Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Inhumane Israel


From 2003:

Claim that Border Police officer forces man from 'Attil to commit sexual act with a donkey, June 2003



Could you imagine the outcry if anything like this was done in the US, or in any western nation other than Israel for that matter? It would be an international incident.

And there is no claim of rock throwing here, or any other premise to justify this type of treatment. Just spiteful acts of dehumanizing degradation.

And when the response comes in the form of violence, a response from the US is demanded.

It was slightly after midday. Suddenly a Border Police jeep pulled up next to [an illegal immigrant in Israel]. `Where are you going?` Abu Ali was asked, and he replied, `To buy a chicken.` The Border Police checked the items the donkey was carrying and then examined Abu Ali`s papers. A shabah [illegal]. Bingo.

With the animal`s reins they tied Abu Ali`s hands behind his back and made him lie on his stomach on the ground, face down. The Border Police like to `punish` the shabahim they catch. Abu Ali relates that they placed a cinderblock on his back and then whipped the donkey to make it walk. Abu Ali`s donkey is old and stubborn, or maybe he only obeys his master--whatever the case, it refused to budge. Abu Ali says he also pulled with his bound hands, so the donkey would not move. It is not difficult to guess what would have happened if the donkey had panicked and started to gallop, with Abu Ali lying face down, hands tied behind his back to the animal. At one point one of the Border Policemen also stood on Abu Ali`s back, one foot on him and one foot on the cinderblock, to put pressure on him.

The abuse went on for about a quarter of an hour, Abu Ali says. Finally the Israeli troops gave up tryi ng to make the stubborn donkey move and ordered Abu Ali to get up. They spoke Arabic. Abu Ali says that one of them covered his eyes with his hands and another struck him once in the face with a stone. He still has a scar on the right side, below his lip. They threatened him, saying that `if he wandered around here again, he would be killed.` They then sent him on his way. Abu Ali did not file a complaint with the Police Investigations Department. He wanted to complain to the Palestinian police and have them pass on the complaint, but was dissuaded from doing so by the policeman in his village, who told him, `People are getting killed here, so be thankful that you`re alive and healthy.`

It didn't take long for the oppressed to become the oppressors did it.

Gideon Levy

Let's You and Him Fight

Israeli brashness puts American money and lives at risk.

EFRAT, West Bank (Reuters) - Jewish settlers set up 13 makeshift outposts in the occupied
West Bank on Tuesday in a show of strength ahead of Israeli elections that could swing on the growing debate over the territory.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has vowed to keep major West Bank settlements but has said that some isolated communities may one day have to be dismantled as a way of ending decades of conflict with the Palestinians.

Jewish ultranationalists, furious at Sharon for pulling troops and settlers from the
Gaza Strip this year, stake a biblical claim to the land
Israel captured in the 1967 war. Palestinians want all of the West Bank and Gaza for a state.

On a hilltop south of Jerusalem, young settlers in knitted skullcaps hammered up wooden frames for buildings.

"The land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel and we are not going to give it up," said Yehuda Matar, 17, from the Efrat settlement, its red roofs visible in the distance.

An Israeli military source said the army was treating the action as a protest of tent encampments and that the settlers had said they would eventually leave, but would be evacuated if they did not.

Anyone want to place some bets as to whether they will leave?


Friday, December 23, 2005

Gore Vidal on Early Zionist Influence of American Politics

The history of Zionist money influencing American politics goes way back, according to Gore Vidal.

Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.


Chalabi's Stock Down

The thought of Chalabi complaining about fraud is amusing isn't it.

WASHINGTON - Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi appears to have suffered a humiliating defeat at the recent Iraq polls, according to the uncertified preliminary results.


The election results in Iraq may present Chalabi’s ardent U.S. supporters with a quandary: Chalabi, as well as other losing candidates, is alleging fraud in the election, even though the Bush administration hailed the vote as a historic step for democracy in Iraq.

Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) was not part of the coalition, but 35 political groups on Thursday issued a joint statement threatening to boycott Iraq’s new legislature if complaints about tainted voting are not reviewed by an international body.


Israel Wants Stronger Statements From Ireland

These type of demands from Israel seem very unreasonable to me. Ireland is supporting Israel's right to exist. They are just not backing the Zionist party line, but why should they be required to?

Irish Zionist Slur Blasted by Israel
From: Jewish Telegraph

IRELAND sparked a diplomatic outcry last night by refusing to back Jewish rights to a homeland.[Oh really?]

An aide to Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern told the Jewish Telegraph that Zionism was a religious issue and refused to take a position on "an Old Testament mandate".

The Israeli government hit back, comparing the Republic to the hardline Iranian regime.

"I am very sorry that Ireland takes this position because in doing that they support [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," blasted a senior aide to premier Ariel Sharon. [This is a preposterous comparision not worthy of a response.]

Last month Ahmadinejad told a "World without Zionism" conference that Israel should be "wiped off the map".

We are lifting the lid on these explosive comments after Mr Ahern refused to go on the record to denounce claims by former Irish minister Justin Keating that Jews have mounted a "self-serving and untruthful Zionist myth" to lay claim to Israel.

John Kennedy, a foreign policy adviser to Mr Ahern, said the Republic would recognise Israel only in its modern form and would not comment on any historical claims on the land. [And what is wrong with this?]


Indicted Former Employees Consider Suing AIPAC

This will help keep this issue in the news next year.

Indicted Officials Consider Suing Pro-Israel Lobby
Bad Blood Spills Over In Aipac Spy Scandal

WASHINGTON — Two former employees of the nation's main pro-Israel lobby, who are facing trial for allegedly receiving classified information and relaying it to foreign diplomats and the press, are considering lawsuits against the lobbying powerhouse.

Steve Rosen, former director of foreign policy at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Keith Weissman, Aipac's former Iran analyst, are considering suing Aipac over its stopping payments of legal fees to their attorneys, sources close to the two said. They are also considering a defamation suit against Aipac, if they are exonerated, for accusing them of unbecoming conduct.

Indications that Rosen and Weissman were preparing to sue Aipac have caused the collapse of negotiations between their attorneys and Aipac's attorneys over the lobby's coverage of the two men's legal fees, sources close to both sides said.

To the dismay of many Aipac members and supporters, relations between Aipac's leadership and its two former employees have deteriorated sharply in recent months, to the point of bitter exchanges of accusations and threats of legal action.

The hostility between the two dismissed officials and Aipac's leadership is expected to peak at the two men's trial, scheduled to start in late April 2006. Defense attorneys will try to establish that the men were following the organization's routine practice and that Aipac's top officials were fully aware of their actions. "The evidence in this case will show that Dr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman always acted in Aipac's interests, never were on their own and acted with the knowledge and approval of their superiors," Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told the Forward.


The defense's intention to bring Aipac into the courtroom — both physically and figuratively — is causing concern and resentment within the organization, sources close to Aipac said. Rosen and Weissman, said one former Aipac employee with connections to the organization's current leadership, are perceived as acting "like Samson, trying to bring the house down on everybody." Rosen and Weissman, on the other hand, in conversations with confidants in recent months, have been fiercely critical of Aipac's leadership for withdrawing moral support for the two, for accusing them of wrongdoing and for suspending payment of lawyers' fees.

I am very suprised AIPAC has stopped paying the lawyers fees. Their only response is to point the finger back at AIPAC. If there are any skeltons in the closet these two will know about them.


Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Fact Check

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

Democrats Not Very Effective

Like him or not, Pat Buchanan continues to provide the best commentary on the politics of Iraq. The Democrats have shown themselves to be inept on Iraq.

Their only hope is to watch and hope that Iraq does not succeed. This is not a strong position to politic from. Nor do they seem to be able to make hay with the wire tapping issue.

Democrats need to argue that Iraq was not a very efficient or effective way of making America safe and that they have an alternative plan for doing so. They don't seem capable of either.

Men who believe in something, even if wrong, will triumph over those who believe in nothing. That is the lesson of the Bush recovery of the past four weeks.

From August, when Cindy Sheehan set up Camp Casey to bedevil his vacation in Crawford – which was cut short by Katrina and then the New Orleans debacle – to November, George W. Bush seemed a man at sea.


But Bush has one advantage over his adversaries. He believes in the war and has the courage of his convictions. Unlike most of the anti-war politicians and demonstrators, he does not go limp when the nightsticking starts. His defiance calls to mind Lincoln's:

I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference.

Bush's strength is that he has made his peace with the idea that his presidency stands or falls with Iraq.

Thus, he set out in four speeches to defend his war policy, rally the nation, and characterize his opposition as trumpeters of retreat and defeat. By the Thursday of the Iraqi election, he had reduced them to squabbling and acrimonious incoherence.

Friday morning, to undermine the heartening headlines out of Iraq on the successful election, the New York Times plastered on its front page a story it had been holding for a year: that President Bush had authorized secret eavesdropping by the National Security Agency of telephone calls from U.S. citizens to terrorist suspects abroad.


President Bush said: Yes, I authorized the eavesdropping – to protect America in a time of war. I have the authority to do it. I vetted it with Justice. I informed Congress half a dozen times. And those who leaked and who published this state secret destroyed a crucial program, damaged our national security, aided our terrorist enemies and are lacking in patriotism, if they are not engaging in treason.

The president's political adversaries, save a handful, headed for the tall grass. That left the challenge to his authority to the press. On Monday, Bush used that White House press corps as a foil to repeat his charge that the Times and its leaker-collaborators were engaged in "shameful" misconduct that would almost certainly be investigated by the Department Of Justice.

In his Sunday night address, carried by all three networks and all the cable news networks, President Bush altered his demeanor entirely. He made a reasoned and compelling case for why those who opposed the war, and those who disagree with his policy and war leadership, should yet stand by him.

Some Americans, he said, "conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders don't believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifices, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it."

Is he not right?

And if our soldiers in the field believe in and wish to fight on in this cause unto victory, upon what ground do we stand to declare them defeated and to deny them that right?

"I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq," the president said. "I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country – victory or defeat."

Is he not right?

President Bush also warned that too rapid a U.S. withdrawal risks a U.S. defeat that would abandon our Iraqi friends to untold horrors, signal a lack of American resolve, undermine the morale of our armed forces, and embolden our enemies across the Middle East and terrorists worldwide.

Again, does he not have a point?

For students of the Oval Office, these last four weeks are an object lesson in how an embattled president who believes in the righteousness of his cause and is willing to put his office on the line can always, especially on an issue of war or national security, rout an adversary, even one with the backing of the national press.

The president has just bought himself another six months to a year to win this.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Name Changes

Israel Shamir is locked up in a little controversy discussed here

His reponse has some interesting information:

De Haas makes a lot of mileage out of old hat, that I supposedly do not live in the Holy Land but in Sweden, and that my name is something else. This silly stuff was first published by the ADL-financed Expo website, whose ties with Israeli intelligence were made public. Then it was republished by its sister publication of Searchlight, which proudly describes itself as a `Jewish antifascist magazine'. Somehow this nonsense never made it to Israel. There, the right-wing, extremely nationalist daily Maariv recently published a five-full-pages-long expose of my modest self, which included interviews with my elderly mother, a prominent member of an Israeli nationalist party, and everybody who had ever met me. But even this hostile article did not lower itself to publish such obvious nonsense. In my home in Israel, I receive visitors daily, including those from the Netherlands; I feel comfortable enough, and if I am to be tried for my betrayal of the Jewish cause, for my belief in equality of Jew and goy, I'd rather be tried in Israel than in once-Christian Europe.

As for the names I supposedly use, I shall quote the Talmud, which I know better than de Haas: "R. Joseph b. Judah was known as Joseph of Huzal and as Issi b. Gur Aryeh and as Issi b. Gamaliel and as Issi b. Mehalalel. What was his real name? Issi b. Akabia" (Pesachim 113b) Likewise, I may be known as Samir in Jordan, or Irmas in Sweden, or Mirosami in Japan, or Smirnov in Russia, and even as Jersma in the Netherlands, while my real name is Israel Adam Shamir; it is quite irrelevant; as irrelevant as the `real name' of Leon Trotsky (Bernstein) or of Ariel Sharon (Schneidman) or of Andre Maurois (Wilhelm Herzog) or of Salman Rushdie when he was in hiding in Bienfait, Saskatchewan, living under an assumed name. Usually such a discussion is not considered comme il faut, especially referring to Israel, where even an ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps an American passport on another name. But apparently this game is crooked, and what is forbidden to one side, is permitted to the opponent.


Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Realism vs. Fantasy

Say what you will about Pat Buchanan, but he knows history. And he has hit a home run in today's column which deals with realism vs idealism in international politics.

President Nixon reacted immediately, sending massive aid to Israel and warning Moscow not to intervene, as Ariel Sharon led his brigade across the canal to cut off food and water to Egypt's Third Army on the east bank. Nixon and Kissinger intervened with Israel to prevent the annihilation of the Third Army.

In 1974, Nixon made a triumphal visit to Egypt. Four years later, Jimmy Carter brokered the Camp David accord between Menachem Begin, who had blown up the King David Hotel in 1946, and Sadat, the Nazi collaborator. Begin, Sadat and Carter would all win the Nobel Prize for Peace for Camp David.

Nixon's Middle East policy was designed to secure U.S. vital interests in the region, which required restoration of ties to an Egypt led by a military dictator and ex-Nazi sympathizer. Neither Nixon nor Carter insisted that Sadat hold elections before brokering the truce with Israel or the permanent peace. They did not let the best become the enemy of the good.

Nor did the Israelis make such a demand. Indeed, in Israel in June 1967 with Nixon, I heard David Ben-Gurion himself express the hope that Nasser would survive his humiliation in the Six-Day War because, said Ben-Gurion, Nasser alone could conclude a peace with Israel that Arabs might accept. Ben-Gurion did not believe you needed to democratize Egypt before you made peace with Egypt.


So it goes. We hail the fall of Czar Nicholas and get Lenin. We go to war to hang the Prussian Kaiser and get an Austrian corporal named Hitler. We cut off aid to the "corrupt" regime of Chiang Kai-shek and get Mao Zedong. We denounce Lon Nol and get Pol Pot. We destabilize the shah and get the ayatollah.

How many times must we relearn the lesson? The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the fruits of Wilsonian idealism are rarely ideal.

In most cases the US remains a political realist. We are dealing rationally with China and North Korea. Somehow we have lost this ability when it comes to the Middle East. This is clearly due to some influential people who are too emotionally involved in the Middle East conflict.


The point is really that not only does a realist foreign policy reduce the burden on the US, but it is also more effective in obtaining security for Israel and the US. This is a win-win that the nutty neocons are unwilling to acknowledge.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Jewish Century

Commentary on the Yuri Slezkine bool The Jewish Century.

Slezkine's attitude toward the Soviet Union is ambivalent at best. He dedicates The Jewish Century to his grandmother, who was imprisoned under the czar, immigrated to Argentina, returned to Russia in 1931 to help build socialism and in her old age, he says, "considered most of her life to have been a mistake." Plainly, a latter-day Bolshevik he is not. But while he regards the Soviet experiment as a failure, he believes "the Jewish century" presented the Jews with a series of choices, none of them completely satisfactory. They could lose themselves in the Mercurian transformation of imperial Russia. They could immigrate to the United States, a country founded by Protestant Mercurians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and take their place alongside all the other Mercurianized immigrant groups as part of a general celebration of American "diversity" and "ethnicity" (however bogus those terms may be). Or they could turn Zionist, move to Palestine and become tillers of the soil, Apollonian peasant warriors in a world struggling to leave all that behind.

The first choice led to a dead end when Stalin's neo-Apollonian Russification policy led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism. The second has led to Bush, while the third has led to permanent warfare in an ethno-chauvinist state that Slezkine describes as "the sole Western survivor (along with Turkey, perhaps) of the integral nationalism of interwar Europe." The very concept of a Jewish state, he adds, is the contemporary equivalent "of such politically illegitimate concepts as 'Germany for the Germans' and 'Greater Serbia,'" while "the rhetoric of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic deportations, tabooed elsewhere in the West, is a routine element of Israeli political life." American and Israeli Jews should not automatically assume that their choice was the right one.


As one might expect, Sachar ends his book with a tribute to Israel, whose military prowess, he says, has led to a net improvement in conditions for Diaspora Jews from Western Europe to Argentina. This may indeed be the case, although, as he also admits, the situation has hardly been as clear-cut for Jews in the Muslim world and the former Soviet bloc, where Israel's role may have been to their net detriment. But conditions have changed since the 1950s and '60s, when Israel was seen as a model social-democratic state, filled with sunburned kibbutzniks and Soviet-style pioneer youth. As Palestinian resistance has stiffened, Diaspora Jews have found their fortunes tied to a heavily militarized right-wing state whose ethnic policies are increasingly reminiscent of interwar Poland or Romania. If Jews benefited from the good will shown toward Israel before the 1967 war, the question is whether they will suffer from growing revulsion felt for it afterward. Anti-Semitism is the anti-Zionism of fools, but there are a lot of fools in the world, and all too many of them are falling into it already. It is morally catastrophic that a people who once allied with the most advanced, democratic currents in the world should now find themselves in bed with the most backward, e.g., all those "Christian Zionists" running around in Bush's America. Remarkably, the Jewish question is no closer to resolution at the start of the twenty-first century than it was at the start of the twentieth.

While this is a fine analysis, it doesn't look at the other side. It doesn't look at who have been forced to fight to preserve the existence of this state without really understanding what they are doing or why they are doing it.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Israel's Assassination Attempt on US Ambassador

This is a claim I was not aware of:

Had Mossad, Israel’s secret intelligence organization, succeeded, it would have been the perfect crime—the crime of the century. The plan was breathtaking in concept: to assassinate the American ambassador to Lebanon, in Lebanon, with American weapons, intended for Israeli’s defense only. Everything about it would point to Lebanon as the culprit.

But fate intervened, and things went wrong. The tires on Ambassador John Gunther Dean’s limousine automatically reinflated when they were shot out in 1979 (see November 2002 Washington Report, p. 15). The light tank shell simply bounced off the car’s armor. And, horror of horrors, Lebanese intelligence had retrieved the empty shell casing on which was written, “Made in the United States of America.”

If anyone has more information to confirm or dispute this I would be interested in seeing it.


Syria Responds

Looks like the Syria story is starting to spring leaks.

DAMASCUS, Syria, Dec. 6 - The United Nations investigation into the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, is beginning to show some cracks: one witness is dead, another is in jail and still another has recanted his testimony with a fantastic story of abduction, drugging and bribery.


And more troubling news seems to be on the way, as Mr. Mehlis prepares to make his final presentation to the Security Council by Dec. 15. Two people who work for a Syrian government agency said Tuesday that another witness would soon recant his testimony, claiming he was bribed with half a million dollars by Lebanese officials to level charges against Syrian officials.

What is amazing is how they try the same playbook everytime.


The Newpaper of Record

This story about Judith Miller hardy give little confidence in the (supposed) newspaper of record.

In a lengthy feature piece on this autumn's Judith Miller saga forthcoming in the January issue of Vanity Fair (on sale Dec. 13), writer Seth Mnookin covers much familiar ground but also reveals new details and complaints from the reporter's colleagues at The New York Times. Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. also gets a good working-over from unnamed in-house critics.


Mnookin describes step-by-step how the reporters, including Don Van Natta, Clifford Levy, Adam Liptak and Janny Scott, were picked to write that October piece and how Miller often failed to cooperate fully with them. Miller allegedly refused to talk to Scott because she had not bothered to write to her in jail. She complained about Adam Liptak's coverage of her release from jail.


Elsewhere, Mnookin pulls no punches in alleging that over the years Miller "had built a reputation for sleeping with her sources," and "had dated Steve Rattner, one of Sulzberger's best friends when the three of them worked at the Times' Washington bureau, and had even, for a time, shared a vacation home with Sulzberger."

Tell me how the editor can be objective with his reporters with a relationship like this. How can Judith be objective with her sources?

Editor and Publisher

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Partial Acquittal

I have mixed emotions about the partial aquital of Univeristy of South Florida Prof Sami Al-Arian.

It clearly shows the climate of hysteria promulgated by the neocon crowd is overdone. If we only had a trial like this to examine the evidence before going into Iraq it would have saved lots of lives and money.

The partial acquital also says a lot about America and out commitment to rule of law. It is truly awe inspiring. Given the statements this man has made it would have been very easy for the jury not to give him the full benefit of the doubt to which he is entitled at to have found him guilty on at least some counts.

That said, this is not a person who thinks america is a good place. Perhaps we can't blame him as we support Israel far too much, but is it really such a good thing to have people like this in our country.

Former professor acquitted on some charges of aiding terrorist

Associated Press Writer

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- For more than five months, jurors in the case of a former professor accused of helping lead a Palestinian terrorist group reviewed hundreds of documents, heard from dozens of witnesses and watched videos in which the defendants appeared to speak glowingly of suicide bombers.

But it wasn't enough. Sami Al-Arian was acquitted Tuesday on nearly half the charges against him, and the jury deadlocked on the rest in a stinging defeat for the federal government. His case was seen as one of the biggest courtroom tests yet of the Patriot Act's expanded search-and-surveillance powers.

Al-Arian and three co-defendants were accused of being the communications arm of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, spreading the word and raising money that went toward suicide attacks that have killed hundreds in Israel.

But the jury could not convict any of the four on the charges laid out in a complex, 51-count indictment. Al-Arian was acquitted of eight of the 17 counts against him, including a key charge of conspiring to maim and murder people overseas.

A male juror, whose name was being kept secret by the court, said the case came down to lack of proof: "I didn't see the evidence."