Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Liberals Under Fire

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Liberals Under Fire   2/5/2015, 11:49 am

There may soon be a new action movie out: American Sniper Liberal.
Why is it that these people, who generally seem to loathe the military, like to play army?
Is there something in the water that they drink that causes them to fabricate stories about being under fire?




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?_r=0

Clinton Says She ‘Misspoke’ About Dodging Sniper Fire

Published: March 25, 2008

BLUE BELL, Pa. — As part of her argument that she has the best experience and instincts to deal with a sudden crisis as president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently offered a vivid description of having to run across a tarmac to avoid sniper fire after landing inBosnia as first lady in 1996.
Yet on Monday, Mrs. Clinton admitted that she “misspoke” about the episode — a concession that came after CBS News showed footage of her walking calmly across the tarmac with her daughter, Chelsea, and being greeted by dignitaries and a child.

………

In her most recent account, offered last week, Mrs. Clinton described an action-packed arrival in the Balkans.
“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia,” she said, in remarks that aides described Monday as not being part of her prepared speech. “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
In interviews Monday, aides to Mrs. Clinton at the time of the trip, as well as an Associated Press photographer who was on the trip, said that she and others were briefed before landing about the possibility of sniper fire around the airport in Tuzla, Bosnia. None of the aides remembered actual sniper fire. Nor did the photographer, Doug Mills, who now works for The New York Times.
“I remember being told we were going into a war zone, but I don’t remember any commotion at the airport,” Mr. Mills said. “I don’t recall her running to cars. If that had happened, we would have made a picture of it.

………

Maj. Gen. William Nash, who has since retired but was then the commander of United States troops in Bosnia and was at the Tuzla airport that day, said in an interview that there was no threat of sniper fire at the airport during Mrs. Clinton’s visit. He said she was gracious during her visit and took pictures with the soldiers, who were there to enforce the terms of the Dayton peace accord, signed five months earlier.
“She never had her head down,” General Nash said. “There was no sniper threat that I know of.”

………

Later that day, Mrs. Clinton spoke at a show for about 500 troops. She was joined by the comedian Sinbad and the singer Sheryl Crow, both of whom performed for the troops, according to the schedule. Later that day, Mrs. Clinton and her entourage left for Aviano Air Base in Italy.
Sinbad challenged her account of sniper fire soon after he heard it more than a week ago, saying the scariest part of the trip for him was wondering where the next meal would come from.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/brian-williams-admits-that-his-story-of-coming-under-fire-while-in-iraq-was-false/2015/02/04/d7fe32d0-acc0-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

Brian Williams admits that his story of coming under fire while in Iraq was false

NBC News anchor Brian Williams conceded on Wednesday that a story he had told about being under fire while covering the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was false.
Williams said he was not aboard a helicopter that was hit by enemy fire and forced down — a story he retold as recently as last week during a televised tribute to a retired soldier during a New York Rangers hockey game.
On “NBC Nightly News” Wednesday evening, Williams read a 50-second statement apologizing for his characterization of the episode.
“After a groundfire incident in the desert during the Iraq war invasion, I made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago,” he said. “It did not take long to hear from some brave men and women in the air crews who were also in that desert. I want to apologize. I said I was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by [rocket-propelled grenade] fire. I was instead in a following aircraft. . . . This was a bungled attempt by me to thank one special veteran and, by extension, our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere, those who have served while I did not.”
………

In the hockey broadcast last week, Williams told viewers, “The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG. Our traveling NBC News team was rescued, surrounded and kept alive by an armor mechanized platoon from the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry.”
Williams’s claim of surviving an air attack bothered several soldiers familiar with air operations at the time, including Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Miller, who was the flight engineer on the helicopter that carried the NBC News crew. “No, we never came under direct enemy fire to the aircraft,” he told the newspaper. The soldier’s complaints prompted Williams to issue his first apology Wednesday afternoon on the “NBC Nightly News” Facebook page.













Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/5/2015, 9:39 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/brian-williams-apology-iraq-helicopter_n_6622752.html

Brian Williams Under Fire Over His Shifting Story Of Iraq Helicopter Attack

The Iraq helicopter controversy is the first to shake Williams' decade-long tenure as anchor of "NBC Nightly News," the top-rated evening newscast. A network star, he may be able to ride out the unflattering press and social media swipes. But the same might have been said about then-"CBS Evening News" anchor Dan Rather, whose career at the network unraveled in 2004 after bloggers challenged documents he reported as detailing the young George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.
Rather, whose own controversy the media have revisited over the past 24 hours, defended Williams on Thursday.
"I don't know the particulars about that day in Iraq. I do know Brian," Rather said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post. "He's a longtime friend and we have been in a number of war zones and on the same battlefields, competing but together. Brian is an honest, decent man, an excellent reporter and anchor -- and a brave one. I can attest that -- like his predecessor Tom Brokaw -- he is a superb pro, and a gutsy one."




When it comes to having someone vouch for your journalistic integrity, it really helps to have Dan Rather be that person.

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/6/2015, 5:30 pm

happy jack wrote:
[b]There may soon be a new action movie out: American Sniper Liberal.
Why is it that these people, who generally seem to loathe the military, like to play army?
Is there something in the water that they drink that causes them to fabricate stories about being under fire?

Yeah,maybe they're drinking Pat Robertson's holy water......
Quote :
Pat Robertson Affair

McCloskey's revelation of Pat Robertson's lies about his Korean War service put an end to Robertson's 1988 Presidential run. Robertson first claimed that he was a "combat veteran" back in 1981, which aroused the ire of McCloskey, who had been shipped to Korea along with Robertson as second lieutenants as part as the 5th Replacement Draft to bolster the First Marine Division, which had suffered great losses at the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir. McCloskey and Robertson were part of a contingent of 71 Marine officers and 1,900 enlisted men shipped to Korea aboard the U.S.S. General J.C. Breckenridge to serve as replacements.[6]

When Robertson began claiming again that he was a combat veteran during the 1988 Republican primaries, McCloskey wrote a public letter to U.S. Representative which said that Robertson was actually spared combat duty when his powerful father, U.S. Senator A. Willis Robertson of Virginia, intervened on his behalf, and that Robertson had actually boasted that his father would keep him out of combat. Robertson, a college friend, and four other second lieutenants were shipped to Japan, detailed to a training mission for Marines coming out of Korea. Of the remaining Marine officers, half were killed of wounded in combat.[6]

Robertson sued McCloskey and another accuser for libel, demanding damages of $35 million.The day before the trial, Robertson dropped the libel suit. On Super Tuesday, he was punished at the polls. He later paid McCloskey's court costs.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_McCloskey#Pat_Robertson_Affair

Then there is the case of St Ronnie...
Quote :
Ronald Reagan
Ronaldus Magnus. The most beloved man in all of conservatism repeatedly confused (or "confused") scenes from his acting career with heroic battlefield moments...that he never participated in or witnessed. Reagan, for instance, is reported to have boasted to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal of photographing concentration camps at the end of World War II. He even told Shamir he'd helped liberate Auschwitz. In his autobiography he wrote "by the time I got out of the Army Air Corps all I wanted to do--in common with several million other veterans--was to rest up, make love to my wife." But as Michael Schaller wrote in his book Reckoning with Reagan, "This obscured the fact that unlike most of the "several million other veterans," Reagan had left neither home nor wife while in military service."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/top-moments-in-politicians-lying-about-military-service
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/20/2015, 10:19 am

Of all the lies told of Iraq, Williams' bother me the least.

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/20/2015, 12:28 pm

Heretic wrote:
Of all the lies told of Iraq, Williams' bother me the least.




Yeah, I hear you.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/20/2015, 8:43 pm

You're wearing out those quotes, Jack.  We've discussed them over and over and over again, but you still don't get it, do you?  Got any quotes from the time period before the invasion in 2003, after the weapons inspectors assured the world that the WMDs didn't actually still exist?

No, I don't think so.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/20/2015, 8:54 pm

Every democrat that I know of who voted for the Iraq war resolution has admitted it was a mistake and that they regret making that mistake.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice etc. and every republican that I know of have yet to do that. Cheney even brags to this day that he'd do again in a heartbeat.
These are the scumbags that jack still admires.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/21/2015, 4:25 am

Scorpion wrote:
You're wearing out those quotes, Jack.  We've discussed them over and over and over again, but you still don't get it, do you?  



Of course I get it.
These folks were all for the war until it appeared that their position was going to be an unpopular one, so they did a 180, pretended they were never in favor of the war, and people like you believed them.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/21/2015, 3:41 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
You're wearing out those quotes, Jack.  We've discussed them over and over and over again, but you still don't get it, do you?  



Of course I get it.
These folks were all for the war until it appeared that their position was going to be an unpopular one, so they did a 180, pretended they were never in favor of the war, and people like you believed them.

What?  Are you fucking kidding?  The reason that "their position was going to be an unpopular one" was because of what the weapons inspectors found (which was nothing) when they went in before the invasion. A rational person "does a 180"  when confronted with the facts.  Only a crazy person would continue to favor a war after the justification for the war no longer exists. The weapons inspectors found no WMDs.  The Bush Administration decided to invade despite the fact that the Iraqi government was fully cooperating with the inspections.  

You really should just man up and stop posting the same nonsense every time the subject comes up.  My advice is to stop trying to revise history and just admit that you were wrong about the war and move on.
Back to top Go down
chuckmo48

avatar

Posts : 286

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/21/2015, 4:19 pm

happy jack wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/brian-williams-apology-iraq-helicopter_n_6622752.html

Brian Williams Under Fire Over His Shifting Story Of Iraq Helicopter Attack

...and so it goes:

Bill O’Reilly exaggerated war-zone experiences, Mother Jones says
Quote :
“Yet for years,” said Mother Jones, “O’Reilly has recounted dramatic stories about his own war reporting that don’t withstand scrutiny — even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.”

It added, “O’Reilly has repeatedly told his audience that he was a war correspondent during the Falklands war and that he experienced combat during that 1982 conflict between England and Argentina. He has often invoked this experience to emphasize that he understands war as only someone who has witnessed it could.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mother-jones-accuses-bill-oreilly-of-hyping-his-war-zone-experiences/2015/02/19/ddbfaf70-b88f-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/21/2015, 7:07 pm

edge540 wrote:
Every democrat that I know of who voted for the Iraq war resolution has admitted it was a mistake and that they regret making that mistake.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice etc. and every republican that I know of have yet to do that. Cheney even brags to this day that he'd do again in a heartbeat.
These are the scumbags that jack still admires.
The Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder in America's foreign policy. ISIS is a direct result of that war. Evil or Very Mad
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/22/2015, 9:23 am

Scorpion wrote:

You really should just man up and stop posting the same nonsense every time the subject comes up.  My advice is to stop trying to revise history and just admit that you were wrong about the war and move on.



Those people advocated for the war long before Bush was even in office, and later voted for the war. Now that they say,"Ooops!", I guess, in your eyes, they bear no responsibility.
I'll have to see if that tactic works for me the next time I get pulled over for speeding.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/22/2015, 11:42 am

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

You really should just man up and stop posting the same nonsense every time the subject comes up.  My advice is to stop trying to revise history and just admit that you were wrong about the war and move on.



[b]Those people advocated for the war long before Bush was even in office, and later voted for the war.
They did? Let's see some proof,especially "long before Bush was in office" and where they advocated an invasion of Iraq.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/22/2015, 4:24 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

You really should just man up and stop posting the same nonsense every time the subject comes up.  My advice is to stop trying to revise history and just admit that you were wrong about the war and move on.



Those people advocated for the war long before Bush was even in office, and later voted for the war.

They did? Let's see some proof,especially "long before Bush was in office" and where they advocated an invasion of Iraq.



I said nothing about advocating for “an invasion of Iraq” long before Bush was in office. I said they advocated for war long before Bush was in office; all of the below statements call for acts of war. Their votes for the invasion came later.
Pay attention.




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

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

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/23/2015, 8:16 am

happy jack wrote:

I said nothing about advocating for “an invasion of Iraq” long before Bush was in office. I said they advocated for war long before Bush was in office; all of the below statements call for acts of war. Their votes for the invasion came later.
Pay attention.
Bullshit, they did not advocate for war, they advocated for containment.
Besides we were already engaging in "acts of war."
News item:

Quote :
Clinton Rebuts G.O.P. Attacks On Iraqi Policy
By ALISON MITCHELL
Published: September 15, 1996

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14— Facing mounting Republican criticism, President Clinton said today that American air strikes against Iraq ''tightened the strategic straitjacket'' around President Saddam Hussein and ''advanced America's fundamental interests in the region.'

The strategy was one of containment, not all out war.
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-11.html

Looks like some people are too dense to know that there is a huge difference between air strikes (containment) and an invasion of a country-war.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/23/2015, 2:15 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:

You really should just man up and stop posting the same nonsense every time the subject comes up.  My advice is to stop trying to revise history and just admit that you were wrong about the war and move on.



Those people advocated for the war long before Bush was even in office, and later voted for the war.

Yeah. Well for the record, the quotes prior to the 2000s are about the events leading up to the US & UK bombing of Iraq in 1998. (Except the 1999 Albright quote, which was about sanctions)

As I pointed out to you several times, in several threads, the Iraqis were not cooperating with the weapons inspectors at the time and that is the correct context for these over used quotes.

You really need to do some reading about the history of our involvement in Iraq, as it's become apparent that you have no memory of it at all.

Cutting and pasting out of context quotes is a cheap, intellectually lazy way to make an "argument." Doing it multiple times is nothing more than trolling, Jack. You suck.

Snopes took a close look at this bullshit a decade ago...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp





Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/24/2015, 10:18 pm

Of all the lies told about Iraq, happy's are my favorite.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9382

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   2/25/2015, 5:34 pm

Heretic wrote:
Of all the lies told about Iraq, happy's are my favorite.
Proving once again that people that only get their news from Fox or right-wing sites like Breitbart are less informed than the rest of us. It's very sad.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5997

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   3/1/2015, 9:29 am

Scorpion wrote:
   

Snopes took a close look at this bullshit a decade ago...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp




Your Snopes article most certainly cites fine examples of these people making a strong case for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Nice post.





Scorpion wrote:
   
You suck.



Good one!
You come up with that on your own?
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   3/1/2015, 2:10 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
   

Snopes took a close look at this bullshit a decade ago...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp




Your Snopes article most certainly cites fine examples of these people making a strong case for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Nice post.

Thanks!  But I thought that we were talking about the invasion, not "getting rid of Saddam."
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Liberals Under Fire   

Back to top Go down
 
Liberals Under Fire
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: