With Coverage This Slanted, Bush May As Well Resign

Pete Yost of the AP delivers an "analysis" of the "Bush Authorized Leaks!!!" story that is laughably slanted.  Let's attack back!

New Twist in CIA Leak Probe
Bush and Cheney at the Center of a Leak Campaign

WASHINGTON Apr 8, 2006 (AP)— Now in its third year, the CIA leak investigation took a decidedly unwelcome turn for the White House last week. A court filing by prosecutors depicted President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as setting in motion leaks to the press that ended in the disclosure of the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The court papers say that in the weeks before Plame's identity was revealed, Bush authorized Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to leak intelligence from a classified document to rebut a war critic, Joe Wilson.

Even Maureen Dowd took care to remind her readers that this story is based on an excerpt of grand jury testimony from I. Lewis Libby, who has been indicted for perjury and seems to be preparing a faulty memory defense.  Mr. Yost ought to similarly caution his many readers that maybe, just maybe, Libby's (incomplete) version should be taken with a grain of salt.  That said, Fitzgerald did speak with Addington (an attorney in the Office of the Vice President who has been moved up to Libby's old spot), Bush and Cheney, so we can presume that Libby's story was not flatly contradicted.  But did Bush and Cheney respond with "I don't recall that?  We don't know.

[UPDATE:  The latest WH spin is that Bush approved the concept of getting the story out, but left the details to Cheney:

President Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, be the one to disseminate the information, an attorney knowledgeable about the case said Saturday.

Bush merely instructed Cheney to "get it out" and left the details to him, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case for the White House. The vice president chose Libby and communicated the president's wishes to his then-top aide, the lawyer said.]

Let's resume with the AP Q&A:

...Q: Now that the story is out that Bush and Cheney put Libby in play, are the president or the vice president expected to be called to testify at Libby's trial?

A. The prosecution and the defense have not signaled their intentions.

"Put Libby in play"?  As the story eventually notes (see MORE, below), the timeline is hazy at best.  This is partly because, at the time Libby testified, Special Counsel Fitzgerald was unaware of Libby's chats with Judy Miller and Bob Woodward in June 2003; consequently, Fitzgerald's questions to Libby about his conversations with reporters focused on July, and the issue of whether Libby was cleared to talk with Woodward did not arise.

As a result, it is hard to judge whether Libby began leaking and then sought authorization, or the reverse.  That is assuming that the authorization even occurred, and is not a convenient ex post fiction (The Anon Lib wonders about this).

And as to people in play, who turned loose Fitzgerald's Official One, who leaked to Woodward and (probably) Novak?  Did Bush authorize that?  Does Fitzgerald even care who leaked Plame's CIA affiliation to Novak?  Last we heard Offical One should have his privacy respected because he was not facing charges (story, transcript).

...Q. If Libby was directed by Bush and Cheney to leak information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate, why did he allegedly leak information about Plame's CIA identity as well? Did he do so with or without direction from his superiors?

A. No one in a position to know has offered answers.

But some of us in a position to read Fitzgerald's filing have offered an answer - on p. 27 of the .pdf, Fitzgerald says this, with emphasis added:

During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser [i.e., Libby, who had both jobs] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment...

At a minimum, we can conclude that Fitzgerald is unwilling to offer evidence that Bush knew about Libby's Plame-related leaks.  One might even infer (unless one were an AP writer) that Bush did not authorize them.  Surely this passage merits a mention - the WaPo thought so on Friday:

Although Fitzgerald specifically said Bush was not aware of the leaking of a CIA agent's affiliation...

OK, we are past the worst and I should relent a bit here - after the deplorable intro the article becomes a bit more balanced.  Here are the next two questions, with plausible answers:

Q. Didn't a lot of people know that Plame worked for the CIA? So what was the big deal about identifying her?

...

Q. Did Bush do something illegal?

But the attempt at "fair and balanced" is lost with the next question, which presumes more than we know:

Q. If what Bush did was legal, why does this matter?

A. The furor prompted by the latest disclosure that Bush and Cheney were directing a leak campaign against Wilson goes to the practice of declassifying secrets to gain political advantage...

Fitzgerald provided no evidence on the question of whether Bush and Cheney specifically discussed Joe Wilson, let alone "direct[ed] a leak campaign against" him.

Now, late in the game, is a Q&A that is stunning for its accuracy and relevance.  Where were they in July of 2003?

Q. What else did Libby leak?

A. Aside from allegedly revealing Plame's CIA identity, Libby discussed with New York Times report Judith Miller a then-classified CIA report that arguably undercut Wilson's public attacks on the administration. In it, Wilson described how an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 and sought to expand commercial relations, which Niger understood to be a desire to obtain uranium. On the one hand, Wilson was saying publicly it was highly doubtful Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. On the other hand, Wilson was leaving out from his public criticism the information he had learned during his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger about Iraq's desire to expand commercial relations.

Emphasis added, and can we have a yip, yip, yippee.  Of course, George Tenet said this at the time, but nobody cared.  Nobody in the Mainstream Media, anyway.

MORE:  The bit about Woodward is thought-provoking, and I blame bloggers, starting with yours truly, for not having flagged the Woodward statement earlier (I did check the Judy Miller material, which was not conclusive on the question of whether they discussed details of the NIE when they met in June.  Guess I was only half-asleep).

From the AP:

Q. What did the president and vice president direct Libby to leak?

A. A portion of a classified prewar document in which U.S. intelligence agencies declared Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium. The court papers say Libby leaked the information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003. On Saturday, The Washington Post said reporter Bob Woodward met with Libby 11 days before Miller's meeting with Libby. According to the Post, Woodward said his notes reflect Libby using the word "vigorous" to describe an Iraqi effort to acquire uranium. Libby's leaks were the beginning of an emerging White House strategy: Blame the CIA for providing the White House with a faulty premise for going to war.

And here is the WaPo version of that:

Libby also leaked information from the National Intelligence Estimate to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post prior to the date that the White House said it was officially declassified. In sworn testimony, Woodward told Fitzgerald that on June 27, 2003 -- 11 days before the Libby-Miller conversation -- Libby told him about the CIA estimate and an Iraqi effort to obtain "yellowcake" uranium in Africa, according to a statement Woodward released on Nov. 14, 2005.

In an interview, Woodward said his notes, which were not released publicly but were shown to Fitzgerald, included Libby using the word "vigorous" to describe the Iraqi effort. Libby used similar language when he provided the NIE information Bush declassified to Miller at their July 8, 2003, meeting, according to Fitzgerald's filing.

The precise status of the information at the time Libby provided it to Woodward is unclear because of conflicting accounts of the declassification process provided by Libby and McClellan. Fitzgerald's court filing does not provide the date when Bush and Cheney -- who have both been interviewed by the special prosecutor -- said they authorized Libby's disclosures.

Fitzgerald's timeline is hazy in part because he blew the investigation with Woodward.  Bygones.  But if the Woodward chat in June was authorized, then it was not in response to the Wilson op-ed of July 6, now was it?

 

Comments

[jerry]

Isn't Yost the guy you were lauding about a week ago regarding the Comey authorization issue?

[Jim E.]

"The bit about Woodward is thought-provoking, and I blame bloggers, starting with yours truly, for not having flagged the Woodward statement earlier."

Would you believe Jason Leopold had the Woodward story on March 6?

Emptywheel apparently blogged the Woodward connection *before* Leopold. (I'm taking ew's word for this, so i don't have a citation.)

So while the use of "vigorous" wasn't necessarily flagged, it turns out bloggers--or at least ew--has nothing to apologize for.

[boris]

But if the Woodward chat in June was authorized, then it was not in response to the Wilson op-ed of July 6, now was it?

Ooops.

Disclosure to rebut revisionist history in the making ...

Or a conspiracy to punish ... ???

[Javani]

"Put into lay" "Set into motion"

Editorial comments to show causation where there was none.

MSM backup support for Fitzgerald only works well as long as UGO is suppressed. If UGO not in the White House "motions" the case the moonbats want flies out the window.

[Jim E.]

From yesterday's Wash Post: "One former administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing political strategy, said rebutting Wilson and other critics was an obsession of Cheney, Libby and many others then inside the Bush White House." Obsession!

Tomorrow's Wash Post has more coverage certain to provoke TM into once again wondering if Bush might as well resign.

[Jim E.]

Oops, the above quote from Wash Post is from *today's* paper.

[Caro]

But if the Woodward chat in June was authorized, then it was not in response to the Wilson op-ed of July 6, now was it?

Not in response to the op-ed, but probably in response to the interviews that Wilson was already doing with Kristoff and others....

[Kate]

Jim E. If Bush should resign for authorizing release of information to bolster his policy against attacks from critics and bureaucrats alike, then every President should resign...the practice is quite common.

The Washington Post will have an anti-Bush story, what a surprise.

[holycow]

They are going to jettison Cheney. Reason > He and Libby went overboard. Bush had just no idea (really!) they would go this far. Just Watch the meme develop. If the attached story doesn't have heavy background from Jim Sharp, Bush's private lawyer in the Plame situation, then I will eat my hat. Oh, and lookie what is the lead article on yahoo. Pay attention, sweeties ... it gets gonna get really bumpy from here.

http://news.yahoo.com/

[SteveMG]

One former administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing political strategy, said rebutting Wilson and other critics was an obsession of Cheney, Libby and

Gee, imagine that.

People are accused in the pages of the leading newspapers in the nation and on major network news of lying in order to send the country into war and they get "obsessed" with refuting the charges.

They should have just allowed the press - the Matthews, the Judis's, the Kristoffs - to correct the record on the allegations.

SMG

[holycow]

Oh, btw - more proof, sweeties. Read the opening paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

[Kate]

The AP is purposely misleading in the headline, as usual. The "leak" they refer to was the declassified material in the NIE. Bush wanted it out and he left it to Cheney to best plan how to get the material out in the most effective manner to counter the critics and liars. The media conduct is disgraceful. The actual story is not as bad as the headline, though.

[Rick Ballard]

Kate,

One has to imagine a target letter from the DoJ in the in basket to understand the 'leak' aspect.

Somebody at the DoJ or a recipient of such a target letter is responding.

Of course this is just "Wouldn't it be loverly" conjecture, so we must see how it plays out.

[Jim E.]

Dear Katie,

Read my comment with TM's title to this post in mind. The "resign" comment was just a little good-natured ribbing on my part.

BTW, you're about due to remark how you're just starting to realize that Fitz is a partisan hack not to be trusted. So let's hear about your revelation again for the sixth or seventh time since October. C'mon, don't let us down!

[Kate]

Jim E., you kidder, you. Happy to hear you don't want Bush to resign. I also think you're being too harsh on ole Fitz. You do agree, he did start out as a kinda nice guy.

[SteveMG]

Jim E.:
So let's hear about your revelation again for the sixth or seventh time since October. C'mon, don't let us down!

Yesterday you were telling folks what shouldn't be posted at this site.

Now you're insisting on telling folks what they should post at this site.

Why not start your own blog, Jim, one "where the women are strong, the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

Really though, a little more twinkle in the eye and a little less hectoring would be greatly welcome.

And it works too.

SMG

[Jim E.]

"I also think you're being too harsh on ole Fitz."

Even in jest, Kate totally misreads my post. (The anti-Fitz sentiments are yours, not mine.) Wow, 2 for 2 in the reading incomprehension department.

[Jim E.]

Steve,
Now *you're* the one insisting on telling folks what they should post at this site.

wink wink happy-face :) :) **grin** ha ha JK JK

[boris]

I think starting your own blog would be a great idea!

PS Kate's sense of humor is actually better.

[Kate]

Jim E. I guess I must be projecting. Since you've only criticized me about, oh, a dozen times for my sincere opinion of Fitzgerald I've now determined that since I'm not permitted my opinion, I'll just attribute them to you. I don't believe you'll criticize yourself.

[Jim E.]

TM wrote: "This story is based on an excerpt of grand jury testimony from I. Lewis Libby, who has been indicted for perjury and seems to be preparing a faulty memory defense. Mr. Yost ought to similarly caution his many readers that maybe, just maybe, Libby's version incomplete version should be taken with a grain of salt."

I agree that Libby's statements need to be scrutinized given his perjurious and/or poor memory ways. But in defense of Yost, the White House has had several days to respond to this disclosure and while the White House refuses to comment on the investigation (their reliable stand-by), the totality of its response has been to generally validate Libby's story. I am not aware of a single statement from the adminstration that tries to walk reporters away from Libby's account. So if the White House won't do it, why should Yost?

[Jim E.]

Kate,
I believe your opinion of Fitz (not liking or trusting him) is sincere. But I don't for a second believe that he's continually falling out of favor with you. So in that sense, I find you continually insincere.

[topsecretk9]

(their reliable stand-by)

If a deviation occurs, would that be considered "pushing back" and subsequently illegal in the eyes of, not necessarily you, but the left?

[SteveMG]

Now *you're* the one insisting on telling folks what they should post at this site.

Not so, since it's not my blog I would be really foolish to tell people what to post. Or what not to post. I can't enforce my rule so any admonishment from me is meaningless.

Why try?

I can only offer suggestions.

Such as:

One can be an asshole in life and enjoy the fruits of those labors.

Or take another route where, in my experience, the fruit is not so bitter.

I know, I know, this is simply a place where we pontificate on issues far beyond our powers to influence. Or at least my power.

Still it won't hurt to fake it at least.

Okay, no more Miss Manners from me.

SMG

[kim]

Uh, you hear a lot of statements from the administration trying to walk reporters to or from any aspect of this business, lately?
===========================

[Jim E.]

One person's "admonishment" is another's "suggestion," I guess.

[Jim E.]

And vice-versa.

[SteveMG]

Uh, you hear a lot of statements from the administration trying to walk reporters to or from any aspect of this business, lately?

Boy, that's a good observation. The public diplomacy/relations of this administration has been dreadful from day one. And the new chief of staff has just been handed a big new steaming plateful of not so appetizing food.

Jay Rosen has argued that the policy of the W.H. has been to starve the mainstream press - as opposed to the Dick Morris idea of feeding the press with daily stories - and use alternative media to get their message out. That might work when they are on the offensive but it's a poor approach when allegations of scandal or wrongdoing emerge.

These past two years have just been bad stories after bad stories after bad stories slowly draining away Bush's authority. He can't handle many more of this.

He's a lameduck even if the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate.

SMG

[Jim E.]

TS9,
Missed your question there. In this specific case, if Libby is lying, that means Libby unilaterally sought to distribute classified information to reporters AND wrongly included Cheney and Bush as cover for his actions.

In that case, I would hardly expect the White House to validate, in general terms, (as they sort of have done for the past few days) what Libby did. Why would they?

[ghostcat]

Steve -

Remember, Bush is Jacksonian. You might want to review Old Hickory's tactics during the Battle of New Orleans.

[PeterUK]

Pete Yost at Antagonistic Press,they who hire camera men to film hits,does a piece of political mud slinging and Jim E has an orgasm.
Sorry Jim E ,Yost is a journalist working for an organisation which has been pumping negative spin from day one,and lets face it his analysis is no better than anyone elses.
It ain't real,it's journalism.

[JM Hanes]

Jim E

"So in that sense, I find you continually insincere."

A opinion you've been flourishing with tedious regularity ever since you first voiced it, what, a couple of months ago? While you may get some bizarre satisfaction from continually dipping Kate's pigtails in the inkwell, she's just not the only one you're annoying any more. Take the hint.

[PeterUK]

BTW It migh haver already be mentioned,but abu Ayman has been capture,"Abu Ayman, the former aide to the Chief of Staff of Intelligence during the Saddam Hussein regime, was the leader of the Secret Islamic Army in the Northern Babil Province. Abu Ayman has strong ties to terror leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, still considered the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq" courtesy Bill Roggio,via Belmont.
You mean it wasn't a lie about Saddam's connection to al Qaeda?
Good Lord what else were they telling the truth about?

[clarice]

I love fedora, a poster at FR who posted this. Some of you might be aware of these details--I wasn't:
What I find interesting is the chronological context of the CIA's request for a DOJ investigation of the Plame leak in relation to other investigation requests related to the broader Wilson/Niger affair. For instance, shortly after Wilson's NYT op-ed appeared in July 2003 a petition to Congress for an investigation into the Niger forgeries was made simultaneously by Dennis Kucinich (the head of the Congresional antiwar lobby that sent Jim McDermott to Bagdhad in September 2002) and Carl Levin (who on January 29, 2003 had asked CIA for details on what the US intelligence community knew about the Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa mentioned in President Bush’s January 28 State of the Union address; Levin and Joseph Wilson appeared together with the French and German ambassadors on Nightline about a month after this; Levin likewise--through prearrangement with the producer--followed up Wilson's appearance on Meet the Press with Andrea Mitchell the day after Wilson's NYT op-ed). While Levin was addressing the Senate on this on July 15, 2003, Kucinich held a press conference with VIPS’ Ray McGovern and retired Australian intelligence agent Andrew Willkie. The next day Wilson’s Nation friend David Corn accused the Bush administration of leaking Plame’s name to Novak, a charge echoed July 17 by TIME reporter Matthew Cooper. Tenet's request for a DOJ investigation came to fruition two months after this.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611430/posts?page=60#60

[JM Hanes]

Clarice

And that's as close to a conspiracy as anybody's ever gotten in this whole sorry saga.

[MayBee]

It's a good think Fitz is unaware that his reports get played in the press, or I would consider he lays these tidbits in his documents to get press play.

Fitz: I've got plenty of information to create innuendo, Libby. Challenge me at your own risk.
Press:We can't have a President putting the chill on reporters. Look what we can do with a few lines in a court filing! Imagine what else we can do if you don't lay off us, Bush.
Bush:

[kim]

Where can the process server find you?
======================

[MayBee]

in post above think= thing. Use your imagination to correct grammar.

Fascinating about Levin/Wilson. Perhaps finally a name to the various Dems Wilson claimed he called to correct the story. Also, maybe the man that invited him to the Senate Dem conference where he met Kristof?

[sid]

It just dawned on me just how unscrupulous (bent on hanging someone in WH), or unintelligent Fritz is. (Unless UGO committed perjury or obstruction.) I’ve been curious about why he felt he needed to charge Libby since the presser day. Libby thinks Timmy told him, but it was Cooper about the same day. I just didn’t get it. Then he plays run and hide on whether he was actually investigating a crime at all. Now my recent thoughts:

One must assume the first person to be questioned would be Novak. Novak gives up official one and official two and a CIA spokesperson. One and tow = UGO and Rove? Second set of witnesses would have to be Officials one and two, right? Why doesn’t he ask them the obvious question, “did you discuss this with anyone else”? If he asked UGO that question, and UGO didn’t give up Woodard, we have a crime at least as bad as anything Libby did. If he didn’t want to know if these guys told anyone else, what was the reason to even call Libby to testify whom he did or didn’t tell? Why did he play forty questions with Libby while he just checked with UGO to see if Libby’s story was correct? The more information that comes out, the more this guy looks dirty.

What am I missing here, legal eagles?

[clarice]

Nothing that I can see, sid.JMH, isn't that an interesting chronology? I can vouch for fedroa..he is a meticulous researcher..I've been reading his stuff for about a year, and he is as careful a researcher as I have ever seen.

[topsecretk9]

It's a good thing Fitz is unaware that his reports get played in the press, or I would consider he lays these tidbits in his documents to get press play.

I wonder if this is what Fitz means when he asserts "press reports in the public domain" is how he keeps his supervisor(?) up to snuff on his investigations?

[topsecretk9]

If he didn’t want to know if these guys told anyone else, what was the reason to even call Libby to testify whom he did or didn’t tell? Why did he play forty questions with Libby while he just checked with UGO to see if Libby’s story was correct?

Good question Sid, how did Libby obstruct Fitz from asking UGO if he's spoken to anyone other than Novak?...sounds like Fitz threw his own sand.

[clarice]

It would be graqnd if UGO showed some courage, talked about who he told and why and how that nincompoop of a prosecution team never asked him bupkus, wouldn't it? But then we're talking about someone who sat on his ass for a year while Woodward asked him for a waiver so he come out with this ...

[MayBee]

It would be grand, clarice. Ultimately, I fear it would make no difference. The narrative is out there, UGO wasn't part of the new grand consipiracy Fitzgerald supposedly alleges. Libby's lies came directly at the behest of Bush, you know. And that's the real crime.

[sid]

Above I wrote - "to see if Libby’s story was correct?' Should read - "to see if Novak's story is correct."

[kim]

Yeah, MayBee, the meme has so much durability most of those journalists don't even know they're writing falsities.

The flaw in the new information age is in the informables.
==================================

[JM Hanes]

MayBee

"Ultimately, I fear it would make no difference. The narrative is out there...."

That's the most discouraging feature of this saga, among far too many others. And it's not just that the narrative is fixed. Reading recent threads, it's deja vu all over again. The narrative is virtually impervious to change, despite anything -- and everything -- to the contrary we've learned in what are now the intervening years.

[clarice]

Well, when it all comes out we can amuse ourselves with variants of the St Crispian speech--

Here's something from US News to keep us on our toes, Commander Kerry is back in the battle:
"Kerry Greases the Skids for 2008

If the path to the White House is paved with money and political favors, then 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry is on the fast track to repeat in 2008. We hear that his political action committee, Keeping America's Promise, will soon report raising $1.1 million from 11,000 donors in the past three months. And Kerry will reveal that he gave over 60 percent of that to Democratic congressional candidates. "He's become the fundraiser in chief, and it gets him back in the game to become commander in chief next time around," says an associate who's helping on Kerry's '08 campaign."

[MayBee]

Case in http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/9/113521/9014>point.

[MayBee]

Warning for Larry: dkos link above.

[JM Hanes]

MayBee:
You can't beat Kosland for utterly unembarassed propaganda, can you?

Clarice:
We should all take a little personal time to indulge in contemplating the prospect of a Democratic primary with H.Clinton, A.Gore & J.Kerry debating foreign policy. Who else? And are there any among us who think they'll run against the actual Republican candidate, as opposed to, say continuing to run against Bush?

[MayBee]

Biden is running.
He would actually do well in a foreign policy debate...if they would allow him an hour to answer the question.

[JM Hanes]

I used to be something of a Biden fan till I started seeing him in congressional hearings. Ouch.

[clarice]

jmh..I am so busy.Sending McKinney "You go , girl" emails;"Keep fighting for your granchildren, Al. Do not let anyone talk you out of running", and "report for duty one more time, John. We need you. And, and BTW which hadith is it,baby?"

[larwyn]

CNN'S Woooof! has now replayed his "EXCLUSIVE" interview
with Kerry three days running. It was centerpiece of his "Last
Word" show this morning.
Oliver North's {Kerry's} Recipe for Disaster
...... Now, the Democrat defeatist has published his formula for victory in Iraq: just quit....

......In a 600-word screed published this week by the New York Times, Mr. Kerry lays out his vision for the future. Unfortunately, like so much else in the Massachusetts liberal's political life, it is full of flim-flam, half-truths, distortions and outright falsehoods...

And this:

MARTIN PERETZ: "Kerry asserted that 'the Koran, the Torah, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles had influenced a social conscience that he exercised in politics.' My God, what bullshit politicians feel obliged to utter! Or maybe the bullshit is already second nature, or even first. But since Kerry raised it, let me ask: What hadith of the Prophet influenced him the most, and why?"posted at 01:35 PM by Glenn Reynolds

Thought these should be part of the thread.

Biden was on with Maher Friday. It was very obvious that the normal vulgarity, obsenities and disgusting jokes were not up to normal. Biden's people surely didnt want video of Biden laughing at same for his opponents.

[Larry]

holycow | April 08, 2006 at 04:57 PM
"...then I will eat my hat."

You want fries with that?