BS: Cheney is right

Subject: BS: Cheney is right
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:03 PM

Cheney video from 1994

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:10 PM

Yeah. Way, way, right.... Not Conservative, just way, way to the right.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:27 PM

My God. If he saw it so clearly then, how did he come to the opposite conclusion? Just who is in charge here?

Thanks, Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:30 PM

Maybe he didn't believe it then. Perhaps he was just saying what sounded good relative to what Bush Sr. had done. I don't know, but it is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:49 PM

yup. And look who was DEMANDING that we go into Iraq...

It was a mixed up, shook up world.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 12:54 PM

The last was a link from a link. Here's a better link.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:17 PM

John, please listen again to that link. Gore's speech is a lucid and convincing report on facts I doubt that you would try to refute. And unlsess I missed an important facet he didn't even mention Bush senior's failure to pursue Saddam into Iraq, per se; he is talking forcefully about Bush's record of enabling Saddam.

And do please keep in mind that this speech concerning what Saddam had in possession and was planning for the future was given before the US sanctions against Iraq and the No Fly Zones, measures that severely crippled Saddam's options.

In actuality I am stunned at the speech. I don't know to whom it was given but it is so much more than the sound bytes we are accustomed to these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: GUEST,Record Keeper
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 01:24 PM

Hussein was left in power intentionally. He was a business parter of the Bush family, but then he threatened to quit accepting US dollars for oil, and he also overpumped (undercutting alleged OPEC's 'control' of oil prices). So Bush entrapped Hussein.

Iraq had always claimed the oil fields in Northern Kuwait, and Bush Sr. signaled (through U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie), that if Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. would view it as an 'inter-Arab affair' and would take no action. That was on the news networks the day the meeting between Hussein and Glaspie met. Then Hussein invaded Kuwait, and Bush said "This will not stand."

All on the record.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:08 PM

Your bit of history, Guest, is not the point here. Listen to the video.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:14 PM

Ebbie, it's just that to hear Gore say that Iraq was a terrorist center, and a terrorist threat, after six years of anti-war people telling us that there is no Iraq/terrorism connection, is at least as remarkable as Cheney's apparent flip flop. It was a different time.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:17 PM

Thanks for the link, Mick. I think it'd be better is the title said, "Cheney was right" at the time.:-) Too bad he didn't keep with that.

John, I have to agree with Ebbie. Really listen to Gore. Remember this was long before 9/11, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:22 PM

I know. And Gore is credible. Bush senior was one of our worst presidents ever.

And what I'm saying is that STILL, in light of the almost perpetual mantra from the anti-war left that there was no terrorism connection or terrorist threat from Iraq, Gore's speech is remarkable. The left should be spending at least SOME of their Bush hatred on Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:28 PM

...another "blast from the past":


Subject: RE:
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 19 Dec 98 - 03:34 PM

Interesting discourse here. Ewan, I too value and am enlightened by your thread postings. To all, while I am not in total agreement with any of the sentiments (big surprise, eh?), I would like to hear some opinions on the following premises. We know that Saddam is committed to gaining an edge in the MidEast. We know that he produces chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We know he uses them against neighbors, and his own citizens. We know, based on the oilfield fires, that he has no problem with harming the environment. It is apparent from the above postings, what you are against. Time for the other side of the coin. I would like to hear what you would do with this man. Do we live and let live, given what he has done in the past? Do we just trust that he would live within his borders, and at peace with his neighbors?

Despite the tone of the above comments, I want to make it clear that I have not really developed much of a position on this issue. I am torn by both sides. I know what you are against, what I am interested in is what would your thoughts be on dealing with despots.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 02:49 PM

I would like someone to address the effects of the sanctions that were put in place against Saddam.

John, I think it is simplistic of you to imply that we didn't distrust Saddam and his policies. What Saddam tried in the 90s and got away with, for a time, is very different from his capabilities a few short years later.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:16 PM

"...to hear Gore say that Iraq was a terrorist center, and a terrorist threat, after six years of anti-war people telling us that there is no Iraq/terrorism connection"....


If this goes on for 20 years, it will still be impossible to get some people to keep straight the difference between Saddam being a bad guy who didn't like us and who 'might' try to hurt us if he had the chance....and the Al Qaeda group run by Bin Laden who DID hurt us. Iraq was not a "terrorist center" back then, it was a country that had bad leadership and needed watching- mostly to see what they were doing to others in the region and to its own citizens!!!!

Get it clear...there was almost NO connection or conversation between Iraq & Al Qaeda before 2001!....NOW we have Al Qaeda folks inside Iraq, where they see an opportunity to attack us...because we came in and GAVE them easy targets and excuses!!

Bush...and others...are trying to make the 'terrorist' connection retroactive to justify their blunder!

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 03:47 PM

"Iraq was not a "terrorist center" back then,"

so 'splain that to Gore and Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:08 PM

Cheney's 1994 speech, as compared to his more recent views provides a fascinating example of how plausible people always feel their argument is (whether it is or not)....and how plausibly they seem to argue their point, although they might just as well have chosen to adopt the opposite position entirely. They might have done so in an instant.

People decide first what view to espouse. That's step # 1.

They then set about explaining, in what they feel is a totally reasonable fashion, why it is obvious that their view is the right one.

And they could just as well have chosen the opposite point of view, in which case they would be arguing with equal confidence from that angle.

And 5 years later, they may indeed be espousing the opposite view, and have forgotten that they once opposed it.

Any thread on the 911 conspiracy theories is a perfect example of people's utter capriciousness and inflexibility in this regard. If you read the discussions dispassionately, and with a degree of humor, you can immediately see that everyone (probably including yourself) has...

#1 - Made up their minds already that their viewpoint (whatever it is) is the only right one, the only one that can be right...and that that is bloody obvious to anyone who doesn't wear a tinfoil hat.

#2 - Set out to examine all the available evidence they can find, which evidence PROVES... to their delight, yes, it PROVES that they are dead right! (no matter what it is they think) And it proves that their opponents are illogical idiots who refuse to look at "the facts". ;-)

#3 - They then watch like hawks for those "idiots" to dare to contradict them, in which case they will have another good excuse to show how brilliant they are by refuting those opponents' pitiful arguments...

You know what it adds up to? Nothing but a big, empty battle of windbag egos. But it gives those restless minds something to do, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 04:34 PM

If you need a profitable perpetual war , Iraq is a good place to start.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: GUEST,Big Mick
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 06:51 PM

Nicely done, pdq. I remember that post. It was made during the time that Bush, Powell, Cheney, et. al. were laying out all their convincing "proof" which was later shown to be a pack of lies. I was as taken in as the rest. When I thought this man was assembling nukes, including the "cannon" and obtaining yellowcake, I was as concerned as anyone. Only to find out later that we went to war when Bush and Co. knew that it was all fabricated because they wanted to go to war.

Yeah ..... words can come back to haunt us. Mine were based on the naieve assumption that my government was telling me the truth. Can we say the same about this chicken hawk?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 06:58 PM

...or Gore?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Alice
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:07 PM

Read "Circle in the Sand"
about how Bush One administration affected what Bush Two did.
Interviews with key players before 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:27 PM

"Iraq was not a "terrorist center" back then,"

"so 'splain that to Gore and Ebbie." John Hardly

One of us is being obtuse, John. I don't follow that at all.

In your defense I would say that you haven't even listened to Gore's speech. Unless you are so blinkered that nothing is soaking in.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: heric
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:31 PM

Bush, Powell, Cheney, et. al. were laying out all their convincing "proof" in 1998? Did pdq alter that post?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:48 PM

"Bush, Powell, Cheney, et. al. were laying out all their convincing "proof" in 1998?"

...and the likes of Gore didn't disagree at that point on the notion of Iraq as a center of terrorism. Yes, Ebbie, I listened to the Gore speech (I'm the one who linked to it, remember?) and in it he clearly makes the case for Iraq as a terrorism center and chides Bush the senior for not taking that seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:55 PM

For pete's sake, John, that was 1992. We have already stipulated what we believe to have been true of Saddam at that time.

Ten years later Saddam's situation was very different and our lovely leaders knew it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: kendall
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 07:57 PM

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works in any country."

             Hermann Goering

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 08:29 PM

Ebbie, you don't seriously think that clips intimating exactly the same thing aren't available right up to the end of the Clinton administration?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: van lingle
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 08:42 PM

Rather than waving these clips around in a McCarthyesque fashion, produce them.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: pdq
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 08:47 PM

"Bush, Powell, Cheney, et. al. were laying out all their convincing 'proof' in 1998?"

Sorry to tell you this but I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. I changed my regiatration to vote for McCain in the primary after 32 years as a registered Democrat. Actually, in 1998 when Mick's post was made, I had no idea who George W. Bush was. I knew of Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few others as Nixon, Reagan and George Bush associates. Certainly anything George W. Bush and Dick Cheney talked about back then had no effect on our foreign policy.

Powell was the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is credited with keeping the coalition troops (1991) from going on into Baghdad and getting Saddam. George Bush said he did not have permission as per UN resolution. It called only for the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Most of the joint chiefs said with certainty "get him how" but they were overuled.

Mick's post is "as written". As a scientist, I cannot tamper with such things anymore the a doctor can refuse to treat people.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 08:48 PM

Kat is correct. Cheney's explanation for the about-face is 9-11. And not LH's agonized faux-psychological diagnosis.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 08:52 PM

"McCarthyesque"

love the drama, man.

Weak arguement? ...shout louder or, better yet, scream "McCarthy!" or "Hitler!"

Doesn't a cliche' embarrass you? ...not even a little bit?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: van lingle
Date: 15 Aug 07 - 09:33 PM

So where are these clips?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 01:06 AM

Ron Davies is absolutely right regarding the shift in position between what Cheney was saying in 1994 and in the run up to March 2003. Add to that the expectation of everybody in 1994 was that Saddam would live up to, and honour, the commitments he entered into at Safwan in 1991.

As others have stated, the post of Big Mick's dated 19th December, 1998, couldn't possibly have anything to do with Bush, Powell and Cheney. The date strongly suggests it had something to do with the then President of the United States of America:

1. Ordering the withdrawal of UNSCOM's Inspection teams from Iraq
2. Ordering air strikes against Baghdad in the operation known as "Desert Fox".

In adopting this course of action William Jefferson Clinton did not:

1. Consult Congress to seek approval
2. Did not put the matter before the United Nations Security Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 12:46 PM

I would like to clarify that, though Cheney claims 9-11 as the reason for his about-face, this does not excuse him from the--leading-- role he played in the despicable propaganda campaign leading up to the Iraq war.

Just in case you were wondering, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 03:21 PM

OK suppose one accepts Cheney's excuse that 9-11 was momentous enough to go into a well understood disasterous quagmire.

What good is a quagmire to either side?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Alba
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 08:25 PM

My god. Reading some of the knee jerk reactions on this thread have only served to illustrate to me how that very small percentage of Bush supporters left in this Country would and are willing to use any means available when attempting to defend and support this Administration and the lie based War in Iraq! I would like to say I was surprised and found it it to be pretty unbelievable but then I would be lying.

Thanks for the links folks. What chills me is the comment Cheney makes about just how many US Soldiers lives are worth the risk of going into Iraq. He thought then that no American Soldiers Life should be risked.
As we all know now, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. So the invasion of Iraq was sort of, kind of, like based on misplaced anger and a need to lash out at someone somewhere...! eh.....

All News stations (including Fox noise, America's very own version of Tokyo Rose) should air this piece of "Cheney prophecy" nightly.

It just goes to show, that unlike the GWB, Cheney had a brain that worked... once 13 years ago.

Love the Gore attack posts...at least those feeble rambling attacks lighten up what is, to my mind, a very chilling Thread.
As one Mudcatter says on occasion .... maybe it is time for some Bush Babies to "open up their minds like a parachute and jump"
Best to all (exceptions to 'all' being Cheney and the Bush administration...*seriously*)
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 08:46 PM

Yeah, and your mind is so open that you failed to see that there are no "Gore attack posts".

Who's knee is jerking?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 09:20 PM

OK Alba let's turn the clock back. Let's see what could have turned out differently.

Aftermath of 911:
- Al-Qaeda claims responsibility (Which they did).
- Saddam Hussein in Iraq is the only National Leader and Head of State who openly and publicaly applauds the attacks (Which he did).
- US goes to the United nations (Which they did).
- US demands that the Taleban (A Government that only Saudi Arabia and Pakistan recognise) surrender Bin Laden and the leadership of Al-Qaeda to US justice for the murder of over 3000 people on American soil (Reasonable request which was denied - it offended the sense of Islamic hospitality - Have always wondered what the take would have been if the boot had been on the other foot - somewhat different I believe)
- Taleban refuse to hand over Bin Laden & Co but offer to try him under Sharia Law, which would automatically exonerate him, so not really much point in pursuing the exercise.
- US does not invade Afghanistan but supports the Northern Alliance Forces fighting the Taleban within Afghanistan (Which they did)
- Taleban defeated and overthrown. Al-Qaeda and hardline Taleban followers flee to Iran; N-W Frontier provinces of Pakistan and to Iraq (Documented fact)

Go back a bit further, 1998, Iraq a known sponsor of international terrorist groups and causes is adjudged by US intelligence and security agencies as being a potential threat to the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and destabilising force and general threat in the middle-east region.

911, 2001 the United States of America is attacked on American soil by an international terrorist group. This attack being the latest in a series of attacks against recognised American sovereign territory (USS Cole, the East African Embassies, etc).

OK Alba that is the back-ground what do you do?

- Evaluate the threat (remember this is only the second time in your county's entire history that anybody has done this sort of thing to you)
- The result of this threat evaluation is that the United States of America is particularly vulnerable to an anonymous indirect attack mounted by an as yet undisclosed international terrorist group with access to WMD courtesy of a rogue state intent on causing the maximum amount of harm to the United States of America.
- This is explained very clearly to the American people in January 2002 and again in January 2003. The "Threat", i.e., that which could destroy your very way of life is described as being "An Axis of Evil comprising of, a) An international terroist Group, backed by; b) A rogue state with a known grievence against the USA, which also has; c) Access to technology relating to WMD.

Now Alba all this has been looked at and evaluated over the course of at least five years, more likely ten, by the people you are paying and the people you have adjudged to be the most professional, dedicated and trustworthy in your entire country - you don't know any better you are merely a politician who has been elected, and who has accepted that the burden of ensuring the safety and well-being of your country, it's boundaries, it's citizens and it's interests - What do you do Alba? Do you believe them? Do you ignore them?

If you elect to the latter please explain to us the grounds upon which you, as a career politician would dismiss the expert advice, and opinion, that you have been given. What is it that would cause you to dismiss out of hand the likelyhood of your country being attacked indirectly and anonymously by an international terroist organisation armed with some form of WMD. Their proven track record being that they have tried with somemarked degrees of success with conventional explosives on a number of occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Alba
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 09:35 PM

You know I was just thinking...
perhaps I should have left out the word knee in my last post ...mm

Maybe a Mudelf would remove it for me.
Ta muchly.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 10:01 PM

Are you sure you want one of us to take out the "knee?" Want me to put in an "elbowed aside," instead?**big grin**

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 10:08 PM

:), Alba.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

"What good is a quagmire to either side?"

It can be very profitable to the farmer who pulls you out - for a fee...

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 01:00 AM

By all means Alba, you have just illustrated that the thread title is correct - Cheney is right - he was right in 1994 and he was right again in 2002/2003, he is still right today, might not be popular, but still right.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 07 - 02:22 AM

"Taleban defeated and overthrown." - teribus

In fact, the Canadian minister of defense has stated that it is impossible to defeat the taliban militarily. Just because you say its a fact doesn't make it true. Its only your opinion.

I also doubt your claim that the taliban fled to Iran.

Fact is, teribus, the taliban are still fighting. Your claim that they have been defeated is wishful thinking on your part.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: GUEST,Wake up call to both sides of the aisle!
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 10:35 AM

For those who have dial up and find 'You Tube' difficult to view here is the transcript of the interview.

"Cheney had helped direct the Gulf War for President George H.W. Bush. That effort was later criticized for not taking Baghdad and officials like Cheney had to explain why not, for years. Some have charged that this led to an overpowering desire to finish the job after Cheney became vice president in 2001."

Here is the transcript.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"15th April 1994 - C Span interview.

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

Cheney: No.

Q: Why not?

Cheney: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duh! So, watcha thinkin now Dickie. Did you get it right this time around as well. You low life lying asehole!

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 01:08 PM

In the context of what I was referring to dianavan in November 2001 the Taleban had been defeated and overthrown - Not a matter of opinion dianavan, just a matter of fact, irrespective of whether you happen to like it or not. In September 2001 the shambles of a country known as Afghanistan, with the exception of some tiny enclaves in the North, was under Taleban rule. By November of that year supported by US air power, forces of the Northern Alliance swept the Taleban from power.

The Canadian Minister of Defence is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. But one thing that is dawning on the Taleban fighting in Afghanistan today is that they cannot win the military struggle irrespective of how long they fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 03:22 PM

The Northern Alliance was an organization of local warlords whose main concerns were to re-establish Afghanistan's former position as one of the leading nations in exporting illegal drugs to the world, and put themselves in command, and reap the rewards. Thanks to the help of the CIA and the US military, that has been accomplished. Let's all celebrate that glorious accomplishment on behalf of free marketeers and freedom-loving people everywhere.

"they cannot win the military struggle irrespective of how long they fight"

Who are we talking about here? The Taliban? The present Afghan government? Or the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq? Could be any one of them, I'd say...

Past experience suggests that no foreign occupying force ever can succeed in the long run when it comes to Afghanistan. Eventually they all leave. When they do, the local warlords set up a new administration, and it's always nasty, brutal and undemocratic. Whether it gets called a "friend" or an "enemy" by the USA or any other great power depends entirely on the international monetary and strategic factors of the time, and has nothing to do with whether it's a good government for Afghans in any sense whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 04:12 PM

Alba...Just read your post of 16 Aug 09:35pm.
Still rollin'....Ake

Teribus is really scrapin' the barrel these days. Keep digging T.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 04:28 PM

The cheerleading's a nice, friendly touch. The skirt's a bit short, but the cheerleading's a nice touch.

Can't argue points with Teribus so you:

1. cheerlead for one who merely called him (and me) a "jerk" (by virtue of asking for the removal of the "knee" part...titter titter), rather than discussing the issue at hand.

2. ...and then claim that it is Teribus who is "scraping the barrel".

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney is right
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 07 - 05:23 PM

I find that scraping the pot generally yields far more tasty stuff than scraping the barrel does.