Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism

[ ONE ]

CIVILIZATION

IN THE BALANCE

First things first: I’m a New Yorker.

It’s not just home—it’s who I am.

I was born and raised here. I grew up on Long Island, in Franklin Square, and went to Catholic schools for twelve years here. I am a New Yorker in every way. I was born combative. I love Sabrett hotdogs. I have a thick accent, which I didn’t realize until I began to travel a bit in my early twenties and started working in places like Rhode Island, California, Alabama, and Georgia. But I came back to the Big Apple because my roots are here. It’s where I’ve chosen to settle down with my wife, Jill, raise my kids, and make my career.

I love New York. I love every cliché about this wild, wacky, wonderful city. And they’re all true. Sure, it’s loud. And brash. And bright. And gritty. Sure, everyone here thinks he lives at the center of the universe. So what? We do.

People don’t dream all their lives of escaping the hellish countries they live in and pay their life savings to underworld types for the privilege of being locked up in a freezing, filthy, stinking container ship and hauled like cargo for weeks until they finally arrive in . . . Moscow . . . or Beijing . . . or Baghdad . . . or Kabul.

People risk their lives to come here—to New York. The greatest city in the world, where dreams become reality.

Why shouldn’t they? It’s a city of immigrants and indigents. Busboys and billionaires. Big dreamers and big idiots. Every race and every religion. Every idea and every ism. They’re all here. Competing for your time, attention, and bucks. And Sinatra was right: if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. This is the place where all my dreams are coming true.

Welcome to New York, city of dreams.

As much as I love New York, though, on a deeper level I am also a proud American. I believe in the American dream, the American ideal, the unique American culture, and traditional American values. Indeed, my core political beliefs—my conservative ideals—are grounded in my respect for the traditions that make up America’s foundation.

At the core of those traditions is the idea of freedom. Freedom was the idea that inspired our Founders, that moved them to break free of an oppressive regime and envision a better system of government. The framers of our Constitution were determined to establish a governmental structure that would ensure freedom. They understood that freedom was the exception rather than the rule in world history, and they were determined to right that wrong.

But the framers also recognized that democratic participation in government wouldn’t be enough, for even a parliament could become corrupt in the absence of restraints on government. So in order to safeguard liberties, they knew they would have to impose limitations on government—limitations that would be etched in a permanent (though amendable) Constitution and would be bolstered by a complex scheme of checks and balances among the various levels and branches of government.

At heart, American conservatives like myself are believers in the Constitution. We believe that the principles embodied in the Constitution are enduring, and that to whatever extent we deviate from them we put our liberties at risk. Our views are consistent because we believe in absolute truths and in the essential soundness, even righteousness, of the Founders’ vision of government.

In this book I’ll talk about a wide array of issues—from the perennial questions of education, government spending, and abortion to the many urgent concerns that have been raised in this uncertain time, when we face a threat from an elusive and powerful new enemy. If you’ve watched me on Hannity & Colmes, or listened to The Sean Hannity Show on the radio, you already know you’re in for some strong opinions. But if you read carefully, you’ll notice how often my beliefs come back to that basic idea: that as Americans we have a basic right to enjoy freedom in our lives—including freedom from governmental interference. For the first time in generations, Americans are now forced to confront an immediate and genuine threat to our way of life. And for me this is the strongest reason that we must win the war on terror: to secure, in those unforgettable words, the blessings of liberty.

The conservative vision is that America return to its founding principles—because these principles are the pillars of freedom. Without them America will not continue to be great; with them there is no limit to our future.

Monday, September 10, 2001.

That’s the day my radio show became nationally syndicated.

We talked about cutting taxes, reforming education, strengthening the military, and defending the Judeo-Christian values too often being driven out of our schools. It was a great first day—fun, fast-paced. I was doing what I love, debating the hot news and burning issues of the day. When it was over, I went to sleep happy.

John Gomez, a friend since third grade, called me at home a few minutes before nine on Tuesday morning, September 11. He told me a plane had just crashed into the side of one of the World Trade Center towers. He thought it might have been a small commuter plane. It wasn’t quite clear. I couldn’t believe it; at first I thought he was kidding. I turned on the Fox News Channel—just in time to see the second jumbo jet slam into the side of the second tower and erupt into a monstrous ball of fire and thick black smoke. How could this be happening? This was clearly no mistake, but most certainly a kamikaze. Without a doubt it was an act of terrorism—indeed, an act of war.

It was a moment of incomprehensible horror, for every American and for freedom-loving people around the globe. But as a New Yorker I was seeing more than just an attack against America. For me, it was personal. Some sick cell of psychotic suicide bombers had just attacked my world. My city, my friends. As I stared at the video replays—at the planes and the people and the terror and the devastation—I knew I was staring into the face of evil, glimpsing a vision born in the minds of savages. And I knew that, unlike that atrocity at Pearl Harbor sixty years before, the miracle of twenty-first–century communications would soon be bringing this same horrific vision to a billion people all over the world. The experience was as disorienting as it was surreal.

Then came word of smoke at the Pentagon—another plane, another attack.

A plane crash near Pittsburgh.

A car bomb in front of the State Department (a rumor that later proved false).

Air Force One’s destination was unknown.

The White House was being evacuated.

Members of Congress were being rushed to a secure, undisclosed location.

Then the ghastly image of one tower collapsing.

Then the other.

People jumping from the towers, running for their lives.

A city of smoke, and a skyline scarred forever.

Hell was breaking loose—and it was just beginning.

I was due on the air in a few hours, but there was no way I was going to be able to get to the studios in Manhattan. New York was under siege, locked down by the military. F-16s were flying combat air patrols overhead. I’d have to do the show from a studio on Long Island. What would I say? What was happening? And what might happen next?

Welcome to New York, city of nightmares.

On September 11, 2001, the world changed—forever.

Yours did. Mine did, too.

When I think back, a year later, to those horrifying images . . . to those huge passenger jets, filled not only with thousands of pounds of jet fuel but with fathers and mothers and sons and daughters . . . to those Twin Towers—home of some fifty-five thousand workers every day—engulfed in flames and collapsing in mushroom clouds of smoke and dust and ash . . . to those human bodies raining from the sky . . . to the frantic, desperate, 24/7 search for the three thousand souls who perished . . . to all those policemen and firemen, New York’s finest and bravest, weeping uncontrollably for their lost brothers . . . to all those children, sitting in classrooms all over New York, orphaned and frightened and alone . . . to brave, stoic, heartbroken Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general, at the memorial service for his wife, Barbara . . . when I see these images—even a full year later—I get angry.

I get angry because I’m convinced those attacks might have been prevented.

I get angry because I’m convinced the Clinton-Gore administration never truly focused on protecting the American people from terrorism in general and Osama bin Laden in particular.

I get angry because it is now clear that President Bill Clinton’s sworn obligation to preserve, protect, and defend this nation took a backseat to his personal and political pursuits. Instead of leading an all-out war against those whose express goal was to murder innocent Americans, he wasted precious time and resources fighting with federal prosecutors, federal courts, and the Republican Congress—over sins and crimes he’d committed.

I get angry because for decades the Left in America has foolishly and relentlessly attacked and undermined the very policies and institutions that have made our country a beacon of liberty and prosperity. They have wasted decades bitterly attacking conservatives as extreme and dangerous—conservatives whose mission it has been to stand up for the rule of law, free enterprise, limited government, and a strong military.

And I am amazed that so many liberals still don’t get it. They still don’t seem to grasp the very real dangers we face—or what we need to do about them.

From the moment those two planes hit those two towers, it was crystal clear to me: America is at war.

Not an old, cold, Communist war, but a new, hot, holy war.

Not against an evil nation—a regime with a capital, an army, a navy, and an air force—but against an evil network that is wealthy, stealthy, and extremely deadly.

To win, we must fight with bullets, bombs, spy satellites, special ops, and the latest weapons in our high-tech, high-intelligence arsenal. But we must understand that this is also now a war of ideas: between good and evil; between right and wrong; between the Judeo-Christian values upon which this country was founded and the violent nihilism of radical Islam.

And make no mistake: it’s winner take all.

The shadowy, clandestine forces arrayed against us will not slow their progress until they have decapitated our leaders, destroyed our freedoms, and ushered in a new age of slavery and darkness—unless we stop them with deadly force. Even now, as they have been for years, they are feverishly pursuing weapons of mass destruction. And when they have them, they will use them.

Our enemies have not been distracted or softened by the allure of modern liberalism, feel-good feminism, or radical environmentalism. They are not distracted from their murderous mission by absurd notions of political correctness. They are focused. They are fearless. They are disciplined. And they will pay any price to advance their jihad—until they win, or die. Period.

Therefore we now face two fundamental questions.

First, are we Americans truly prepared to fight this new war to wipe out terrorism and terrorist regimes and win it decisively—no matter what sacrifices it requires or how long it takes?

You might think the answer would be an obvious yes. But the fact is that just months after September 11, liberal politicians and opinion-makers were already seeking to tie President George Bush’s hands by publicly announcing their opposition to a much-needed increase in defense spending and demanding endgame strategies for a war whose end could not now be known. And they did this while our courageous servicemen and women were defending our country on the battlefields and in the caves of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. During the Reagan administration, the Left opposed the modernization of our aging bomber fleet, a six-hundred-ship navy, the modernization of nuclear missiles in Europe, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and our efforts to uproot communism in this hemisphere—including the liberation of Grenada and support for the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. They mocked Reagan for denouncing the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire, rather than condemning the Soviet Union for being an evil empire.

The Left may be sincere, but they’re sincerely wrong. And they must be challenged and defeated if we are to win this war on terror and preserve our way of life for this and future generations.

Second, are we once again prepared to teach our children the fundamental principles and values that made this country great—the values that made this country worth fighting for, living for, and dying for?

Far too many liberals see no connection between values, education, the moral health of our nation, and America’s security and prosperity. And that’s precisely the problem. For the past half-century, liberals have been engaged in a dangerous and destructive effort to morally disarm our children. Here, too, they must be confronted and defeated if America is to lead and succeed in the twenty-first century.

Whether the issues are social, cultural, economic, or international, every significant policy debate and every election of consequence from this point forward will be weighed against the events of September 11, 2001.

Let me put it bluntly: for those who have so long and fiercely opposed giving our military and intelligence forces the tools they need to defend our nation and defeat our enemies, it is now time to answer in the court of public opinion. Why should their message prevail any longer? Why should we entrust our country’s future to those whose track record is so miserable?

So, too, it’s time for those who disparage and dismiss the importance of faith, family, and the flag in our lives to be held to account. Liberals preach that there is nothing wrong with American education that more money and social engineering, fewer standards, and less competition can’t solve. They teach our children multiculturalism rather than American culture, revisionist history rather than American history, the thinly disguised religion of secular humanism and extreme environmentalism rather than capitalism. They train our young to criticize America, not celebrate it. They welcome condoms into the classroom but ban God and the Ten Commandments. They encourage tolerance for the teachings of the Koran but not for the teachings of Jesus Christ. They oppose the Pledge of Allegiance, tell us that God is dead, that Christianity is for losers, and that evangelical and Catholic conservatives are more dangerous than radical Islamic militants. They tell us that fuel-burning SUVs are bad for America, but flag-burning SOBs aren’t.

But they are wrong. And it is time to ask: Why, particularly in time of war, should we entrust the education of our children to people who loathe and ravage so many of our core values and traditions?

In 1992 Al Gore—then a senator from Tennessee hoping one day to become president of the United States—published a rather bizarre political manifesto. Its title? Not Civilization in the Balance, significantly, but Earth in the Balance.

Gore didn’t concern himself with the threats to our national security—and to the freedom of all mankind—posed even then by global terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Instead he fretted about global warming and the spread of the internal combustion engine. He didn’t express concern about the growing concentrations of radical Islamic cells in the United States or around the world. Instead he agonized about the growing concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) now circling the earth.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Consider that the United States spends tens of billions of dollars on frenzied programs to upgrade and improve the technology of bombers and fighter planes to counter an increasingly remote threat to our national security, but we are content to see hundreds of millions of automobiles using an old technological approach not radically different from the one first used decades ago in the Model A Ford, wrote Gore. We now know that their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.

Let’s parse that paragraph for a moment, shall we?

At the time Gore wrote his book, the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein had just ended. So had the fifty-year Cold War. The lessons of what Ronald Reagan called peace through strength were crystal clear. Yet despite the fact that Gore wished one day to become commander in chief of the world’s greatest military, he wrote a book in which he disparaged America’s frenzied effort to upgrade and improve our military.

Why? Because Gore perceived the rise of foreign military threats and terrorist networks to be "an increasingly remote threat to our national security."

Why? Because he believed that the bigger threat—the mortal threat—to our way of life came not from foreign fanatics opposing freedom around the world but from American families and workers exercising their freedoms here at home by driving their own cars and trucks and SUVs.

Moreover, Gore believed that this threat—this domestic threat—was more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront. Really?

How could anyone really believe this? Or admit it publicly? Yet this was (and presumably remains) Al Gore’s worldview. Today, in his hapless effort to reestablish himself in the public eye, Gore has even stooped to critiquing the Bush administration’s war efforts. Which is why Al Gore was overwhelmingly chosen as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee and liberalism’s standard-bearer in the year 2000.

Does this suggest that Al Gore is somehow un-American? Of course not. It does, however, suggest that his views don’t square with those that have contributed to America’s singular tradition of freedom. It suggests that he is unqualified to be an effective commander in chief. It explains why he and the administration in which he served for eight years (and whose record he still enthusiastically endorses) so radically downsized the military and did so little to protect the American people from the likes of Osama bin Laden. And its suggests that we are genuinely indebted to those patriots in Florida—and the other states and territories—who went to the polls and voted for George W. Bush.

Protecting our air, land, and water from pollution is certainly important. But isn’t electing leaders committed to a frenzied—that is, urgent—effort to rebuild our military and protect our homeland security far more important?

Which brings me to a point sure to be controversial. But it happens to be true.

The views of the American Left—and the policies that flow from them—aren’t just wrongheaded; they’re reckless.

Let me be clear: Liberal ideas are not responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. They are, however, responsible for making America more vulnerable, for creating confusion in our society and among our children about what is right and wrong, and thus for placing our freedom and security at risk.

If the Left succeeds in gaining and retaining more power, the well-being of future generations will be at greater peril. I fear they will inherit a nation that is less free and less secure than the nation we inherited from the last generation.

It is therefore our job to stop them. Not just debate them, but defeat them.

Please understand that I’m not saying that liberals like Bill Clinton and Al Gore and Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt and many of the elitists in academia and the media are evil. I’m saying they have a disturbing habit of winking at evil—of ignoring it, or turning a blind eye to it. And in so doing, they put us all in jeopardy.

I’ll make this case in detail on a range of issues throughout this book. But for now, let me give you a sense of what I’m talking about.

HOW CLINTON AND GORE

TURNED A BLIND EYE TO TERRORISM

In the weeks and months following September 11, Americans began asking hard questions. Wasn’t there any way these attacks could have been prevented? Why didn’t the CIA know what was coming? How could we spend billions of dollars on intelligence and have such a massive failure?

After all, the rising threat of global terrorism—particularly the threat of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network—had been clear to U.S. policy-makers for years, from the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa, to the suicide attack on the USS Cole in the fall of 2000.

From the beginning, President Bush expressed the outrage of the American people. He immediately took charge; there was no mistaking who was commander in chief. He made it clear that his first priority would be to hunt down the evildoers and bring them to justice. He and his team also made it clear that determining the causes of America’s security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission. Other Republicans concurred.

I absolutely believe that we have to go back and see what happened, said Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, on NBC’s Meet the Press just one month after the attacks. He stressed the importance of determining what went wrong so that we will not make the mistakes again that we made before and can reorganize our intelligence services.

Curiously, however, liberal Democrats—many of whom historically criticized, attacked, and sought to defund the CIA—at first showed little interest in an investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure. (It was only after they smelled political advantage that they began to jump on the bandwagon.)

We don’t need a witch hunt now, or certainly not next year in an election year, Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told the New York Times.

A witch hunt? That’s pretty strong language. What might Representative Harman fear that the American people might learn—especially in an election year?

Maybe this: that the Clinton-Gore administration—starting with the president and vice president themselves—had turned a blind eye to the growing threat posed to Americans by global terrorist networks. And it cost us. Big time.

On December 30, 2001, New York Times reporters Judith Miller, Jeff Gerth, and Don Van Natta, Jr., wrote a 7,237-word story titled Planning for Terror But Failing to Act. The story detailed how the Clinton-Gore administration did little or nothing to crack down on terrorism in the wake of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

The Times story revealed that in 1996, a State Department dossier spelled out Mr. bin Laden’s operation and his anti-American intentions. But Clinton chose not to act. The Times reported that in 2000, after an Algerian was caught coming into the country with explosives, a secret White House review recommended a crackdown on ‘potential sleeper cells in the United States.’ That review warned that ‘the threat of attack remains high’ and laid out a plan for fighting terrorism. But most of that plan remained undone.

The Times even quoted former Clinton senior adviser George Stephanopolous admitting that the Clinton-Gore administration never gave much attention to protecting the American people from bin Laden and his ilk, despite the growing number of deaths of innocent Americans at the hands of al Qaeda operatives.

It wasn’t the kind of thing where you walked into a staff meeting and people asked, what are we doing today in the war against terrorism? said Stephanopolous.

To which I ask: Why not?

Why were issues like gays in the military and global warming and promoting race-based set-asides more important to the Clinton-Gore administration than waging a war against terrorism?

As time passes, other Clinton-Gore advisers and supporters are going on the record to describe just how uninterested the president and vice president really were in defending American citizens from the terrorist threat.

Dick Morris, for example. Smart, clever, and now a Fox News consultant, Morris has known Bill and Hillary Clinton for more than two decades. He worked with them during their political days in Arkansas. More recently, he was the chief political strategist for the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996. That put him at the epicenter of the Clintons’ political lives. It now makes him a window into the soul of the Clintons for conservatives like me who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten within a hundred miles of that White House inner sanctum.

In interviews over the past year on Hannity & Colmes and elsewhere, Morris has shed light on some very disturbing aspects of the Clinton-Gore approach to terrorism. It hasn’t been pretty. But it has been instructive.

Morris points out that President Clinton—known for his unctuous phrase I feel your pain—never visited the site of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, in which six people died and more than one thousand were injured. Clinton didn’t even meet privately with the director of the Central Intelligence Agency for two years following that attack.

The lack of focus by President Clinton and Vice President Gore on the 1993 bombing caused the investigation to move forward so slowly that the White House had no idea of Osama bin Laden’s complicity in the attack until 1996, three years after it happened.

Even after a bomb exploded at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, and nineteen American soldiers died in the bombing of a U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, Morris says that President Clinton seemed curiously uninvolved in the battle against terror.

This curious inattention wasn’t just the result of negligence—which would have been bad enough. Sandy Berger, then President Clinton’s deputy national security adviser, seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror, says Morris. According to Morris, Berger advised Clinton to veto a bill designed to cripple Iranian funding of terrorism by mandating American retaliation against companies that aided its oil industry. Berger said Clinton should only sign the bill if a provision were added to it authorizing the president to waive the retaliatory sanctions. And Morris observes that, when the bill eventually passed with the waiver provision, Berger blocked the imposition of sanctions almost every time.

In addition, Morris notes, Stephanopolous and Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes lobbied Clinton against approving a measure that would have forced aliens’ driver’s licenses to expire with their visas—which would have meant that routine traffic stops could trigger deportation proceedings. The bill would have resulted in the interfacing of state motor vehicle records with FBI and INS data concerning illegal aliens, visa expirations, and terrorist watch lists. But Ickes and Stephanopolous opposed it because it could be viewed as racial profiling, thereby alienating Clinton’s political base. If the bill had passed, Morris concludes hauntingly, hijacker Mohammed Atta might have been deported when he was cited for driving without a license several months before September 11.

To make matters worse, neither President Clinton nor Vice President Gore did much to fight for stronger airline security, despite the rising terrorist threat. Clinton essentially ignored recommendations to require X-ray screening for baggage, to restore air marshals to commercial flights, and to federalize air security checkpoints. Similarly, Gore did nothing to implement these suggestions when his Commission on Air Safety issued its recommendations in 1997. Only after September 11, observed Morris, were any of these initiatives instituted.

Clinton was apparently so afraid of being accused of racially profiling Islamic charities that he even refused to create a list of extremist and terrorist organizations along with their members and donors in order to alert the public to the possibility of donations that might further terrorism.

What conclusion does the man who was once President Clinton’s chief political strategist draw after observing these facts?

Everything was more important [to Clinton] than fighting terrorism, says Morris. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration’s supporters, Janet Reno’s objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism.

HOW CLINTON AND GORE

LET OSAMA BIN LADEN SLIP AWAY

Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers will defend the Clinton-Gore administration regardless of such serious evidence and seek to paint as obsessive those of us who try to assign it blame. It’s the Clinton-honed tried-and-true tactic of deflecting criticism by attacking your accusers.

Liberals argue that the administration had many issues to deal with, not just terrorism, and that some things were bound to fall through the cracks—particularly with the rabid Republicans trying to impeach the poor man. That’s the pathetic case left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore, author of Stupid White Men—a vicious screed against conservatives like President Bush, among others—tried to make to me one night on Hannity & Colmes.

Frankly, I don’t think we’re handling this war on terrorism in the correct way, Moore objected. What did we have two hundred FBI agents doing three or four years investigating the president’s zipper? Seriously, think about this.

Not his zipper, I shot back. His lying under oath, just to remind you—his lying. He put his hand on a Bible, Michael.

Let’s see, Moore snapped back. His lying under oath? Or would I rather have had the two hundred FBI agents finding the terrorists who were planning to kill three thousand people?

Clever, Michael, oh so clever. Just one problem. It turns out that we didn’t need two hundred FBI agents tracking down the terrorist mastermind. Sudan actually offered Osama bin Laden to the Clinton-Gore administration on a silver platter back in 1996. Before he bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Before he attacked the USS Cole. Before thousands of Americans died on September 11, 2001. But the Clinton-Gore administration repeatedly turned down Sudan’s offer and in so doing let Osama bin Laden slip away to unleash an epoch of evil against us.

In fact, in February of 2002, my cohost, Alan Colmes, and I had the opportunity to talk with the man who tried to broker the deal between the Sudanese and the Clinton-Gore White House to deliver bin Laden into U.S. custody—the deal the administration turned down. His name is Mansoor Ijaz, and his story is remarkable.

Ijaz is an American citizen, a Muslim, a Democrat, and a financial contributor to the Democratic Party and the Clinton-Gore campaigns. The chairman of a New York–based investment company, Ijaz counts among his partners former CIA director James Woolsey and retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, the former director of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. Ijaz is now a Fox News Channel foreign affairs analyst. But during the 1990s he was a middleman deep inside the Middle East.

In February of 1996, Ijaz told me, the Sudanese had come to the conclusion that their Islamic experiment had gone bad, essentially, that the fanatics had gotten out of control. Bin Laden was part of that problem. They offered Saudi Arabia an extradition treaty—extradition of bin Laden. The Saudis turned them down. They came to the United States and said, ‘Do you guys want him?’ And [the Clinton-Gore administration] said: ‘No, we don’t have a case. We can’t do it now.’

Clinton turned it down? I pressed,