Hypocrisy Alert

Many on the right have claimed that the media was irresponsible in the way it handled the Katrina story (as well as CBS in the Bush National Guard documents story). Essentially, their argument goes something like this: the media ran stories based on information that proved to false or not completely true, and it was irresponsible for the media to run these stories until it could make sure that the information that it was relying on was 100% accurate. Otherwise, the argument goes, the media based its reporting on information that later turns out to be false, by which time it is often too late to create the problems the earlier stories have caused, usually problems of perception.

Now, mind you, by and large, the media was correct on Katrina, particularly as it related to the Bush Administration's inadequate response. This fact is clear by now and only the most partisan of Republicans will argue that point. (And, whatever you think about the National Guard documents, it seems pretty clear that the information contained in them was accurately reflecting Bush's Guard service.)

But the point I wish to make is something different. I find it quite ironic that the very same conservatives who make the argument listed above about the news media have no problem whatsoever with our government invading another country based on intelligence that proved to be completely wrong. Putting aside the question of whether or not the intelligence was stretched and fabricated (which I believe there is pretty strong evidence of), the Bush Administration in Iraq did exactly what these right wingers say the media should not do. Moreover, I would assume that a government going to war should be held to a higher standard than a news organization, since, well, people die when you go to war.

But there's not been a peep by these right-wing groups about this. I won't hold my breath. Currently, they area too busy arguing that Miers' ideology makes her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Hmm, I wonder where I heard arguments like that before...
- posted by Joshua @ 11:19 AM (0) comments

 
The Blame Game

Apologists for the Administration took to the airwaves and blogosphere to defend what many thought was indefensible: the Bush Administration's Incompetent Response to Hurricane Katrina. But now e-mails showing what was going on and what FEMA and the Administration knew at the time leave no doubt that this was a failure of leadership of the highest magnitude.

Marty Bahamonde was FEMA's man on the ground in New Orleans during Katrina. He sent e-mails back to Washington about what was going on.

An e-mail sent to the FEMA team on Monday August 29, at 1:38 p.m., made clear that Marty was reporting that the levees had been breached and that there was 11' of flooding in the city.

Then, the next day, at 7:02 a.m., Marty e-mails Department of Homeland Security officials about Brown (referred to in the e-mail as "US" or Undersecretary):

What is happening with the US travel this morning, when is he coming to New
Orleans? The area around the superdome is filling up with water, now waist
deep.

Then Marty e-mails Brown himself on Wednesday August 31 at 11:20 am:

Sir, I know that you know the situation is past c r i t i c a l . Here some
things you might not know.
Hotels are kicking people out, thousands gathering in the streets with no food or water. Hundreds still being rescued from homes.
The dying patients at the DMAT tent being modivac. Estimates are
many will die within hours. Evacuation in process. Plans developing for dome
evacuation but hotel situation adding to problem. We are out of food and
running out of water at the dome, plans i n works to address the critical
need.
FEMA staff is OK and holding own. DMAT staff working i n deplorable
conditions. The SQoner we can get the medical patients out, the sooner wecan
get them out.
Phone connectivity impossible
More later

Doesn't seem like Brown responded. Then the best e-mail is this one, sent by Brown's press secretary at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, August 31, about three hours after Bahamonde's e-mail to Brown above:

Please schedule Joe Scarborough this eveninq for 9pmCST period. Sooke with his
producer and told him to call you. Mr. Brown wants to do this one.
Also, it is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner.
Gievn that Baton Rouge is back to normal, restaurants are getting busy. He needs much more that 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to get to and
from a location of his choise, followed by wait service from the restaurant
staff, eating, etc. Thank you.
Sharon Worthy
Press S r w t r r y

And here's Bahamonde's response after reading this e-mail:

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! NO won't go any further, too easy of a target. Just tell her
that I just ate an MRE and crapped in the hallway of the Superdome along
wirh 30,000 other close friends so I understand her concern about busy
retaurants. Maybe tonight I will have time to move the pebbles on the
parking garage floor so they don't stab me in the back while L
try to sleep, but instaed I w i l l hope her wait at Ruth Chxist is short. But I know she is stressed so I won't make a big deal about it and you shouldn't either.
Sent from my B l a c k B e r r y Wireless Handheld

And to those who say, well, maybe Brown was a hack, it's not like the White House knew what was going on, there's this tidbit to chew on:

In an Aug. 29 phone call to Brown informing him that the first levee had
failed, Bahamonde said he asked for guidance but did not get a response.

'He just said, `Thank you,' and that he was going to call the White
House,'' Bahamonde said.

How 'bout them apples? I'm sure we'll see a correction in the right-wing media about this one.
- posted by Joshua @ 12:14 AM (0) comments

 
This May Be Why Libby Mentioned the Connected Roots

I hadn't put all the pieces together until I read this interesting posting by Jane Hamsher on Arianna Huffington's blog, but it makes sense now. One of the befuddling questions that currently exist is why Scooter Libby wrote such an unbelievably stupid letter to Judith Miller that alone may get him indicted for obstruction of justice.

Hamsher pulls together some facts that I hadn't considered before. In Fitzgerald's letter to Libby about whether Miller remained in jail due to a miscommunication over Libby's waiver, Fitzgerald indicates that he would welcome Libby, if he so desired, reiterating his waiver to Miller again. That I knew. What I didn't realize until I did a reading of the full letter was that Fitzgerald explicitly told Libby that (a) Fitzgerald didn't need to be copied or ever see any letter he sent to Miller and that (b) Fitzgerald would NOT view Libby contacting Miller to reconfirm his waiver as obstruction (with the important caveat that Libby not discuss the substance of what her testimony might be).

As a result, Libby sent his letter to Miller, without copying Fitzgerald. Indeed, Hamsher points out that Fitzgerald only saw the letter as a result of a leak to the news media -- he wasn't provided a copy by either Libby or Miller.

I'll add another step to the analysis that Hamsher hasn't done, but which supports Hamsher's conclusion. Libby's lawyer wrote back to Fitzgerald on September 16 (contained in the .pdf above) and told him that he would reach out to Miller's lawyer again and provide him a copy of the very letter he was sending to Fitzgerald. However, there is NO mention that Libby himself had sent a letter to Miller directly the day before.

One other piece that I don't think has been discussed very much -- in the last sentence of Miller attorney Floyd Abrams' response to Libby's attorney, Abrams notes that Libby's "recent personal call and his personal letter to her are certainly helpful in that regard." Umm, "recent personal call"? Well, we know that Libby was over the top in his letter to Miller, so god knows what he might have said on the telephone? Here's what the New York Times piece said about the phone call:

When that could not be arranged, she settled for a 10-minute jailhouse
conference call on Sept. 19 with Mr. Libby, while two of her lawyers and one of
Mr. Libby's listened in.

Ms. Miller said she was persuaded. "I mean, it's like the tone of the
voice," she said. "When he talked to me about how unhappy he was that I was in
jail, that he hadn't fully understood that I might have been going to jail just
to protect him. He had thought there were other people whom I had been
protecting. And there was kind of like an expression of genuine concern and
sorrow."

Ms. Miller said she then "cross-examined" Mr. Libby. "When I pushed him
hard, I said: 'Do you really want me to testify? Are you sure you really want me
to testify?' He said something like: 'Absolutely. Believe it. I mean it.' "

It appears that Libby took Fitzgerald's reassurances about obstruction and the fact that Fitzgerald didn't need to see the letter as an opening to push the envelope. His comment about what other reporters had said about Libby's involvement with the leak and his now-infamous "roots are connected" comment definitely crossed the line of what Fitzgerald told him was permitted and likely will lead Miller to be the one visiting Libby in prison soon.
- posted by Joshua @ 8:40 PM (0) comments

 
Colin Gets His Revenge?

You never know how true these things are, but this is really, really interesting.

Plamegate coming to conclusion. The investigation has focused mostly
closely on Vice President Cheney and his staff, as well as US Ambassador to the
UN (and former undersecretary of state for arms control) John Bolton and his
staff. We are told that eight indictments have already prepared, with the
possibility of another ten. These indictments include senior white house staff,
most notably Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, Fred Flights
(special assistant to John Bolton), and--very surprisingly--national security
adviser Steve Hadley. apparently, Libby and Hadley have both been told by their
lawyers to expect indictments. the indictment of senior bush political advisor
Karl Rove seems highly probable.

Most critically, a plea bargain process has evidently been opened with
Vice President Cheney's lawyer. that does not mean that an indictment is coming.
but i've some critical background around the issue.

And here's Colin sticking the dagger in Cheney:

In the past several days, former Secretary of State Colin Powell had a
meeting with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), primarily about the McCain-sponsored
amendment on inserting a rider prohibiting torture onto the us defense budget (a
bill which Powell has himself been lobbying heavily for, against objections of
president Bush).

During the meeting, Powell recounted to the senator that he had
traveled on air force one with Bush and Cheney, and brought to their attention a
classified memorandum about the issue of whether there was indeed a transaction
inolving Niger and yellow cake uranium. the document included Ambassador Joe
Wilson's involvement and identified his wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert agent.
the memorandum further stated that this information was secret. Powell told
McCain that he showed that memo only to two people--president and vice
president. according to Powell, Cheney fixated on the Wilson/Plame connection,
and Plame's status.

Powell testified about this exchange in great length to the grand jury
investigating the plame case. according to sources close to the case, Powell
appeared convinced that the vice president played a focal role in disclosing
plame's undercover status.

In his conversation with McCain, Powell felt that--at a minimum--there
would be a serious shakeup at national security council as a consequence. in
particular, vice president cheney would no longer hold a pivotal role in us
national security affairs. Powell apparently did not discuss the potential of a
cheney resignation.

Lead prosecutor patrick Fitzgerald has apparently been looking at the
precedent of formerly indicted Nixon vice president Spiro Agnew. this shows the
likely path, because addressing executive immunity and privilege questions would
necessarily begin start with a plea-bargain deal that would entail a
resignation.

Is this like the Untouchables: Send me to the U.N. with faulty intelligence, I'll send you to jail.
- posted by Joshua @ 10:43 AM (0) comments

 
The Best Qualified

I read over Harriet Miers' response to a questionnaire sent to her by the bipartisan members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last night. (I see that her responses have invoked criticism from both Senators Specter and Leahy for being inadequate and incomplete.)

But what really struck me was her response when asked, in question 17 of the questionnaire (page 47-48), to "describe in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or a public official which involved constitutional questions." This was a question where John Roberts could have written War and Peace in response. But, after vaguely and generally stating that she deals with constitutional questions on a regular basis as White House counsel, the first case that Harriet listed in response was a case where she represented Disney. And what was the constitutional issue?

In that case, like others in which I represented Disney, I argued that, under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there were not sufficient
"minimum contacts" between Disney and Texas to justify forcing the company to
respond to a lawsuit in the Texas courts. I have handled many cases involving
issues of personal jurisdiction under the United States Constitution. For
instance, in Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Rio Algum Limited, described
in detail in response to question 16, a significant issue was whether the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had personal
jurisdiction over my client, Pioneer Nuclear, consistent with the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We argued that Pioneer had insufficient
contacts with Illinois to be subject to personal jurisdiction there, the court
ultimately disagreed.

Personal jurisdiction? That's the primary constitutional question you can cite in support of your constitutional qualifications?

Now, you non-lawyers out there may not understand the significance of this, but personal jurisdiction issues are something that every litigation associate immediately out of law school could deal with. If this is the standard by which we judge people qualified for the Supreme Court, then there are thousands of people joining law firms this year after graduating for law school who should be considered when the next vacancy comes about.
- posted by Joshua @ 5:58 PM (0) comments

 
Must-Read

Looks like someone else may have lied to the American people. (Remember "I did not have..."?) Bush knew about Rove two years ago.

Here's some Fitzmas carols. Enjoy.
- posted by Joshua @ 2:36 PM (0) comments

 
Oh. My. God.

I'm thinking we could be approaching a 1st-week-of-the-Lewinsky-Scandal-type craziness in Washington, if the rumors flying around are even halfway true.

Here's a sampling of what's out there:

Fitzgerald got an aide for Cheney to flip under threat of indictment and he is now a cooperating witness.

Rove, Libby, Cheney, Hadley and Matalin are going to get indicted, among others.

Cheney's going to resign, and be replaced by Rice.

Are you ready for some football?

Merry Fitzmas, Everyone.

Time to pull out those dusty copies of the Republican talking points about the "rule of law" during the Starr investigation and impeachment.
- posted by Joshua @ 6:22 PM (0) comments

 
You Reap What You Sow

Buried in the Bloomberg article about Cheney and the Fitzgerald probe I posted on below is this nugget about Joe Wilson's future plans:

In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are
settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and
others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame's career.

If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the
suit will be allowed to proceed -- and Bush and Cheney will face questioning
under oath -- while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997
U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit
against then-President Bill Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision
that was hailed by conservatives at the time.

As a friend said to me today, maybe this is why Bush nominated someone like Miers to the Court: he's gonna need someone in his inner circle to help him when the civil case comes up at the high court.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: isn't it time that the mainstream media started to pin Bush down on whether or not he'll pledge not to pardon Rove or Libby (or Cheney!?!) if they're indicted? Otherwise, aren't we likely to get a repeat of his father pardoning Casper Weinberger in the Iran-Contra scandal after Weinberger started to implicate Bush Sr.?
- posted by Joshua @ 2:35 PM (0) comments

 
A Little Bit Truth Challenged

Could be interesting if Dobson et al are subpoenaed to testify in the Miers hearings. Looks like they're having trouble getting their facts straight on whether or not they were assured that she would overturn Roe v. Wade on conference calls and other informal reach outs. Unfortunately for them, someone was taking notes during the calls, writes John Fund in the opinion section of that left-wing rag the WSJ:

Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court
nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by
declaring on his radio program: "When you know some of the things that I
know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with
fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White
House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice
Miers would vote. "I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe
v. Wade," Mr. Dobson said last week. "But even if Karl had known the answer to
that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he
didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary
information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion."

It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3,
the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious
conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the
people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the
notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the
call that she would vote to overturn Roe.

The call was moderated by the
Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13
members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance
of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values,
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family
Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill
Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas
Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.

Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day
before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr.
Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist,
and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her
join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that
day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he
speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.

Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht
and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to
introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never
spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the
notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, "Karl Rove suggested
that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why
Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about
many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never
discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two
men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do
you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
"Absolutely," said
Judge Kinkeade.
"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and
said he had to leave the discussion: "That's all I need to know and I will get
off and make some calls." (When asked about his comments in the notes I have,
Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was "very possible" he made the
others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on
Roe v. Wade.)

Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter.
Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can't recollect
who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that
Ms. Miers was "pro-life," a characterization he has repeated in public. But he
says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he
answered, "I don't know." He doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But
several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms.
Miers would vote to overturn Roe.

The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were
speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they
were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come
down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the
comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on
them.

Thou shalt not bear false witness? Apparently that doesn't apply for Dobson and his ilk.
- posted by Joshua @ 12:03 PM (0) comments

 
Big Time Update

Looks like Arianna Huffington's got some good info -- Bloomberg WAS working on a story on Fitzgerald focusing on Cheney. Take a look.
- posted by Joshua @ 11:26 AM (0) comments

 
Condi Strikes Again

Wow. Condi on Meet the Press today, justifying the Iraq war:

The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a
choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the
people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al
Qaeda…or we could take a bolder approach.

There's really nothing one can say about this, other than to be thankful she is Secretary of State rather than National Security Adviser anymore, because her incompetence caused more harm to the American people as NSA.

For those of you who say that we need to win the fight in Iraq because we are fighting al Qaeda terrorists there, I shouldn't need to remind you (although after hearing the spin by right-wing bloggers and media types, I apparently do) that there was NO al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. We created the situation we are fighting today.
- posted by Joshua @ 9:48 PM (0) comments

 
Bad News for Libby Too

I've read the NYT piece on the Judy Miller saga and Miller's own account of her grand jury testimony. My feelings about Miller, which was that she used this episode as a way to cover up her horrid reporting on WMDs before the Iraq war and turn herself into a press martyr, are thoroughly confirmed in both articles.

Let's remember, prior to this whole episode, here's what Miller had to say to critics of her WMD reporting in May 2004:

"You know what," she offered angrily. "I was proved fucking right. That's what
happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' ButI
was proved fucking right."

Now listen to what Miller says in the NYT piece today, in an effort to shift focus onto her "freedom of the press" martyrdom:

Ms. Miller said she was proud of her journalism career, including her work on Al Qaeda, biological warfare and Islamic militancy. But she acknowledged serious flaws in her articles on Iraqi weapons.

"W.M.D. - I got it totally wrong," she said. "The analysts, the
experts and the journalists who covered them - we were all wrong. If your
sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could."

Some shift, huh?

Turning to the Libby angle, it looks like he could be in trouble on several fronts. First, Libby was definitely worried about people learning who was behind the Plame-Wilson smearing:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes
about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."

My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our
prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior
administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby
requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the
new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol
Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't
recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House
to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

Whether this alone is illegal I doubt, but it could be evidence in connection with a criminal conspiracy. Moreover, it sure sounds like Libby was trying to shape Miller's testimony:

When I was last before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald posed a series of
questions about a letter I received in jail last month from Mr. Libby. The
letter, two pages long, encouraged me to testify. "Your reporting, and you, are
missed," it begins.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud
to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes
clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me," Mr. Libby
wrote.

The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words. I replied that this
portion of the letter had surprised me because it might be perceived as an
effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms.
Plame's identity. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her
job.

There's also the matter of Libby's final lines to Miller:

Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter's closing lines. "Out West, where you
vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in
clusters, because their roots connect them."

"Because their roots connect them"? Imagine if Bill Clinton had sent a letter like that to Susan McDougal or Webb Hubbell.

And then there is this interesting passage:

Ms. Miller authorized Mr. Abrams to talk to Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A.
Tate. The question was whether Mr. Libby really wanted her to testify. Mr.
Abrams passed the details of his conversation with Mr. Tate along to Ms. Miller
and to Times executives and lawyers, people involved in the internal discussion
said.

People present at the meetings said that what they heard about the
preliminary negotiations was troubling.

Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate had said she was
free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information
about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name
or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her
notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to
contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an
interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr.
Libby did not want her to testify.

According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his
conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I
wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to
cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want
you there.' "

Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion, Mr. Tate asked me for a
recitation of what Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one."

In an e-mail message Friday, Mr. Tate called Ms. Miller's interpretation
"outrageous."

"I never once suggested that she should not testify," Mr. Tate wrote. "It
was just the opposite. I told Mr. Abrams that the waiver was
voluntary."

He added: " 'Don't go there' or 'We don't want you there' is not something
I said, would say, or ever implied or suggested."

Telling another witness about grand jury testimony is lawful as long as it
is not an attempt to influence the other witness's testimony.

"Judy believed Libby was afraid of her testimony," Mr. Keller said, noting
that he did not know the basis for the fear. "She thought Libby had reason to be
afraid of her testimony."

Hmm. I find it pretty hard to believe that Floyd Abrams would make up something like this. Obstruction of justice anyone?
- posted by Joshua @ 10:04 AM (0) comments