC with Wolfowitz and Feith circling around in the wings.

Jane’s Assistant @ 49

Jane, Thank you for hosting this and everything you do.

Mr. Fergusun,

Have your distributors reached out to campus film and peace organizations to have this shown during the fall semester? I think things will be very active on campuses next spring if things haven’t changed dramatically and the film could be good to help inform the debate.

There have already been screenings at several universities including MIT, UC Berkeley, and Stanford, but I hope there will be more, particularly after the DVD comes out late this year…

Mary @ 60

Do we find out where the 9 billion went?

*grin*

The first defense minister alone stole a billion dollars. I believe he is now living in either London or Beirut…

Jane’s Assistant @ 49

Jane, Thank you for hosting this and everything you do.

Mr. Fergusun,

Have your distributors reached out to campus film and peace organizations to have this shown during the fall semester? I think things will be very active on campuses next spring if things haven’t changed dramatically and the film could be good to help inform the debate.

Digby once said that one of the things the blogs do well is arm readers with facts and arguments so that when they go back home for Thanksgiving dinner they can tell Uncle Harry to go to hell. Likewise this film is an excellent constellation of facts that presents a tight argument that these people should’t be allowed to run a Stop’n’Shop, let alone a country and they should no longer be determining how we proceed in the Middle East.

What PA says! That’s getting to the heart of the matter with eloquence.

Praedor Atrebates @ 36

I am certainly glad the film is out there and making certain people “uncomfortable” but…

I am not thrilled by the basic premise of the film that it was OK to go after Iraq in the first place and that all would be ponies and candy if only they had planned, and acted, properly. How about SOME question on the validity of, you know, violating the Nuremberg Principles and invading a non-threatening sovereign nation in a bald act of aggression? From that initial “flaw” one could move on to the endless string of flaws that came on fast and furious thereafter.

I just can’t get past the idea that no matter what you do subsequent to an illegal act of aggression, you can’t make that act right…even with GREAT planning. It is now forced upon us that we have to allow any ole country to invade any other country for whatever reason they deem fitting…goose and gander, etc.

expected release date for dvd?

Hugh @ 62

charles ferguson @ 51

While Cheney may have been consulted, the decision to disband the Iraqi Army was primarily made by Bremer and Walter Slocombe, who was senior advisor for handling the Iraqi ministry of defense. Slocombe recommended disbanding the Army to Bremer, who discussed it with Wolfowitz, and Bremer passed it by Rumsfeld. Apparently Rumsfeld didn’t inform Bush until the day before it was publicly announced. And they didn’t consult with the people on the ground in Iraq, either civilian or military.

The story I think does not stop there but goes back to Chalabi and the INC with Wolfowitz and Feith circling around in the wings.

That is very possible; but what is clear is that Slocombe and Bremer did indeed decide to do this, and came to this decision without consulting any other relevant part of the government – not the State Dept., the CIA, ORHA, or the military commanders, all of whom opposed it.

ruffian @ 67

expected release date for dvd?

I believe in November…

Hugh @ 57

Praedor Atrebates @ 46

Except…how do you bring in the UN at the start of this when the UN had pretty much concluded that it was illegal? UN Peacekeepers after an illegal invasion would run contrary to the UN conclusion that the war was unjust and violated international law. To then turn around and offer peacekeepers would be to give their tacit blessing to an illegal act and I just can’t see how it would ever have happened.

Actually at the time, I think the UN expected for Iraq to be dumped into its lap and Kofi Annan was surprised when it wasn’t.

Hmpf…OK, I didn’t follow every word out of the UN on this, only catching the parts about the UN NOT supporting it and that it is illegal.

I suppose it would have been MUCH better if the UN had been called in as there would have been no attempts to pass and oil law giving the US a large chunk of Iraqi oil. I’m afraid it would have still been too late to protect the cultural sites though since all that mess happened IMMEDIATELY upon our taking Baghdad and exclusively protecting the friggin’ Oil Ministry…

It’s also harder to claim imperial covetousness when the UN is the occupier vs the “We are an Empire now…” USA.

Frank33 @ 27

Armitage has always been a “spook”, and he signed PNAC and he “burned” Valerie Plame, with malice. If he was so honest he would admit how Cheney and Feith “cooked the books” to start the Iraq war. We should not believe anything that lying neo-con warmonger says. There is a place for Armitage at the Hague.

I have to agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage

In late 1980, Armitage became a foreign policy advisor to President-elect Ronald Reagan.

He cut his teeth on Iran-Contra.

Funnydiva2002 @ 66

What PA says! That’s getting to the heart of the matter with eloquence.

Praedor Atrebates @ 36

I am certainly glad the film is out there and making certain people “uncomfortable” but…

I am not thrilled by the basic premise of the film that it was OK to go after Iraq in the first place and that all would be ponies and candy if only they had planned, and acted, properly. How about SOME question on the validity of, you know, violating the Nuremberg Principles and invading a non-threatening sovereign nation in a bald act of aggression? From that initial “flaw” one could move on to the endless string of flaws that came on fast and furious thereafter.

I just can’t get past the idea that no matter what you do subsequent to an illegal act of aggression, you can’t make that act right…even with GREAT planning. It is now forced upon us that we have to allow any ole country to invade any other country for whatever reason they deem fitting…goose and gander, etc.

Again, I hope the film doesn’t endorse the idea of invading Iraq; I tried very hard to be neutral about that, and to simply show what actually happened when we DID invade Iraq. This may seem evasive on my part, but that wasn’t my intent. Rather my intent was to show the conduct of the Administration in a way that could be persuasive to people of all political beliefs and persuasions, which I think is important.

The assumption that the UN could have played some meaningfully productive and credible role as part of an international peacekeeping and reconstruction force, had it been invited into the immediate post-invasion environment, has to contend with the very real credibility problems the UN would have faced in the post-sanctions environment.

This potentially fatal flaw in this imaginary alternative scenario is far too seldom acknowledged. As an alternative, there was no functioning coalition of credible Arab states that could have managed the reconstruction process with the numbers necessary to make it work.

And of course, none of this acknowledges the fact that any of these alternative scenarios depend on American policy being in the hands of people other than those who actually were in charge. There was reason enough to oppose the invasion on those grounds alone, something those closest to but not quite involved in the actual decision making loop were in quite the advantageous position to observe.

Have you been invited on to any of the news shows to discuss your film or are you being shunned? It was said that you were scheduled to be on with Charlie Rose and that the show was postponed. Has it been rescheduled?

charles ferguson @ 51

While Cheney may have been consulted, the decision to disband the Iraqi Army was primarily made by Bremer and Walter Slocombe, who was senior advisor for handling the Iraqi ministry of defense. Slocombe recommended disbanding the Army to Bremer, who discussed it with Wolfowitz, and Bremer passed it by Rumsfeld. Apparently Rumsfeld didn’t inform Bush until the day before it was publicly announced. And they didn’t consult with the people on the ground in Iraq, either civilian or military.

In a PBS interview Slocombe made the following statement:

Q: What had already occurred when you joined?

A: Well, the United States government had expected that there would be substantial Iraqi military units which were intact, which were sitting in barracks with their commanders, with their weapons, with their physical facilities intact, in effect waiting for orders. That just didn’t happen. The entire Iraqi army vaporized. They simply all went home as the fighting went forward. And that meant that a lot of the initial things we would have to do, both good and bad, didn’t have to be done because there was no army to deal with.

Is there any truth to that, or is he just covering his ass?

charles ferguson @ 68

Hugh @ 62

The story I think does not stop there but goes back to Chalabi and the INC with Wolfowitz and Feith circling around in the wings.

That is very possible; but what is clear is that Slocombe and Bremer did indeed decide to do this, and came to this decision without consulting any other relevant part of the government – not the State Dept., the CIA, ORHA, or the military commanders, all of whom opposed it.

It’s also likely one of the reasons that Garner was ditched for Bremer.

charles ferguson @ 72

Funnydiva2002 @ 66

What PA says! That’s getting to the heart of the matter with eloquence.

Again, I hope the film doesn’t endorse the idea of invading Iraq; I tried very hard to be neutral about that, and to simply show what actually happened when we DID invade Iraq. This may seem evasive on my part, but that wasn’t my intent. Rather my intent was to show the conduct of the Administration in a way that could be persuasive to people of all political beliefs and persuasions, which I think is important.

Mr Ferguson…I’ll let parachutec stand as my mouth on this. Para, I believe, states what I meant perhaps a bit better than I managed originally :)

Pachacutec @ 73

The assumption that the UN could have played some meaningfully productive and credible role as part of an international peacekeeping and reconstruction force, had it been invited into the immediate post-invasion environment, has to contend with the very real credibility problems the UN would have faced in the post-sanctions environment.

This potentially fatal flaw in this imaginary alternative scenario are far too seldom acknowledged. As an alternative, there was no functioning coalition of credible Arab states that could have managed the reconstruction process with the numbers necessary to make it work.

And of course, none of this acknowledges the fact that any of these alternative scenarios depend on American policy being in the hands of people other than those who actually were in charge. There was reason enough to oppose the invasion on those grounds alone, something those closest to but not quite involved in the actual decision making loop were in quite the advantageous position to observe.

Your point is well taken. I’m not quite as skeptical about how it could have worked as you seem to be, but there is no doubt that managing Iraq would have been difficult under any scenario, and that the UN is far from a perfect organization. Likewise, we now know that the Bush Administration has proved inept at many things – witness Katrina – although I must confess that I found the behavior of Rumsfeld and Cheney surprising. I thought better of them before all this happened; not that I agreed with them, but I thought they were basically intelligent, rational men.

solai @ 74

Have you been invited on to any of the news shows to discuss your film or are you being shunned? It was said that you were scheduled to be on with Charlie Rose and that the show was postponed. Has it been rescheduled?

The Charlie Rose interview was broadcast a few days ago. But there has been a deafening silence about the film from network television. Quite interesting…and disappointing…but we have received extraordinary coverage in the print media, and on the Internet.

Hi Charles,

What’s the chances of ‘No End in Sight’ to be played on a major television outlet? Is there any desire from you or the other producers to get your film on television to reach a wider audience?

Could this war have been as much about reshaping American society as conquering Iraq?

Dr. Ferguson,

Do you have any thoughts about the likelihood of serious military action against Iran, and if such action does happen, how it might play out. Did you question any of the people in your documentary about that set of issues off-camera?

Pachacutec @ 73

The assumption that the UN could have played some meaningfully productive and credible role as part of an international peacekeeping and reconstruction force, had it been invited into the immediate post-invasion environment, has to contend with the very real credibility problems the UN would have faced in the post-sanctions environment.

All this is true but, given the Republican animosity toward nation building, I think both the UN and international community expected Bush and company to dump this responsibility on them, i.e. we took care of Saddam, now you take care of the rest, we’re out of here.

cancer_cures @ 80

Hi Charles,

What’s the chances of ‘No End in Sight’ to be played on a major television outlet? Is there any desire from you or the other producers to get your film on television to reach a wider audience?

Frontline would seem to be THE best bet. Or the BBC in general.

charles ferguson @ 72

Funnydiva2002 @ 66

What PA says! That’s getting to the heart of the matter with eloquence.

Again, I hope the film doesn’t endorse the idea of invading Iraq; I tried very hard to be neutral about that, and to simply show what actually happened when we DID invade Iraq. This may seem evasive on my part, but that wasn’t my intent. Rather my intent was to show the conduct of the Administration in a way that could be persuasive to people of all political beliefs and persuasions, which I think is important.

Charles,
I commented before I read to the end of the comments. So, I apologise if this came across as a criticism of your work or of you as a film maker. That was certainly not my intent.

I think it’s just that it’s hard to separate a discussion of your film from discussion of the how’s and why’s and why not’s of the occupation itself.

Your decision to make a film to speak to “people of all political beliefs and persuasions” strikes me as both quite honorable and very difficult. I’ll be making an effort to see the film and to persuade as many friends as possible to do the same.

Respectfully,
FunnyDiva

I thought better of them before all this happened; not that I agreed with them, but I thought they were basically intelligent, rational men.

So, is it the conclusion that they are stupid, evil or both?

Cliff Varnell @ 75

charles ferguson @ 51

While Cheney may have been consulted, the decision to disband the Iraqi Army was primarily made by Bremer and Walter Slocombe, who was senior advisor for handling the Iraqi ministry of defense. Slocombe recommended disbanding the Army to Bremer, who discussed it with Wolfowitz, and Bremer passed it by Rumsfeld. Apparently Rumsfeld didn’t inform Bush until the day before it was publicly announced. And they didn’t consult with the people on the ground in Iraq, either civilian or military.

In a PBS interview Slocombe made the following statement:

Q: What had already occurred when you joined?

A: Well, the United States government had expected that there would be substantial Iraqi military units which were intact, which were sitting in barracks with their commanders, with their weapons, with their physical facilities intact, in effect waiting for orders. That just didn’t happen. The entire Iraqi army vaporized. They simply all went home as the fighting went forward. And that meant that a lot of the initial things we would have to do, both good and bad, didn’t have to be done because there was no army to deal with.

Is there any truth to that, or is he just covering his ass?

Slocombe is correct that few or no units remained intact. However, he omits a few critical facts. First, in large part the Iraqi Army melted away because we told them to: our covert and overt communication with them before and during the war was to the effect that if they didn’t fight, if they cooperated, we would treat them well and reward them. They expected and hoped that we would honor that bargain, and many Iraqi officers and units expected to be recalled after the war. And it is completely false to imply that there was nobody to deal with. Iraqi officers came forward and by mid-May 2003, they had organized a nationwide effort that had identified and registered 137,000 soldiers, and would soon have found more if Bremer hadn’t issued his order.

raven @ 86

I thought better of them before all this happened; not that I agreed with them, but I thought they were basically intelligent, rational men.

So, is it the conclusion that they are stupid or evil?

Perhaps neither. Arrogant and blind?

Please keep up the good work Mr Ferguson. I very much look forward to seeing your film.

Although Kofi Annan and the UN were indeed very skeptical and negative about the war, they could have been far more involved, particularly if the US had tried hard to bring them in. It was in my view a serious mistake that they didn’t, and that they didn’t try hard to get a substantial Arab peacekeeping force into Iraq through the UN. – C.F.

Did you consider the possibility, and probe about it during your interviews, that what looks to us to be a “serious mistake” was in fact a successful and effective ‘part of the plan’ for the real unstated agendas of those behind this violent invasion and brutal occupation? Unstated agendas, as far as I can deduce at this point, focused on:

1. TRILLIONS of dollars of untapped Iraqi oil wealth that the administration needed a compliant, puppet Iraqi “government” to hand over in sweetheart deals to foreign oil corporations, and

2. TRILLIONS of dollars of untapped Iraqi oil wealth that ISRAEL considers to be a threat to its existence if controlled by a unified, independent Iraq that does not answer to an imperial occupier.

Or am I still missing the true, unstated agenda behind our presence in Iraq? Because when those at risk of whatever follows our occupation want us OUT, regardless – that would be 4 out of every 5 Iraqi citizens – I am at a total loss to otherwise explain our continued presence, and continued failure to restore or maintain civil order, in that nation, or to even ask for help (provided we pull out) – to stop the humanitarian disaster we have created – from those who would have a far better chance of succeeding at saving human lives in Iraq than our violent occupation ever will.

It is true that the war in Iraq could have turned out “better” in certain counterfactual situations.

But how much better?

Could the war had been waged so much better that a majority of Americans today would agree that it all was worthwhile?

It seems clear that the answer is a definitive “no“.

Isn’t this the dispositive point?

I have been hoping beyond hope powell would some day finally put his country before his loyalty to the president

the day is long in coming and perhaps this signals the gatepost perhaps not

powell can never reclaim his integrity but he can at least make try to stop the bleeding

we need the real patriots to step forward and speak

hopefully this documentary will help that begin

With regret, I must now leave you…I have another appointment. Thank you all for your interest in the film – I’m very gratified by it – really.

Keep up the good fight…

Charles Ferguson

I’ll be making an effort to see the film and to persuade as many friends as possible to do the same.

As I said above, the film is well worth seeing, and well worth discussing in detail. I hope we’re providing some model here of how that might be done.

What do you think the real reason was for our invasion? Has the administration achieved their true goals?

charles ferguson @ 94

With regret, I must now leave you…I have another appointment. Thank you all for your interest in the film – I’m very gratified by it – really.

Keep up the good fight…

Charles Ferguson

Thanks so much for being here today, Charles. We really appreciate your time and I encourage everyone to try and see the film and spread the word.

I have a hard time understanding how Bremer could have bypassed all of our traditional organizations and made such sweeping and tragic decisions basically by himself.

Many of the provisions he insisted on seemed to have been written by multinational corporations. Is Cheney’s role in all of this explored in the documentary?

Hi Mr. Ferguson! I look foward to seeing the movie!

In your interviews, did you get any impression whether they will proceed to attempt to “take care of” the rest of their “axis of evil” before leaving office? Do you think they will attempt to find a way not to leave office if their ultimate agenda is not accomplished come election time in ‘08?

Jane, thanks for bringing Charles and his film to FDL! I always learn something when I visit!

Fresh Thready Goodness
FunnyDiva

That’s gonna be a great movie. I can’t wait to bootleg it in the theatre and put it up on youtube.

Pachacutec @ 94

I’ll be making an effort to see the film and to persuade as many friends as possible to do the same.

As I said above, the film is well worth seeing, and well worth discussing in detail. I hope we’re providing some model here of how that might be done.

Pach,
That was me, and I just have to say, you’re the BEST!
FunnyD

Jane’s Blumenthal quote about your obviously powerful film, is another reminder of the capacity of film to drive home a point almost instantly almost viscerally. I think it was last night or perhaps the night before Jon Stewart showed a number of clips of Dick Cheney, sounded like the most intelligent, sophisticated internationalists giving all the reasons the United States should NOT remain in Iraq. “Quagmire” was one of the many words he used.

Hearing them “fresh” and understanding the absolutely incongruity of his (and the administration’s) position these past six and a half years. I know from what has been said here, your film (which I’ll see as soon as it comes to my Evanston area) will deliver the kind of punch to the gut that lasts until the elections. I don’t know what your DVD release dates are, but I hope they would be 40 to 60 days before the General election.

Fabulous. Hope chat is still going on. I saw the movie in Pasadena opening weekend (you did a Q&A in LA the night before).

Excellent work, Charles Ferguson!

Hi, Charles.

I’m with Praedor, as I understand his comments.

In my opinion, it was a war crime for the U.S. to invade Iraq.

I reject completely the idea of good war, bad execution. Completely.

oh dang, I see that he left already. I was interested in the CEO/tech entrepreneur perspective for both making the movie and as part of analysis itself of the manner in which administration executed this war. Here’s hoping it was touched on in comments, which I’ll scroll up to read now….

“…and Colin Powell finally finds the voice..”

Amen, Jane. Powell will, as HE has said, go to his grave for the U.N. dog-and-pony show, and it’s ilk.

But he can at least take part in re-defining “mission accomplished” as the sad and thankless salvage operation that it has become, before we can start to get the troops home, and to pick up a few bloody sherds from the misery.

So Powell, the administration’s useful idiot at the UN in ‘03, who ever since has passed up the most compelling opportunities to comment, is suddenly going to speak in opposition? Dream on.

Pach@30

it was a stupid and immoral foreign policy idea hatched by delusional crooks in the first place.

I am very worried about the implications for Africa, where Somalia seems to be the next candidate for regime change. And the Africa Command is using the military for a supposedly diplomatic role, but is looking more and more imperial/colonial.

This article by Mahmood Mamdani in the London Review of Books: The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency. (There is also a cached copy if the link doesn’t work.) is worth a look.

Hugh @ 83

Pachacutec @ 73

The assumption that the UN could have played some meaningfully productive and credible role as part of an international peacekeeping and reconstruction force, had it been invited into the immediate post-invasion environment, has to contend with the very real credibility problems the UN would have faced in the post-sanctions environment.

All this is true but, given the Republican animosity toward nation building, I think both the UN and international community expected Bush and company to dump this responsibility on them, i.e. we took care of Saddam, now you take care of the rest, we’re out of here.

I don’t remember who it was now, but someone involved in “planning” the war explained the lack of interest in, even outright opposition to, preparing for the aftermath, for the occupation, by saying, “Look, we don’t owe the Iraqis anything. We’re giving them their freedom. That’s enough.”

Like taking a child who hasn’t yet learned to swim out in a boat, dumping the kid overboard and saying, “There, I’ve given you the ocean. Swim.”

Beyond criminal.

Kathy @ 95

What do you think the real reason was for our invasion? Has the administration achieved their true goals?

Good question. I ask it of myself and others all the time.

Hard to believe such rational men took us to war only to create chaos.

We were on track to an authoritarian state before the last elections.

Late to the party again. One of the great strengths of this film was the affectless narration. Something Michael Moore ought to take a lesson from. Ferguson’s interviewees killed themselves. The evidence just accumulates as the film goes on. The conclusions are umistakable: Fuck up of galactic proportions doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Although Kofi Annan and the UN were indeed very skeptical and negative about the war, they could have been far more involved, particularly if the US had tried hard to bring them in.

The invasion was illegal under the UN Charter, and Kofi Annan said that in September 2004. The UN Charter only allows the use of force in cases of self-defense or with Security Council approval.

The US, Britain, and Spain presented a second UN Security Council resolution on February 24, 2003, that would have authorized force. On March 6, 2003, President Bush said:

No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

Despite saying that, he never called for the vote because it wouldn’t have passed.

i am very late to the thread, but charles, if you read comments later, i saw you interviewed twice lately, and the interviews were exceptional. keep on talking, you have an articulate voice.

Me3 @ 71

Frank33 @ 27

Armitage has always been a “spook”, and he signed PNAC and he “burned” Valerie Plame, with malice. If he was so honest he would admit how Cheney and Feith “cooked the books” to start the Iraq war. We should not believe anything that lying neo-con warmonger says. There is a place for Armitage at the Hague.

I have to agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage

In late 1980, Armitage became a foreign policy advisor to President-elect Ronald Reagan.

He cut his teeth on Iran-Contra.

He cut his teeth with Ted Shackley developing drug smuggling routes through East Asia from the Golden Triangle with the help of Bush family friend Felix Rodriguez laundering funds through the Nugan Hand Bank among other places.

crossed crocodiles at 109 says-”I am very worried about the implications for Africa, where Somalia seems to be the next candidate for regime change. And the Africa Command is using the military for a supposedly diplomatic role, but is looking more and more imperial/colonial.

This article by Mahmood Mamdani in the London Review of Books: The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency. (There is also a cached copy if the link doesn’t work.) is worth a look.”

yeah, noone is noticing that we are IN AFRICA!!!!!!!!! troops are fighting in africa…………have been for many, many, months……….how come noone is noticing that?

Jane Hamsher @ 96

charles ferguson @ 94

With regret, I must now leave you…I have another appointment. Thank you all for your interest in the film – I’m very gratified by it – really.

Keep up the good fight…

Charles Ferguson

Thanks so much for being here today, Charles. We really appreciate your time and I encourage everyone to try and see the film and spread the word.

Thanks Jane for hosting Charles Ferguson. I was happy to see from the thread that his Charlie Rose interview finally was aired. However, it appears that it was truncated, and in general Mr. Ferguson has been eschewed by the corporate broadcast media. Why? He is a counterpoint to O’Hanlan and Ferguson (whose integrity he has questioned in this thread).

Let’s hope it augers well and Colin Powell finally finds the voice balls that has heretofore failed him and which might have kept us out of this quagmire in the first place.

The most disappointing figure in this entire sad spectacle.

Let’s hope it augers well and Colin Powell finally finds the voice that has heretofore failed him and which might have kept us out of this quagmire in the first place.

I wouldn’t hold your breath, nor mine. His moment came and went with nary a peep. Even now he uses proxies to speak on his behalf. He hasn’t the courage of his convictions even at this late date, clearly.

I will not be very smooth making this request. And this thread is over looks like. Im specifically asking for some help with an astonishing developement that I would like to see developed as discussion point about technology that moves us away from fossil fuels entirely and very fast. It was sent to me as a video, a download from Channel 3, WKYC Cleveland made on 5-4-07. I hoped to have Ed*ard Teller at#33 given me a way to send it to him directly, perhaps off site email to email? He would know what to do with it. It is SALT WATER INTO FUEL documented. So honest a discovery that overcomes a myriad of problems we have no answers to until now.