More Evidence of Liberal Bias in Our Schools and Media

Pres Bush beats not one, but two Democrat candidates, in two elections, four years apart. One of the Democrat candidates was an American, who by his own admission; in front of the US Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on 22 Apr 1971, met with the enemy, adopted their positions and promoted the enemy positions in America. The people who voted for that candidate,
are the same people who are supporting the terrorists in Iraq, with their never ending refrain; “America can not win”. If the
Democrat political leaders and their supporters supported America, the Iraq War would have already ended with the free Iraqi people, the clear winners.

Curt: I thought my moonbat colony was bad! Did another cyber bus from Salon pull up at the gates of Flopping Aces?

Sorry to break it to you “dontblameme” but these figures for the media and academia donations to Democrats mirror a host of studies for journalist and academic bias going back for decades.

Long before the internet was around I worked for John Ashbrook, a Congressman from Ohio and one of the first leaders of the conservative movement. Ashbrook owned a printing business and he frequently reprinted articles that addressed issues such as this that we could use as handouts to our political supporters so they would be armed with the information the left so desperately tries to hide.

One of the most popular handouts was an article describing a study which showed just the same journalistic political affiliation as that above.

P.S. “dontblameme:” What an interesting name. Do you suppose that the terrorists you are enabling by blocking every effort to rid the world of that evil will recognize your obstructions and refuse to behead you? Guess again dim bulb!

People can be against a war that they feel was started unneccessarily and on false pretenses. It is one of the great things about be an American. America is all I know, and in America you are allowed to be for, or against a war. If I was scared muslims were going to infiltrate the country and turn us into a muslim society, then I would see you points. However, the reasons for war (WMD, ability to attack the US, etc) were wrong. Were there WMDs found? No, because if there were the media would tell us because that would have given the President the support he needed. Did fox news, a station that supports the president, ever report that WMDs were found? Colin Powell, who had his reputation destroyed over the claims he made, said “Where we got the intelligence wrong–dead wrong–is that we thought he also had existing stockpiles.” said Powell. Do you think his lying? Another quote, this from President Bush. “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties,” the president said. But he also said, “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.” Just because I hate this war doesn’t mean I hate America. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, and it is just a way to make you feel justified in your position to support the war. As for the surge, what is winning? By definition, what is winning the war mean? We went there to take out saddam, then Al qaeda came in and now we are fighting them. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government can not even decide on anything. They have no electricity in Iraq, women are prostituting themselves to pay for food, and there are explosions across the country everyday. A fellow american should die for these people and that country? I’m sorry, but I think not.

Getting seriously off topic here:

No one ever said that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11th Attacks.

But everyone, including Democrats on both the Senate Intell Prewar panel and 9/11 Commission acknowledged that Saddam and Osama had plenty of contacts for a whole host of reasons, including weapons training and sanctuary for Osama in Iraq.

I doubt it would matter if we had an airport surveillance video of Saddam dropping off the 9/11 hijackers at the airport, his fingerprints on the steering wheel and his DNA on the cigar butt in the ashtray, you’d still have some lib suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome that refused to believe it.

It’s a REAL WAR “dontblameme” Innocent men, women and children are dying NOW in countries all over the world. How compassionate is it of you to say “don’t blame me” when we are trying to put a stop to it and save ourselves as well?

Here’s a photo documentary of the Islamist School massacre in Beslan, Russia September 2004:

http://palestinename.com/heartbreak.htm

Hundreds dead, mostly children. None of the victims had anything to do with U.S. foreign policy or Iraq.

The Islamists have the same evil plans in mind for this country and not one you libs has one good idea on how to stop it.

Boy, is the crybaby act on the right old or what?

Here’s a suggestion…if Republicans want academia to support them more, then it’s probably not a good thing that you guys are denying science so often. If a professor isn’t enthusiastic about a party that pushes intelligent design, then it’s not ‘bias’.

Expecting educated people to buy even a quarter of the BS pumped out by the right-wing is stupid.

Crying like babies about it is even more stupid. WHAAAAA, it’s not fair, WHAAAAA…grow up. This is why the youth vote, year to year, is turning against your party. You talked nonsense and broke down crying a few too many times.

You guys are funny. I am against the war and that means I can’t think for myself. That I’m unamerican. I feel it is much easier to just listen to the president you voted for and speak every talking point that he tells the media. Instead, I actually look into what he is talking about, and form my own opinion on the matter of whether the war is right or not. Do I think we can leave Iraq now? No I don’t, because we owe it to the Iraqi people to get a military and police presence that will allow them to protect themselves. Do I think that if we left, Al Qaeda would end up attacking us here in America? I dont know. But do I think that if we stayed, Al Qaeda would attack us here in America? I dont know, and you dont know. Because all it takes is one radicilized group of muslims to set off a car bomb in America and they’ve won. I am worried about terrorists HERE, much more then terrorists 7000 miles away. Because we have ways of knowing where they are. We would know if they came into this country if we made stricter laws about getting into this country. If we didn’t let someone with a fake passport get into this country. Who can they bomb here in American if they are in Iraq? Someone here in American can hurt us. So don’t say I think we’re completely safe, because I don’t believe that. However, I don’t worry about this becoming a muslim state, because that is ridiculous, and I feel the majority of the pro war crowd thinks that would happen if we left Iraq. And thats just stupid, because that would entail us losing our freedom, and that is never going to happen unless we give it away. If they were to try and come here, then I would be the first to fight.
I know Hillary Clinton supported the way. I know basically ever democrat supported the war. I also know besically no one read the 90-page classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate before voting on it. Do I think its possible democrats could be against the war just to win votes? Yes, because if they were really against this war I think they would be trying harder to force Bush’s hand. I don’t go against this war because I hate Bush, or because I hate republicans, because that doesn’t solve anything. I am not allowed to not trust Cheney because he said the insurgency was in the last throes? That was two years ago! Over and over and over again all I hear is, 6 more months and we should be able to take control. Or that the next 6 months will determine whether the war is one. How many times do I have to hear it before I can say enough is enough. I want the military to get the iraq military to defend themselves, and then get the hell out.
So, as I see it, I am the one who actually thinks about this stuff, while you just listen to your party, and your president. Anything important I say, or anyone else says about the war that doesn’t work for you (no WMDs, no electricity) you just blow off. I know I can’t change your mind, because you are all scared to death of al qaeda. I worry about radicilized muslims in america, because in realty that is the only way we can be attacked. I feel bad that you guys live like this, but don’t expect me to follow your path just because it is easier. And the majority of americans agree with ME, not all of you.

From the North Vietnamese Colonel who accepted the surrender of Saigon.

http://www.viet-myths.net/buitin.htm

“Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us. ”

Al-Qaeda is simply using the American anti-war terrorist supporters the same way. Car bombs are set off, innocent Iraqis die, and American anti-war terrorist supporters claim they are right, America is wrong. What kind of twisted reasoning is that for an American?

Al-Qaeda knows they are not going to defeat the US military.
The only way they can win is for the American anti-war terrorist supporters to win it for them. Just like Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Walter Cronkite, and the rest of the American anti-war terrorist supporters defeated South Vietnam and America.

Support America, not the terrorists fighting against America.

Damn I love it when left wing toads post their mantras while typing in high soprano almost falsetto speech because they have their panties in a bunch.

Fish meet barrel and don’t think about making it your home.

Damn I haven’t seen so much faulty logic since a wino tried to convince me he could win the lottery betting on his sisters birth date.

A war we are winning actually, and quite well.

How do you define “winning”? Most would define it as the ability to go home. Our troops have the ability to prevail on the battlefield - heck, our troops have the ability to kill every last Iraqi. The problem is not military but political. You cannot create democracy at the end of a rifle. The reality is that overwhelmingly Shiite Iraq will likely install a Shiite Theocracy, like neighboring Shiite Iran. Any idiot could have figured that out, if he spent a second actually THINKING instead of just swallowing the talking points of war-mongers.

So, to sum up, we have spent a TRILLION dollars, many thoudands of Americans killed, tens of thousands wounder and maimed in order to free Iraq to become a Shiite theocracy?? It sounds like we already lost.

The US was in World War II 1347 days - from December 7, 1941 to August 15, 1945. Osama Bin Laden (not Iraq) attacked the US on 9/11/2001 - now 2169 days ago. Are you telling me that ONE son of a rich Saudi construction magnate is more powerful that the German and Japanese empires? How many Battleships and Aircraft Carries does he have? How many hundreds of thousand of troops?

This war in Iraq isn’t “winnable” - we will NEVER get what we want - a western-friendly, Israel-tolerating democracy. Iraq isn’t ours to “win”. It belongs to the Iraqis. The sooner we get out, the sooner we can stop losing.

So what you are saying is that about 90% of a population of some of the smartest people in the country donate to Democrats.

Wow. That’s a great point there floppy. I guess it proves something or other, though probably not what you think it does.

I’ve just finished reading all the comments.
Very enlightening. Thanks.

That’s my name dipshit. As for you unfortunately you are not fake, but you are stupid.

Don’t you inbreds realize what this means? Its rather simple.

A + B = C

A = Getting a quality education

B = Not having your head up your ass

C = Not being a dumbshit who votes for dumbshits.

Another giant run on paragraph! Yippee!

If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, the innocent people who are dying there at the hands of Al Queda and former Baathists would still be getting dumped into mass graves. And at higher numbers.

Saddam would still be paying suicide bombers to blow up men, women and children in buses and in shops in Israel.

Abu Nidal, who pushed wheel chair bound American Leon Klinghofer overboard from the Achille Lauro would still be in sanctuary.

Zarqawi would still be in Northern Iraq.

Saddam would still be holding meetings to help Al Queda with weapons and offer bin Laden Sanctuary.

And we could all thank “dontblameme” for helping another genocidal monster continue to kill and spread evil across the world.

“Okay I am just wondering, what do you mean by ability to attack the US was in fact quite correct?”

Perhaps when referring to “ability to attack the US” it’s a reference to Saddam’s WMD capability (albeit not in the form of stockpiles, but in what the Duelfer Report and pre-Bush Admin reports describe as “Breakout capabilities”) coupled with the now confirmed relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda groups (later those groups would unite under the banner of Al Queda in Iraq as well as two-three others that keep changing their names but keep the same leaders and members). WMD+Al
Queda…it’s described as a “Nexus of evil” scenario

“Could, and more importantly, would Saddam have attacked the United States? Wouldn’t that seem to make absolutely no sense for him? If he were to provoke a war against our country, he knew the US would destroy
his military and have no problem ousting him as leader.“

If he thought he could covertly attack the US and get away with it, sure-absolutely. Definitely. What totalitarian dictator in history who considered themselves to be at war with the US wouldn’t attack if they thought they could get away with it via an aire of deniability through the use of proxies? After all, what other purpose is there for states to sponsor terrorist operations rather than to use their own covert or
conventional forces? The purpose is deniability and the survivability that the deniability would provide.

“Why would he attack us knowing full well it would mean the end of his reign as leader of Iraq.“

Beyond the survivability through deniability aspect, it’s very clear-in Saddam’s own pre-war rantings-that Saddam (like Bin Laden and every other world leader) believed that a large enough portion of the American people have no stomach for war and would demand a cut and run/declare
victory then runaway attitude.

SADDAM:

“Our missiles could not reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike.”
-Saddam Hussein 9/3/98

“Iraq will continue to face American aggression against its cities and installations and, in the same way the Americans were forced to declare directly or indirectly their failure in Vietnam,….they will be forced to declare their failure in Iraq.”
-Saddam Hussein 6/11/00

BIN LADEN:

“After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, and who do
not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who
fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return. “
-Osama Bin Laden Interview with Peter Arnett Late March 1997

It’s very clear that the post-Kennedy US policy of disengagement from threats vs engagement and resolve (a policy that seeks to earn respect through actions aimed at a peace-at-any-price idea) has not yielded the respect of tyrannical leaders and enemies of the US.

“Also, all of your facts mean nothing unless there is a reliable, if not definite connection between Iraq and 9/11. “

To do this, we’d need to have a clear understanding of what you are looking for by “connection?” Do you mean a rhetorical connection like the one between Germany and Japan that was in rhetoric only and almost no operational cooperation? Do you mean a hand in hand connection like
when the US and UK take action anywhere together? Do you mean a connection in terms of casus belli where entity A and entity B both hate the US, both cite the oppression of the other as their own reasons for war with the US, and in turn cooperate as much as possible without compromising their relationship (ie, state sponsors of terror sponsor terror to maintain deniability, and thus are not going to have a lot of evidence of cooperation-though we’ve found lots between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda). For more, please read my articles:

Iraq and 911, not the same battle, but the same war

Media Reports Connect Iraq to 911

“Now of course you can find some information that suggests that there were meetings between Al Qaeda and Saddam. However, when an investigative panel like the 9/11 commission says there is no credible link, I am going to believe the panel over you. If we went to war because of raw intelligence, then the cold war would have ended much differently “

Welp, the 911 Commission says that Bin Laden waged war on the US for three reasons:

1) presence of US forces in Saudi (forces which were there to wage war on Saddam)

2) US attacks and oppression of Iraq through bi-annual attacks, constant no-fly-zones, immoral blockade of the Iraqi people, and so forth

3) US support for Israel (this is kind of a requirement for any group of Islamic Holy Warriors, and wasn’t part of UBL’s theme or his casus belli against the US until 1996 when Egyptian Islamic Jihad merged with Al Queda and 2/3’s-3/4ths of AQ’s leadership was suddenly filled by
anti-Israel terrorists).

You can read more about this in the 911 Commission’s report on pages 48 and 49. HOWEVER, if one wants to point to the 911 Commission as a reputable source (and I include myself here), I’d point out that most of the 911 Commission members have looked at the documents captured in Iraq and called for a re-investigation of the Saddam’s ties to Al Queda issue. You can read a lot more about this specifically here:

Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda Debunked?

Specifically:

At first glance it sounds like the commission members are saying that no evidence exists, but that’s not it at all as some of the 911 Commission members later elaborated.

“John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released.”

There may well be–and probably will be–additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as–nor meant to be–the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities.””

Upon seeing just a glimpse of the 18% of the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured from Saddam’s regime, 911 Commission member, Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) said,

“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the
September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”

Other 911 Commission members have spoken out as well and made clear that the lack of evidence cited in their report was a reference to a lack of evidence gathered.

“I don’t understand how you believe in pre-emptive war, when there are other means to end a bad situation. Like…the cold war! Amazing how that works.”

I fully understand and agree with your point here, but I think it’s kind of a cross between an argumentative comment and one that doesn’t really grasp a concept. It’s kind of like saying, “I don’t understand why the greatest football team in the world can’t score a touchdown when the greatest baseball team in the world can win the World Series.” Not all wars are the same. A conventional war (World War 1 and 2) are hardly the same as an unconventional war (Vietnam). A naval war is not at all the same as a land war. Tactics, strategies, resources, the nature of the enemy, and the objective of the war are all different. Sure, aircraft might be necessary for all types of war, just as all sports have balls of some sort, but the objectives-touchdowns, runs, captured capitals, killed despots, etc., differ greatly. Now, having said all that, your next question is a great one (seriously).

“Also, if al qaeda is as bad as we all feel it is, then why if the man who orchestrated those 9/11 attacks still uncaptured? Because he is in an allies country? Does that make any sense at all? The man who had planes flown into the WTC and Pentagon gets to roam the Earth as long as he stays in an allied country. So, if he was in Great Britain, we would just let him shop around the malls because I mean, jeez, we don’t want to mess with an ally! “

I really liked this question. Seriously. Now, many people might look at the question and agree (which is why I’ll toss in my idea of an answer in a moment), and others would look at it and see a complete ignorance of the war against Al Queda as it is fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Waziristan, (recall that those three were for hundreds of years a single nation-one that was never conquered in world history, and has the dubious nickname of “the Graveyard of Empires”). Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden, and why hasn’t the US gotten him in fifteen years (recall that his first attack against the US was in December 1992 perthe 911 Commission)?

1) modern generals and historical generals dating back to Alexander the Great have all said that you could put an endless number of soldiers in the area where UBL is hiding, and you would lose the soldiers rather than take the area.

2) While Pakistan can be doing more, they can’t be doing much more, and to pretend that the US/Pakistan are just kicking back and “letting” UBL/AQ live comfy/cozy in caves is to ignore the fact that more Al Queda members have been killed/captured in Pakistan by Pakistanis working with
the US than almost anywhere else in the globe (save US/Afghan forces in 2001/02 and Coalition forces which have killed tens of thousands of AQ in Iraq since 2003).

3) American soldiers and Marines are great. American Special Forces are even more highly trained and more dedicated than your average grunt. American Special Operations Forces are the next level of skill and commitment. And where does one go when they want to be more than a Green Beret or Navy Seal (ie, Special Operations Forces)? They retire and join a contracting firm like Blackwater or they move up to the CIA (which has
levels of secretive special forces/special activities division kinda guys etc). My point is that America’s absolute finest, most-skilled, and most committed warriors are in the area, are doing great things, and to pretend like no one is trying to get UBL/AQ in the unconquerable region of the planet is to deny their great efforts (hardly a support the troops perspective). Could we use more? Sure, but as I said earlier…from today’s modern generals all the way to Alexander the Great, the consensus is that more is not better in this area, in this kind of war.

More “troops” is as effective a counter-insurgency strategy in this area as tasking a battleship to fight there.

“What a moronic thought, if Bush were to find and kill Bin Laden I would give him much credit. I do not give him credit for going to war in another country for no reason. But there really were a million reasons to invade iraq, right guys? “

There were lots of reasons to invade Iraq:

Primary reason:

* to prevent a Nexus of Evil situation

* to prevent UBL from setting up headquarters in Iraq as Saddam had annually and bi-annually requested for 5 yrs. UBL had turned down each offer based on the idea that he was safer in Afghanistan, but driven from Afghanistan in 2001/2…the possibility of UBL moving AQ HQ to Iraq was much more likely and easily a worst case scenario for the war on terror (see also 911 Comm report and SIC 911 report and SIC Iraq investigation report for details OR multiple RR threads on “AQ’s ties to Iraq per _____”)

Secondary reason:

* to remove/resolve the hundreds unresolved WMD issues (any one of which could kill thousands in the hands of an Iraqi trained terrorist-like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to get the hundreds of AQ terrorist who fled Afghanistan to Iraq (IN PROGRESS)

* to end Iraqi support for terrorists in general (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

Tertiary reasons:

* to create a battlefield against terrorists made of America’s
choosing-not the terrorists preference (UBL’s preference was Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires where he felt he had already destroyed one superpower) (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED-tens of thousands of AQ killed in Iraq)

* to create a bastion of democracy in the middle of a region plagued by tyranny and oppression…things that spawn terrorism (IN PROGRESS)

* to drain the swamp of terrorists in the region; ie, to draw terrorists into a fight against the US military and not the Springfield, Ohio police Department (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to offer the Iraqi people a chance at restoring their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-rights that some Americans believe are endowed to all men by the creator (IN PROGRESS)

* to end the 4000-5000 Iraqis per month who were dying because of UN sanctions per the UN’s claims (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to prevent Saddam from continuing to terrorize the Iraqi people and his neighbors (all but one of which he had attacked) (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to support a legitimate govt in Iraq. (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to position US forces in a more threatening/deterring position to Iran, Syria, etc. (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* With Al Queda’s #1 and #2 leaders pinned in Waziristan/Pakistan, as a means of going after the Al Queda’s #3 man, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had already attempted to kill hundreds of thousands in London, Rome,
Paris, and Jordan using chemical and biological weapons via training he had been given from Saddam (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* To end the funding of Palestinian terrorists by Saddam and thus help deter bi-weekly suicide bus bombings that had completely derailed the peace process (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to prevent the funding of Al Queda by Iraq through the mega-corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to shift American oil dependence (and funding) from
terrorist-breeding-ground of Saudi Arabia to a Democratic and representative govt in Iraq (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)
and so on…

“Why don’t you all sign up and go fight this war if it’s so important?”

Everyone’s probably got their reasons. Maybe some feel their best way to serve is to be a cop, or a firefighter, or a politician, or a writer. A question as deserved as that would be, if the war is so wrong and unjust, why not go to Iraq and protest the troops, be a human shield?

“One more thing, what would Iraq be like if we hadn’t invaded?”

According to 2002 intelligence estimates, Saddam would have a nuclear bomb by 2007-2009.

According to the DoD’s post-war findings, there were terrorists inside Iraq working with Iraqi Intelligence planning a series of attacks called, “Blessed July.”

According to the Duelfer Report, sanctions would be completely eroded and useless by now, and diplomatic efforts to restore them or make them more enforceable would be irrevocably gone.

According to the Clinton-era reporting on Iraqi civilian casualties caused by those sanctions, as many or more Iraqis would be dead as a result of the US blockade.

According to the Clinton/Gore Administration’s comments post-Desert Fox in 1998, as well as according to former UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler, Saddam would have a WMD capability long before 2007.

Now, would 4000 Americans be dead, and 30,000 wounded? I dunno. I dunno how many would die in Al Queda attacks done on behalf of Iraq, but the list of thwarted Al Queda attacks is huge, and if any one of them
succeeded….then yes we would have that many casualties and more.

“Would there be Al Qaeda in Iraq? “

Al Queda groups were in Iraq before the war, so yes. Training camps galore (were there NAZI training camps outside Tokyo in 1941?). I could go on a lot here, but instead direct readers to the section here at Flopping Aces describing Al Queda in Iraq, and again refer to the 911
Commission members who post-report have asked to no avail that the issue of ties be re-examined in light of the new evidence from detainees, documents, etc).

“Would Saddam have attacked U.S. soil? I can’t wait to see these answers…”

According to Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee, yes. Various Iraqi Intelligence Service attacks on the US were thwarted in 2003, but I think the real threat doesn’t come from Saddam and/or his
7-9 different intelligence services, but rather from Islamic Holy Warriors taking action on behalf of Iraq (particularly when done in exchange for training, cash, documents, and most of all…the provision of an excuse)