Okay, Michele. Probably a good go. HOWEVER,
I'm once again going to ditto what I said:

Okay folks... This is PROBABLY one of those posts that will generate absolutely ZERO responses, so I'm going to start the ball rolling.

DON - DAN - PASStheGAS - Any other portside pukers care to put some counterclockwise spin on this story?

Didn't think so.

On second thought, can we apply the NonArgumentationProgram spin to this? Were those REAL infants? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Who in the Hell knows what churns in the mind of a liberal when faced with an overwhelming deluge of FACTS?

When stories like this come out, they call it Bush controled propaganda

It simply doesnt compute on their internal computers, to put it one way. If they could process information like this, they would be forced to confront data their ideas, and liberals simply are not used to handling that. Its a common symptom, the body count is irrelevant. Only corpses that can be laid at Americas doorstep are useful to them (and therefore sad and horrifying).

Turnip! come out come out wherever you are!!

Just so that there won't be ZERO responses, and for those who clamor for facts:

From the article: "The truth is that there are people suffering and dying from the embargo..."

Nuff said. What is it, exactly, I'm failing to compute?

But let me continue, in anticipation of certain rebuttals.

Granted, Hussein is a sick SOB and refrigerated dead babies for propaganda. Granted also that he's willing to withold drugs (or at least to deprioritize them) from people who need them. I'm not willing to lay all the blame on Hussein, though-- too much health product and infrastructure that couldn't be produced in Iraq was withheld by sanctions. And the fact is, whatever you think of parading children's bodies, it isn't what kills the children.

In fact this picture of Saddam's abject cruelty makes my point: we already knew it would happen. We knew that only his people would suffer. We (meaning, of course, those who represent us through foreign policy decisions) knew that the sanctions would cost lives, some resulting directly from Hussein's avarice, but a whole lot otherwise.

How do I know? Because our government has a large number of very intelligent analysts who study such matters, and publish reports on them. Ahead of time. Before the decade of sanctions. Predicting massive deaths. For example "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities", only later (and only partially) declassified. Try reading the first few sentences of it.

We knew. We let it go on because we were hoping his people would rise against him. And, granted, to work against WMD development, but there are other ways to do that without the cost of hundreds of thousands of children's lives. How many innocent Iraqi lives are worth on American? A hundred? A thousand?

Anyway, the revelations of this article (which surprised few conservatives, and few informed liberals) are completely moot. And also renders statements like "We had the ability to get all the drugs we needed" moot, because those hundreds of thousands wouldn't NEED drugs were it not for the sanctions.

The issue is not whether Hussein is a bad guy. The issue is whether we continue to leverage bad guys toward our ends, at the cost of suffering on massive scales, as we do with all the other savage dictators whom we still supply the means of their savagery.

Conservative though I may be, I actually agree with Al on most points. Sanctions have two outcome goals. That either the leader will feel sorry for his people, and relent, or that the people will revolt. These were not realistic possibilities, which is why this issue should have been addressed long ago.

However, Al, I'd be interested to know what else you feel would have worked.

Diplomacy. Nope. Clearly not.

Inducements. The only inducement SH was interested in was an atomic bomb. He is quoted in the London arab daily many years ago saying that the only mistake he made in Gulf War 1 was that he didn't wait until he had a nuke before invading Kuwait.

military Threat. Clearly yes.

The guilt for this lies at the feet of the Hussein regime. The guilt, although serious, that we share is from failure to act sooner, nothing more. And in that, the US cannot be held solely responsible.

Thanks for the link, by the way.

Al,
Our friend Don ought to take a lesson from you.

I want to make a point however, and that would be as follows: The article put it this way: "For years, the Iraqi government, some Western officials and a vocal anti-sanctions movement said UN restrictions on Iraqi imports and exports were at fault."

Note the letters UN. After all the duplicity exhibited by that fine organization, I don't think the US has to shoulder the entire burden of guilt here, wouldn't you agree? I think johnymozart is plinking a perfectly tuned piano here.

Johnny-- I agree on all points, except that the guilt can go back yet further, into our prior complicity in Hussein's regime and its abuses, and indeed his invasion of Kuwait (which may have just been our ambassador's mistake in giving them the green light, but I have to wonder).

But that's all in the past, and military threat has been the only option for quite some time, I agree. And I agree that it should have been addressed far earlier. The tail end of Gulf War 1 would've been ideal, but that's beginning to benefit a little too much from hindsight.

There have been plenty of all-in-the-pasts, though, and I hope we can start learning from them eventually. The Baath arty came to power, after all, on the "CIA train" (as their secretary general put it). The cycle of power-brokering isn't going to cut it; we must, as we now have a wonderful opportunity in Iraq, foster the true roots of democracy. And that means forfeiting potential gold mines.

Personally I think that a large part of the problem is in the small pockets of decision-makers that hijack the intentions of truly compassionate conservatives-- supporting dictators and insurgencies that favor US business interests, and such, far more than they favor the spread of real hope for democracy. I think it's something that most liberals don't understand as they (we?) rail endlessly against conservatives. Though some claim that the current situation of conservatism gives the phenomenon too fertile ground, as communism did systemic corruption, and they may have a point.

But that's a whole other worm can.

Dave-- I think UN duplicity is recent; US interests have dominated the security council for many years prior. Note the suspension of all aid to Yemen, the poorest Middle Eastern nation, immediately after it became the lone dissenting vote against Gulf War 1... few countries ignore examples like that. (I think a UN rebellion was overdue, actually, but misplaced on the Iraq issue, which had stronger moral ground was already foregone anyway; some of the Israel/Palestine resolutions would have more appropriate.) So I think the US does bear the burden, as the deciding factor.

Thanks in general, BTW, for cogent discussion (though it may be because we largely agree--). I've read Cmd Post for a while but haven't followed or posted any comments, since getting a pretty sour and silly taste of it long ago in other forums. Must be why I'm now venting at such length.

Al, I have to applaud you for your post. (At the risk of becoming a mutual admiration society) The realization by someone who is a ?liberal? that there is a huge dichotomy in the partisanship in our country. There are those, liberal and conservative, that feel that the biggest problem with american foreign policy is the stunning lack (or perhaps deliberate lack) of realization that we, as freedom loving people, cannot get in bed with these dictators. I believe this is a moral imperative. We are now seeing the results of this in various places. (however, I'm not sure I agree with you about the arming of Iraq. We provided 1-2% of their Gulf War one military capability. Approximately 15-20% (somebody check me) for the Iran-Iraq. The rest came from France and Russia, in various ways.)

I also have issues with us being arms dealer for the world, but that's a similar but LONG issue in and of itself.

However, I refuse to accept that we should shoulder most of this blame. The same people that claim that we shouldn't be policemen for the world want us to bear the responsibility when something goes wrong. The UN is a perfect example (and I think the UN has been more than corrupt since about, oh, two years since its inception. Its just more obvious now.)

Good rant.

AL! Welcome to the (somewhat) real world of Instantsoapbox! I didn't discover blogging until the Jessica Lynch 'episode'. I didn't just read these things, I decided if I had the opportunity to say something that I had an interest in or some knowledge of, here was my chance!
You somehow don't come off (I'm only getting the words here...) as a flaming liberal. I could be wrong.
There's an organization in this country called the John Birch Society. As far as the ship of State goes, I'd call them Starboard pukers. They've been besmirching our 'involvement' in the UN for as long as I've been aware of, or interested in the political open seas. They're MAJOR complaint? This is an organization of yappers. We're paying WAY much (about 25% of the tab) for WAY little. Now, I would have said, those long years ago (what a joke that is!), that the John Birch Society was a joke, if they were going to complain about our involvement in the UN. Just how far off the mark am I with that assessment?
The UN MAY have, early on, expressed the IDEALS upon which this country was founded, but at this point? I'm going to have to side with the right.
The underlying issue here is after all, Human Rights, isn't it? Who sits on that 'Commission' in the UN? How many of them (MORE than a handful) make a mockery of the title?
The anti's pointed and wagged their fingers (on the subject of this thread) and said - "Look at ALL these things that you're forcing the Iraqi people to suffer with YOUR sanctions!".
I'm rambling too, Al, but you've raised some very important points here, and I'm not about to flame you for them.

"We...knew that the sanctions would cost lives, some resulting directly from Hussein's avarice, but a whole lot otherwise."

Hold on a minute. The Iraqi doctors don't see it this way. They say: "We had the ability to get all the drugs we needed...Instead of that, Saddam Hussein spent all the money on his military force and put all the fault on the USA. Yes, of course the sanctions hurt - but not too much, because we are a rich country and we have the ability to get everything we can by money. But instead, he spent it on his palaces."

You seem to contend that the sanctions were partly if not primarily the cause of the deaths of Iraqi children. However, the Iraqi doctors contend that Saddam's economic priorities (favouring a military buildup over the interests of his people) are the cause of childhood deaths.

So I'm not quite sure that the US is primarily to blame for the deaths of Iraqi children, given the evidence of Iraqi doctors who are actually dealing with the problem.

Even if the US relented on sanctions, it's not clear that this would have prevented the deaths of Iraqi children; if Saddam would rather build 50 palaces than cure sick children, why would he choose to cure sick children rather than build another 100 palaces?

None of this will register with the anti-war left, of course. They will keep repeating the logically invalid argument that the US was wrong to liberate Iraq because the US has acted badly in the past.

I have always thought that any argument against sanctions, and against Saddam, was an argument for war.

If he'd been removed in 1991, this wouldn't have been necessary.

Sanctions or no sanctions, the problem was Saddam. Always.

The issue is not whether Hussein is a bad guy. The issue is whether we continue to leverage bad guys toward our ends, at the cost of suffering on massive scales, as we do with all the other savage dictators whom we still supply the means of their savagery.

As for Hussein, we should have finished the job back in '91.

As for other dictators, most aren't as bad, and the strategic situation does not allow us to ignore them. We can't ostracize a huge number of countries without consequences.

I would like to see us take much stronger stances against all the Muslim nations and China. That will mean spending less energy on problems in other countries for a while. It's wrong to pretend that we could pursue a foreign policy that is both completely idealistic and completely successful.

Good responses all.

Johnny-- I may indeed be reflecting some of the contradiction between insisting on responsibility and decrying international policing. I think I can resolve a little of the contradiction by saying that we need to do policing when we need to, and avoid conditions that require it, and we've failed (often) at both. Our responsiblity should be to prevent the necessity of policing.

I'l back off of the US-blame issue; certainly there was plenty of pressure for us not to go in earlier (though if we were going to ignore it, we should've done so in the first place), and we weren't the sole authors of sanctions. Of course none of this matter is as simple as any of us can put it here, and every US action involves the potential pissing-off of friends we may need, or enemies we don't want to inflame. But that respect can only cross the moral imperative so far-- we may not have armed Hussein (I grant) but merely being friendly is bad enough, for a country with such clout.

I'll replace "US has blame" with "US has onus to learn from the mistake," whoever made it. My concern is with the future, not pointing fingers about the past. I'll confine myself to pointing fingers at lessons, which I think is the best way of going about life anyway.

Re: arms sales, right on. Did you know our proliferation has increased heavily since 9/11? Yikes.

Dave-- Of course there is rampant silliness in the UN (esp. human rights), as in most human affairs. The US has felt free to railroad it for its own purposes as much as any other country. And rightly, many would say. I'd say that Birch's assessment (as you put it, I know nothing otherwise) is good but reaction is misplaced: this is not a necessary condition of the UN, and the US, if anyone, can direct it back toward those ideals. But maybe not; I'm not too familiar with the game up there.

Mark-- I think I'll have to admit that I'm saying the doctors are wrong about their own condition. Or at least myopic, orienting on the immediate logistical factors of their jobs and not the long chain of political and infrastructural causality that influences them. I don't think they're talking about the water treatement and sewer systems that we bombed, and then prevented repair of, leading to outbreaks of disease and malnutrition. They're just worried about treating the disease, which, truly, Hussein prevented.

Re: palaces, remember that sanctions apply to all business, and Hussein doesn't oversee the purchase of every drug and pipe valve. These were things that cannot be produced within Iraq, ad perfectly well-meaning businessmen were prevented from moving them into the country by the sanctions. The UN took possession of what would hav been imported and used. Hussein might have tried to stop it, but he'd have failed-- it took nothing less than an internationally organized effort.

Put another way-- we knowingly put Hussein into a position to be successful in his oppression, and hence be at fault, and he was, as the doctors say. That doesn't mean we couldn't have prevented it. I have a distaste for that way of doing things.

I seem to agree with others that after '91 we had to get Saddam, and we should've done it then. On the other hand I think we could have avoided the problem earlier.

I'd respond to other stuff but need to avoid last-word-ism, since I'm off for the day. Thanks all.

I believe the Jist of the article is that saddam didn't give a damn about human life, he used the money for his own goals, and then used the children he starved to make media stories, stories that our media used to make the USA look bad. Now, we know that we aren't the bad guys, we are just made to look that way.

And Al, your wrong, there were no sanctions against buying or building common infrastructure components, read the UN resolution

Hindsight seems to be the best way for making decisions on what you should’ve, could’ve or would’ve done. Looking back, you can say we are guilty of children dying because we supported Saddam in the 70’s and 80’s. We’re guilty because we “armed” Saddam and allowed him to invade Kuwait. We’re guilty of Saddam gassing the Kurds and massacring the Shites because we didn’t finish him in Desert Storm.

The key here is the one person who is overlooked or given slack for what has happened, SADDAM. We did not make Saddam the person he is/was, an evil sadistic killer. He did that by himself with some help from his Baath party friends. This seems to be glossed over or overlooked when the media and others go to place any blame. Makes it easier for the US to face the brunt of it.

In hindsight, Saddam could’ve been a benevolent leader. He should’ve developed his nation and helped his people with the country’s oil wealth. He should’ve improved the country’s infrastructure. He shouldn’t have had expansionist ideas. He should’ve treated his people fairly. If he had done this, the children wouldn’t have died and there wouldn’t have been three gulf wars.

Let’s place the majority of the blame where it belongs.

Calvin said:
// In hindsight, Saddam could’ve been a benevolent leader. He should’ve developed his nation and helped his people with the country’s oil wealth. He should’ve improved the country’s infrastructure. He shouldn’t have had expansionist ideas. He should’ve treated his people fairly //

This is a question for anyone out there? To Dave - No, I don't know the answer. :)

Which islamic countries have succeeded, to what extent have the accomplished this and why and how where they able to accomplish this?

Define success?

TBox asked:
\\ Define success? \\

Is there an islamic country that is taking significant steps in developing into a free society?

For instance, Turkey in the early 1900's took specific steps to steer itself toward a secular life based on science as opposed to religion.

Kuwait seems to be moving that direction.

I live in San Francisco and for years, I mean years, every time there was some kind of anti-war protest (Haiti, Bosnia, Kosova, Iraq 1998) or presidential visit, an element of the protestors would drag out the "sanctions kills babies" canard. I mean EVERY protest. And, interestingly enough, the ringleaders were always the same Stalinists who brought you International ANSWER.

As we find out more, it becomes increasingly obvious that sanctions could never "work" in Iraq because the money from the food-for-oil program was diverted from it's real purposes (humanitarian) to Saddam's purposes (self-aggrandizement and military). This was actually obvious a decade ago. But the left, and not just the far left, WANTED to believe Iraq's propaganda because they WANT to believe that America is the root of evil in the world.

Now we find out the truth. Will these fools recant their beliefs? No chance.

R. McLeod - This is a leap here, but - I'm goin' to do it.

That's plasterin' anyone with a portside lean with a pretty broad mop if you want say that they call America 'evil', or have evil intentions.

Could it be that they are lazy? They may get out the protest, but to call that 'evil' is a bit much, don't you think?

R. McLeod said:
// But the left, and not just the far left, WANTED to believe Iraq's propaganda because they WANT to believe that America is the root of evil in the world. //

In my opinion, this statement isn't true. Alot of the anti-left comments on this blog are distortions, exaggerations and comments that describe a caricature of liberal and/or left views. Caricatures like sound bites on their own cannot convey the true meaning that stand behind them.

I love this country. I grew up in a Democratic family and believe in many of its core beliefs. I recognize that the terms liberal and left has sucessfully been demonized, so much so that many of its SIGNIFICANT contributions to the advancement of our society have been forgotten.

I also recognize that in an attempt to keep an adequate base, Democrats have sacrificed some of their principles. Those sacrifices are unfortunate for the US and has exposed Democrats to justified attack. I certainly don't agree with many of the positions taken in the past Democratic Party. But I'm not sure that it justifies "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." I will not support a Democratic or liberal position that doesn't make sense just because I consider myself a Democrat.

Many so-called liberals spout off 'liberal' ideas without much knowledge about the roots of those ideas.

I certainly don't think that the US is the source of all evil in the world. If you ask most liberals in a non-emotional debate, I doubt that most of them would agree with your statement.

The liberal attitude towards America's foreign policy in the world is that we need to do the best we can to assure that we are standing on high moral ground. The decisions we take in regards to foreign policy are made by individuals with differing motivations. To assume that everyone in Washington is motivated by service to mankind is naive. Two individuals who stand united behind a policy can do so with totally different motivations (eg. service vs. greed).

Liberals can and should question our policy and the motivations behind our foreign policy. When for instance, companies are given huge contracts without bidding, we should question the process. When friends of the President are given huge contracts without bidding, we should question the process.

Yes, liberal motivations are not always related to service. They to can be self-serving, greedy, short-sighted etc... but these behaviors are human, not liberal.

Please consider that I have presented these ideas for discussion.

'Evil Ignorance', maybe??

It's obvious the sanctions had no effect except to feed Sodom's propaganda machine. It's obvious they could get anything they wanted. Mercedes Benz, stadiums, etc........I'm sure Sodom had good imported water to drink. He surely wouldn't let tainted water flow through his 'golden' toilet. With all the wealth stashes we're finding, it makes you wonder how much they actually got out of there during the 12 years they had to prepare. We can thank our 'slightly portside leaning' media for cramming Sodom's propaganda down our throats and inciting anger amongst their whining followers.

Anthony.....I think the reason democrats have lost so much popularity is because they have been exposed on a large scale. We've known about them all along. They want the US to be a socialist/communist society. That is the bottom line.

They are pros at propaganda and have controlled most of the media. Their ideas and beliefs do not hold water, so they resort to any tactic necessary to push their beliefs on the rest of us. College students and' trust fund' people are their easy targets.

Margaret Thatcher hit the nail on the head. It was something like this: 'There are people that think it is intellectually and socially stimulating to find the best in our enemies, and the worst in our own government.'

I butchered it up, but she said it very well. Hits a liberal right on the head.

Jeff B said:
// Anthony.....I think the reason democrats have lost so much popularity is because they have been exposed on a large scale. //

I thin k the reason that democrats have lost so much popularity is 9/11.

That said, the weaknesses in SOME of their policies has been exposed as a result of some rethinking and some panic stemming from 9/11. Liberal and left are demonized by accentuating the aspects of democratic principles that don't work and ignoring the parts to do.

// They are pros at propaganda and have controlled most of the media. //

Conservatives have shown themselves very adept in recent times of controlling the debate. Certainly 9/11 has alot to do with that.

// They want the US to be a socialist/communist society. //

Those kind statement generalizations, painting all democrats with one brush, help to further the distorted/false image of the democratic party. There is an element within the democratic party that does want more socialism. But to say that it is a central tenet of the democratic party is untrue. I certainly don't want that.

// They are pros at propaganda and have controlled most of the media. //

This is another anti-liberal sound bite.

We live in a free market society. The public controls the media.

Anthony,

I grew up in a Democratic household. I know whereof you speak.

My first comment still stands. There's been too large a mop used to swab the portside deck. A broad generalization I will make here however, and that's the following :

MOST of the mainstream spewage is Liberally oriented. There is much less balance than there ought to be IMO.

This blogthing has been my first REAL experience dealing with current and pertinent issues where everyone gets exposed to every view. I like it here. I enjoy the 'sharing', even if it is somewhat crude at times. At least it is REAL. I used to wonder, using my 'Skeptiscope', just how much REAL information I was getting from Mainstream.

I've thrown my 20 Dinar (current rate) in the pot now. I'm happy.

Dave Dube said:
// MOST of the mainstream spewage is Liberally oriented. There is much less balance than there ought to be IMO. //

This is another anti-liberal sound bite. They are alive and well on this blog.

// This blogthing has been my first REAL experience dealing with current and pertinent issues where everyone gets exposed to every view. //

Be careful what gets posted here. Alot of it is inaccurate. Alot of it is distorted. Alot of it is spin. You don't care for facts and figures, but they are the underpinning of business for gound reason: They don't lie, people do.

Her are Billy Kristol words "I admit it. The liberal media was never very powerful, and often the whole thing was an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

I am not impressed by all the shouting, derrogatories and emotional arguements that go on here. They are often a cover for the uninformed.

I am certainly encourage by the dialog of many of the participants of this blog, most recently on this thread between Al Davis and johnnymozart.

This is what I have been looking for. A free exchange of DIFFERENT ideas minus the flaming. I hope this becomes the rule rather than the exception. (speaking for the limited time that I have been watching this blog)

I don't understand, Anthony, why you say that we on this blog "don't care for facts and figures"--a lot of the "flaming" you refer to is in response to people refusing to provide facts and figures to back their opinions.

I myself much prefer to have facts and figures on my side, I spend a great deal of time looking for them, and I post them when I can.

I'm curious, Anthony, what you make of this figure:

"the Freedom Forum, whose only bias is in favor of the First Amendment, joined with the Roper organization in 1996 to ask 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents whom they'd voted for in the 1992 presidential election. Clinton won 89 percent of the votes, and only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0220/hentoff.php

89% of Washington reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.
7% voted for George Bush in 1992.
61% called themselves "liberal" or "moderate to liberal."
9% "conservative" or "moderate to conservative."
50% said they are Democrats.
4% are Republicans.
59% called the Contract with America "an election year campaign ploy."
3% thought it was "a serious reform proposal."

Source: Roper Center poll for the Freedom Forum of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, released April 1996.

Unfortunately, Freedum Forum publications online do not seem to go farther back than 1998, and the report itself is not available, just people quoting it...

I'd like to find a more recent primary source... I'll get to work on it.

Unless you want to say that only 4% of Americans consider themselves Republican, it is going to be very hard for me to believe you when you say that journalists tell only what the market wants to hear.

The rapid rise in viewer share of FNC would seem to me to indicate that many viewers were not getting all they wanted from the media.

Anthony,

Yuppers... I get 4 channels in my house. ABC, NBC, CBS and MT Public, video version of NPR.

I got tired of it. I sat down at my machine, and QUICKLY tired of CNN, and then... I found TCP.

I know there's a lot of flamin' goin' on. I know you got your eyes singed the first time I saw your name show up. I think I played nice after that, but hey - things were bit intense. I knew WTF I was talking about, and it was MORE than an obvious truth that the guy was so far left he was beggin' for a whuppin', and knew absolutely nothin' about WTF he was puking out.

I'm new. I'm on a sharp learnin' curve, however. People like Gabriel, Bubba and Tbox, who DO support with facts and figures which CAN be verified, are doing a fine job of allowing me to make a complete ass of myself. So be it. Keeps me pointed North.

Gabriel Hanna said:
// I don't understand, Anthony, why you say that we on this blog "don't care for facts and figures"--a lot of the "flaming" you refer to is in response to people refusing to provide facts and figures to back their opinions. //

That comment was directed to Dave Dube. He had said in a previous post that

// I didn't check out the stats. I'm not a big stats fan, //

That comment was not meant as general criticism of this blog. I was trying to convey to Dave why I thought stats were important.

I appreciate your posts, Gabriel. They are insightful.

Anthony,

You are correct. I did say that, and I meant it. I support a network of statisticians (or they THINK they are), and I also said they can sing any voice that they care to - from Basso to Soprano, using the same notes. I appreciate your willingness to accept at least some of the heavy smoke (only an indicator of flames) to get your candle lit. I certainly don't mind a reasonable dialogue. For instance, this particular thread I felt would generate NOTHING from the opposition. How far off was I? We end up with Al Davis, who for all appearances, was put off by the same stuff you're talking about (flames).
So be it. I got some very useful insight from him - and you as well.

Gabriel Hanna asked:
// I'm curious, Anthony, what you make of this figure //

I will respond to this tommorrow.

Gabriel Hanna asked:
// I'm curious, Anthony, what you make of this figure //

I wish I had more time to comment. Please check this link.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Here is one more link.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story21.html

Anthony,

Broken. Both of them.

Looks light the lights went out on the site. It may be back up in a day or two.