That's speculation, but I think it's accurate.

Although TNR claimed to have "at least five" witnesses to the various claims Scott Beauchamp recounted, only one witness -- one! -- comes even close to corroborating each of Beauchamp's three key claims in "Shock Troops."

One witness for each story. And simple math strongly suggests it is in fact one witness for all of Beauchamp's claims.

A while ago I was tipped as to the likely identity of Scott Beauchamp's buddy, likely the guy with whom he spent his evenings with giggling about the lies of the Bush Administration. I won't say his name as I don't want to expose him to publicity on mere speculation.

But the case seems pretty strong, and the new documents make it even stronger. I'll leave it at that.

At any rate, in the Beauchamp files, it specifically mentions this guy, who I had long pegged as TNR's "Corporal Quotey McQuoterton," as having denied Beauchamp's claims in the official army investigation.

Thus we have Corporal Quotey McQuoterton, almost certainly the only person TNR reached able to "confirm" Beauchamp's claims and the only person willing to be quoted (or at least the only person delivering helpful quotes), on record as denying Beauchamp's claims.

So.

TNR will of course claim that Corporal Quotey McQuoterton only denied Beauchamp's claims to protect his badly-behaving Army buddies.

Fair enough.

But why should we assume he told what he thought was a white lie to protect the other men in his unit, rather than assuming he told what he thought was a white lie to protect his good friend Scott Beauchamp (and his wife!) from public humiliation and career damage?

Corporal Quotey McQuoterton either may be fibbing to protect his other friends from administrative punishment or may be fibbing to protect bosom buddy Scott Beauchamp from instant death to his wannabe-career as a writer.

What evidence does TNR have in its possession that the former is more likely?

And furthermore, why has TNR deliberately obfuscated what I take at this point to be a fact -- that there was only one "corroborating witness" to Beauchamp's tall tales, and furthermore, he just happened to be Beauchamp's best friend in the unit (and in fact may have known him previously before joining the army)?

They presented their account of the "corroborating witnesses" to suggest that there were multiple witnesses corroborating the key details of "Shock Troops;" in fact, there was one. I know they read this blog so they know I came to that conclusion; and yet they have not clarified by stating "a different witness corroborated each of the three accounts." They wrote their article to suggest it was three different witnesses, but it wasn't, and they very carefully avoided saying it was more than one guy. They implied it was more than one guy, but took great pains not to say so.

It was one guy. Beauchamp's best friend, it seems.

Probably invited to his wedding.

TNR didn't tell us that. I recognize that they don't want to give their witnesses away, but they could alert us to the fact that this particular "corroborating witness" may not quite be a disinterested party.

And TNR also didn't tell us that, since then, their Star Witness apparently told the Army that nothing Beauchamp claimed happened did in fact happen.

This is relevant to their tale, is it not? Whether TNR believes Corporal Quotey McQuoterton's first story (told to TNR to help Beauchamp) or his second story (which they will claim was told to the Army to help his friends, and himself), the fact is the same man is on the record as telling two contradictory stories.

Again: What right does TNR have to hide this information from its readership? Having printed these stories as true, then used this man's word to support the stories' veracity, what right do they claim to hide the fact that he has apparently reversed himself and fully recanted when questioned by the Army?

TNR is free to spin his recantation whatever way they like -- but how can they justify refusing to report the reversal entirely?

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

Ahem. Okay, let's take care of this right off: "Surveillance camera footage" soon will be one of the most popular genres of faked/staged video. The low resolution of the footage makes it relatively easy, I'm thinking, to use off-the-shelf special effects programs to make passably realistic video.

So I think this is fake.

I'm mostly just linking it because I can write a dirty headline for it.

Thanks to dri again.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Question: What makes the eviction of disruptive hecklers (and indeed menacing ones -- one protester gets up in her grill and almost assaults her) hecklers "fascism" in this case, whereas when Bill Maher does it, it's something to be applauded?

What's the difference? "The show must go on" is now a cherished principle of the First Amendment or what?

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

We only even knew previously that this phone call had taken place because a source of Confederate Yankee's told him about it.

TNR did not mention it.

Even after it was disclosed, TNR did not comment on it, nor explain their reasons for withholding information about a fiction they had printed as truth.

Reading the transcript, I can see why someone whose reputation and career depended on the story being true could convince himself the story had not been fully recanted. Foer could tell himself, "The guy is evasive, there are officers listening, he can't say anything. So I can't take this as a retraction."

I can see how he could tell himself that.

However, I cannot see where he convinced himself he could hide the existence of the call from the world, nor report to TNR's readers his reasons for doubting the phone call proved anything.

TNR could have said: "A recent phone call with Scott Beauchamp leaves us in a no man's land where Beauchamp will neither re-affirm nor recant the stories to us. We suspect he is worried about his career in the military and possible punishment. He will not say he is, however. Under these circumstances, we must provisionally retract the stories, though we have no firm evidence they are false. But with a compromised writer also unable to affirm they're true, neither can we stand by these stories."

That would have been a (mostly) honest appraisal of the situation, at least from their own need-to-believe point of view.

Instead, however, rather than accurately and honestly describing Beauchamp's complete refusal to affirm the stories as true, and offering their reasons for doubting this refusal to affirm to be conclusive, they instead simply withheld facts in their possession from the world and pretended the call never happened at all.

You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. And you can't willfully hide your own facts, not when you present yourself as a credible, honest journal. TNR could have reported the facts and offered its opinion that the facts were not damning.

But apparently they considered them to be so damning on their face they simply hid the facts altogether.

They cannot claim they needed special authorization to report the call -- they were on the phone and were first-party witnesses to the call. The call itself is not a protected legal document; Foer and Scoblic and others were listening and almost certainly taping it themselves (unless they feared what Beauchamp might say; but either way, they knew what he said). They had no plausible or credible reason not to report the call.

Again, they could have made their arguments as to why they believed the call to be inconclusive. Instead, seeing "inconclusive" as too damning, they simply buried the evidence.

Even the NYT, when confronted with the much less important fabulations of Jayson Blair, stepped up and conducted a full internal investigation and released all the facts -- good, bad, and ugly -- to the world.

TNR, on the other hand, chose to stonewall, obfuscate, and lie. They had highly relevant information about the stories' veracity in their hands. They simply refused to report that information, for fear others might not read the transcripts as generously as they were inclined to.

Heads rolled at the NYT. Heads must roll now.

I Missed This The First Time Around: Foer claims he just wants the truth.

Oh really?

Foer: Ellie sent me an email to tell you that itÂ’s the most important thing in the world for her that you say that you didnÂ’t recant.

Beauchamp: To say what?

Foer: I think, I donÂ’t wanna. . .YouÂ’re obviously in a very uncomfortable position in that your wife is involved in this, and I wish she wasnÂ’t involved because I, I.... trust her, I care for her. I donÂ’t want her to get hurt in all of this. But she just, she sent me a note to tell you that itÂ’s the most important thing to her that you say that you didnÂ’t recant. And I donÂ’t.. .1 feel that (unintelligible) in saying that to you because it puts me in an awkward position, but itÂ’s what she wanted me to convey to you.

Beauchamp: Well, I can tell you that an official Army investigation was done. I cannot be the one to talk to about that, or contact about that. I can get you copies of my sworn statements. And...

So Foer is telling Beauchamp, "I want the straight story, tell me if this is true or not, and oh, by the way, your wife is begging you to not recant and if you do she might 'get hurt in all this'?"

Is this Foer's technique for getting a straight answer out of a interviewee? "If you don't say what I want you to say, people you love will be hurt" ?

More Quotes... At Hot Air. Including the recommendation that Beauchamp be given a "mental health examination."

Allah thinks these docs came from the Army, originally, not TNR. I suppose that's more likely. I figured TNR and not the Army because the Army has been pretty reluctant to comment on this stuff except in a fairly broad manner. But I guess some in the Army have been leaking a bit all along; it's not difficult to believe someone leaked these.

However -- the thing is, there are more documents than the ones shown here. The documents leaked seem to be the ones that Beauchamp himself would have access to, and could release to the lawyer "Gene" at TNR, as he said he would.

I suppose, though, that the Army leaker could have leaked the documents that Beauchamp himself authorized to be released to TNR. After all, if Beauchamp is releasing these to a media organization, he could justify it to himself that they're not quite private as they once had been, eh?

Masthead graphic by "Site Admin" (if that is his real name) at Jessica's Well.

Just For Fun: Maybe we can prod "Scott Thomas" into updating his old (fake) blog, eh?

My mindbrain is full of joyglee.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 1049 words, total size 6 kb.

"We've won the war."

-- Milblogger "Greyhawk," currently deployed in Baghdad, Iraq, Oct. 16, 2007, and again in more detail on Oct. 19, 2007.

"The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse."

-- New York Times Editorial Board, Manhattan, NY, Oct. 23, 2007

Confederate Yankee rounds up all the news that's not fit to print and comments.

Dean Barnett on the plunging casualties:

The results of the surge, or "the escalation" as Harry Reid derisively called it, have been obvious in the Icasualties.org numbers. Before the surge, a bad month would claim the lives of roughly 3,000 Iraqi civilians and security force members. In February '07, the exact number was 3,014 Iraqi casualties. In March, the figure was 2,977. As the surge began to have its effects, that number dropped to 1674 in August. In September, with the surge taking full effect, the numbers showed a profound change--the Iraqi death toll plunged to 848.

Happily, September's figures don't appear to be an aberration. October has seen 502 Iraqi casualties so far. If the trend continues though the end of October, the final number should be around 650 for the entire month. That represents better than an 80 percent improvement from the war's nadir.

YOU'D THINK THIS would be a big story. After all, the mainstream media makes such a show of "supporting the troops" at every turn, you'd think it would rush to report the amazing story of our soldiers accomplishing what many observers declared "impossible" and "unwinnable" not so long ago.

It hasn't worked out that way. When General Ricardo Sanchez (ret.) addressed the situation in Iraq on October 11, he proclaimed that America was "living a nightmare with no end in sight." Naturally, the "nightmare" quote wound up in the first paragraph of the New York Times report on Sanchez's comments. What didn't find its way into the Times' report was any context of what's going on in Iraq.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

Drudge only is interested in alternative media stories when he himself has a piece of them, eh?

Oh well. He does some good work here.

Beauchamp declined to stand by the stories and told Foer he wanted "it to end."

And Foer knew this, obviously, and yet lied about this call ever since by failing to disclose what was said. And TNR stood by the story since then, even having been told by Beauchamp himself he would not re-affirm the stories' truthfulness.

Document 1: Beauchamp Refuses to Stand by Story (Beauchamp Transcript Part 1)
The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that "I just want it to end. I'm not going to talk to anyone about anything really." The editors respond that "we just can't, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece" without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he "doesn't care what the public thinks."

...

Document 2: Beauchamp Admits to "Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations" (Beauchamp Transcript Part 2)

The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed "Memorandum for Record" in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army's investigation -- that his stories contained "gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct" by his fellow soldiers.

Document 3: Army Investigation: Tales "Completely Fabricated," Beauchamp Wanted to be Hemingway

The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army's official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had "completely fabricated" the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a "Saddam-era dumping ground" was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was "completely unfounded." Further the report stated "that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway."

Can Anyone Cut and Copy The Transcript of Document One? I want to quote it but my Adobe reader doesn't seem to want to let me do so.

Until then, go to Beauchamp's lines on Page 2 and read TNR repeatedly say they can't continue defending the stories unless Beauchamp re-affirms the truth of them. And Beauchamp flat-out refuses to do so.

Foer and Scoblis (?) also inform Beauchamp that he can't write for the magazine anymore without such an affirmation -- and still Beauchamp refuses to re-affirm his fictions.

So, TNR decided then that Beauchamp could no longer be trusted as a reporter/"diarist" for any future writing -- but did not inform its readership of that fact, and indeed continued to claim his previous stories were true.

More: Beauchamp signed a document allowing a TNR lawyer to receive all relevant documents about his case from the Army. So TNR has had this stuff for a while.

And yet no mention of it.

Allah Asks... How Drudge got the documents.

Eh... I know but I don't think I can say. More interesting is how whoever gave the documents to Drudge got the documents from TNR.

Someone, I think, at TNR leaked these documents to a Hostile Party. The question is who. Our Man At TNR, "Throbert," was already long fired when these came into TNR's hands.

So who is it at TNR who is either so disgusted by the magazine's stonewalling -- or perhaps so covetous of Franklin Foer's soon-to-be-ended job -- that he leaked them to decidedly unfriendly hands?

That's not a teaser. I don't know that. Wish I did.

Maybe I'll ask, but I doubt I'll get the answer.

The Good Stuff: Dave at Garfield-Ridge converted this into a copiable doc for me.

Scoblic: Scott ... I’ve reviewed the reporting that Frank and Ryan did, and I’ve got to tell you- I understand why there are questions being raised about the piece. And, the one factual error that we have in the piece is fairly disturbing. And that’s the first anecdote that you recounted about the disfigured woman took place in Kuwait and not in Iraq. And I wanted to ask you how you got that wrong? Because I was listening to an NPR show the other day or the other week I guess it was and the way they put it ts, “How do you forget a country?” Let’s start there. How did it become Kuwait or rather, how did it become Iraq, rather than Kuwait?

Beauchamp: Urn I. I really should probably have said this before you began asking questioiis. I soda had an idea of things I wanted to say first. And one was- the whole reason I decided to like formally take the interviews you know, let the media know that the Army wasnÂ’t censoring me. That I could have interviews. But at the same time, this whole thing. itÂ’s.. .itÂ’s.. .spun out of control and mutated into something thatÂ’s itÂ’s just like.. .itÂ’s not something that.. .itÂ’s just insane. And really ridiculous. So, I sort of decided personally that IÂ’m not really going to discuss with any media outlet at all my military experiences past, present or future. And like, that would include anything IÂ’ve written. IÂ’m basically saying, like, I basically want it to end. IÂ’m not going to talk to anyone about anything really. I just really...I know that...

Scoblic: (unintelligible) Are you standing by your story then?

Beauchamp: IÂ’m not talking about it all. IÂ’m not commenting on it at all anymore. On any of my military experiences.

Scoblic: Look, Scott- I need... We are not another media outlet. You can’t look at the New Republic which, you know, published these stories as ‘lust another set of reporters” that’s beating down your door. The editor has placed a great deal of trust in you. You know, I’ve watched this over the last month. I've been part of it myself to some extent. They’ve displayed a considerable integrity in standing by you and supporting you publicly. I know that things have been insane there, certainly with regard to this. They’ve been pretty insane here, too. And, among other things, you know, Frank has been... Frank and his reputation have been dragged through the mud. In a lot of ways, the magazi:ie’s reputation has been dragged through the mud. And, all through that, we have sort of... we have said: We are not going to throw an author overboard just because someone has raised questions. I mean, we have. ..we have defended you. And, all we want out of this, and the only way that it is going to end is if we have the truth. And if it’s.. .if it’s certain parts of the story are bullshit. then we’ll end it that way. If it’s proven to be true it will end that way. But it’s only going to end with the truth. And so there are two things at work here, I’m saying: the one is that I think that just from the standpoint of personal responsibilty and, and... you know, respect for the respect we have shown to you, we need you to answer a few more questions. And also from the standpoint of your self-interest, if you want this to end, the way it ends is, you know, is with us at one point saying: this is what weve discovered one way or another.

Beauchamp: Well, I mean I.. appreciate that youÂ’ve defended me and, and I know that you guys have been through a lot too and IÂ’ve been through a lot, but at the same time, IÂ’m still going to. - .1 donÂ’t want any part of discussing anything with anyone anymore, really IÂ’m sorry if itÂ’s disappointing on a personal level, but itÂ’s not something I want to do. I donÂ’t want to discuss anything with anyone. And, urn- thatÂ’s basically what IÂ’m going to be putting out. IÂ’m not talking about it all anymore IÂ’m concentrating purely on my job over here. Uh, and, that's it. ThatÂ’s basically going to be it.

Foer: Okay- weÂ’re going to have to discuss the implications of this of this last column. But (unintelligible) I think this raises the possibility that if youÂ’re not able to talk about this and able to stand by your story. IÂ’m not sure weÂ’ll be able to stand by it. So.. -

Scoblic: I think Scott, what this is. you know, is that weÂ’re going to have to come out to say that... because you know, youÂ’re not going to talk to us anymore about the piece we just canÂ’t, in good conscience, continue to defend it. And so the way it ends is that thereÂ’s going to be another round of stories and the story is going to be that an author lied to his editors. And they decided that they canÂ’t trust him anymore.

Bcauchamp: Well.. A mean, I understand it could be spun that way, but it could be interpreted in any way, and itÂ’s going to be interpreted in any way that it was going to be interpreted... I mean, thatÂ’s...thatÂ’s...

Scoblic: ItÂ’s not going to be, Scott. ItÂ’s going to be interpreted (unintelligible)

Foer: Most people think (unintelligible). . .most people have an assumption that goes against you. And the few people that. . .there are a few people view to the extent that I view only do so because of the decency to stand by you. So, if weÂ’re not able to stand by you because you arenÂ’t able to answer our questions, urn I think it kind of.. you wouldnÂ’t have much credibility left in the public eye.

Bcauchanip: I really. . .1 mean, at this point I really donÂ’t care what the public thinks. I just want to not think about this anymore and just basically do my job. And thatÂ’s all I really want to do.

Scoblic: What are you going to do after this job? Are you staying in the Army?

Beauchamp: Um, I donÂ’t know what I want to do. Umi havenÂ’t made up my mind yet what I want to do.

Scoblic: Ah. YouÂ’re not going to be able to write anymore after this ---you know that, right?

Beauchamp: I. . .1 mean, I donÂ’t really care at this point. ThatÂ’s not... thatÂ’s not,. .basically what IÂ’m saying is thatÂ’s not what is important to me...

Foer; (unintelligible)

Beauchamp: WhatÂ’s important to me...

Foer: (Unintelligible) You could have told us this a month ago and ah -- you know-- saved us basically a lot of heartache and pain.

Scoblic: I mean.. .thatÂ’s how we could've ended this, Scott is... I mean, what youÂ’re saying basically is that youÂ’ve been hiding from us for the last month, right?

Beauchamp: No. No.

Sc?blic: (Unintelligible) WeÂ’ve been told that...

Beauchamp: Whenever I talk to a public outlet it has to be officially approved.

Scoblic: (Unintelligible)

Beauchamp: I didnÂ’t know that beforehand. And so thatÂ’s basically why...

Scoblic: Say again?

Beauchamp: Whenever I discuss anything with a media outlet, it has to be officially approved and go through the proper channels, and I wasnÂ’t aware of that before. And so I wasnÂ’t hiding out, I was just basically following regulations and I mean...

"Say what?" Beauchamp's obviously lying. How could he not know he has to go through "channels" when he writes for the media?

Scoblic: You (untelligible) . . .our conversation. You had been able to.

Beauchamp: What?

Foer; You said at the beginning of the conversation that the Army wasnÂ’t censoring you.

Beauchamp: No, theyÂ’re not censoring me. ltÂ’sj ust that you have to go through the proper channels.. - it has to be done correctly so that itÂ’s everythingÂ’s documented. It has to be set up.

Foer: (Unintelligble) speak through official channels?

Beauchamp: WhatÂ’s that?

Foer: When did you get a request to speak to me through official channels?

Beauchantp; The first time that I knew it was going to be set up. or I got the option to set it up officially was a few days ago. I heard about it that I could do interviews and they could be set up once I was contacted probably like a week or so before that even. But I didnÂ’t know who wanted official interviews until a few days ago.

Scciblic: Scott, have you been trying to get the statements for us? [The statements he signed recanting the story -- Ace.]

Beauchamp: Um.. .actually, I havenÂ’t been trying to do anything except my job. ..basicatly my job over here.

Scoblic: You told Ellie (TNR staff member Elspeth Reeve and BeauchampÂ’s wife) that you were trying to get the statements.

Beauchamp: I was going to and I talked to.. .I did talk to my lawyer. And I can still get those. IÂ’m working on getting those. And I have one statement. Um.. .itÂ’s basically a counseling statement from my colonel. And thatÂ’s what I have so far...

Foer: (unintelligible)

Beauchamp: I can get copies of any legal documents that pertain to me. I can get copies for me.

Scoblic: And can you share those with us?

Beauchamp: Um.. .probably.

SSG Preiszler: Yes, you can share it with them.

Beauehamp: Yeah, I can.

Scoblic: Scott, I mean weÂ’ve been asking for those statements for weeks. And you told us you were trying to get them and you told your lawyer you were trying to get them. You told Ellie that you were trying to get them. And, now youÂ’re saying that you havenÂ’t tried to get them.

Beauchamp: No, I.. I was trying to get them, but itÂ’s really hard to try and get them when youÂ’re working 20 hours a day. Um.. And, itÂ’s. .trying to get something done.. .time here is different from time where you are. So when I say IÂ’m trying to get something, it could take months to get something. ItÂ’s not a matter of hours or days. And...

Not huge, but again he seems to have lied about trying to get these documents into TNR's hands.

Scoblic: Can you tell us what was in those statements?

Beauchamp: The... there were two sworn statements and urn.. since you... since youÂ’re the magazine I was published in, I will try to get you copies of those. Um.

Foer: Okay. I (unintelligible) Basically, we need some sort of sign in good faith on your part and that would be the bare minimum at this point to prevent us from fully retracting.

Foer did not get that sign of good faith, but also didn't bother to retract at all.

Sorry for the crappiness of this conversion. I tried to edit out the bugs but there are a lot of them.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 2503 words, total size 15 kb.

Update: Cloture fails 52-44.

Update: White House Opposed the Bill: I had wondered why I hadn't heard from Bush on this. It seems the Administration was against this particular amnesty, though I don't see any mention of a veto threat.

Bush has signed a lot of legislation he claimed to have objected to, eh?

...

Byron Dorgan, a Democrat, voted against the measure, and the Republicans seem to be holding firm, so it looks like this vote is failing.

I don't have a count. Just basing it on how the swing votes are running.

Sununu, another squish, also voted No. As did Burr, McConnell, Stevens, and other Republicans we had to lobby last time 'round.

Spector No. He was an Amnestia last time, wasn't he?

From Michelle, these jagoffs voted Aye: Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, Martinez, and Collins. And Graham, of course.

That's a lot. On the other hand we have Claire McCaskill voting No.

Warner a "No" too.

... more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:37 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Cuffy Meigs sent this one to me in an email titled, "Best. Bar. In the world."

At the link, great new party tricks to teach your wife/ girlfriend/ best friend's Mom.

Thanks Cuffy, and Happy Humpday to all.

Posted by: LauraW. at 08:17 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Her ex boyfriend who is a student at MIT. She sneaked into his dorm room armed with 3 knives, and stabbed him in the back while he slept. Well, she started while he was asleep, he did wake up.

Police found her in the dorm building with a very bloody jacket and a buck knife in a backpack.

Her lawyer described her as a "meek and mild mannered" young woman who was taking classes at MIT.

I've never been to law school, but I do think they teach something about "stressing the positive". Anybody know?

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 08:10 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Too close to call, Senate watchers say.

More at Michelle's.

A bit late, but the vote hasn't happened yet, so there's time to call:

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922

Thad Cochran (202) 224- 5054

Norm Coleman(202) 224-5641

John Sununu (202) 224-2841

Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344

Jon Tester (202) 224-2644

Richard Burr (202) 224-3154

John Warner (202) 224-2023

Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972

Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324

Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744

Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842

Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954

Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551

Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621

Max Baucus (202) 224-2651

Larry Craig (202) 224-2752

Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004

George Voinovich (202) 224-3353

Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665

Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Benjamin Nelson (202) 224-6551

John Barrasso (202) - 224-6441

Susan Collins (202) 224-2523

Crapo (202) 224-6142

Bennet (202) 224-5444

Martinez (202) 224-3041

Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - (202) 224-6521

Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - (202) 224-5824

Sen Ensign (202) 224-6244

Posted by: Ace at 07:46 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.