1. Shuster Predicted Rove Would Be Indicted, Suggests Really Guilty
MSNBC Countdown fill-in host Brian Unger on Tuesday night asked reporter David Shuster about how "your sources seemed to indicate that Karl Rove would be indicted. What happened?" In fact on the same program, back on May 8, Shuster had gone beyond just citing sources and declared: "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted." Responding to Unger, Shuster first blamed his sources: "The defense lawyers who have witnesses in front of that grand jury, sometimes they get it wrong, and that seemed to be the case in this particular case." Then Shuster suggested Rove really is guilty, but prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was afraid he'd be embarrassed if he lost such a high-profile case and so pulled back. Unger presumed Fitzgerald let Rove off easy as he cited "straight arrow" Fitzgerald's "remarkable restraint." AUDIO&VIDEO

2. ABC's Tapper Chides Shuster for 'Rove Will Be Indicted' Forecast
In his Tuesday World News Tonight story on how top White House adviser Karl Rove will not be indicted for perjury in the Valerie Plame case, ABC's Jake Tapper, in a rare instance of one journalist criticizing another, actually highlighted an agenda-driven media miscue as he featured a quote showcased earlier in the day on NewsBusters: "The investigation has already resulted in one indictment, former White House adviser 'Scooter' Libby. And some Democrats and some in the media wrongly predicted Rove would be next." Viewers then a saw Web video quality clip of MSNBC's David Shuster from the May 8 Countdown: "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted."

3. Flashback: Giddy Cafferty 'Hoping' Rove Will Be Indicted
Flashback: An October 18, 2005 CyberAlert item recounted: CNN's Jack Cafferty, on Monday afternoon's [October 17] The Situation Room, took a cheap shot at Karl Rove's weight and expressed delight in the possibility Rove will be indicted. Just past 3pm EDT, Cafferty announced his question of the hour: "What should Karl Rove do if he is indicted?" Cafferty then answered his own question: "He might want to get measured for one of those extra large orange jump suits, Wolf, 'cause looking at old Karl, I'm not sure that he'd, they'd be able to zip him into the regular size one." Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "He's actually lost some weight. I think he's in pretty good shape." Cafferty conceded: "Oh, well then maybe just the regular off the shelf large would handle it for him." Blitzer then cautioned the indictment might not come: "Yeah, but you know, it's still a big if. It's still a big if." A giddy Cafferty replied: "Oh, I understand. I'm, I'm just hoping you know. I love, I love to see those kinds of things happen. It does wonders for me." AUDIO&VIDEO

4. ABC's Rancorous Take on Bush in Iraq: 'Deception,' Fake Schedule
Of the broadcast network evening shows on Tuesday night, ABC's World News Tonight delivered the most rancorous take on President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad with Martha Raddatz citing "deception" and fretting about how while Bush was in the air to Iraq his staffers were still giving journalists a false schedule and she concluded by pointing out how there are more troops in Iraq now than when Bush last visited in 2003. Raddatz asserted: "This trip was not only surrounded in secrecy, there was a bit of deception as well" since "at 7:45 last night Mr. Bush excused himself from a meeting, saying he was 'losing altitude' and wanted to read awhile before bed." Instead, he traveled to Andrews to get plane to Iraq. "While the President was flying," Raddatz complained, "the White House Press Office was giving the Washington press corps a fake schedule." ABC News producer Jon Garcia then bemoaned: "They were still giving out details and information about a supposed White House Rose Garden event with the President." Raddatz sighed: "Not until he landed in Iraq did Washington know the truth."

5. Robert Redford: Bush Energy Policy 'A Disaster' and 'An Insult'
On Monday, movie star/director Robert Redford appeared on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss environmentalism. Hardballs weren't really expected. Remember Chris Matthews fawning over Jane Fonda?) MRC's Geoff Dickens found that Redford sounded predictable notes about how Bush and Cheney were "living in the '50s" with their energy policies, driven by their oil riches and narrow minds. Al Gore's film showed that green groups had idealism comparable to JFK and Martin Luther King. So why can't the Democrats win? They're too "open to all points of view."

Shuster Predicted Rove Would Be Indicted,
Suggests Really Guilty

     MSNBC Countdown fill-in host Brian Unger on Tuesday night asked David Shuster about how "your sources seemed to indicate that Karl Rove would be indicted. What happened?" In fact on the same program, back on May 8, Shuster had gone beyond just citing sources and declared: "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted." Responding to Unger, Shuster first blamed his sources: "The defense lawyers who have witnesses in front of that grand jury, sometimes they get it wrong, and that seemed to be the case in this particular case."

     Then Shuster suggested Rove really is guilty, but prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was afraid he'd be embarrassed if he lost such a high-profile case and so pulled back. Shuster contended that with the exception of Rove's lawyer, "all" of the lawyers involved in the case contend that in "the same circumstances all over again, somebody testifying five times before a grand jury, somebody who had the burden to stop the charges, somebody who had to testify for three and a half hours the last time, and oh, by the way, he had a classification in the Libby case that almost suggested he would certainly be indicted, the lawyers saying they would have reached the same conclusion" that he would be indicted. "The issue, they say, though, is not that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concluded that the case was unwinnable, rather that it was not a slam dunk." Unger presumed Fitzgerald let Rove off easy as he cited "straight arrow" Fitzgerald's "remarkable restraint."

     [This item is based on two NewsBusters posting from Tuesday, starting with: newsbusters.org ]

     Back on the May 8 Countdown, in a comment found by the MRC's Clay Waters, Shuster asserted: "Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why."

     Clay Waters on Tuesday posted a NewsBusters blog item about Shuster's mis-prediction, an item to which the MRC's Michelle Humphrey added a video/audio clip which will be placed in the posted version of this CyberAlert. In the meantime, to watch the Real or Windows Media video clip, or to listen to the MP3 audio, go to: newsbusters.org

     Now, back to Tuesday night of this week, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth took down the exchange on the June 13 Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but without Olbermann.

     Substitute anchor Brian Unger inquired: "David, as you reported, your sources seemed to indicate that Karl Rove would be indicted. What happened?"
     David Shuster, from Washington, DC, answered: "Well, sometimes when you're trying to track a secret grand jury investigation, the legal sources, the defense lawyers who have witnesses in front of that grand jury, sometimes they get it wrong, and that seemed to be the case in this particular case. And, of course, we hate it when that happens, but in going back to all of those defense lawyers today with the exception of Karl Rove's lawyer, who said that he would never be charged, all of those lawyers said that if he had the same circumstances all over again, somebody testifying five times before a grand jury, somebody who had the burden to stop the charges, somebody who had to testify for three and a half hours the last time, and oh, by the way, he had a classification in the Libby case that almost suggested he would certainly be indicted, the lawyers say they would have reached the same conclusion.
     "The issue, they say, though, is not that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concluded that the case was unwinnable, rather that it was not a slam dunk. And all these lawyers suggested that in a case where you're looking at a public official and whether a prosecutor is going to indict a public official, that prosecutor usually has an extra burden trying to make sure that if they're going to bring this case to trial, they can certainly meet the obligation of beyond a reasonable doubt, and that they are 99 percent certain, not 50-50 because they're dealing with a public official, and you're dealing with the career-making or possibly-losing case if, in fact, you do lose it."
     Unger's follow-up presumed Fitzgerald let Rove off easy: "David, does this demonstrate some remarkable restraint from what seems to be a very straight arrow here, Mr. Fitzgerald in this case for stopping now?"
     Shuster: "Well, what it underscores is that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is somebody who brings cases that he wins..."

ABC's Tapper Chides Shuster for 'Rove
Will Be Indicted' Forecast

     In his Tuesday World News Tonight story on how top White House adviser Karl Rove will not be indicted for perjury in the Valerie Plame case, ABC's Jake Tapper, in a rare instance of one journalist criticizing another, actually highlighted an agenda-driven media miscue as he featured a quote showcased earlier in the day on NewsBusters: "The investigation has already resulted in one indictment, former White House adviser 'Scooter' Libby. And some Democrats and some in the media wrongly predicted Rove would be next."

     Viewers then a saw Web video quality clip of MSNBC's David Shuster from the May 8 Countdown: "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted." (Tapper, who earlier featured a soundbite from RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, then moved on to how "Democrats said while Rove may not have violated the letter of the law, he may have violated a sacred trust.")

     Clay Waters, Editor of the MRC's TimesWatch site, on Tuesday afternoon had posted a NewsBusters item with a complete transcript, as well as video and audio, of Shuster's fallacious prediction. The key part of Shuster: "Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why...."

     For Shuster's May 8 claims in full, see item #1 above.

     Tapper concluded his piece on an upbeat note for the White House: "Tonight, a senior adviser to the White House tells ABC News, with the death of Zarqawi and Rove exonerated, it's a welcome week of solid good news for the administration."

     [This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters: newsbusters.org ]

Flashback: Giddy Cafferty 'Hoping' Rove
Will Be Indicted

     Video and audio of Cafferty's snide, unfulfilled wish will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert. But in the meantime, to watch the video from last year in either Real or Windows Media format, go to: newsbusters.org

     Don't bother tuning into The Situation Room this week to hear Cafferty's reaction to the announcement Rove will not be indicted: The MRC's Megan McCormack informed me that Cafferty is on vacation this week.

     Last October, Megan tracked down the October 17 at 3:09pm EDT comments.

     Jack Cafferty, via remote from Manhattan: "Karl Rove, the Deputy White House Chief-of Staff, may have a plan B. According to our colleagues over there at Time magazine, if Rove is indicted in the CIA leak case he would immediately resign or possibly go on unpaid leave. Now they don't know, they don't say in the story whether or not he could stay on as a consultant, like that guy Brown over there at FEMA. Time sources say that the resignation is the most likely outcome. By breaking his ties with the White House, one source says that Rove would then have more time to fight whatever charges could come out of this thing. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, says there is, quote, ‘absolutely no truth whatsoever,' unquote, to the Time magazine report. Here's the question. What should Karl Rove do if he is indicted? Now, you can e-mail us your thoughts at Caffertyfile@CNN.com or you can go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Both those addresses will get you to the same place. We'll read some here. He might want to, he might want to get measured for one of those extra large orange jump suits, Wolf, 'cause looking at old Karl, I'm not sure that he'd, they'd be able to zip him into the regular size one."
     Wolf Blitzer, anchoring from DC: "He's actually lost some weight. I think he's in pretty good shape."
     Cafferty: "Oh, well then maybe just the regular off the shelf large would handle it for him."
     Blitzer: "Yeah, but you know, it's still a big if. It's still a big if."
     Cafferty: "Oh, I understand. I'm, I'm just hoping you know. I love, I love to see those kinds of things happen. It does wonders for me."
     Blitzer, bemused: "All right, Jack. We'll get back to you. Thank you very much."

ABC's Rancorous Take on Bush in Iraq:
'Deception,' Fake Schedule

     Of the broadcast network evening shows on Tuesday night, ABC's World News Tonight delivered the most rancorous take on President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad with Martha Raddatz citing "deception" and fretting about how while Bush was in the air to Iraq his staffers were still giving journalists a false schedule and she concluded by pointing out how there are more troops in Iraq now than when Bush last visited in 2003.

     Raddatz asserted: "This trip was not only surrounded in secrecy, there was a bit of deception as well" since "at 7:45 last night Mr. Bush excused himself from a meeting, saying he was 'losing altitude' and wanted to read awhile before bed." Instead, he traveled to Andrews to get plane to Iraq. "While the President was flying," Raddatz complained, "the White House Press Office was giving the Washington press corps a fake schedule." ABC News producer Jon Garcia then bemoaned: "They were still giving out details and information about a supposed White House Rose Garden event with the President." Raddatz sighed: "Not until he landed in Iraq did Washington know the truth." She concluded by suggesting failure in how there are not fewer troops in Iraq: "When the President visited the troops in 2003, Charlie, there were 120,000 Americans there. Today, there are 128,000 Americans there, and no sign that those troops will be reduced dramatically in the future."

     Over on the NBC Nightly News, David Gregory managed to resurrect the "Mission Accomplished" claim as he led into a soundbite from David Gergen: "Today's trip and the one Mr. Bush made to Iraq on Thanksgiving day 2003, are designed as big media events, intended to highlight hope and progress during an unpopular war. But some theatrical flourishes, like the President's top gun landing on an aircraft carrier in 2003 under a 'Mission Accomplished' banner, have backfired. A deadly insurgency followed the President's address. The Public is now skeptical."

     [This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
     The lead story on the June 13 World News Tonight on ABC, based on the closed-captioning corrected against the video by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth.

     Anchor Charles Gibson: "Good evening. When President Bush said he'd be holding a summit on Iraq, we didn't know the second day he'd be in Iraq. We in the media didn't know it; most of his top advisors didn't know it; the leaders of the new government in Iraq didn't know it. Last night, the President secretly slipped away from his high-level meetings at Camp David, helicoptered to Andrews Air Force Base, and then flew overnight on Air Force One to Baghdad. ABC's chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz now with details."

     Martha Raddatz: "This trip was not only surrounded in secrecy, there was a bit of deception as well. The President had been at Camp David for what was supposed to be a two-day Iraq strategy session with his Cabinet. But at 7:45 last night, Mr. Bush excused himself from a meeting, saying he was 'losing altitude' and wanted to read awhile before bed."
     Audio of John King, network TV pool correspondent: "Monday's planning session was organized at remote Camp David instead of the White House to allow the President and a handful of top aides to leave undetected after dinner."
     Raddatz: "His CIA director didn't know, his Attorney General, not even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew where the President was headed. Only the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defense knew the plan. Within half an hour of excusing himself, the President left Camp David via helicopter, not his usual Marine One, and headed for Andrews Air Force Base. Just before 9pm, the President, wearing a baseball cap, stepped onto Air Force One, announcing to pool reporters who had been sworn to secrecy, 'The POTUS is on board.' POTUS, short for President of the United States. While the President was flying, the White House Press Office [zoom in on piece of paper with 2:30pm "press availability" in the Rose Garden with the President listed] was giving the Washington press corps a fake schedule."
     Jon Garcia, ABC News producer: "They were still giving out details and information about a supposed White House Rose Garden event with the President."
     Raddatz: "Not until he landed in Iraq did Washington know the truth. At 4:08pm local time, with the President watching from the cockpit, Air Force One made a steep, rapid banking move, then a very quick descent into Baghdad. Five helicopters met the traveling party to ferry them under extraordinary security to the Green Zone several miles away. Fighter jets above provided cover. Inside the helicopter, presidential aides Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett in body armor and helmets. It's not known whether the President was wearing a protective vest. Even the Iraqi Prime Minister had been kept in the dark until five minutes before the President arrived to meet him."
     George W. Bush, next to the Iraqi Prime Minister: "I have expressed our country's desire to work with you, but I appreciate you recognize the fact that the future of your country is in your hands."
     Raddatz: "The President's trip was a dramatic show of support for the new Iraqi government, but the President made clear that the Americans will be handing over more responsibility to the Iraqis. The Iraqi Prime Minister told him, 'All of the soldiers will be able to return to their countries, God willing, with our gratitude for what they have offered.' The President had not been to Iraq since Thanksgiving 2003 for a secret visit to the troops at the airport. He visited troops again today inside the Green Zone."
     Bush before troops: "Thought I'd stop in to say hello." [applause]
     Raddatz: "The President thanked the troops for the sacrifices they have made and for the recent successes."
     Bush: "Our military will stay on the offense. We will continue to hunt down people like Mr. Zarqawi and bring them to justice so that-" [applause]
     Raddatz, from the White House lawn: "One note: When the President visited the troops in 2003, Charlie, there were 120,000 Americans there. Today, there are 128,000 Americans there, and no sign that those troops will be reduced dramatically in the future."
     Gibson: "But, Martha, there's been some talk in this administration, this is sort of a breakthrough moment with the death of Zarqawi, the appointment now of a full government there. But do the folks at the White House consider this a breakthrough moment in terms of trying to turn the President's standing in the polls around on Iraq?"
     Raddatz: "Well, I think what they're trying to do, Charlie, is seize the moment. The President kept saying today he wants the Iraqis to seize the moment. The White House is clearly trying to do that now, and hope that Americans see a different picture than they've seen before in Iraq."

Robert Redford: Bush Energy Policy 'A
Disaster' and 'An Insult'

     On Monday, movie star/director Robert Redford appeared on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss environmentalism. Hardballs weren't really expected. (Remember Chris Matthews fawning over Jane Fonda? www.mrc.org ) MRC's Geoff Dickens found that Redford sounded predictable notes about how Bush and Cheney were "living in the '50s" with their energy policies, driven by their oil riches and narrow minds. Al Gore's film showed that green groups had idealism comparable to JFK and Martin Luther King. So why can't the Democrats win? They're too "open to all points of view."

     [This item, by the MRC's Tim Graham, was posted Wednesday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters: newsbusters.org ]

     Matthews began, predictably, by praising Redford's activism and this great new moment to be green:
     "You know, it seems like you've always been involved in the environmental movement, going back decades, decades. And yet now it seems to have come together like a perfect storm. We got high gas prices, the war in Iraq and this emerging reality about global warming. What's it tell you?"
     Robert Redford: "It tells me it is a perfect storm and it's coming at a perfect time, just sad that it's so late. I mean I got involved in alternative energy in the, in the '70s when I went to a conference in Vail, Colorado as a guest. And they presented this chart about how much of our energy comes from non-renewable sources and what the alternatives were that were renewable and I looked at that and said, 'Oh God, this a no brainer.' I said, 'What are we doing here? Why are we dependent on something that's eventually going to run out?' It didn't make any sense to me, so I got involved at that time to do whatever I could to promote alternative energy sources, kind of focusing on solar."

     Do you feel stuck in the 1970s yet? But Redford thinks it's the other side with the living fossils stuck in the past. When Matthews asked how we're going to deal with oil states like Iran in the future, he said:
     Redford: "I think the first thing you do is, I think you've got to get new leadership that has a new vision, which means you've got to get these guys out. I mean, I think the problem with this administration and guys like Cheney, is that they are living in the '50s. That's the problem. They, they can't get out of thinking the world is turning the way it was in the '50s. It's, it's, we live in a new time and a new world and they don't see it because their interests are so narrow."
     Matthews: "He's an oil patch guy is what you're saying."
     Redford: "There's an arrogance about it."
     Matthews: "But they're oil patch people, is that what you're saying?"
     Redford: "Yeah. I mean, they've earned their fortunes in gas and oil, what do you expect?"

     Of course, Redford saw these Republicans came from narrow-minded privilege, unlike pampered pretty-boy movie stars:

     Matthews: "Well let me ask you about the President, because he is the President, he's from an oil state. Do you think that we have two people that have a problem because of just their local interests and their personal backgrounds?"
     Redford: "I think, I think a, I think a lack of breadth, not, not a broad enough mind, narrow-mindedness tied to the privilege they came up with and so forth."

     Redford saw the battle as the corporate greedheads versus the virtuous, progressive grass roots of America, touting a new Apollo Alliance (www.apolloalliance.org ) against global warming:
     "That's the first time in history that all these groups, which represent the grassroots against the failed leadership that should have, I mean, this issue has been under their nose, this current administration, since the day they rode in. And we have an economy that's fueled, excuse the pun, it's fueled by oil, and it's absolutely imperative that we get off of the oil habit. I mean, it's, it's bad for our security, it's bad for the environment, there's no real future in it because it's going to run out. What you can point to now is that this is a time for optimism because there are solutions. And they're real, and they're here and they're available now, despite what the administration does to undercut it or submarine it, it just can't be. There's too much evidence."
     Matthews: "What do you think happened in that private meeting that Vice President Cheney ran called the energy task force? We're not allowed to know who was in the room. Do you know where our energy policy that we have, whatever it is, has come from?"
     Redford: "Well what do you think happened? I mean it`s pretty obvious what happened. It was designed by the energy companies in private for self-interested reasons. And so there you have, there you have the perfect equation of the big energy companies, oil and gas companies, influencing our political policies. And it was done, the fact it was done in secret, what that tells me is that was probably the beginning of a long chain of secret, secret events the administration sort of tried to pull. Now, fortunately, it's coming, it's coming out in the wash now, that that's what was going on. But you had Enron in the room, one of our stellar, one of our stellar groups."

     When the conversation turned to "An Inconvenient Truth," the Al Gore slide-show documentary, Redford turned optimistic about how green groups had all the idealism on their side:

     Matthews: "Let me ask you, what about Al Gore, did you see the movie?"
     Redford: "Yeah."
     Matthews: "What did you make of it? An Inconvenient Truth."
     Redford: "It's good, we had it at the festival. It's good. Yeah, I was, he shot-"
     Matthews: "You had it out at Sundance?"
     Redford: "Yeah, yeah. No it's very valuable, it's very valuable, and I think that the main thing is, it's one thing to show how bad it is, 'cause it is. It's dire, but you've got to show what is available as an alternative. Because you got to have some optimism. My God, we've been depressed for so long, it's about time to have some hope and there's a reason for hope because there are alternatives that are available right now so you've got to get that word out and I think Al's film goes a long way in that direction. It's great."
     Matthews: "But the movie was fairly depressing?"
     Redford: "Well because it's dealing with hard facts but then, then if you look at the other side, you say 'Okay, this is bad and it's been bad for 20, 30 years, because it's been denied by special interests for so long.' Now here's the good side, here's the bright spot and this is the part that America is supposed to be great at, you know, the can-do country. Look, you've got Kennedy saying you can put a guy on the moon. They did. And when people dream big, I mean, it's not like that's, that's a silly thing. When you dream big, you can get there, as Kennedy did, as Martin Luther King did. I mean so now I think that time has come for energy. I'm, I'm pretty optimistic about it."

     Matthews thought it was a great opportunity for Democrats, but that they were blowing it, that people like John McCain and Hillary Clinton were not stepping up to battle Big Oil.

     Matthews: "I'm just wondering because we've got three plus dollars a gas now, people out there, working guys, who have to drive 50 to miles to work both ways, they're paying a lot for gas in sometimes old cars. You've got a war over there that you can argue isn't about oil but damn well it is-"
     Redford: "Sure it is."
     Matthews: "-to a large extent because we're trying to protect the oil lines. The President admits that. You've got this global warming fear that even the President and the conservatives are accepting now as a reality with Kilimanjaro melting down, and the ice cap, everything melting down. So you have this, it seems to me everything is working toward a political opportunity for one of the two political parties and it's you independent guys that are out doing it. There's no politician out at the front of this thing that's in the business anymore."
     Redford: "Well I think the Democratic party puts forth a bill that's, that's a great start. I mean there's more to go. It can be bolder-"
     Matthews: "Yeah."
     Redford: "-and there's, there's more to come. But it's a start in comparison to what energy policy we have coming from this administration now which is a disaster, it's also an insult."

     So why can't the Democrats win and return us to glorious Carter-era energy policy?

     Redford: "Maybe it has to do with the nature of the Democratic, the identity of the Democrat is to be, is to be open to all points of view and, and that's why it's hard to coalesce."
     Matthews: "...Will Rogers is still calling the shots when he said, 'I belong to no organized political party, the Democrats.' I mean you look at how clever they use the, the gay marriage issue in Ohio and states like that last time and how they're doing it again, they're moving the country to a 55-45 position their way on some issues like that."
     Redford: "Yeah. That's the old straw dog approach where they're in trouble and to distract people from the trouble they're in they create a straw dog. You they did it with swift boat. They, I mean, I still think it's probably one of the great shameful acts to go after Cleland the way they did, a war hero and to try to take this guy apart and accuse him of being unpatriotic. I thought that was one of the most criminally offensive moves I could imagine, but they'll do it, they'll do it because it's about winning."

-- Brent Baker