Sen, Kerry and START --Boston GLobe

[MBS]

long, front-page article. Kerry working to get bipartisan support. Needless to say, the Republicans are opposed . . sigh. (By the way, why are Yoo and Bolton still around, trying to influence policy? :scared: Time to send them to an underground undisclosed location, where they can keep Cheney companay )

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/11/16/kerry_hopes_to_get_lame_duck_senate_to_ok_new_arms_treaty/

Senator John Kerry, the Obama administration’s point man in Congress on foreign policy, is racing to line up the votes for ratification of a key arms treaty with Russia before the newly elected Congress can try to block it next year.. . .
Ratification is one of President Obama’s top priorities for the lame-duck session of Congress that began this week. The effort picked up support yesterday from Roman Catholic bishops in Massachusetts, who announced they have written to Kerry and Senator Scott Brown, the Bay State Republican, to urge ratification of New START by the end of the year.

“You really hope people are going to see the benefit of moving forward,’’ Kerry said in an interview yesterday. He has been speaking frequently with Republican senators, particularly Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is leading the GOP’s response on nuclear arms issues in the Senate.

. . .



“I think Senator Kerry is just sounding the trumpet in the hopes that nobody will pay attention to how many people he has behind him,’’ John Bolton, former adviser to President George W. Bush and the US ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06, said in an interview yesterday. “I don’t know anyone on the Republican side who is anxious to vote on this in the lame-duck session.’’
, , ,

Inspection of Russian nuclear arms stopped last December when an earlier treaty expired. Proponents of New START say the renewal of inspections is one of the best arguments for ratification. . .
. . .
The late hour on the congressional schedule has left the treaty’s ratification in some doubt, agreed Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It is unfortunate the votes are going to come in a lame-duck session, when some people don’t want to conduct the nation’s business,’’ he said.

Kerry, in response, said the ratification vote “couldn’t have happened months ago,’’ in part because the Senate was dealing with major legislation earlier this year, such as the health care overhaul and new Wall Street regulations. Also, he said, Republicans asked for more time to study the treaty.


Not everyone on the Russian side is keen on New START, either, according to Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian arms negotiator, now a senior research associate and a specialist in nuclear nonproliferation at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
“If there is someone who would be privately happy about the US Senate rejecting New START, it’s the Russian military,’’ said Sokov, who participated in negotiations for two prior START treaties. The Russian military, he said, sees the verification regime in New START as disruptive and expensive.
. . .

The treaty’s prospects this year will rest largely on Kerry’s ability to bring along his fellow senators, according to Bolton, now a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Success or failure,’’ he said, “depends on how persuasive Kerry is.’’

[MBS]

1. just to add (too late to edit)

Bolton says success depends on "how persuasive Kerry is".
I say success depends on whether any Repubs will step up to the plate and vote for the sake of the country, for once, instead of making political points with their (insert term for excrement) far-right brethren ,

[karynnj]

2. I agree with your statement - and agree that the discredited never confirmed

or recommended by the SFRC in a Congress controlled by Republicans former UN ambassador needs to go away.

In addition to what you wrote, this treaty is supported by Kerry and Lugar. The fact is that Kerry likely has his Democrats behind it. Lugar wrote major parts of the current version of the resolution and he is working hard at getting Republican votes. In a way, it is more a referendum in the republican party of whether they listen to Lugar or to Kyl than anything to do with Kerry.

It is interesting that the Catholic bishops of MA have come out in favor of it. It will be interesting to see where the lesser Senator comes out. (I assume the first thing we will hear i that he has to read the entire thing. Those it is amazing that after he has supposedly read entire bills, he is incapable of describing them.)

[Inuca]

4. The ever trustworthy Kyl...

Why can there be at least 10 R senators like Lugar? Just to be able to have some adult conversation in the "most deliberative body"...

[MBS]

5. oh, yeah. You said it.

The first thing I saw in the paper this morning.Infuriating. :nuke:

[MBS]

6. Kerry statement (WaPo)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR2010111607258.html?wpisrc=nl_headline

Democrats seemed unsure whether the delay amounted to a death knell for the treaty, but their leaders vowed to fight on.

"I do not believe the door is closed to considering New START during the lame-duck session," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after talking to Kyl.

Bless Kerry for keeping at this.

[MBS]

3. press releases on campaign by Kerry, Lugar and Hillary re START treaty

#1 statement by Sen. Kerry:
Chairman Kerry: “Ratifying New START Is Not A Political Choice, It’s A National Security Imperative”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) released the following statement today on ratification of the New START Treaty:

“I talked with Senator Kyl today and I do not believe the door is closed to considering New START during the lame duck session. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Lugar, Senator Kyl, our colleagues, and the Administration to get the New START treaty ratified by the Senate this year. Ratifying New START is not a political choice, it’s a national security imperative.”

#2 Press "availability" tomorrow (Wed)

Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), and Ranking Member Dick Lugar (R-IN) will hold a press availability to discuss the need for the Senate to approve the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). . .

New START will advance critical national security objectives: reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons while retaining a safe, secure and effective deterrent; providing direct insight into Russia’s nuclear arsenal; and creating a more stable, predictable and cooperative relationship between the world’s two leading nuclear powers.

Six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense and three former national security advisers have endorsed ratification, along with seven former commanders of U.S. Strategic Command and the entire current U.S. military leadership unanimously support the New START Treaty.

On April 8, 2010, President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed New START to replace the original START accord, which expired nearly a year ago in December 2009. On September 16, 2010, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution of advice and consent to ratification of New START with 3 Republicans joining 11 Democrats, continuing a tradition of broad bipartisan support for strategic arms agreements that spans four administrations.


WHO: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Dick Lugar

WHEN: TOMORROW, November 17 at 9:00 a.m.

[beachmom]

7. What the ???? Jon Kyl doesn't even SIT on the SFRC

http://foreign.senate.gov/

Committee Members
Majority
Christopher J. Dodd
Russell D. Feingold
Barbara Boxer
Robert Menendez
Benjamin L. Cardin
Robert P. Casey Jr
Jim Webb
Jeanne Shaheen
Edward E. Kaufman
Kirsten E. Gillibrand

Minority
Bob Corker
Johnny Isakson
James E. Risch
Jim DeMint
John Barrasso
Roger F. Wicker
James M. Inhofe

And, obviously, Lugar is ranking member.

When I look at the above list, here are the people who are AT ALL serious on the Republican side: Corker, Isakson and Lugar. That's it. On the Dem side, active members are/were Kerry, Boxer, Feingold, and Webb with the others not always being there. But it would be a bit weird if suddenly Sen. Durbin said HE was in charge of the START treaty. Yet that is basically what has happened here. Ideology trumps having true experts leading on this issue. It is why I find the Republican party so offensive. They choose the CHARLATANS to lead, not the smart insightful people.

A vote for a Democrat is not necessarily a vote for a liberal or a certain ideology. Sometimes it is just a vote for civility, decency and, yes, moderation. That's where are politics are these days.

Good that Kerry is fighting, but as with climate legislation, I feel like this story has already been written, much to the delight of the Russian military. Sigh.

[karynnj]

8. It is interesting that the media is completely ignoring that the Republicans are unercutting Lugar

That shows how far they are willing to go. Kerry signed on to Lugar's language as a way to compromise with the Republicans and the fact is that alternative to the treaty is NO verification at all. This treaty is following in the direction Reagan started. What it really is - more than the climate change bill - is an attempt to stop anything that could be seen as an Obama success. (Even though I really can't imagine the Democrats being able to get people all excited by this treaty.)

Kyl has taken a lead on some foreign policy issues in the past. In 2009, he tried to attach 3 amendments - all of which would have hurt Obama's foreign policy initiatives - to a larger bill. Kerry and Lugar were able to defeat all of them - even though each got substantial support from republicans and some Democrats.

This should be writing on the wall for all not completely ideological Republicans. If they are willing to do this to Lugar - for whom these treaties are a career long accomplishment, what do Collins, Snowe, Brown, and even Lindsey Graham and john McCain think they would do for them. Throw in Murcowski, who looks like she has won - and who is likely near the top of the tea party's Republican Senators hate list. (In the lame duck, there is also Voinivich, who was another semi-reasonable Republican on the SFRC.) If all of these people, adding Lugar and Corker, seeing how wrong Kyl is voted for this in the lame duck session - it would pass. It would mean that some who spoke against confirming it in the lame duck session would need to see the urgency to do so.

I wish I were more optimistic.

[beachmom]

9. But even if they chose someone else other than Lugar, why go outside the committee?

Kyl is not an expert on foreign policy -- he simply is out there being a hack for the GOP leadership. And people think that's great! Huh? He is not a leader, he is a follower of far right wing neocon forces. Can you imagine John Kerry being an errand boy for some liberal think tank? Can you imagine him not studying issues carefully or going on trips or talking to opposing sides and then just popping up on cable with big declarations?

I mean, we pay attention to these things, but this example of who the Republicans chose to lead on a very important fairly non-political issue is a glaring admission that they really don't give a *%^) about anything. And a bunch of old people voted them in. I just read an article in the New Yorker on their financial page, that it was really old people who are responsible for this Republican victory. So when Republicans speak from now on, I know who they are speaking for and it's not me. It's for old fat cats who have theirs and to hell with everybody else. They voted in the most irresponsible ignorant know-nothings all to protect THEIR MONEY. Geez.

[Mass]

11. Because the treaty has been voted out of committee. It is now waiting for a vote on the floor.

The fact that the whips are involved is not surprising at this point. This is how it is supposed to work. Leaders and assistant leaders are supposed to decide what is voted upon, and Kyl does not object to the content of the treaty, but to bringing it to a vote in the lame duck session.

[beachmom]

13. Well, in the past I have seen Senators not in leadership positions manage bills.

The reason why they don't want it brought to a vote is due to political games, not substantive issues or Senate protocol.

[Mass]

14. I dont disagree with you, but it is not outrageous that Kyl would interfere.

Obviously, it is just a political game without anything behind except the will to make the Democrats look bad. I dont think there is any doubt on that, partisanship at its worst.

[karynnj]

12. I completely agree

I suspect it is because Kyl is in the leadership. He is the assistant minority leader - second to McConnell. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/a_three_sections_with_teasers/leadership.htm

It might also have something to do with internal Republican politics. The obvious SFRC opponent of Lugar is DeMint. I suspect that McConnell does not want DeMint, who is the lead tea partier to be leading this fight.

It does stun my that the senior citizens disproportionately voted for the Republicans - and some say it was to protect SS and Medicare - which has to be bizarre as they had to know that the Democrats put them in place and protected them for decades while Republicans tried to destroy them.

I think it really is that our media has been turned into an entertainment/propaganda machine. Kerry was very on target in his comments - but it is no more clear what the solution to this is than it was when he spoke in 2005 about losing to two lies and describing the echo chamber, but not then knowing what the solution was - other than knowing that truth needed to be out there at least as much as the lies.

[Inuca]

18. Drop McCain from the list

of "potential reasonables", he stopped being that and now he heads the "show them the finger" caucus. Murkowski will be interesting to watch. She never was one of the rabid ones and seems like a rather reasonable (though immensely boring) woman, but AFAIK her votes were very reliable. After what happened, I wonder what/if she will change... Also, my new senator (:puke:) Kirk may behave in a way similar to the MA centerfold wonder, without the looks but with a better ability to put a sentence together.

[Mass]

10. This is what happens when you announce you are ready to compromise without having secured something

from the other side.

The dems let Lugar write the modifications of the bill so that it could answer Kyl and DeMint's objections. They got the treaty out of committee. They forgot to ask that Kyl agrees to a vote.

I have no problem with ideology and I wished we would start talking about ideology again, because it would make clear why Democrats are better suited than Republicans when it comes to governing for the masses, but this is not ideology, it is about winning or losing for your party, like you win or lose a football game. It is about partisanship, nothing more or less. It is about hurting the Democrats by making them look weak, and they are doing a pretty good job in this direction.

What the dems need to learn is how the game is played: dont give away things before you have secured something else in return!

[Mass]

15. Elizabeth Weingarter asks the real question

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/should-harry-reid-force-a-vote-on-start/66716/

Should Harry Reid Force a Vote on START?

We can agree or disagree with Weingarten's view of whether it is a good idea or not, but ultimately, it is up to Reid to take a stand.

[karynnj]

16. I hope that Kerry pushs Reid to put it to a vote

The fact is that the Obama administration DID give the Republicans a lot of what they want. Kerry framed it brilliantly ( just as MBS did here before he did - as country over politics.) The fact is that Corker, and several other Republicans do not have a problem with the content.

So, the question is why they should accept Kyl's bullying and what else will Kyl try to extract when we need 5 additional votes in January. My own opinion is that the treaty is dead if it doesn't get ratified in the lame duck. The right wing and the odious Heritage Foundation have demonized it to the point that getting 14 Republican votes (67 - 53 - which assumes we get every Democrat.) is just not going to happen. McConnell and Kyl wanted to add this to the list of Obama failures, which does mean they are willing to sacrifice the security of the country for political gain.

Given the difference in needing 8 republicans - and needing 14, I don't see what Reid has to lose. He loses if it never goes to the floor as much as if does and he loses a vote. Not to mention - there will be a big precedent of cowering in the face of the Republicans. As one who has fought people who made that argument in cases where he chose something that could pass over something that couldn't, this is different - there is no other more viable alternative.

[Inuca]

19. AGree 10000% n/t

[YvonneCa]

25. Not sure I would agree with...

...this part of what you say: "He loses if it never goes to the floor as much as if does and he loses a vote."

Normally...I would say that is true. But with START, and its history...the publicity around voting and failing would have international impact. It would reflect very badly on our national credibility, aside from any impact on Reid, Kerry, Lugar or Clinton.

That said, START itself is critical. And I am glad to see momentum is building to pass it by 'bringing in the big guns', so to speak (including Kissinger and others) who will make voting 'no' more difficult for the 'Party of No'.

[MBS]

17. article in Slate: Going to War over a Treaty

http://www.slate.com/id/2275295/
some excerpts. .

. . . During the G-20 meeting last week, Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev—with whom he co-signed the treaty in April—that getting New START ratified would be his top priority during the lame duck session. At that point, Kyl seemed close to endorsing the accord—and Kyl has positioned himself as the Republicans' go-to senator on political negotiations over nuclear matters. The word went out: If Kyl said the treaty was OK, it would pass. If he didn't, it wouldn't. . .
After the midterms, when ratification became urgent, Obama intensified his efforts to bring Kyl around, dispatching senior officers and officials to Arizona for negotiations. For instance, Kyl had claimed in his Journal piece that the nuclear budget for the next fiscal year fell $2.4 billion short of what was needed. Obama's emissaries agreed to add $4.1 billion.

Apparently, that wasn't enough—much to the surprise of Obama and his aides, who'd received no advance word of Kyl's announcement on Tuesday. Rather than cave, the administration is doubling down, pushing full steam ahead for a vote on ratification during the lame duck session. Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton each made speeches, arguing that the treaty is essential to the national security. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, re-emphasized the point in a speech this morning, with Clinton by his side. She and Gates are reaching out to wavering senators.

In his news conference today, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president has the votes to ratify the treaty. Even some Democrats privately say they're not so sure. But the suggestion isn't so outrageous as some of this morning's headlines suggest.

First, as Kerry said in his speech today, Kyl didn't quite shut the door on ratification. Here's Kyl's statement in full:

When Majority Leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization. I appreciate the recent effort by the Administration to address some of the issues that we have raised and I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Kerry, DoD and DoE officials.

.. .As for the other work on the table, he seemed to be tossing the ball back to Obama: Which agenda do you value more—tax cuts or this? As for "unresolved issues," there are none related to New START. A few months ago, at Republicans' request, Kerry agreed to put off a floor vote on the treaty, so that everyone could examine the text and raise their concerns. Kerry said today he has since reached out to all the senators who'd had questions and that, as of now, there is "no substantive disagreement" on the treaty itself. (For more analysis of this truth, click here and here.). . .

More (including live links to the "here" and "here" in last quoted sentence) at the url.

[karynnj]

20. Ok - Am I paranoid or does the NYT have an agenda?

Look at the photo shown. (As a member of a LARGE family, I can say that in three generation pictures of 40 of us - we would not have selected one where half of one member's face was covered by his hand - and here - there were just 3 people in the photo - and in all other photos he looked by far the best.)

But, more importantly, while Clinton was a Senator and has contacts in both parties, they pale next to Kerry's and especially Lugar's, when you are speaking of Republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/world/18start.html?_r=1

[Luftmensch067]

21. Judging by that article, I'd say they do!

Not just the photo but, as you say, why is this account framed as if Clinton is Saving the Day? JK and Lugar have done the real work on this and it's a huge stretch to paint HRC as some kind of superhero there to save Congress from itself!

[Mass]

22. Judging by previous articles, he is part of the crowd of admirers of the Secretary of State

But basically, what I get from this article is that she needs to start doing her job, selling the foreign policy of the Obama administration to the Senate. About time.

It also seems interesting that even in this article, Biden's name comes. Not surprising given the length of his stay in the Senate and his knowledge of these issues, but still very significant.

[Mass]

23. Foreign Policy's article does not exactly reflects the fact that Clinton's contacts are crucial

Apparently, Biden has been tasked with the job.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/18/obama_biden_will_work_day_and_night_on_new_start

Obama: Biden will work “day and night” on New START

President Obama is personally committed to pushing for a Senate vote on the New START treaty during this lame duck session of Congress. But he's going to Europe tonight, so he's ordering Vice President Joseph Biden to make it happen.

"As Senator Reid said yesterday, there is time on the Senate calendar to get this treaty ratified this year. So I've asked Vice President Biden to focus on this issue day and night until it gets done," Obama said just before he met with top Cabinet officials and pro-treaty senators at the White House Thursday.

"It is a national security imperative that the United States ratify the New START treaty this year, he said. "There is no higher national security priority for the lame duck session of Congress. The stakes for American national security are clear, and they are high."

...

Now, as Senator Reid said yesterday, there is time on the Senate calendar to get this treaty ratified this year. So I've asked Vice President Biden to focus on this issue day and night until it gets done. It's important to our national security to let this treaty go up for a vote. I'm confident that it's the right thing to do. The people around this table think it's the right thing to do.

[MBS]

24. yeah, Biden must be a big part of this.. I heard JK say somewhere

--unprompted-- that Biden was doing a great job.

[karynnj]

26. Here's an article that says Biden will be on it night and day

They also have a clip of a very frustrated Lugar - it shows how bad the Republicans are that he can't get a group of them to follow,

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/18/biden-gets-started/

[Inuca]

27. I don't know about the NYT as a whole, but

that article does indeed read like an "Ode to Hillary the Great", her past and current awesomeness, to become even more awesome once gates is replaced.

[MBS]

28. more balanced treatment in Globe (via Bloomberg News)

I'm guessing there must have been some extra State-generated press release or interview--maybe beyond their joint press appearance? . . and NYT did the lazy thing of just parroting what they were fed. There may also be a New York chauvinism thing (Hillary as ex-senator, Bill still there ) going on.
Unimpressive, but, I agree, kind of typical for NYT. They do seem to be chronically lazy and/or craven on this kind of thing.

Here's the Globe (really Bloomberg news) version, from yesterday (with not-so-flattering photo of HRC to balance out NYT photo of JK)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/11/18/white_house_intensifies_push_for_senate_ok_of_arms_treaty/

A more informative and balanced story all around, with quotes evenly dispersed among the players (nothing by Biden, though, but everyone else's voice is included)

“. . . This is going to be a test of the degree to which both sides can work together on things that are of common interest,’’ White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. “I think the treaty will be voted on, and I think we’ll have enough votes to pass it.’’

Massachusetts Democrat John F. Kerry , chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said spending to modernize US nuclear forces is the only remaining area of disagreement with Republicans.
. . . .
Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, said that failure to ratify the treaty would be inexcusable and that the nuclear stockpiles of nations such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea pose “an existential problem for our country.
’’
. . . “Some Republican senators just want to deny the president a victory, while some are trying to get the best possible deal,’’ said Robert Kagan, a national security specialist at the Brookings Institution and a former adviser to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. “Still, blocking the treaty is a mistake.’’

Support from Kyl is “gettable’’ if Clinton and the administration are willing to amend the treaty and more clearly lay out modernization components, said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. . .

[karynnj]

29. The BG article is far better

(and that is an unflattering Hillary picture.)

What seems clear reading all the articles is that they are pressing anyone who has any possible levers they can use out there. It also seems clear that Biden and Kerry are the ones trying to move Kyl. I have seen Kyl and Kerry interact on the Finance committee. He is one of the more intelligent Republicans - if I had to map him to a Democratic counterpart, I would chose Schumer. Though there are obviously major ideological difference, it seemed like there was mutual respect between Kyl and Kerry - as measured by the way they seriously responded to each other's ideas.

Even in the earlier, Kyl spoke of still speaking with Kerry, and the DoD and the DoE. From, this negatively titled article speaks of Kerry speaking with several Republicans yesterday. Here, he refers to Kerry as very persistent, but, here and in the earlier articles he refers to Kerry when listing who he is speaking to.

I watched Biden this morning on Morning Joe (it was announced yesterday). He thinks that when forced to vote there will be 8 or 9 republicans that will vote for it. Assuming we have all the Democrats - if Biden is right, this could squeak by as we have 59.

The NYT has been our primary newspaper for decades. I think since at least 1992, many of their columnists have loved Hillary Clinton and speculated that she would herself be President. Their coverage of her 2000 run was as "fluffy" as it gets - praising her wildly for doing what every candidate (well, maybe not Coakley) does - campaigning around the state. Implicit was an assumption that she didn't have to do that,given who she was. When elected, there were - starting in week one - stories of her humbly taking a back seat. Then when she ran, they spoke of her having gone from that to a natural leader in the Senate, loved by both sides of the aisles. Many behind the scenes stories consistently show a very different, more complicated picture - of both times. They were ecstatic when she became SoS.

I've noticed that these puff pieces occur when there are reasons to worry that she will NOT be seen as the super star SoS that they so want her to be. Here, she obviously is one of the people who has worked on it - but she was definitely not seen as the key negotiator with Russia and she really has not been even in the top three in pushing the Senate to pass it. (Lugar has been incredible and I really bet that some Republicans have to have been affected by this ultra Republican gentleman spoke out against his party's actions on this, Kerry's hearings were excellent and he has been able to counter that they haven't sufficiently examined this and Biden, who the President seems to have placed as the lead from the administration. Not to mention, the President is always a top person.) Obama putting Biden in charge IS very much a signal that he, a former Senator, knows his VP has better connections.

The reality is that HRC has not become a star diplomat and she has not been as key a player with the Congress as Biden has. (She was able to push at least one congresswoman to vote for HCR. Very good, but not the super star many wanted to declare her.)

[MBS]

30. strong oped by James Carroll on START and Republicans

I posted it on DU editorials (along with my disclaimer re Carroll's comments on Reagan)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=572616&mesg_id=572616