'Sexed down' by Lord Hutton

Lord Hutton has spoken, and Tony Blair has dodged another bullet. But, bottom line, whatever the merits or demerits of the BBC report, David Kelly's allegations, or the Iraq war itself, does anyone really believe that Saddam Hussein posed a military threat to the U.S. or the U.K.?

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

I dunno. Does giving a big bomb to a someone who you know intends to blow up American stuff constitute a military threat?

All threats don't wear uniforms. Ask Arafat.

[steve]

Now, with the full spectrum vision that hindsight provides? Nope.

[Paul]

Posed a _military_ threat? That's a bogus question. The real question is: Did he pose a terrorist threat to the U.S.?

He was a known sponsor of a number of terrorist groups (including Al Qaeda), had a history of using WMDs, and was known to hate the U.S.

Next question.

[trainwreck]

Of course they were a threat! Look at all the terrorists over there that the American troops are fighting every single day!

Would you rather fight them in Falluja, or Fargo?

After all, anyone who attacks any American interest anywhere is a threat and a terrorist.

Ask Arafat.

[Bill]

David Kay apparently does. A greater threat that was thought when hostilities commenced.

[Jason Ligon]

"After all, anyone who attacks any American interest anywhere is a threat and a terrorist."

Er, well, at least a threat. Was that sarcasm?

[Jason Ligon]

Let's see if the Raimondo clan is going to tell us about lies and deciet to manipulate the public into believing blah, blah, blah ...

[xray]

Paul: Not so quick. He may have sponsored terrorist groups but I'm afraid we'll need more than your assertion that Al Qaeda was among them. Yes, he used WMDs - if using chemicals to kill a few of your own civilians really counts as using WMDs. And known to hate the US? Who gives a rat's ass? To listen to the right side of the blogosphere, half of America is known to hate the US.

(Come to think of it, France is so ripe for pre-emptive regime change. They obviously support terrorist regimes like Iraq, they are known to possess and have used real WMDs, and they are known to hate the US.

Next question.

[Potus]

But what about the terrorist threats that we don't know about?

[Jason Ligon]

xray:

"Yes, he used WMDs - if using chemicals to kill a few of your own civilians really counts as using WMDs. And known to hate the US? Who gives a rat's ass?"

I can't help but think that there is an element of proportion being intentionally left out here ...

[Paul]

xray:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

[...]

[Slippery Pete]

Michael, that's a bogus, straw-man question, and I suspect you know it. Nobody ever claimed Saddam's Navy was going to sneak down the Hudson River. Puh-leeze.

[mak_nas]

according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

paul, here's where critical thinking should begin.

[xray]

Jason: My point is not that he isn't a murderous scumbag. Just that "weapon of mass destruction" is used to loosely. Many murderous scumbags have killed more people, including non-citizens, with non-WMDs than Saddam offed with his "WMDs"

[W]

"I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that -- first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."

"I said in the run-up that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger, that's what I said. And I believed it then, and I know it was true now. And as Mr. Kay said, that Iraq was a dangerous place. And given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we're vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security."

[trainwreck]

Jason yes I was being sarcastic in a stupid sort of way.

After all this the most cogent case for war seems to be coming down to saying "he hated the USA," was a bad guy who consorted with other bad guys, and was a grave (but not "imminent"! The admin never said imminent!) and gathering threat. And for some, I guess that's all the excuse they need to start kickin ass...

[Paul]

Slippery Pete: "paul, here's where critical thinking should begin."

I presume by this you mean to imply that the report should be disregarded because it's in the Weekly Standard? That's essentially an ad hominem argument.

[alma hadayn]

"News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate."

That's the first sentence of a press release from the Department of Defense in response to the weekly standard piece. It goes on to explain that the memo listed raw intelligence reports and did not draw any substantive conclusions.

Kay didn't find weapons, or weapons programs, but he did find dozens of weapons of mass destruction- related program activities, which is clearly much more dangerous.

[alma hadayn]

As for the Blair thing, I have no reason to suspect that Blair is responsible for Kelly's suicide. And it may well be that Gilligan's report was wrong. But that was not the "real lie" as Tony Blair put it. The real lie was Blair's "single-sours" claim that Iraq could launch a chemical weapons attack within 45 minutes, for which Blair has yet to apologize.

[Down]

Unfuckingbelievable. The BBC, which gives out hopelessly biased and wrong info on Iraq, is caught and condemned. You'd think this would at the very least give anti-war nuts pause. But Hit & Run, just as hoplessly biased and wrong as the BBC, has the nerve to try to spin this into another anti-war rant.

[alma hadayn]

oops that should be "single source"

[alma hadayn]

"The BBC, which gives out hopelessly biased and wrong info on Iraq,"

IS that a joke? One report, the substance of which (that Kelly said that Alastair Campbell "sexed up" the misleading and incorrect September dossier published by Number 10) has not even been disproven, has been criticized by a judge, whereas Bush and Blair have made numerous and repeated false statements and started a war based on those false statements, and it's the BBC that's the real issue?

[R C Dean]

x-ray claims that "Yes, he used WMDs - if using chemicals to kill a few of your own civilians really counts as using WMDs."

Thanks for the glimpse into the amoral heart of the antiwar movement. It was just "a few" civilians, and apparently they were Saddam's to kill any way he damn well pleased. I wonder, if Bush were to gas a village full of Democrats, whether x-ray would be so blase.

alma claims "It goes on to explain that the memo listed raw intelligence reports and did not draw any substantive conclusions."

Which is a long way from saying that the contents of the memo are not accurate or trustworthy.

And for gosh sake, lets be sure to overlook Kay's conclusion, that what he actually found in Iraq was more dangerous than we thought at the time, because it was essentially out of control. Lets also overlook the fact that this out of control WMD program actually put a WMD (ricin) into the hands of a terrorist group for export to England. The Brits, fortunately, caught it before it could be used.

[Down]

Alma, I disagree with the substance of what you say (the BBC regularly and daily was so anti-war that it always got stuff wrong, not to mention you clearly don't understand the reasons we went to war), but you're missing the point. Here's a major report which, as opposed to the anti-war spin, properly condemned the BBC for driving a man to suicide. So how does Hit & Run react?--rather than admitting their similarly flawed reasoning, they try a bait and switch and hope we don't notice.

[alma hadayn]

I have no interest in defending the atrocity in Halabja, but on the issue of whether killing people with chemicals is worse than killing them w/o chemicals:

"It was just another way of killing people ? whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," - former DIA official quoted in the NY TImes explaining why Reagan's Pentagon "wasn't so horrified" about Iraq gassing the Iranians.

It also bears pointing out that the number of people killed in Halabja is probably fewer than the number of civilians killed in the US invasion.

[Howard Owens]

Ask the wrong question, get the wrong answer.

[mike]

In answer to M Young:

Yes. I do.

[xray]

RC and others: Let me just clarify to all of you who assume I am anti-war or some sort of relativist. Saddam is a murdering scumbag and the world is better off without him. Lumping chemical weapons and nukes together, and excluding the very effective conventional weapons which have a well-proven track record for killing civilians is just silly. I hate Saddam because he killed innocent people. I don't give a shit if he used VX, mortars or box cutters. All the panic about WMDs is disingenuous. Frankly, I don't think chemical weapons can really compare to nukes or even a well aimed daisy-cutter.

[JSM]

In answer to M Young:

No. The real threat was the clusterfuck of intel that mostly missed the mark by a mile. So it begs the question, how much of our intel is bogus and is there a true military threat existing in the world right now?

If Saddam was a true military threat to the US or UK, he would have been far more successful in shooting down coalition jets patrolling the no fly zone. As it was, it was only as good as revealing where the anti-aircraft defenses were and their subsequent destruction by coalition forces. Saddam's military was a joke, something we have known since 1991. I am sure there is a troop of Eagle Scouts in the midwest that could take out the Republican Guard with their swiss army knives and survival merit badges!

Besides, Jim McDermott said Iraq was not a threat. I believe the Weekly Standard even quoted McDermott's words! 😉

[fyodor]

That's essentially an ad hominem argument.

An ad hominem response is fallacious when used to attack someone's argument. But an ad hominen response makes perfect sense when used to discredit someone as a source of information. Those are two very different things. That said, I don't claim to know all there is to know about this issue. Did the Weekly Standard reprint the memo, or did it merely report its own interpretation of what it said. If the former, has anyone else verified the memo's existence and authenticity? And does everyone who's read have Paul's interpretation?

[David D]

So if I get up every morning, take my rifle, and go kill some people in downtown Portland, should the US government stop me?

Duh, yes.

How about if I only kill arabs? If I only kill a few hundred thousand non-Americans, should the Americans bother to stop me?

Well, of course not. I'm not using Weapons of Mass Destruction (well, not since I used mustard gas on the Kurds), and I'm not killing Americans. I'm no threat to anyone.

After all, 500 American deaths and thousands wounded outweigh the suffering of 30 million people, and are worse than a government that maintains childrens prisons and fills mass graves.

It's all a waste of money - after all, the Iraq's aren't really capable of democracy, and they don't feel the pain of oppression, torture, and death like an American (i.e. a 'real' person) would feel.

What treaty was it - the Peace of Westphalia in 1648? that forbid nations to interfere in 'internal affairs' of other countries? Whatever. It's obvious that the US had no business getting rid of this mass murderer. It was illegal to stop the killing.

On the bright side, this way the US got to steal all the Iraqi oil from the French and Russians, and give it to Halliburton.

/Sarcasm off.

Afganistan, Iraq. . . Two down, 58 to go.

[Richard]

Alma,

How does anyone cause a suicide? Seriously, this is the kind of logic that leads people down the road of stupidity. Unless Blair put a gun to Kelly's head and said "Swallow the pill Doctor" logic dictates that Blair is not responsible for the independent individual choice that Kelly made when he offed himself. Blair is as responsible for Kelly's suicide as I am for the St. Louis Rams not making the Super Bowl. That kind of thinking is patently ridiculous.

Alma, who does Blair have to apologize to? Saddam Hussein? The graves of his murderous sons? Or to the millions of Iraqis who no longer have to worry about government whim, torture, rape, and murder?

Anyway, I agree that we went in for the wrong reasons, but I am glad that we did...now we need to go back to Somalia, hit Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe and stand up to the dictators that run ripshod over people. The enslavement, rape, and torture of the third-world cannot end with the U.N. bickering away the lives of the truly innocent, it has to end with a bullet.

[Richard]

David, the Treaty of Westphalia? WTF are you talking about...the US wasn't even a country at the time that the German nations settled their dispute over religious liberties...so how could it have been a signatory? I follow you on the sarcasm, but the Treaty of Westphalia??? = error code...lack of relational data

Other than that

/history check = fixed protocol
/sarcasm on.

[Don]

"Frankly, I don't think chemical weapons can really compare to nukes or even a well aimed daisy-cutter."

Yeah, maybe, but there is a potential for chemical weapons in terrorist attacks -- and it is reasonable to believe that the like of Al Quada and Saddam might cooperate to deliver such to American soil.

[alma hadayn]

"How does anyone cause a suicide?"

I didn't say he was responsible and I don't think he was; the issue was raised by Lord Hutton, not me. The question was whether Number 10 inappropriately leaked Kelly's name in a way that contributed to his being eviscerated by the media and Parliament, which seems to have been what prompted his decision. As I said, I don't think that was the case.

"...who does Blair have to apologize to?"

All the people he lied to, especially the British Parliament, which he scared into voting to authorize British participation in the war by exagerating the WMD threat, for example in the shoddy dossier which may or may not have been sexed up.

[hey]

The point is that all of our "respect" for the fiction of states is based on Westphalian principles. Not that it stopped anyone up until recently from doing what the hell they liked.

International law is respected in the breach, not the observance, and is mostly a figment of imagination of law professors and other academics.

As for WMD: chemical warfare is regarded as equivalent because it is a particularly cruel and brutal way of ending lives, and is usually more effective at maiming, disfiguring, and torturing survivors. This is the same reason unjacketed rounds were barred: they didn't kill people, just left them crippled and in constant pain. Based on old rules, armies aren't supposed to use hollow points, as they conform to the legal definition of the bad old soft rounds that splintered and spread devastation across the body, while modern hollowpoints just make ridiculously large holes that you simply don't survive.

Remember, there are full on non-interventionists, and then there are domestic libertarians who are foreign imperialists (or at least jingoists) who are willing to kick anyone's ass for any reasn (demonstration, geoplolitics, etc). I personally adhere to the Perle-Frum school of foreign policy: take em all on! And France is first!

[Dan]

does anyone really believe that Saddam Hussein posed a military threat to the U.S. or the U.K.

Who ever claimed they were a *military* threat to the United States? There ARE no military threats to the United States. We could, if called upon to do so, kick the entire world's ass.

Now, was Iraq a non-military threat? Sure, albeit not a military one. The threat from Iraq, as Bush patiently explained on many occasions, was that it might aid, or personally carry out, terrorist attacks against the United States. No honest and informed individual can deny that threat, and none have. Then there's the less frequently mentioned threat Iraq represented: it was an unstable, totalitarian regime in the heart of an unstable and anti-American part of the world. Eliminating that threat would have been reason enough, even if Hussein hadn't lusted after nuclear weapons.

[richard]

Alma, you didn't, but by the way you stated your argument, it seemed to be implied. Sorry if I read it the wrong way.

[Cameron King]

Nobody poses a true MILITARY threat to the US. Saddam posed a terrorist threat, something entirely different, but quite real.

[BodhiharmaOnHoliday]

Saddam had no ideology, no strong belief structure in anything but himself. He is the philosophical opposite of OBL and AQ who are the epitome of an ideologically motivated enemy. OBL has, in the past, critized Hussein for being so secular and rootless.

Therefore, I'm not sure how a connection between the two can be made? Saddam never took any risk which wasn't carefully caclulated and didn't have an obvious payoff. Examples include: Invading Iran at a time when Iran had no friends and a revolution-weakened military, invading Kuwait when the American ambassador to Iraq raised no objections, violently suppressing internal dissent when the world didn't seem to care, attempting to develop WMD's to keep the US and allies at bay.

Supporting any terrorist attack on the US has no payoff. Sure, he probably cheered when he watched the towers fall, but he wouldn't have any part in this attack because it could only mean negatives to him. If the attack failed and Iraq was implicated, then the US would destroy him. If the attack suceeded and Iraq was implicated, then the US would destroy him. There's no plus for him. He wasn't motivated by an irrational hate for the US. He wasn't motivated by the Koran or what the voices in his head tells him to do. He's motivated by what's in it for Saddam Hussein. If it gives him more money, more power, more leverage, great! If not, then don't do it.

WTC or any of the other terrorist attacks against the US gives him neither money nor gives him power nor gives him leverage. It only invites attack. There's no motivation to be involved.

So, no, I don't think he fit the model of being a threat. He was a classic bully and when confronted with superior force, almost always backed down after a period of blustering rhetoric.

Therefore long-term containment would have worked well on Hussein. The sanctions and occasional bombing raids were probably enough to keep him hunkered down and quiet.

[Andrew]

1) Containment would not have obtained real full and prompt compliance with international obligations that Saddam had already delayed and defied.

2) Containment would not have freed the Iraqi people from tyranny.

3) Containment would not have have reversed the pattern of social and cultural failure in the region, and the third world as a whole.
Nor would containment have supplied a truly frightening precedent to other rogue nations.

4) Containment would not have prevented Saddam from re-building his conventional military, and posing the same kinds of regional threats as he had previously.

5) Containment would not have discontinued Saddam's sponsership for regional terrorism, or restricted any interest he had in more international terror sponsership.

6) Containment could never guarantee that Saddam could not someday once again harness the resources of a high-cash-flow oil state to developing terror weapons.

The above are the six reasons for going to war that I listed months before the shooting started. They all hold good today.

5) Containment would not have severed Saddam's

[BodhiharmaOnHoliday]

Containment did keep him from rebuilding his military. Witness the incredibly weak resistance in March-April '03. Witness the complete lack of WMD's despite months of searching. Saddam did have WMD's at one point. He was still trying. Therefore sactions had a good effect.

Look at how many times Hussein made a credible threat to his neighbors in the years 1991-2003. Pretty much zilch. Containment seemed to work well there.

As for 'liberation' as a reason, I would respect this reason if it just didnt' stink of having 'last-minute-justification-because-the-wmds-didn't-appear' all over it. The US goes to war because of specific claims of threatening weapons. Those weapons aren't present so now we're selfless heroes bringing freedom, mom, and american pie to an oppressed people.

Since when did a Republican-led administration want to be involved in nation-building? Sorry, the whole 'bringing-freedom-to-the-oppressed' has such a fake feel to it, especially when republicans have never really cared about such things before.

Containment was certainly better than spending 500+ American lives to create the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

[TJ]

"2) Containment would not have freed the Iraqi people from tyranny."

So now the Iraqi's have the tyranny of marshal law. With luck, this will be replaced soon by some sort of tyranny of the majority (shi'ite rule). With a freakin miracle, this will be replaced by a "reasonable" government in our lifetime. Net plus? Maybe.

"3) Containment would not have have reversed the pattern of social and cultural failure in the region, and the third world as a whole."

War is the ultimate "social and cultural failure". You're saying that war will reverse this? That the Iraqi's will be galvanized into throwing out all the old cultural mores and remodel their society in America's image? WTF???

"6) Containment could never guarantee that Saddam could not someday once again harness the resources of a high-cash-flow oil state to developing terror weapons."

Doesn't take a lot of money to build a "terror" weapon. With a bit of research, middle income Americans can do it.

[InconsistentHeretic]

Saddam had no ideology, no strong belief structure in anything but himself. He is the philosophical opposite of OBL and AQ who are the epitome of an ideologically motivated enemy. OBL has, in the past, critized Hussein for being so secular and rootless.

History is filled with unlikely alliances, just start checking out the 20th C. Usually one or both sides is looking for a brief opportunity before stabbing their "partner" in the back. Just 1915-1945: US+Japan(WWI), Hitler+Stalin, Stalin+Churchill+Roosevelt, Allies+Italy(WWI) and just look at all the bodies of Stalin's Bolshevik "allies", Spanish Civil War, etc. It seems eminently feasible for both OBL and Hussein to consider the other a "useful idiot".

I also recall Hussein making a big show during the 90's about his "piety"; building large mosques and wasn't there something about a copy of the Koran written in his own blood?

Therefore, I'm not sure how a connection between the two can be made? Saddam never took any risk which wasn't carefully caclulated and didn't have an obvious payoff.

and if Bin Laden's plan had managed to "scare off" the US? Wasn't that the game plan according to Bin Laden's various tapes (the early ones, before he became a smear)?

Supporting any terrorist attack on the US has no payoff. Sure, he probably cheered when he watched the towers fall, but he wouldn't have any part in this attack because it could only mean negatives to him. If the attack failed and Iraq was implicated, then the US would destroy him....

and if all the Red Team players thought the US would fold and bolt out of the Middle East? Consider the amount of howling against the war currently going on. It would be easy to rationalize "they'll never do it". Twenty years of demonstrated US policy and tactics could easily justify the belief that SH was safe in Iraq; just don't invade another oil-producing country.

WTC or any of the other terrorist attacks against the US gives him neither money nor gives him power nor gives him leverage. It only invites attack. There's no motivation to be involved.

Here's a scenario: Hussein supports OBL because he figures that between OBL, AQ and the Saudi support being hunted across the planet he can get the sanctions lifted and can get his toys back in production? All he has to do is make sure his fingerprints aren't anywhere around and the anti-war folk will cover his back.

oops.

so, does Godwin's Law now apply?

[TJ]

The "people shredder" story seems to be real difficult to get independent confirmation on. Not that disproving this story makes Saddam a good guy, (not even close) but I am sooo tired of the propaganda BS.I get the feeling that this story will turn out to be a hoax, like the Kuwaiti baby incubator story back in 91.

Anyone got any evidence that doesn't tie back to the story of one human shield / priest, who apparently wasn't a priest? Pictures, reporters or army folk who have seen it?

[Jean Bart]

"When you are dealing with secretive regimes that want to deceive, you?re never going to be able to be positive" about intelligence, [Condoleeza] Rice said on NBC?s "Today" show.

_______________________

One wonders which regime she was talking about. 🙂

[Jack]

Andrew wrote: "3) Containment would not have have reversed the pattern of social and cultural failure in the region, and the third world as a whole. Nor would containment have supplied a truly frightening precedent to other rogue nations."

Ah yes, the Jonah Goldberg/Thomas Friedman theory of international relations: destroy an immoral, but innocent, third party to set an example after you've been attacked by someone else completely. Carrying this theory to its logical end, then if a police officer is shot, and the police know who did it (since the killer sent a video taunting them), the cops are entitled to walk up to a known drug dealer in the 'hood and shoot him through the head to teach the darkies a lesson?

You will, of course, protest at this stage that you didn't make a racist comment, but how else to interpret your claim that the "Third World as a whole" is a *cultural* failure? Last time I checked, unless you are an Ayn Rand Institute member, culture is not an objectively quantifiable thing.

[JSM]

JB,
I saw the same segment this morning. I was wondering the same as soon as she began spewing out the problems with secret regimes!

[Paul]

TJ, on freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny: "So now the Iraqi's have the tyranny of marshal law."

Have you no shame? The rape rooms are shut down. The people shredders are shut down. People are no longer having their eyes gouged out, their tongues removed, their wives and husbands and children tortured in front of them. Thousands of bodies are being dug up and identified, not buried and forgotten.

Go read:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_01_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#107531043172272357

Comments like TJ's expose the moral bankruptcy of the radical left, and cast a dark shadow on the entire anti-war movement- which has generally failed to repudiate statements like this.

[TJ]

"Have you no shame?"

Not for the likes of this sillyness! Paul, you are convolving two completely different issues. Because one notes that the Iraqi's are currently under marshal law does not mean that one supported Hussein's torture.

I do mean to question the near term improvement potential of the Iraqi situation, however. The likely Shi'ite rule in the near future may not be much fun for the Sunni's. We'll see.

"...moral bankruptcy of the radical left..."

Sweet Jesus. ROTFLMAO
You and Newt, buddy, you and Newt.

[Flem Snopes]

Tony Blair has "dodged another bullet?" yeah. just barely scraped by on that one. *WHEW!* that was close!

son, hutton's report is a RINGING AND CATEGORICAL DENUNCIATION that left BBC's credibility in total ruin and caused its chairman to resign in disgrace. see if you can drag yourselves to report on this story in a straightforward way howzabout. i know you'd like to talk about something else, BUSH LIEEE-YEEEEED!!!1 and such fodder, but we're talking about a direct hit on the BBC right now

[Caglayan Emily Rekow]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 81.137.45.114
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 09:36:44
Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can.