Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Sep 10, 2007, 03:26 PM

This MoveOn.org ad states, "Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed."

That is a bald-faced lie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't MoveOn at the forefront of the "Bush lied" and the "support our troops" movements? Now they outright lie and attack an honorable soldier in an ad?

tickle · Sep 10, 2007, 04:20 PM

We absolutely do not need political posts here, and I miss my dog too

BABRAM · Sep 10, 2007, 05:19 PM

Steve-

If the Cowboys have to start another game without Newman at the corner, than I hope they give someone else a chance other than Jacques Reeves. All Reeve's did the entire night, besides the one gift when Burress slipped, was escort NY receivers to pay-dirt. At my age and with my out of shape fat behind, I could had done that. I hope Newman gets healthy fast.

As far as the subject, check out Danny Bonaduce videos on the Youtube.com. You may not always agree with the guy, but you'll get a kick out of his tact and attitude. At the very least, I find him entertaining.

Bobby

tomder55 · Sep 10, 2007, 05:48 PM

Steve ,

We both predicted that the move-ons and kossaks would be the worse nightmare of the Democrats .

Rep. John Boehner,was quick to exploit the position the ads put the Democrats in

"Democratic leaders must make a choice today: Either embrace the character assassination tactics Moveon.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful."

"Gen. Petraeus and the other commanders in the U.S. Armed Services have dedicated their lives to defending the very freedom that enables MoveOn.org the right to free speech. I support that right, but I find the way they have chosen to exercise it today to be disrespectful and downright reprehensible,"

A letter was sent to Sen Maj. Leader Harry Reid by other Senators asking him to disavow the party fromm the moonbats ads.

"The ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned. No matter whether any senator supports or opposes the war in Iraq, we should all voice recognition and appreciation of Gen. Petraeus' long and distinguished record of service to our country."

Of course it would've been helpful if Reid himself hadn't called the General a liar on Friday .

“He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual”

ABC News: Dems Bash Upcoming Petraeus Report

General Petraeus is co-author of the new Army manual on counterinsurgency .

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf

He was unanimously appointed commander of operations in Iraq after he spent a lot of time with both Houses of Congress briefing them on his plan .

General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005. That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the “Screaming Eagles” in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings. In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America's 25 Best Leaders.

Question the General on his facts and his judgement all they want . That is fair game. But I dare any of them to call the General a liar to his face. He has at least earned the right to a fair hearing and the respect to not have his integrity impugned .

BABRAM · Sep 10, 2007, 06:01 PM

Tom-

Nice picture. Maybe others will be encourage to share their photos. Sorry to see all the injuries during the game, especially to Eli Manning. You're Giants played good on offence. Like the Cowboys, your defensive secondary has a lot of work ahead.

Bobby

ETWolverine · Sep 11, 2007, 06:55 AM

I wish we were still in the days of challenges against public personal insult. I would love to see Patreus stand 20 paces away from scumbags like Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein, and the rest who openly called him a liar with a gun in his hand and see if they are willing to back up their positions. I have a feeling that not one of them would have the guts to say the things they said if they suspected that they might actually have to face the consequences of their statements. They are a bunch of cowards, scumbags, liars, traitors (yes, I said it) and they are impugning an honorable man with their words. They claim to "support the troops" but don't seem to have any problem with insulting the leader of those troops. I would love to see Patreus call them out for the personal insults they have perpetrated uponm him. Unfortunately, Patreus is too much of gentleman and much too good for Congress to ever do such a thing. But there is no reason that Bush shouldn't be calling for investigations of "treason and sedition". Based on their statements to the media alone, charges of treason and sedition could definitely be systained for all 4 of them and many others.

Kennedy in particular is a piece of $h!t. He comes out and says that "Patreus is coming out and giving a report card on Patreus", when it was he and his other Democrat friends that demanded a report from Patreus in the first place. And Kennedy is not the one who should be talking about report cards, given his history of hiring people to take tests for him in school. Waxman is another complete scumbag for saying that the "numbers don't mean what they say", when they clearly do. And Harry Reid, who I have absolutely no respect for, is "completely, 100% dead wrong." And Feinstein has no right claiming that Patreus didn't write the report, and that Bush did, when they know full well that it is a lie.

The Dems have gotten away from trying to claim that there has been no military success in Iraq (which was their reason for being against the surge in the first place) to now claiming that there is no POLITICAL progress. For the past two years, they have been demanding that the Bush administration and supporters of the war "define victory in Iraq". Meanwhile, they have made it clear that they are using an ever-changing definition of "losing", going from a lack of military progress to a lack of political progress, to having a "bad reputation in the international community" to anything else that fits their agenda. I say that the Republicans should start demanding that they define "losing" for the record, and then explain why they are actively working toward a loss in Iraq.

And can anyone explain to me why there is a "joint committee on Iraq" in the first place? Was there ever a "joint committee on Germany" or a "Joint committee on Japan" in WWII? Why is congress even involved in the war? That's not their job, it's Bush's job.

Finally, how smart is it, just days after a poll was released showing the vast majority of Americans have more faith in our military leaders than our political leaders, and indicating that Congress now has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in polling history, for the political leaders to insult the top military leader?

Elliot

speechlesstx · Sep 11, 2007, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I wish we were still in the days of challenges against public personal insult. I would love to see Patreus stand 20 paces away from scumbags like Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein, and the rest who openly called him a liar with a gun in his hand and see if they are willing to back up their positions. I have a feeling that not one of them would have the guts to say the things they said if they suspected that they might actually have to face the consequences of their statements. They are a bunch of cowards, scumbags, liars, traitors (yes, I said it) and they are impugning an honorable man with their words. They claim to "support the troops" but don't seem to have any problem with insulting the leader of those troops. I would love to see Patreus call them out for the personal insults they have perpetrated uponm him. Unfortunately, Patreus is too much of gentleman and much too good for Congress to ever do such a thing. But there is no reason that Bush shouldn't be calling for investigations of "treason and sedition". Based on their statements to the media alone, charges of treason and sedition could definitely be systained for all 4 of them and many others.

Kennedy in particular is a piece of $h!t. He comes out and says that "Patreus is coming out and giving a report card on Patreus", when it was he and his other Democrat friends that demanded a report from Patreus in the first place. And Kennedy is not the one who should be talking about report cards, given his history of hiring people to take tests for him in school. Waxman is another complete scumbag for saying that the "numbers don't mean what they say", when they clearly do. And Harry Reid, who I have absolutely no respect for, is "completely, 100% dead wrong." And Feinstein has no right claiming that Patreus didn't write the report, and that Bush did, when they know full well that it is a lie.

Elliot, I am so sick of these scumbags it makes me want to puke all over them. But then I'm not sure which is worse, their treason or the GOP's failure to hold them accountable and make certain the American people know damn well what these traitors are doing. Yeah, tom mentioned Boehner's comments and a letter sent to Democrat leaders, but that's not good enough.

The Dems have gotten away from trying to claim that there has been no military success in Iraq (which was their reason for being against the surge in the first place) to now claiming that there is no POLITICAL progress. For the past two years, they have been demanding that the Bush administration and supporters of the war "define victory in Iraq". Meanwhile, they have made it clear that they are using an ever-changing definition of "losing", going from a lack of military progress to a lack of political progress, to having a "bad reputation in the international community" to anything else that fits their agenda. I say that the Republicans should start demanding that they define "losing" for the record, and then explain why they are actively working toward a loss in Iraq.

That's the only solution Democrats have offered - move the goal posts as needed. Again, the GOP needs to assert itself and do exactly as you say.

And can anyone explain to me why there is a "joint committee on Iraq" in the first place? Was there ever a "joint committee on Germany" or a "Joint committee on Japan" in WWII? Why is congress even involved in the war? That's not their job, it's Bush's job.

Elliot, I've said it many times, the left believes they have all the answers and therefore anything the rest of us say is irrelevant - EVERYTHING is their business - and as the media pointed out, "Lantos and Skelton made it clear in opening remarks that Petraeus was not about to change their views of the futility of the war." Facts don't matter.

Finally, how smart is it, just days after a poll was released showing the vast majority of Americans have more faith in our military leaders than our political leaders, and indicating that Congress now has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in polling history, for the political leaders to insult the top military leader?

The only justice I got out of the first day is Petraeus' opening remarks:

"Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress until it was just handed out."

We've had weeks of preemptive strikes on the report as "the Bush report" and claims (like on this board) that the Bush administration would write their spin on the whole thing. With four stars glistening in their faces he put them in their place at the outset.

speechlesstx · Sep 11, 2007, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Steve-

If the Cowboys have to start another game without Newman at the corner, than I hope they give someone else a chance other than Jacques Reeves. All Reeve's did the entire night, besides the one gift when Burress slipped, was escort NY receivers to pay-dirt. At my age and with my out of shape fat behind, I could had done that. I hope Newman gets healthy fast.

You and me both. Reeves' play was reminiscent of the Saints' Jason David on Thursday - a game which partly killed my fantasy hopes for the weekend (along with the Dallas D). Between Brees, Steven Jackson and the Dallas D I had -2 points, lol.

As far as the subject, check out Danny Bonaduce videos on the Youtube.com. You may not always agree with the guy, but you'll get a kick out of his tact and attitude. At the very least, I find him entertaining.

He is entertaining, if I get time I'll check it out.

tickle · Sep 11, 2007, 08:29 AM

Dear speechless, sorry I jumped the gun. I didn't realize you were already on the political forum :)

tickle

excon · Sep 11, 2007, 08:40 AM

Hello:

Can't we all just get along?

The war is/was lost. It was lost before we went in, because we had no justification for going in... It was lost right after we went in, because we were stumped when they didn't throw flowers... And it was finally lost when the bungling eventually cost the support of the American people. That happened a few years ago.

Another reason they lost is because they never could define victory. This surge, for example, was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. They went on vacation instead...

I'm not one, however, who thinks that disaster won't befall Iraq when we leave... It surely will. But, I doubt it will be a much bigger disaster than the one we've already inflicted upon the Iraqi people.

That disaster, of course, is one you'll blame on everybody BUT the dude who brought it to you in the first place. You know, just your regular ole head in the sand kind of stuff.

excon

speechlesstx · Sep 11, 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by tickle

dear speechless, sorry I jumped the gun. I didnt realize you were already on the political forum :)

tickle

No prob, I was just wondering if you knew where YOU were. :D

tomder55 · Sep 11, 2007, 08:58 AM

The Unbearable Lightness of Intellect at Moveon.Org
Rick Moran
How truly stupid can you be.

American Thinker Blog: The Unbearable Lightness of Intellect at Moveon.Org

With nearly 70% of the American people basically on their side of the Iraq War debate, Moveon.Org has done surge supporters the biggest favor possible by making perhaps one of the biggest political goofs in recent memory.

The liberal group's ad in yesterday's New York Times sliming General Petraus has caused a monumnetal backlash against the left, causing even some of their most fervent supporters on the Hill to run for cover. And now the GOP, smelling blood, have introduced a measure condemning the Moveon ad and the organization itself for its smear tactics:

The resolution, authored by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), is cosponsored by 11 Republicans, including Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs panel.

“The despicable attack MoveOn.org launched against General Petraeus today should be condemned by all Members of Congress, including the Democratic leadership,” Boehner said. “I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join in support of this resolution so the House speaks with one voice rejecting the character assassination tactics employed by this extremist group.”

What a Godsend to the Republicans. By focusing attention on the dirty tactics of the left, Democratic Congressmen who themselves were questioning General Petreaus's veracity yesterday must now tread more softly lest they too are lumped in with the loons from Moveon.Org.

Robert E. Lee supposedly said he would rather face a stupid general than an incompetent one. Now we know why.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

This surge, for example, was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. They went on vacation instead...

Excon .Your comments about the Iraqi government does not take into account the historic agreement that al-Maliki was able to forge between the various factions over a number of issues that divide them .Seems to me he accomplished more during his summer recess than Harry Reid and San Fran Nan Pelosi did on theirs.

speechlesstx · Sep 11, 2007, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Can't we all just get along?

All we are saying, is give Petraeus a chance...

Ex, I'm all for getting along, would you tell MoveOn and, Harry Reid and co. what that means?

That disaster, of course, is one you'll blame on everybody BUT the dude who brought it to you in the first place. You know, just your regular ole head in the sand kind of stuff.

No, no, no. I think we've all admitted mistakes and things we wish were done differently so that won't fly. I am like you ready to get along and at least start acting like we're on the same side. The right has called for that many times, the left only cares about winning elections.

speechlesstx · Sep 11, 2007, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

What a Godsend to the Republicans. By focusing attention on the dirty tactics of the left, Democratic Congressmen who themselves were questioning General Petreaus's veracity yesterday must now tread more softly lest they too are lumped in with the loons from Moveon.Org.

Robert E. Lee supposedly said he would rather face a stupid general than an incompetent one. Now we know why.

It's a Godsend if they manage to do something with it. I think we should all write, call and otherwise hammer our congressmen to get on board with this resolution.

alkalineangel · Sep 11, 2007, 09:39 AM

I think we should do what the soldiers want... make all these nay-sayers get in the trenches and fight with them... let them see what its like, then tell the general he's doing wrong...

alkalineangel · Sep 11, 2007, 10:13 AM

Comments on this post
Excon agrees: I'm a naysayer. I was in the trenches. The war is lost.

No disrespect to your opinion Excon, but I know several soldiers who are there and say otherwise. I support my troops and appreciate their sacrifices, and I would rather listen to them than the politicians and anti-war groups. Most of them are still of the belief that they are doing good. I think there are few who will say we are "winning" this war, but in this case, is there really a win?

tomder55 · Sep 12, 2007, 10:01 AM

Latest editororial by Kathleen Parker :

On the sixth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, Americans were treated to two starkly contrasting images that speak centuries of difference between the U.S. and its enemies.

In Frame One, we see Gen. David Petraeus testifying before Congress on the status of the war in Iraq. In Frame Two is Osama bin Laden in a new video -- resplendent in white robes, his beard recently rinsed dark to conceal the gray -- promising that Islam will subjugate the West.

One an image of courage, integrity and honor; the other a caricature of manhood.

Then there is a third frame. It is a full-page ad in Monday's New York Times placed by MoveOn.org and attacking Petraeus' integrity: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" reads the caption. And then, "Cooking the Books for the White House."

The fog of war, it seems, has seeped into the left wing of the blogosphere.

One may disagree with the war -- and even find informed fault with Petraeus' report -- but impugning the character of the war's commanding officer while American forces are still fighting is what's known as betrayal. If Petraeus were ordering the mass murder of civilians, this would be a different matter. But last time we checked, American forces were fighting to prevent innocent people from getting killed.

Thus, the ad reveals more about the character of those who placed it than it does of Petraeus. It also reveals a dangerous lack of judgment. Put it this way: If Petraeus is viewed as the bad guy, will they know evil when they see it? (Hint: It has a beard and lives in a cave.)

Because bin Laden and Petraeus hit the same news cycle -- and no, I'm not suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 -- it is convenient and instructive to compare the two men. Visually, they are opposites. One is bearded and operates in shadow. The other, clean-shaven and open-faced, operates in full daylight, exposed and open to scrutiny.

They are night and day, darkness and light.

"Virtually impotent" were the well-chosen words homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend used to describe bin Laden, saying he's a man on the run, living in a cave.

Impotence is a strong word for a woman to use around men, but it is apt here in multiple ways. Impotence gets to the heart of a deeper matter -- bin Laden's sense that he has been minimized by external forces. Freedom is his boogeyman. His need to control others is symptomatic of deep-rooted insecurities.

It is appropriate, meanwhile, that he is a cave dweller. The cave -- both Plato's allegorical house of illusion and primitive man's earliest shelter -- is a proper home for a delusional man trapped in the distant past. Bin Laden and his cohorts are the embodiment of the primitive, infantile male, acting out their frustrations through cowardly barbarism.

It may take a certain kind of courage to fly an airplane into a building, but it takes no courage to murder defenseless people whose crime was getting to work on time. Yet, on the tape released Tuesday, bin Laden praises one of the hijackers of Flight 11, saying that the dead man "recognized the truth."

"It is true that this young man was little in years, but the faith in his heart was big," says bin Laden.

Giving the devil his due, bin Laden is crafty. He flatters young men, promising virgins in the afterlife, then convinces them to strap on bombs or fly planes into buildings. The young men die and bin Laden gets a new outfit. Quite a trick.

In another contrast, bin Laden wants to subjugate the world, while Petraeus leads men and women who want to release the world from subjugation. One fights for the submission of others; the other fights for their liberation.

You don't have to be an American exceptionalist to recognize that there is a difference. One is good, the other is not.

In fairness, MoveOn's ad was aimed at the Iraq war and wasn't intended, either by omission or commission, to be a commentary on bin Laden. But the distorted judgment that prompted an attack on Petraeus as America relives the horrors of 9-11 hints at a sinister alignment with darker forces.

Bin Laden must be very pleased. He could not have done better himself.

The good, the bad and the very ugly -- OrlandoSentinel.com

speechlesstx · Sep 12, 2007, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Thus, the ad reveals more about the character of those who placed it than it does of Petraeus. It also reveals a dangerous lack of judgment. Put it this way: If Petraeus is viewed as the bad guy, will they know evil when they see it? (Hint: It has a beard and lives in a cave.)...

In fairness, MoveOn's ad was aimed at the Iraq war and wasn't intended, either by omission or commission, to be a commentary on bin Laden. But the distorted judgment that prompted an attack on Petraeus as America relives the horrors of 9-11 hints at a sinister alignment with darker forces.

Bin Laden must be very pleased. He could not have done better himself.

I don't always agree with Kathleen's positions on things but when she's on she's dead on. Nicely done Ms. Parker.

In two days of reporting in my paper on the Petraeus report, I've learned more about what Petreus didn't say, what I should think about what little they've reported he did say, and what Democratic Presidential candidates on the committee think than what the general has said. I intend to write my paper about this. It would be nice to get some more news and less analysis of what news they report. It would also be nice if congressmen would spend more time actually listening to the general and ambassador instead of campaigning during the "hearing."

And speaking of bin Laden, did you by chance happen to come across this column by Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News?

speechlesstx · Sep 14, 2007, 08:59 AM

Rudy apparently got his NY Times space for the same price as MoveOn. For now the ad can be seen here. He takes on Hillary and her comments to Gen. Petraeus, basically calling him a stooge and a liar:

"It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." -Hillary Clinton

Personally I find believing anything Hillary says requires a willing suspension of disbelief, as did Jack Reed's response to Bush's speech last night:

"We intend to exercise our constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq. We ask Americans of good will of whatever party to join us in this historic effort to restore the strength and security of the United States."

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Or at least that's what the constitution says.

Did any of you catch Rudy on Hannity and Colmes last night?

"The problem with the Democratic approach is it's withdrawal for the purpose of withdrawal..."

HANNITY: Well, I'm going to play that ad — that specific sound bite in just a second here. But I want to get one general impression about this because the president clearly tonight seemed to be reaching out to the Democrats in terms of offering, “Hey, this is what we all want here.” But right away, we heard Senator Reed come out and say that this is only more of the same. And we know Harry Reid is on record saying that after General Petraeus' testimony this week, that the president's plan is unacceptable. It seems like there's nothing that he could say to the Democrats that will get them on board.

GIULIANI: He may get some on board. I mean, I was really impressed with several Democrats who went to Iraq in the last month or two and came back saying that they were very surprised and it changed their position because there had been considerably more success with regard to safety and security that General Petraeus has had than anybody thought he could have and they thought it was worth further — worth investing more time and more support and trying to get it to even a greater level of success.

So maybe that's sort of the Democratic talking point response, but there may be some Democrats that the president wins over to kind of a national objective here. After all, you know, I remember when Congressman Clyburn said that if the surge is successful, it may be a problem for the Democrats. Well, there may be some Democrats thinking not as Democrats but sort of like in the overall picture here because if the surge is successful, it's not a problem for Democrats. It's actually a success for America, and we're all Americans.

Indeed.

tomder55 · Sep 14, 2007, 10:01 AM

I'd say Rudy had a productive day K O to Hillary ;the Slimes ,and Move on.org with a single blow ! I think the next move should be some group demand that the difference between the discount rate and the rate normally charged be investigated by the IRS as a possible campaign donation violation or taxable income to Moveon.org.

BTW nice pick up taking Brandon Jacobs from my scrap heap. Maybe I would've kept him if there wasn't talk of both him and Eli being out for extended periods.