War against terror

[x582gr51 0]

the topic sound phony

since war is a kind of terror

[Hjaldar 0]

It still cracks me up that that delusional sea-hag Ann Coulter had the gall to call Canadians ungrateful because we're being "protected" by the "U.S nuclear shield."

"The Washington Post criticizes Bush for not rushing back to Washington in response to the tsunami - amid unfavorable comparisons to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who immediately cut short his vacation and returned to Berlin. (Nothing snaps a German to attention like news of mass death!)" - Ann Coulter

Well, what a brilliant person. Where did she learn that? In her weekly women-for-hate meeting?

[llauma 0]

It still cracks me up that that delusional sea-hag Ann Coulter had the gall to call Canadians ungrateful because we're being "protected" by the "U.S nuclear shield."

"The Washington Post criticizes Bush for not rushing back to Washington in response to the tsunami - amid unfavorable comparisons to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who immediately cut short his vacation and returned to Berlin. (Nothing snaps a German to attention like news of mass death!)" - Ann Coulter

Well, what a brilliant person. Where did she learn that? In her weekly women-for-hate meeting?  

Terrible.. But does that mean that she thinks that the Americans are the opposite. So there's nothing that the Americans ignores more than mass death? As Schroeder is appearantly the same as Germans in general, Bush is the same as Americans.

[ruff 102]

nice story

http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=5610

new joint military human intel group

smells of delta,devgru,isa

[red oct 2]

It still cracks me up that that delusional sea-hag Ann Coulter had the gall to call Canadians ungrateful because we're being "protected" by the "U.S nuclear shield."

"The Washington Post criticizes Bush for not rushing back to Washington in response to the tsunami - amid unfavorable comparisons to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who immediately cut short his vacation and returned to Berlin. (Nothing snaps a German to attention like news of mass death!)" - Ann Coulter

Well, what a brilliant person. Where did she learn that? In her weekly women-for-hate meeting?

don't take anything that fascist bimbo has to say seriously. a lot of people here don't even like her.

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2464945

[theavonlady 2]

don't take anything that fascist bimbo has to say seriously. a lot of people here don't even like her.

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2464945

I counted 2 in that article.

Pies. Tires must be out of fashion.

[red oct 2]

i guess so

[Baphomet 0]

Forget pies. That woman needs a house dropped on her.

Give her a broom and she'd fly away on it.

/offtopic

[red oct 2]

well i wouldn't go that far, but she is definitly a bitch. she got a editor in the Centre Daily Times fired from his from his job because he told her he wasn't going to publish anymore of her hate filled bullshit.

[theavonlady 2]

Sad. This is what the war on terror has come to.

[ruff 102]

here is the article to get back on track

"Secret Unit Expands Rumsfeld's Domain"

By Barton Gellman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, January 23, 2005; Page A01

The Pentagon, expanding into the CIA's historic bailiwick, has created a new espionage arm and is reinterpreting U.S. law to give Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld broad authority over clandestine operations abroad, according to interviews with participants and documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The previously undisclosed organization, called the Strategic Support Branch, arose from Rumsfeld's written order to end his "near total dependence on CIA" for what is known as human intelligence. Designed to operate without detection and under the defense secretary's direct control, the Strategic Support Branch deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces.

Military and civilian participants said in interviews that the new unit has been operating in secret for two years -- in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places they declined to name. According to an early planning memorandum to Rumsfeld from Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the focus of the intelligence initiative is on "emerging target countries such as Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, Philippines and Georgia." Myers and his staff declined to be interviewed.

The Strategic Support Branch was created to provide Rumsfeld with independent tools for the "full spectrum of humint operations," according to an internal account of its origin and mission. Human intelligence operations, a term used in counterpoint to technical means such as satellite photography, range from interrogation of prisoners and scouting of targets in wartime to the peacetime recruitment of foreign spies. A recent Pentagon memo states that recruited agents may include "notorious figures" whose links to the U.S. government would be embarrassing if disclosed.

Perhaps the most significant shift is the Defense Department's bid to conduct surreptitious missions, in friendly and unfriendly states, when conventional war is a distant or unlikely prospect -- activities that have traditionally been the province of the CIA's Directorate of Operations. Senior Rumsfeld advisers said those missions are central to what they called the department's predominant role in combating terrorist threats.

The Pentagon has a vast bureaucracy devoted to gathering and analyzing intelligence, often in concert with the CIA, and news reports over more than a year have described Rumsfeld's drive for more and better human intelligence. But the creation of the espionage branch, the scope of its clandestine operations and the breadth of Rumsfeld's asserted legal authority have not been detailed publicly before. Two longtime members of the House Intelligence Committee, a Democrat and a Republican, said they knew no details before being interviewed for this article.

Pentagon officials said they established the Strategic Support Branch using "reprogrammed" funds, without explicit congressional authority or appropriation. Defense intelligence missions, they said, are subject to less stringent congressional oversight than comparable operations by the CIA. Rumsfeld's dissatisfaction with the CIA's operations directorate, and his determination to build what amounts in some respects to a rival service, follows struggles with then-CIA Director George J. Tenet over intelligence collection priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pentagon officials said the CIA naturally has interests that differ from those of military commanders, but they also criticized its operations directorate as understaffed, slow-moving and risk-averse. A recurring phrase in internal Pentagon documents is the requirement for a human intelligence branch "directly responsive to tasking from SecDef," or Rumsfeld.

The new unit's performance in the field -- and its latest commander, reserve Army Col. George Waldroup -- are controversial among those involved in the closely held program. Pentagon officials acknowledged that Waldroup and many of those brought quickly into his service lack the experience and training typical of intelligence officers and special operators. In his civilian career as a federal manager, according to a Justice Department inspector general's report, Waldroup was at the center of a 1996 probe into alleged deception of Congress concerning staffing problems at Miami International Airport. Navy Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, expressed "utmost confidence in Colonel Waldroup's capabilities" and said in an interview that Waldroup's unit has scored "a whole series of successes" that he could not reveal in public. He acknowledged the risks, however, of trying to expand human intelligence too fast: "It's not something you quickly constitute as a capability. It's going to take years to do."

Rumsfeld's ambitious plans rely principally on the Tampa-based U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and on its clandestine component, the Joint Special Operations Command. Rumsfeld has designated SOCOM's leader, Army Gen. Bryan D. Brown, as the military commander in chief in the war on terrorism. He has also given Brown's subordinates new authority to pay foreign agents. The Strategic Support Branch is intended to add missing capabilities -- such as the skill to establish local spy networks and the technology for direct access to national intelligence databases -- to the military's much larger special operations squadrons. Some Pentagon officials refer to the combined units as the "secret army of Northern Virginia."

Known as "special mission units," Brown's elite forces are not acknowledged publicly. They include two squadrons of an Army unit popularly known as Delta Force, another Army squadron -- formerly code-named Gray Fox -- that specializes in close-in electronic surveillance, an Air Force human intelligence unit and the Navy unit popularly known as SEAL Team Six.

The Defense Department is planning for further growth. Among the proposals circulating are the establishment of a Pentagon-controlled espionage school, largely duplicating the CIA's Field Tradecraft Course at Camp Perry, Va., and of intelligence operations commands for every region overseas.

Rumsfeld's efforts, launched in October 2001, address two widely shared goals. One is to give combat forces, such as those fighting the insurgency in Iraq, more and better information about their immediate enemy. The other is to find new tools to penetrate and destroy the shadowy organizations, such as al Qaeda, that pose global threats to U.S. interests in conflicts with little resemblance to conventional war.

In pursuit of those aims, Rumsfeld is laying claim to greater independence of action as Congress seeks to subordinate the 15 U.S. intelligence departments and agencies -- most under Rumsfeld's control -- to the newly created and still unfilled position of national intelligence director. For months, Rumsfeld opposed the intelligence reorganization bill that created the position. He withdrew his objections late last year after House Republican leaders inserted language that he interprets as preserving much of the department's autonomy.

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, deputy undersecretary for intelligence, acknowledged that Rumsfeld intends to direct some missions previously undertaken by the CIA. He added that it is wrong to make "an assumption that what the secretary is trying to say is, 'Get the CIA out of this business, and we'll take it.' I don't interpret it that way at all."

"The secretary actually has more responsibility to collect intelligence for the national foreign intelligence program . . . than does the CIA director," Boykin said. "That's why you hear all this information being published about the secretary having 80 percent of the [intelligence] budget. Well, yeah, but he has 80 percent of the responsibility for collection, as well."

CIA spokeswoman Anya Guilsher said the agency would grant no interviews for this article.

Pentagon officials emphasized their intention to remain accountable to Congress, but they also asserted that defense intelligence missions are subject to fewer legal constraints than Rumsfeld's predecessors believed. That assertion involves new interpretations of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the armed services, and Title 50, which governs, among other things, foreign intelligence.

Under Title 10, for example, the Defense Department must report to Congress all "deployment orders," or formal instructions from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to position U.S. forces for combat. But guidelines issued this month by Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone state that special operations forces may "conduct clandestine HUMINT operations . . . before publication" of a deployment order, rendering notification unnecessary. Pentagon lawyers also define the "war on terror" as ongoing, indefinite and global in scope. That analysis effectively discards the limitation of the defense secretary's war powers to times and places of imminent combat.

Under Title 50, all departments of the executive branch are obliged to keep Congress "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." The law exempts "traditional . . . military activities" and their "routine support." Advisers said Rumsfeld, after requesting a fresh legal review by the Pentagon's general counsel, interprets "traditional" and "routine" more expansively than his predecessors.

"Operations the CIA runs have one set of restrictions and oversight, and the military has another," said a Republican member of Congress with a substantial role in national security oversight, declining to speak publicly against political allies. "It sounds like there's an angle here of, 'Let's get around having any oversight by having the military do something that normally the [CIA] does, and not tell anybody.' That immediately raises all kinds of red flags for me. Why aren't they telling us?"

The enumeration by Myers of "emerging target countries" for clandestine intelligence work illustrates the breadth of the Pentagon's new concept. All those named, save Somalia, have allied themselves with the United States -- if unevenly -- against al Qaeda and its jihadist allies.

A high-ranking official with direct responsibility for the initiative, declining to speak on the record about espionage in friendly nations, said the Defense Department sometimes has to work undetected inside "a country that we're not at war with, if you will, a country that maybe has ungoverned spaces, or a country that is tacitly allowing some kind of threatening activity to go on."

Assistant Secretary of Defense Thomas O'Connell, who oversees special operations policy, said Rumsfeld has discarded the "hide-bound way of thinking" and "risk-averse mentalities" of previous Pentagon officials under every president since Gerald R. Ford.

"Many of the restrictions imposed on the Defense Department were imposed by tradition, by legislation, and by interpretations of various leaders and legal advisors," O'Connell said in a written reply to follow-up questions. "The interpretations take on the force of law and may preclude activities that are legal. In my view, many of the authorities inherent to [the Defense Department] . . . were winnowed away over the years."

After reversing the restrictions, Boykin said, Rumsfeld's next question "was, 'Okay, do I have the capability?' And the answer was, 'No you don't have the capability. . . . And then it became a matter of, 'I want to build a capability to be able to do this.' "

Known by several names since its inception as Project Icon on April 25, 2002, the Strategic Support Branch is an arm of the DIA's nine-year-old Defense Human Intelligence Service, which until now has concentrated on managing military attachés assigned openly to U.S. embassies around the world.

Rumsfeld's initiatives are not connected to previously reported negotiations between the Defense Department and the CIA over control of paramilitary operations, such as the capture of individuals or the destruction of facilities.

According to written guidelines made available to The Post, the Defense Department has decided that it will coordinate its human intelligence missions with the CIA but will not, as in the past, await consent. It also reserves the right to bypass the agency's Langley headquarters, consulting CIA officers in the field instead. The Pentagon will deem a mission "coordinated" after giving 72 hours' notice to the CIA.

Four people with firsthand knowledge said defense personnel have already begun operating under "non-official cover" overseas, using false names and nationalities. Those missions, and others contemplated in the Pentagon, skirt the line between clandestine and covert operations. Under U.S. law, "clandestine" refers to actions that are meant to be undetected, and "covert" refers to those for which the U.S. government denies its responsibility. Covert action is subject to stricter legal requirements, including a written "finding" of necessity by the president and prompt notification of senior leaders of both parties in the House and Senate.

O'Connell, asked whether the Pentagon foresees greater involvement in covert action, said "that remains to be determined." He added: "A better answer yet might be, depends upon the situation. But no one I know of is raising their hand and saying at DOD, 'We want control of covert operations.' "

One scenario in which Pentagon operatives might play a role, O'Connell said, is this: "A hostile country close to our borders suddenly changes leadership. . . . We would want to make sure the successor is not hostile."

[miles teg 1]

The entire reason for this new agency in the Pentagon is to bypass the huge range of analysts who are paid to look at "the big picture".    The problem with relying on military intelligence operators as judge, jury, and exectutioner is that they tend to NOT have the background to do a broad strategic analysis of intelligence data coming in from a wide range of data.   Collecting intel is one thing... but analysis is an entirely different animal that requires someone with a very good education and strong background in analystical methodology.   Its not something your typical super-soldier Delta Force operator can do unless they have that particular skill and have recieved specialized training in intelligence analysis.  Even the military analysts typically are not all that sharp when it comes to an in-depth historical and cultural understanding of a particular region.  But people like Rumsfeld don't give a rat's ass about history or culture.   They just want to find and kill the terrorists.  Its a very narrow short-term approach Rumsfeld is chasing after and while it is necessary, it entirely sidelines efforts to develop a long term plan for eradicating terrorism...something that requires a 180 degree opposite approach with a deep understanding of terrrorist psychology, their culture, their ideologies and religious beliefs.    But that kind of stuff is to "New Age" and is a bunch of hippy crap to Rumsefeld and most of the Bush administration.  

So like good conservatives, they operate on a "Cowboys and Indians" type of paradigm where the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys have dark skin and yell "Allah'u Akbar!"

They absolutely and totally fail to understand the nature of the enemy and how to subvert and/or destroy the causes that the enemy believes in.  

Just as in Vietnam, it is this failure to understand the enemy's motives and belief systems that will lead to the failure of America in Iraq unless something is done soon to change our strategies.  

Sadly right now, currently top military leader's are mentioning the "Salvadore Option" in which they wish to pursue a totally different strategy...and that is one of "out terrorizinng the terrorists" by using even more brutal strategies then those used by terrorists.  This means an organzied strategy of kidnapping, torture, rape, mutilation, and murder.  

It is no accident that the man in charge of such attrocities is now the top American diplomat in Iraq (Negroponte).  

So I think that in the near future we can expect death squads kidnapping, torturing, and publicly mutilating and mudering militant Sunni Clerics and their followers very soon.

But like in Latin America, this strategy will ultimately only cause the insurgency to become a full scale popular uprising and only further bring upon the US international condemnation of the war in Iraq.  I can definitely envision fullscale EU economic sanctions against the US.  

This along with further terrorist attacks within the US and the resulting obliteration of the US constitution (to rid the US of all Muslims) will I think be the cause of the downfall of America.  

But our current administration I believe is blinded in their self-righteousness and just refuses to see any other way then the path of war to bring some ill-defined and understood vision of "freedom" to people who think they are fighting for their "freedom" by fighting against America.  

Anyhoo...  hopefully smart people in positions of power will realize soon what is going on and the danger Amerca faces by this insane neoconservative theoretical modelling of the world.  In doing so hopefully even Bush will wake up and try new and different tactics to save his ass in history and bring about lasting peace.   I think that he probably does want that but the challenge is getting that message to him past the rings of neocons that he has encircled himself with and that who often filter out all the useful information in briefings before it gets to him.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Balschoiw 0]

I have been a bad boy and I regret it deeply.

[EiZei 0]

Good morning.

I´m back in one piece (only two fingers on right hand have taken some damage by frosty Afghan nights).

It´s hard to tell the story right now. First I need to sort all the impressions and things that happened in my head and get used to german comfort again.

Now it´s bathtub time !!!!!

nice to see you in one piece bals

[ruff 102]

well i reckon u need military controlling the pentagon not a civillian like rumsfeld, rumsfeld broke the new u.s. army i believe because he decided to only use generals who had his ideas and sidelined the rest. many generals said  u needed 500000 men to establish real good security in iraq.

further more i believe all military missions sensitive or not  should be under direct control under the president. i believe any unit what so ever has to get written permission by the president to operate under any missions.

and only the president.

but i believe there is no other option than killing terrorists.

how can u educate a terrorist in a country's wanting your downfall? and if terrorism sproutes out of poverty in islamic countries, how are they to be educated or helped by funding of america when some extremist clerics have already set up islamic schools that teach hatred to the free world. not all, very few but there is some few extremists who do. Or the funding that the country recieves from america the government won't use for it's people.

before september 11 islam was just another religion but due to actions of the few it triggered questions on the religion.

in islam killing of innocent civillians through the use of military jihad is forbidden. so the terrorists are not muslim. it's that few, not the many that the will get killed. U.S. is not perfect and no country is. nor am i denying the innoccent people get killed by accident . i don't believe any soldier likes killing unarmed/innocent civillians.

look at what america has done on recent events. tsunami in the southeast asia where the whloe world helped regardless of religion. millions were raised just from majority christian countries(u.s. allies in iraq), and each country themselves thousands of millions more.

look at the anti war rallies before the war  began lots of rallies all around the world.

the bosnian serbian war? nato acted to save majority albanian and bosnian muslims. america acted.

somalia, ethnic cleansing. U.N. acted with the majority U.S. forces. BHD story there purpose i believe were just due to the fact that farah adid attacked food meant for the people.

everytime america acted they were always criticised, yet they were the only country that acted everytime it invloved losing soldiers. usually their conventional soldiers were first.

i believe for certain people there is no reasoning with them. look at the suicide bomber. his willing to kill himself to kill soldiers and civillians. how is anyone to talk to them. the only person they are willing to listen to are their own groups and leaders. and most of the time they don't like their government and want an extreme islamic governemnt to replace it.

a terrorist will find training and will actually go out of  his way to injure and kill innocent civillians. they are soldiers with no rules, thats why certain soldiers are created to deal with them.

also one other flaw in that 180 degree action is that even if a country agrees to what new age approach to combat terrorism is, they will always be the few who will still want to continue with certain government support. it is also governments decisions to allow terrorists to grow or not. allow terror camps and terrorists will come out.  

the vietnam war and korean war, communism were involved, well established countries. cold war was communism vs democracy. the vietnam war most of the soldiers  were forced concript soldiers, resulting  in abuse and rape and war crimes, vietcong did those to, lets not forget. and all those collaborators who did cause lives to be lost, i believe were legitamet targets if they actively were involved in helping vietcong forces kill other people. lots things are and were purely abuse by both sides. if u cooporated with one side, the otherside will get u. CIA were the ones who conducted the phoenix programme anyway(including southvietnamese soldiers). and the CIA only act from orders of the government.

also what country except for the french who don't allow headscarfs? u can pratice any religion u want in a democratic country including america. the vatican, u can visit no matter what religion. every democratic country is tolerant of islam.

i think the french are the ones to banish muslims in thier country. look at their laws. no headscarfs allowed. saudi arabia u must follow islamic law. but no one judges.

in america they need middle eastern people to help them fight terrorism, they need soldiers who speak arabic and are translors and soldiers so that the local populace will trust them. it gives soldiers comfort that an iraqi american soldier is with them, because they know the people will accept them and understand language. especially the intelligence agencies.

if middle eastern countries act as u.n. soldiers won't it help out the situation in iraq?

but i don't agree on the el salvador option(that amount of terror is not my cup of tea), i just believe hunt terror and collaborators who willingly CAUSE DEATHS are also legitamate targets. but those collaborators are terrorists anyway.

and also i don't believe rumsfeld should be in charge of the pentagon. i really wish colin powell stayed. he was the only one in the administration convincing bush to at least go through the u.n. on attacking iraq. but it seems he has been replaced by condileeza rice.

overall i wish john kerry won. at least the EU might have helped.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]BHD story there purpose i believe were just due to the fact that farah adid attacked food meant for the people.

everytime america acted they were always criticised, yet they were the only country that acted everytime it invloved losing soldiers. usually their conventional soldiers were first.

It´s Aidid, and no the BHD incident was not because there were attacks on food deliveries. The BHD incident happened after the US took out an Aidid radio station and roasted civillian buildings during that operation. And no, there were about 29 countries in Somalia with troops and a lot of them died, no matter if they were from Nigeria, Italy, Pakistan, Russia, Malaysia and so on.

Been there, know what I´m talking about.

I don´t really care if Rumsfeld gets his own operational military force for special operations. It was just a matter of time.

[Badgerboy 0]

Welcome back Bals. Are you on leave or has your deployment finished? Glad to hear you didn't get hurt by anything but the weather!

(As for Ruff, I think he bases his entire knowledge of Somalia from what he saw in a certain film not so long ago....)

[ruff 102]

Quote[/b] ]BHD story there purpose i believe were just due to the fact that farah adid attacked food meant for the people.

everytime america acted they were always criticised, yet they were the only country that acted everytime it invloved losing soldiers. usually their conventional soldiers were first.

It´s Aidid, and no the BHD incident was not because there were attacks on food deliveries. The BHD incident happened after the US took out an Aidid radio station and roasted civillian buildings during that operation. And no, there were about 29 countries in Somalia with troops and a lot of them died, no matter if they were from Nigeria, Italy, Pakistan, Russia, Malaysia and so on.

Been there, know what I´m talking about.

I don´t really care if Rumsfeld gets his own operational military force for special operations. It was just a matter of time.

i don't understand, that civillians were killed after US attacked aidid? and that's why Aidid started attacking U.N soldiers and U.N. food for the people?

to my understanfing the reason for taskforce Ranger being there was to remove aidid since he declared war on UN forces and started attacking UN food supplies. that's my understanding of the situation. i just didn't want to elaborate on it on my earlier post since it was already lengthy.

and wasn't the first forces to land were US marines. i was implying that US spearheaded the U.N. mission in somalia, not that they were the the only UN forces there.

@badgerboy

from what i've read he seems to be a soldier and germans were there, and he says he was one of them.

or were you implying that i got my knowledge from watching 1 movie?

because if you were, what type of post was that? were you just insulting my intelligence? i read up and research on things that interest me. i've read up on the somalia incident even before a movie was declared even before i knew a book about it was created.

[miles teg 1]

Russ...see my response on the Iraq thread as to why violence is not a solution to terrorism.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Tovarish 0]

Glad to see you back Bals

[Balschoiw 0]

I have been a bad boy and I regret it deeply.

[hellfish6 7]

Thanks for the pics, Bals. Glad to have you back.

[Ironsight 1]

Pictures from the top of the world

Good to see you back in one piece

[sander 14]

Hi,

Quote[/b] ]... i was implying that US spearheaded the U.N. mission in somalia, not that they were the the only UN forces there.

UNITAF, the force that initially went in in Somalia was predominantly composed of US forces. Despite the letters UN in its title this was no United Nations force, but one composed of a coalition of the willing. UNOSOM II which replaced UNITAF on the other hand was a UN force. Many of the contigents from other nations went from UNITAF into UNOSOM II, but this was not the case for the majority of Americans. Only a small part of the US presence was placed under UNOSOM II, mainly the logistics support command, and the bulk of forces was withdrawn. The remaining US QRF was placed outside the formal UN command structure, though its commander doubled as the deputy force commander of UNOSOM II. The QRF was only placed under UNOSOM II tactical control when committed, it never was under the UN's operational control. The task force ranger was again outside the QRF command structure as well as outside UNOSOM II. Most American forces in Somalia were thus at no point UN forces and were operating under national command structures, despite what the posturing by Americans afterwards might seem to suggest.

Regards,

Sander

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://www.ciahome.net/images/cookbook/UNSO4.jpg

Going down to warmer regions.

A comprehensive report will follow as soon as I got clearance.

wow...