http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1186980879

for those who believe that you cant trust our own government and wish us to run everything by the UN, here is what the UN itself has to say about the topic of WMDs that you crazy people say we never found.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html
The Iraq War is Illegal

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also: Iraq: The Words of Mass Deception


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Really Happened

read it however you want there lady but section 3 does not say prove iraq was behind 911. it says very clearly there;

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

meaning that if they fell under any one of these catagories, he indeed was an international terrorist, his country more specifically he did give aid in some form or fashion to a terrorist organization,,,, doesnt say must have given aid to al queada, it says terrorist organization of which there are many you can chose from. for an on going war against terror or those that support them by any means.

but its okay, the skies falling.

Timeline: the road to war in IraqOliver King and Paul Hamilos guardian.co.uk, This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Thursday February 02 2006. It was last updated at 19:08 on February 02 2006.Tonight's revelations about Tony Blair and George Bush's White House meeting on January 31 2003 show that the prime minister was prepared to go to war in Iraq before he had tried to get a second UN resolution. Given that the attorney general and Foreign Office lawyers believed at this time that war would be illegal without one, the story throws further doubt on the legality of the conflict.
Below we set out the key diplomatic and political developments in the run up to the controversial March 2003 conflict.

2001

· November 21: According to Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack, the US president, George Bush, says to the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld: "Lets get started on this."

· December 28: General Tommy Franks briefs Mr Bush on current Pentagon Iraq war planning.

2002

· March 18: Sir David Manning, Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, writes to prime minister confirming he has told Condoleezza Rice that "you would not budge in your support for regime change".

· March: Senior officials in Whitehall advise ministers that "regime change of itself" has "no basis in international law".

· April 6: Mr Blair visits Mr Bush at Crawford where Iraq is discussed. Mr Bush tells Trevor McDonald of ITV: "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go."

· Mid-July: At a meeting of ministers, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, confirms that claiming authorisation for use of force from UN security council will be difficult.

· September 12: In a speech to the UN, Mr Bush says world leaders must get tough with Iraq or stand aside as the US acts.

· September 16: Iraq announces weapons inspectors are welcome to return unconditionally after nearly four years.

· September 24: Britain publishes dossier saying Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon within one or two years, if it obtains fissile material and other components from abroad. Includes now famous "45 minutes from attack" claim.

· November 8: UN security council unanimously approves US-drafted resolution aimed at getting Saddam to disarm, after eight weeks of negotiation. The resolution says Saddam will face "serious consequences" if he does not comply with weapons inspectors. France argues that UN resolution 1441 does not give US and UK an automatic right to attack Iraq.

· November 13: Iraq accepts UN resolution 1441 unconditionally, while denying that it has any banned weapons programmes.

· November 18: First UN weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad.

· December 7: Iraq hands a 12,000-page declaration of its arms programmes to UN inspectors, a day before a deadline set by the UN resolution.

· December 18: Britain says a first assessment of Iraq's weapons declaration to the UN shows it is not the "full and complete declaration" requested by the security council.

· December 19: The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says gaps remain in Iraq's declaration, although it is cooperating well with the inspectors. US ambassador John Negroponte says the omissions mean Iraq is in "material breach" of Resolution 1441 and has "spurned its last opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".

2003

· January 9: Mr Blix says his teams have so far found no "smoking gun" in Iraq but adds Baghdad has failed to answer "many questions" about its weapons programmes.

· January 14: Mr Bush says he is "sick and tired" of Iraq's deception over its suspected weapons and warns time is running out for Baghdad to comply with UN demands to disarm.

· January 16: Mr Blix says UN inspectors have found illegally imported conventional arms materials in Iraq and only fuller cooperation with his team could avert the option of war.

· January 20: Iraq promises UN weapons experts more help and says it will form its own teams of inspectors to search for banned weapons after two days of talks with chief UN arms inspectors.

· January 27: Mr Blix and fellow weapons inspector Mohamed ElBaradei, reporting to the UN security council, outline the gaps in information that Iraq should have delivered by now. But Mr Blix says those gaps could not lead him to conclude Baghdad possessed prohibited arms.

· January 28: Britain declares Iraq in "material breach" of UN disarmament demands and says the chances of averting war are receding.

· January 31: Mr Bush meets with Mr Blair at the White House where the prime minister presses for a new UN resolution authorising military force against Iraq, for British political reasons. Mr Bush recalls to Bob Woodward that he told Mr Blair: "If that's what you need, we will go flat out to try and help you get it."

· February 5: The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, addresses the UN security council, laying out what he says is evidence of Iraq's ongoing weapons of mass destruction programmes. He says: "how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: 'Enough. Enough.'"

· February 11: Lord Goldsmith meets John Bellinger, legal adviser to White House, in Washington. Mr Bellinger reportedly says of the meeting: "We had trouble with your attorney, we got him there eventually."

· February 14: Mr Blix tells security council his team has not found any weapons of mass destruction and interviews with scientists have been useful. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, drawing rare applause from security council colleagues, said weapons inspections "are producing results" and there was no justification yet for war.

· February 23: Mr Blair tells the Commons they were giving "Saddam one further final chance to disarm voluntarily". He later says, "and even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

· February 24: Mr Blix delivers a list of some 30 unresolved questions about Iraqi disarmament in preparation for his report. - Washington, London and Madrid introduce new draft resolution declaring Iraq has squandered its "final opportunity" to disarm. A French counter-proposal, endorsed by Germany and Russia, calls for more UN inspections.

· February 27: Security council members open discussion of the US-British-Spanish draft that lays the groundwork for war.

· February 28: Iraq says it will obey UN orders to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles, drawing reactions that underscore the deep rift in the security council.

· March 1: Iraq crushes four al-Samoud 2 missiles, meeting a UN deadline to begin a destruction programme.

· March 5: The foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany release a joint declaration stating that they will "not allow" a resolution authorising military action to pass the UN security council. The hardening stance from the anti-war bloc increases the pressure on the US and Britain to compromise on their draft UN resolution.

· March 7: Mr Blix delivers a new report to the UN security council saying Baghdad has made some progress on disarmament recently but has still not cleared up key questions about chemical and biological weapons programmes.

· March 7: The US, Britain and Spain present a revised draft resolution giving Saddam an ultimatum to disarm by March 17 or face the possibility of war. France, heading opposition to any US-led rush to war, says it could not accept the March 17 ultimatum.

· March 7: Lord Goldsmith produces an early draft of his legal advice, equivocating on whether an invasion of Iraq was legal without a second United Nations resolution. This advice, not publicly known at the time, was published by the Guardian during the 2005 election. Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair: "I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force." He also said: "We would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of [Iraqi] non-compliance and non-cooperation."

· March 10: Britain announces "six key tests" for Iraq to comply to if it is to avoid war, including President Saddam making a TV address admitting having weapons of mass destruction. The idea galvanises some diplomatic support, but not enough to suggest the US/UK could win a second UN resolution, effectively authorising an attack.

· March 13: Phillipe Sands reveals in Lawless World that Lord Falconer and Lady Morgan met Lord Goldsmith in Downing Street to discuss the legality of war. The attorney general then "communicated" his clearer view that war would be legal without a second resolution. It remains unclear if he decided this before the meeting took place.

· March 14: The French president, Jacques Chirac, removes any lingering doubts about France's intentions on Iraq, confirming to Mr Blair in a brief phone call that France was willing to seek a compromise on disarming Saddam but would not accept any UN resolution that set an ultimatum.

· March 17: The US, Britain and Spain abandon efforts to get international endorsement for war against Saddam. Mr Bush later gives Saddam 48 hours to leave the country.

· March 17: Lord Goldsmith's gives his legal advice to cabinet. Clare Short later claimed she was not informed at the meeting that he had changed his view. Unusually a summary of Lord Goldsmith's advice is published arguing that the war is legal without a second resolution based on a decade of non-compliance by Saddam.

· March 17: The leader of the Commons, Robin Cook, resigns in protest at the government's decision to back a war without "international authority nor domestic support".

· March 18: Commons vote on the war. The prime minister says in the Commons that: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action ... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue." Yet it appears that the prime minister was committed to war since at least January 2003: the will of the United Nations was irrelevant.

· March 20: The war begins.

Since Little George was his own judge and jury too,(dictator) it is not over till it is over, and he had personal reasons against Hussein (his daddy)and since there is no statute of limitations on murder, the game is not over yet, I think Israel (Zion )is still calling the shots, I think we will capture a whole net full of fish before it is over!!(WARMONGERS)

Sheeple, in the ghetto!

first it makes some kind of logical sense that if your foresee a problem that might escalate into a war that you talk to everybody that you have to and make sure there is some sort of plan. before the second resolution? omg I would have been talking about it before the first.

as far as threatening his daddy? well his daddy had saddam on the ropes, norm was about to hammer saddam and daddy called him off, seems to me that daddy decided HE wouldnt kill saddam, not the other way around.

The whole problem with ALL of this is, everyone blames Bush for this war. And skip over every representative in congress that approved the action. Nothing in this country happens if congress doesn't approve, thus all you sheeple should blame your congressman and senators for allowing it to happen. But you just follow the liberal pansy play book and blame Bush, which is your ignorant choice, so roll around in your ignorance and be happy you only know what you're told. When you have an original thought, we can talk, until then, take your talking points and the ideas that you spew out without thinking about them for one second and live in the world where the sky is purple and reality is something foreign.

BILLARY CLITON


"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1200118934 theres a video of her saying this if you want to take the time to watch it

"In some countries, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person."

Apparently it does exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

Lindyy says:

I do not know how many times I have to post this, but even Musharaff does not know, just presumably somewhere along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Now, why do you not write to Musharaff and ask him if you are so adamant about knowing this?

Quite honestly, I think the man is dead. Just my opinion.

Lindyy

The congressional approval has been posted if for no other reason which there are, the weapons of mass destruction ARE NOT THERE, WERE NOT THERE, we are illegally there.

Lindyy says:

I do not know how many times I have to post this, but even Musharaff does not know, just presumably somewhere along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Now, why do you not write to Musharaff and ask him if you are so adamant about knowing this?

Quite honestly, I think the man is dead. Just my opinion.

Lindyy



The fact you call yourself an American and a patriotic one at that and you care not about the vindication for 9/11, makes your patriotism questionable, don't ya think?

I find it amusing you ask someone to think when that's something you probably havn't done for decades....

Bah, you people make me laugh. The REASON we went into Iraq was because the UN inspectors weren't allowed to go certain places, thus justifying the assault upon Iraq. So the UN is wrong, we're wrong, and you're right? I don't f'in think so. Its people like you that spout out what you believe, not what is fact. And so many sheeple are willing to believe fiction over fact, it amazes me that this country hasn't collapsed upon itself, because of all the ignorance and stupidity. So enjoy the purple sky and the lack of reality in your world, and when you want to join the real world, we'll be waiting.