War against terror

[noundo 0]

I'm arguing that the Bush administration failed with their actions after the WTC attacks and not before. I'm against Bush but I don't blame him for not preventing the attacks. I blame him for sabotaging the 'war on terror' by going to Iraq.

OK - that makes sense now. It looked as if you were arguing both sides of this discussion - Which you kind of are!

[theavonlady 2]

a better question is:

what did Reagan administration do to stop these two attacks?

I don't know why it's a better question but:

1. They fumbled a rescue operation and blew their chances of getting the hostages out of Iran.

2. They pulled out of Beirut.

[denoir 0]

I'm arguing that the Bush administration failed with their actions after the WTC attacks and not before. I'm against Bush but I don't blame him for not preventing the attacks. I blame him for sabotaging the 'war on terror' by going to Iraq.

OK - that makes sense now.  It looked as if you were arguing both sides of this discussion - Which you kind of are!

Hehe, well, in a way I am I don't like having black and white vision. The Bush debate is extremely polarized. The Bushniacs attribute only positive things to hime while the anti-Bush camp tries to pin everything bad in the world on him.

With the sum of all things I have a very negative opinion of Bush. That doesn't mean however that I think everything bad in the world can be pinned on him.

I think that the categorical polarization trivializes the issues and takes focus from where it is relevant.

[Akira 0]

a better question is:

what did Reagan administration do to stop these two attacks?

I don't know why it's a better question but:

1. They fumbled a rescue operation and blew their chances of getting the hostages out of Iran.

2. They pulled out of Beirut.

Carter fumbled it.

If you remember Reagan made the deal taht got the hostages out as long as they were released AFTER the election.

[walker 0]

Hi shinRaiden

Analysis is always interesting I have always enjoyed taking apart statements.

So From this document the White House in an unprecidented move to release an anonymous briefing. We have some interesting results and facts.

White House anonymous press brifings once thought to be sacrosanct for TBA are no longer sacrosanct. Any Whistle Blower who wants to to go for it under TBA; can.

Wonder how that will affect the investigation in to which White House official anonymously briefed the press as to the identity of CIA head of finding nuclear Weapons intelligence; thus risking the lives of all her agents and assets.

Richard Clarke's plan was the one put into place in full after 9/11

Richard Clarke had been pushing for his plan to be used since TBA came in to office.

The OSP held it up (that is presumably the newly-appointed deputies metioned in the section shinRaiden quotes) untill

Quote[/b] ]CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think

Note Richarde Clarke is not sure as he is no longer suposed to report directly to the president he has to report to The Office of Special Plans Rumsfeld's Amateur Spies.

So still 8 months after he tried to present the plan it was once again being presented to The Office of Special Plans Rumsfeld's Amateur Spies who unless there was a 9/11 would never have presented it to the Cabinet or George Bush Jnr. as there job set out for them by TBA was to look for a way to start a war with the imaginary enemy Iraq.

Kind Regards Walker

[noundo 0]

1. They fumbled a rescue operation and blew their chances of getting the hostages out of Iran.

Wasn't this the Carter administration's gig?

Edit:  Whoops, things are happening here too FAST!!

[ralphwiggum 6]

a better question is:

what did Reagan administration do to stop these two attacks?

I don't know why it's a better question but:

1. They fumbled a rescue operation and blew their chances of getting the hostages out of Iran.

2. They pulled out of Beirut.

since you are not going to admit that you have an agenda for your post, i'll say it.

your point was that TCA failed to stop AQ. unfortuantely, almost all administrations have problem in such manner. Reagan certainly did not do a thing to stop two aforementioned attack(although different group). thus, trying to put all the failure of response to AQ into TCA's tab is not the best way to do so. When TCA decided to eliminate OBL with Cruise missiles, guess what? Republicans called it 'an attempt to divert public attention from Clinton's problem'.

TBA certainly wasn't keen on subject either, and if TBA paid more attention and asked for better look into more intelligence, 911 might have been prevented, but not much was done to see if there are any useful, solid intel.

[denoir 0]

Note Richarde Clarke is not sure as he is no longer suposed to report directly to the president he has to report to The Office of Special Plans Rumsfeld's Amateur Spies.

So still 8 months after he tried to present the plan it was once again being presented to The Office of Special Plans Rumsfeld's Amateur Spies who unless there was a 9/11 would never have presented it to the Cabinet or George Bush Jnr. as there job set out for them by TBA was to look for a way to start a war with the imaginary enemy Iraq.

Kind Regards Walker

Walker, you are mixing up things. While I appreciate your desire to show the OSP as the general boogie man it's not correct. They are Pentagon. They are military intelligence and have nothing to do with the Whitehouse signals office, the office of the national security advisor, the CIA or the FBI. They are military intelligence used to assess the strength of foregin powers, planning invasions etc They have nothing to do with tracking terrorists etc.

[theavonlady 2]

since you are not going to admit that you have an agenda for your post, i'll say it.

your point was that TCA failed to stop AQ. unfortuantely, almost all administrations have problem in such manner.

Yep.

Quote[/b] ]Reagan certainly did not do a thing to stop two aforementioned attack(although different group).

Were there warnings of the same or similar exactitude as of the 9/11 warnings?

Quote[/b] ]thus, trying to put all the failure of response to AQ into TCA's tab is not the best way to do so.

I would use the word "all" but the bulk of it, yes. Even then the bulk of the errors were most likely on the agencies responsible, more than on Clinton and the upper administration.

Quote[/b] ]When TCA decided to eliminate OBL with Cruise missiles, guess what? Republicans called it 'an attempt to divert public attention from Clinton's problem'.

Democrats and Clintonites beg to differ.

[ralphwiggum 6]

since you are not going to admit that you have an agenda for your post, i'll say it.

your point was that TCA failed to stop AQ. unfortuantely, almost all administrations have problem in such manner.

Yep.

but you are still trying to portray it as if TCA is sole entity to blame

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Reagan certainly did not do a thing to stop two aforementioned attack(although different group).

Were there warnings of the same or similar exactitude as of the 9/11 warnings?

Were there AQ warning stating that they will hijack the jets and fly it into buildings, from their own words? even now they don't say how they will attack. in other words, all the info gathered from intel is not a fact but rather what is given. there is no certainty that it is a genuine intention, or if it is disinformation.

furthermore, concept of crashing jets(into buiildings or in the air) has been used/attempted only twice before 911. Once was when Air France was hijacked over Marseilles in 93(?) and after WTC bombing, subsequent discovery of plots to hijack multiple jets and blowing them up over many oceans.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]thus, trying to put all the failure of response to AQ into TCA's tab is not the best way to do so.

I would use the word "all" but the bulk of it, yes. Even then the bulk of the errors were most likely on the agencies responsible, more than on Clinton and the upper administration.

it's the same agency that we have now. with this logic, it can be argued that the fallacy of both administration is not getting the bureucrats to get their ass working. in other words, the more TBA accuses TCA, the more incriminating remarks of themselves.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]When TCA decided to eliminate OBL with Cruise missiles, guess what? Republicans called it 'an attempt to divert public attention from Clinton's problem'.

Democrats and Clintonites beg to differ.

Quote[/b] ]The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,†said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

"We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,†Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,†said Schroen.

<snip>

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

[shinRaiden 0]

And I echo denoir in saying it got bottled up in proceedure for who knows how long. I wasn't linking or relating Carter and Bin Laden. I'm just noting the irony of Carter handing a mess of to Reagan to deal with. Remember, we aided dubious folks in Afganistan against the Soviets, and Iraq against Iran, and Lebanon was just a mess. That policy, going back theoretically to the Monroe Doctrine, has only begun to serious reconsidered in the late end of Clinton's administration.

If you go back to the briefing I posted, it was a private transcript that was kept private, until the news agency asked the White House for permission to release it, not the other way around.

Furthermore, it states that the top brass in the Bush Administration didn't finish up getting their nominations confirmed, and transitioned into office, and thus have the legal opportunity to do diddley squat until midsummer. Additionally, Clarke said that the Sept. 4th document did not reach the White House until Sept. 10th. These six day's are not Bush's fault, it's the agencies that a) didn't think it was serious or b) didn't know what to do with it, that didn't tell him that it was a priority.

As for Ambsr. Wilson's wife, he's a political climber who used the connections he had in the DC beauracracy to get himself a vacation to a place where he was in cahoots with the locals. She deserves to get bounced on corruption charges, regardless of your political opinion of him.

Clarke's biggest problem is that he can't keep his story straight when brown-nosing folks. Either he was feeding the Clintons bogus crap, or BS'ing Bush, or lying to the media. It's a different story, at different times, to different people. When that is credibly cleaned up, then I'll listen to the results.

Wait a sec... isn't that called hindsight? Or historical revisionism.

[theavonlady 2]

I'm still waiting for Roosevelt's descendants to apologize for Pearl Harbor.

[theavonlady 2]

Clarke's biggest problem is that he can't keep his story straight when brown-nosing folks. Either he was feeding the Clintons bogus crap, or BS'ing Bush, or lying to the media. It's a different story, at different times, to different people. When that is credibly cleaned up, then I'll listen to the results.

Wait a sec... isn't that called hindsight? Or historical revisionism.

Good morning, America!

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]Good morning America

Was he on that show? I don't normally watch it anyways.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

Thank you for the correction.

You are right.

So the question becomes who were the deputies he had to present his plan to since he was not alowed to present it to the Cabinet or the President.

Unless they would want to produce the minutes of the meeting with Richard Clarke. Since they released the Minutes of the once anonymous press briefing they can release that also.

Kind Regards Walker

[shinRaiden 0]

Are you a citizen? Go file a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FIA). I'd like to see it too.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Unless they would want to produce the minutes of the meeting with Richard Clarke. Since they released the Minutes of the once anonymous press briefing they can release that also.

NSC wanted to keep his name not known at the time because of security. NSC not Clarke wanted to keep this a "anonymous" press briefing.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So the question becomes who were the deputies he had to present his plan to since he was not alowed to present it to the Cabinet or the President.

A read about what the NSC Deputies do.

Quote[/b] ]

C. The NSC Deputies Committee (NSC/DC)

An NSC Deputies Committee (NSC/DC) shall serve as the senior sub-Cabinet interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security. The NSC/DC shall review and monitor the work of the NSC interagency process (including Interagency Working Groups established pursuant to Section D below). The Deputies Committee also shall focus significant attention on policy implementation. Periodic reviews of the Administration's major foreign policy initiatives shall be scheduled to ensure that they are being implemented in a timely and effective manner. Also, these reviews should periodically consider whether existing policy directives should be revamped or rescinded.

The NSC/DC shall have as its members the Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as the Chairman); the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence; and the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; and the Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, as needed. The Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in consultation with the representatives of the Departments of State and Defense, may invite representatives of other Executive departments and agencies, and other senior officials, to attend meetings of the NSC/DC where appropriate in light of the issues to be discussed. When meeting on sensitive intelligence activities, including covert actions, the attendees shall include the appropriate senior representatives of the Attorney General.

The Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall be responsible -- in consultation with the representatives of the Departments of State and Defense, and the NEC, as appropriate -- for calling meetings of the NSC/DC, for determining the agenda, and for ensuring that the necessary papers are prepared. The NSC/DC shall ensure that all papers to be discussed by the NSC or the NSC/PC fully analyze the issues, fairly and adequately set out the facts, consider a full range of views and options, and satisfactorily assess the prospects, risks, and implications of each. The NSC/DC may task the interagency groups established pursuant to Section D of this Presidential Decision Directive.

The NSC Deputies Committee shall also be responsible for day-to-day crisis management, reporting to the National Security Council. In this capacity, the group shall be designated the Deputies Committee/CM, for Crisis Management. Any NSC principal or deputy, as well as the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, may request a meeting of the Deputies Committee in its crisis management capacity. The Committee also shall focus on crisis prevention -- including contingency planning for major areas of concern. While meeting as the Deputies Committee/CM, the group shall be assisted by a small support staff -- to provide insitutional memory, develop agendas and record decisions

Taken from "]http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-2.htm]

[shinRaiden 0]

Sometimes you have to just relax, unwind, and laugh at yourself, otherwise you get so wound up your head pops off and you start making mistakes.

Correspondents's dinner transcript

Also, a bulletien said that as Clarke's sworn testimony to the 911 commission was diameterically opposed to previous sworn testimony given to the House Intelligence Committee, the committee chairman has asked to have hearings on whether Clarke's testimony was perjured, and which was perjured, since the two depositions are irreconciliable. Bah, who cares about perjury, depositions, and the rule of law any more. The last administration liberated us of those shackles I thought.

[Balschoiw 0]

Chit-chat.

I´m still waiting for a reaction on my last post where I clearly provided you with info the the TBA IN FACT KNEW ABOUT a major terrorist attack. Avon ? You want to divert ? Bad luck. Tell me why noone reacted to these strong warnings and they now claim that they had no idea of the upcoming attack. I sum it up for you and I took the work to find public sources on it.

-In June 2001 the german BND, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 14th of september 2001

- on 13th of June the egyptian government, New York Times, 26. September 2001

- Russian intelligence service, MSNBC

- Israel (Mossad) ,Sunday Telegraph, 16th of september 2001, "Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks"

There are other things that you should know:

The USA were repeatly warned about an upcoming major terrorist attack. In an interview in august 2001 that Bin Laden gave the newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi in London he said that in a very clear way. Shortly after that, the security in the WTC was tightened without giving reasons.

Independent, 17th of september 2001, "Bush did not hear several warnings of attack"

It´s not about Al Quaida. It´s about the unique attack. TBA has been warned a lot. They didn´t react. They failed to protect US people. That´s it.

If you want to go dig in Lincolns underwear Avon, go do it.

It´s about 9/11 and nothing else.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Condoleezza Rice Dare not even take the stand instead the woman who has made 29 Misleading Statements to start the war in Iraq can tell as many lies as she wishes via a partisan Fox News who will not test her for they have not the Journalistic integrety.

She already took the stand but it was closed door (no media) session. She talked to the 9/11 commission for more than 4 hours about the issues. Now she wants another a closed door meeting to discuss a number of mischaracterizations of statements and positions.

Source for Rice wanting to go back to 9/11 commission: http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....rrorism

Quote[/b] ]I´m still waiting for a reaction on my last post where I clearly provided you with info the the TBA IN FACT KNEW ABOUT a major terrorist attack.

Those warnings were vague.

[shinRaiden 0]

Here's my reactions... zzz zzz zzz zz* huh? you talking?

Bin Laden has been spouting off since long before 2001. Nobody thought that it would amount to much, that it was just retoric. Yeah, there was a few whoopsies through the 90's, but hey, business is business. The Clinton policy, while more limited than previous administrations', was still the classic play-both-sides-against-the-middle mess of non-involvement going back to Yalta and before.

If you take the Bush spin, it is the first radically unique policy the US has seen since the Monroe doctrine in 1823, and reinforced by Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" approach to International Diplomacy. Bush claims that the overt nation-building experiment in Iraq is a deliberate attempt to subvert the entire culture that fosters terror, and change society such that people no longer desire it.

Previous policies of Engagement and Isolation have been bantered by both sides for ease of electioneering. Neutralization and Establishment policies, however, require mutual aprobation of the populace at large, and given the amount of people that want their name on what ever memorial they contrive for themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else, that raises the stakes of this Texan Poker hand that much higher.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Those warnings were vague.

Huh ?  

They were not vague. They were pretty precise.

planes -> terrorists -> symbol of USA -> boom

What is vague ? Do you need the date and the time to act ?!?

Fact is TBA claims that they had no idea of an upcoming attack. Fact is that´s not true.

Fact is you are ignoring that.

Quote[/b] ]Nobody thought that it would amount to much, that it was just retoric.

I don´t think Putin himself would order to send a level 1 when it was vague or retoric. Same with BND, Mossad and others.

Quote[/b] ]Here's my reactions... zzz zzz zzz zz* huh? you talking?

Good to know. I will keep that in mind.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Those warnings were vague.

Huh ?  

They were not vague. They were pretty precise.

planes -> terrorists -> symbol of USA -> boom

What is vague ? Do you need the date and the time to act ?!?

Fact is TBA claims that they had no idea of an upcoming attack. Fact is that´s not true.

Fact is you are ignoring that.

How many other warnings of equivalent validity did they get at the same time? How many did they get over the period of the preceding month, half year and year?

This is really getting silly.

Here's Ms. Rice's rebuttal:

Quote[/b] ]For the record: What we knew before 9/11

By CONDOLEEZZA RICE

We received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes

The al-Qaida terrorist network posed a threat to the US for almost a decade before the attacks of September 11, 2001. Throughout that period - during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to September 11 - the US government worked hard to counter the al-Qaida threat.

During the transition, president-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al-Qaida. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration.

We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al-Qaida's finances. We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision.

But the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al-Qaida or stopped September 11.

We also considered a modest spring 2001 increase in funding for the Northern Alliance and folded this idea into our broader strategy of arming tribes throughout Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban.

Let us be clear. Even their most ardent advocates did not contend that these ideas, even taken together, would have destroyed al-Qaida. The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al-Qaida or "roll back" the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to "eliminate" the al-Qaida network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al-Qaida - which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshalled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack al-Qaida and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets - taking the fight to the enemy where he lived. It focused on the crucial link between al-Qaida and the Taliban. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al-Qaida sanctuary - and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime.

Before September 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day - meetings that I attended. And I personally met with George Tenet regularly, and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort.

Through the summer, increasing intelligence chatter focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures. The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) alerted airlines, airports, and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans.

Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free US-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the US, remains a concern."

We now know that the real threat had been in the US since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years. According to the FBI, by June 2001, 16 of the 19 hijackers were already here. Even if we had known exactly where Osama bin-Laden was, and the armed Predator had been available to strike him, the September 11 hijackers almost certainly would have carried out their plan. So, too, if the Northern Alliance had somehow managed to topple the Taliban, the September 11 hijackers were here in America - not in Afghanistan.

The president and Congress, through the USA Patriot Act, have broken down the legal and bureaucratic walls that prior to September 11 hampered intelligence and law enforcement agencies from collecting and sharing vital threat information.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq - a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for September 11, the president told his National Security Council on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial US response to September 11 would be to target al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The writer is the US National Security Adviser. This is an excerpt from a Washington Post article.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]How many other warnings of equivalent validity did they get at the same time?

Not that much.

I repeat these were no mumbo-jumbo warnings but all high level warnings.

Do you think foreign intel contacts the CIA or TBA for every fart ?  They don´t . They did because of imminent danger ahead.

It´s unbelievable how blind you walk on. FS ísm at it´s best.

Quote[/b] ]We received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes

That´s a lie, plain and simple. Read my sources and you´ll see.

Quote[/b] ]Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles

Same lie again  

YOu may want to check protocols on "Zacharias Moussaoui" and "Mohammed Atta". Both were on the FBI surveilance list but noone interfered when Atta got his 100.000 dollar check from pakistan. Nobody reacted when they attended flight schools.

The strange case of Zacarias Moussaoui

The 20th hijacker

I can go on with that for ages. I can lay open the Atta case, I can push your noses into that until it bleeds.

FBI and CIA and TBA knew there was something big on the way. They knew it would happen in late august or early september.

Some others have known that also if you check the airline papers at stock market. Some people made good business with selling the papers before 9/11 and placing loss bets.

Namely United Airlines and American Airlines. The high bets on a loss of both bapers made some people really rich. No other airlines where involved in that "deal". And even today noone knows who was behind the trades and how they could know that  something will happen to both airlines.

PROMIS, the watchguard software FBI and CIA uses to surveilance stock markets for extrodenary developements indicating some terrorist act ahead does monitor such transaction to specifically warn industry or trade organizations of unusual developements. PROMIS alarm went off at 7th of september as all that unusual bets on both airlines were placed.

You guessed it. Noone reacted.

It´s not that the TBA had no intel, warnings, monitoring tools or sufficient personel to handle that.

It was the unwillingness to do it.

Quote[/b] ]This is really getting silly.

The only silly things I see is you relying on Condi Supertanker who has already a high record on blatant lies and some funny connections to non-governmetal organizations.

I wonder if you would think a bit different if any family member of you got killed in the WTC. The TBA efforts to delay investigations on WTC are / were so obviouse. But still you act like all these things didnt take place.

FS Avon from now on.