Bush Screwed Up In Iraq

Published on December 9, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

There was no immediate danger from Iraq in early 2003. Even if Saddam had the WMD that Bush claimed, he had no way to use any WMD against the Unites States. If Saddam had the means to deliver WMD he would never have used it against the United States because of the consequences. Thus, no matter what the truth was about WMD, Saddam did not pose any danger to us and there was NO justification to invade Iraq.

The U N had weapons Inspectors in Iraq in early 2003 and had we allowed them to complete their inspections we would have learned what we know today-Saddam had no WMD.

Bush had intelligence available to him that was NOT available to Congress which contradicted his claim that Saddam had WMD. Bush only used the intelligence that supported his decision to invade Iraq.

The White House told everyone that the war was to be quick and clean. The estimated cost was placed at $40 billion. We were told our troops would be welcomed as liberators. This was 100% incorrect.

Bush ignored the advice of his most senior generals and sent less then half the number of troops needed to control Iraq. That has caused many unneeded American Military deaths and injuries because of the insurrection we did not prevent from developing.

The insurrection that developed because we did not send the number of troops required to establish security in Iraq now threatens the establishment of any stable government and has prevented the rebuilding of Iraq. Unemployment is at about 60% and utility services are not much different then under Saddam.

There is a very good chance that the government that develops in Iraq will be one that is either like Iran or one that will allow terrorist groups to operate and sponsor future attacks against the United States.

We have alienated many of our allies and have enabled the radical Moslem factions to use our invasion of Iraq as a recruiting tool to add to the number of radicals that will be willing to attack the United States in the future.

There was NO “War on Terrorism” in Iraq when Bush invaded them in 2003. That started AFTER we deposed Saddam and disbanded their army. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.

Bush had NO exit plan for the Iraq War.

Comments (Page 3)

drmiler

on Dec 11, 2005

Cheney said and is still saying that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Cheney would not have said that if Bush did not support that

Want to try yet again you old fool. Once more proven wrong. This is from Cheney/Edwards debate on Oct 5, 2004.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.

CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.

And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.

There was a lot of Intel in 2002 and 2003 that said Saddam did not have WMD The CIA, Dept of Energy and DIA

So once again we're back to the rest of the worlds intel agencies don't know squat?

Daiwa

on Dec 11, 2005

No matter what you all say, if we knew in 2003 what we know today the Congress would NEVER have given Bush permission to go to war.

Pure speculative opinion, once again, Gene. And an assertion that can never be put to the test, the kind that are the bread & butter of the left. It's always safe to have a belief that can never be proven wrong, but then it can never be proven correct, either.

Cheers,
Daiwa

COL Gene

on Dec 11, 2005

drmiler

You are wrong again See this and many other articles that clearly show Cheney tried to link Iraq with 9/11

Editor's Note | The connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks has been so thoroughly debunked that George W. Bush was recently forced to publicly acknowledge the lack of any such association. Mr. Cheney, however, persists. - wrp

Go to Original

Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post

Monday 29 September 2003

In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.

The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.

Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.

Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.

When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.

The vice president's role in keeping the alleged meeting in Prague before the public eye is an illustration of the administration's handling of intelligence reports in the run-up to the war, when senior officials sometimes seized on reports that bolstered the case against Iraq despite contradictory evidence provided by the U.S. intelligence community.

Cheney's office declined to comment. Mary Matalin, a former senior aide to Cheney who still provides the vice president with advice, said Cheney's job is to focus on "the big picture." His appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, she said, was intended to "remind people that Iraq is part of a bigger war that will require patience and sacrifice."

Cheney does not fully vet his speeches or public statements with the CIA or the wider intelligence community for accuracy, according to several administration officials, but usually gives the CIA a list of possible points or facts that might be used in a speech or appearance.

Matalin said Cheney "doesn't base his opinion on one piece of data," but has access to information that cannot be declassified because it would harm national security or compromise sources. "His job is to connect the dots in a way to prevent the worst possible case from happening," she said, but in public "he has to tiptoe through landmines of what's sayable and not sayable."

The claim that Atta, an Egyptian and Sept. 11 hijacker, had met with al-Ani in early April 2001 has been a constant element of the vice president's case against Iraq. Surveillance cameras at the Radio Free Europe building in Prague had picked up al-Ani, an intelligence officer at the Iraq embassy, surveying the building in April, five months before the Sept. 11 attacks. The tape was made available to Czech intelligence. Al-Ani was expelled at the U.S. government's request soon afterward for conduct incompatible with his diplomatic status.

In October 2001, after pictures of Atta had circulated publicly, an Arab student who worked as an informant for BIS, the Czech Security Information Service, told the service he had seen Atta meeting with al-Ani in April.

That November, Stanislav Gross, the Czech Republic's interior minister, said publicly that al-Ani and Atta had met in Prague. A short while later, Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told Powell that the two had discussed targeting the Radio Free Europe building, not the Sept. 11 targets.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

But that same month, Czech President Vaclav Havel was retreating from the more definitive accounts provided by his government, saying there was "a 70 percent" chance the meeting took place. Indeed, while Czech officials never officially backed away from their initial stance, officials at various agencies say that, privately, the Czechs have discredited the accuracy of the untested informant who came to them with the information. According to one report, Havel quietly informed the White House in 2002 there was no evidence to confirm the meeting.

The Czechs had reviewed records using Atta's name and his seven known aliases provided by the CIA and found nothing to confirm the April 2001 trip. Meanwhile, CIA and FBI officials were running down thousands of leads on Atta and the other 18 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 plot.

U.S. records showed Atta living in Virginia Beach in April 2001, and they could find no indication he had left Virginia or traveled outside the United States.

Even so, on March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

A few weeks later, in April, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a San Francisco audience, "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." The FBI, he said, could find no evidence that Atta left or returned to the United States at the time.

In May, senior FBI and CIA analysts, having scoured thousands of travel records, concluded "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.," according to officials at the time.

But on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."

"What does the CIA say about that?" asked host Tim Russert. "Is it credible?"

"It's credible," Cheney replied. "But, you know, I think the way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."

As war loomed closer, the Atta allegation generally began to disappear from the administration's public case against Iraq. Bush did not mention Atta or the Prague meeting in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, when he sought to show Iraq's links to terrorism.

But behind the scenes, the Atta meeting remained tantalizing to Cheney and his staff. Libby -- along with deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, a longtime Cheney associate -- began pushing to include the Atta claim in Powell's appearance before the U.N. Security Council a week after the State of the Union speech. Powell's presentation was aimed at convincing the world of Iraq's ties to terrorists and its pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

On Jan. 25, with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room. "We read [their proposal to include Atta] and some of us said, 'Wow! Here we go again,' " said one official who helped draft the speech. "You write it. You take it out, and then it comes back again."

Libby described the material as a "Chinese menu," simply the broadest range of options, according to several administration officials. "The papers were designed to assist [Powell's] preparation by organizing a lot of materials so that he could choose the order and evidence he found most compelling, although some of it, in the end, could not be declassified," said one administration official.

But other officials present said they felt that Libby's presentation was over the top, that the wording was too aggressive and most of the material could not be used in a public forum. Much of it, in fact, unraveled when closely examined by intelligence analysts from other agencies and, in the end, was largely discarded.

"After one day of hearing screams about who put this together and what are the sources, we essentially threw it out," one official present said.

Cheney's staff did not entirely give up. Late into the night before Powell's presentation, Libby called Powell's staff, waiting at the United Nations in New York, to question why certain material was not being included in the terrorism section, according to two State Department officials.

Earlier this month, on his most recent "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney once again used Atta to subtly suggest a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, 2001.

"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story . . . the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."

Defense and intelligence officials say al-Ani, who was apprehended by U.S. forces earlier this year, has denied meeting with Atta.

-------

singrdave

on Dec 11, 2005

There was a lot of Intel in 2002 and 2003 that said Saddam did not have WMD The CIA, Dept of Energy and DIA.

And there was a lot of intel saying that Saddam DID.
Which did we choose to believe? The one that could have caused the most harm to millions around the world.
COL Johnny One Note, do you understand that we are trying to rid the world of ruthless dictators who try to blow up innocents, cut off hands, rape women with presidential impunity, and in general make the world a sorry mess?
You have regaled us with your record of service. So what wars/police actions/interventions were you directly involved in? And did you believe in any of them? Where did you draw the line?

And who was the commander-in-chief ordering YOU into battle?

Because you certainly have no love for the current commander-in-chief. And you absolutely have no loyalty to your country or its motives. Had you spoken any of these words while a commissioned officer, your words would have shown you the door.

drmiler

on Dec 11, 2005

drmiler

You are wrong again See this and many other articles that clearly show Cheney tried to link Iraq with 9/11

No once again "you're" the one that WRONG! EVERYTHING that you quoted was from 2003 or before. What I quoted was from "2004" and from a NATIONALLY televised debate. So what you are saying is that the people who did the transcript of the debate either can't hear correctly or are stupid. Which is it? So yet again with the cherry picking?

COL Gene

on Dec 11, 2005

singrdave

First, Bush amd Cheney presented the WMD as fact when they knew there was Intel that contradicted what they presented as fact. Second, Congress did not have all the Intel that did not support Bush before they were asked to vote on the War. Third, even if Saddam had the WMD he was not a daner to the United States. North Korea and Iran have many of the WMD agents that Bush said Saddam had and we are not attacking them. Ther Iraq war was an elective war aginst a country that was not a danger reguardless of the WMD.

No, drmiler, Cheney is today telling people that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. That Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. There was NO WAR ON TERRORISM in Iraq BEFORE we invaded. We allowed the War on Terrorism to start in Iraq.

COL Gene

on Dec 11, 2005

This is an article in Sept 2003 where Cheney was making the Saddam/ 9/11 link.

The Boston Globe
Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
ADVERTISEMENT

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

"There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof.

Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

drmiler

on Dec 11, 2005

his is an article in Sept 2003 where Cheney was making the Saddam/ 9/11 link.

Once "again" you use some thing that is outdated. Try again oh clueless one. Mine is a "LOT" more current than 2003.

Cheney/Edwards debate on Oct 5, 2004.

Oh, and btw...."show me"! And please use something "current"! Like 2005.

No, drmiler, Cheney is today telling people that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11.

COL Gene

on Dec 11, 2005

Drmiler

Bush invaded Iraq in Mar 2003. In Sept 2003 Cheney was still giving us the BS that Saddam was linked to 9/11. We were sold a line of BS by Bush and Cheney PRIOR to the attack and after the attack. They also treated all the claims as FACT when they were NOT and when they had Intel that said they were wrong. This was a elective and uneeded War.

Every one of the points in this Blog except # 7 is an established fact.

drmiler

on Dec 11, 2005

What VP Cheney said in Oct 2004 is ALSO established fact! And yet I notice you "still" avoid the rest of the world's intel about Saddam.

Island Dog

on Dec 11, 2005

Since you won't comment there.

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Island Dog

on Dec 11, 2005

Why is it Cheney is a liar and Clinton isn't?

Island Dog

on Dec 11, 2005

Salim was replaced by Ahmad al-Ani, whom the BIS was obviously interested in – interest that only intensified when the BIS learned he was trying to access explosives and make contacts with “foreign Arabs.” It came to a head on or about April 9, 2001, when al-Ani was observed getting into a car with an unknown Arab male who was later identified as Atta – an identification that has never been disproved, despite Herculean efforts to knock it down. The Atta identification did not happen until after 9/11 (when Atta’s photo was splashed across the international press), but the Czechs were so worried about whomever al-Ani had met with back in April that they decided to take no chances: al-Ani was expelled due to suspicion of terrorism – four months before 9/11.

In the end, the FBI cannot account for where Atta was between April 4 and April 11, 2001, or how he spent the $8000 cash he abruptly withdrew on April 4 before he disappeared for a week. (They’ve pointed to use of his cellphone in the U.S. during that timeframe, but that, of course, does not mean Atta was the one using the cellphone.) Nor can the FBI explain why Atta stopped in Prague in June 2000 right before flying to the U.S. to begin the 9/11 preparations. The Czechs, meanwhile, regard as “pure nonsense” al-Ani’s protestations that he was nowhere near Prague the day he was seen meeting the man a witness has identified as Atta.

This is Able Danger all over again. The "Atta in Prague" possibility never fit the 9/11 Commission’s narrative, so it was buried with a shoddy, slap-dash investigation -- the same treatment Able Danger got; the same treatment the Clinton Justice Department's dramatic heightening of "the wall" between criminal investigators and intelligence agents got; the same treatment the internal assessment of the Clinton administration's performance in the run-up to the Millennium bombing plot got, and so on.

Link

COL Gene

on Dec 12, 2005

Clinton did not invade Iraq. Ther Intel that said that Bush and Cheney may be wrong was ignored by by Bush and Cheney. That intel was not available to Congress BEFORE they voted to go to WAR. Bush went ahead with the attack even though there was Intel that said HIS reasons for war could be incorrect. The is no argument that Sadam was a person that should not have been in control of Iraq. That is true of the leaders of Iran, Seria and North Korea and many other countries. That does not mean we attack them. We should have tried to get Saddam out of power but NOT by sending our troops into a war that makes then targets of the terrorists. If we CARE about our troops, it is time to say your job is done. It is time for Iraq to control the terrorist not continue to allow our troops to be targets day after day.

drmiler

on Dec 12, 2005

First off....NO ONE here has ever made the claim that "Slick Willie" invaded Iraq. What they "did" say was that Clinton is the one that first claimed there was a link between Saddam and Al-Queda. And you have been jumping the Cheney's butt saying he's wrong for making that same comment. But if Clinton said the same damn thing, why then that's alright. Sorry to clue you in but if the supposed intel showing him he shouldn't go to war with Iraq, was available to GW, then it was available to congress too.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!