Evidently you forgot Bush has been releasing terrorists for some time.....
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: What exactly was President Bush's agenda for locking them up? - Lu
Releasing Gitmo prisoners carry risks
Andrew O. Selsky ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, January 29, 2009
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico | The re-emergence of two former Guantanamo Bay prisoners as AL Qaeda terrorists in the past week won't likely change U.S. policy on transfers to Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon says.
More than 100 Saudis have been repatriated from the U.S. military's prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Saudi Arabia, where the government puts them through a rehabilitation program designed to encourage them to abandon Islamic extremism and reintegrate into civilian life.
The online boasts by two of these men that they have joined al Qaeda in Yemen underscore that the Saudi system isn't fail-safe, the Pentagon said Monday. A U.S. counterterrorism official in Washington confirmed the men had been Guantanamo detainees. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose that fact on the record.
Another two or three Saudis who had been transferred from Guantanamo cannot be located by the Saudi government, said Christopher Boucek, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. sees the Saudi program as admirable.
"The best you can do is work with partner nations in the international community to ensure that they take the steps to mitigate the threat ex-detainees pose," he said. "There are never any absolute guarantees. There's an inherent risk in all detainee transfers and releases from Guantanamo."
The deprogramming effort -- built on reason, enticements and lengthy talks with psychiatrists, Muslim clerics and sociologists -- is part of a concerted Saudi government effort to counter the ideology that nurtured the 9/11 hijackers and that has lured hundreds of Saudis to join the Iraq insurgency. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, were Saudis, as is the mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden.
A total of 218 men, including former Guantanamo detainees, have gone through the reintegration program, according to the Saudi Ministry of Interior. Nine were later arrested again, an "official source" at the ministry said in a dispatch from the official Saudi Press Agency. The report said some of the nine were former detainees, but did not give a breakdown.
The Saudi Interior Ministry official said most of the graduates "resumed their natural lives and some of them voluntarily contributed to the activities of this program to help others return to natural life."
Frank Ciluffo, a researcher on security issues at George Washington University, said a program that doesn't work all the time is better than none because the alternative is an extended prison sentence, which only further radicalizes a person.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You evidently have a hard time staying on task.
if your mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, grandfather, husband or best friend cast a vote in the early election and passed away on November 4th, how would it make you feel if their votes were thrown out?
Evidently, my conservative friend, there is no opportunity to be missed in attacking Bush.
And threads are being hijacked on the conservative board as well. It's amazing.
I forgot it a long time ago......some things are
xx
What if Obama didn't hang around with terrorists? What if he was not a long-time follower of a r
Then I would be voting for him.
Bush says terrorists are coming again. sm
Well, he should know. 
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_says_terrorists_are_coming_again_0915.html
Bush loves terrorists..he creates them
Seems to me Bush and his ilk love terrorists, after all, by illegally invading a soverign nonthreatening country, he destabilized it and created a terrorist breeding ground..
You forgot a few - HW Bush first sm
Also, H Howard Hunt, and Dulles (sp?). LBJ supposedly kept ducking according to witnesses like he was anticipating bullets. Many say he was assassinated due to Kennedy's attempts to pull American out of South Vietnam, and his attempts to dismantle the Federal Reserve Bank according to a book called, the Vatican Billions.
Bush was warned that terrorists were plotting to use our own planes...sm
against us. He FAILED to protect the American people. He still FAILED to find the culprits.
Clinton told them we needed to beef up security in our airports. No one would listen especially the Bush administration.
WE NEED A DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT LIKE YESTERDAY!!
You forgot to add Hitler to the list of Bush name-calling.
*
You forgot to add Hitler to the list of Bush hatisms.
*
You mean like to got behind Bush in time of
nm
The one time Bush was probably actually HONEST!!
Bob Woodward asked him how history would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
That pretty much sums up the depth of this man.
That's the first time I've seen Mr. Bush
He's the man who's supposed to be in charge of this country at the present time. Blaming the individual Presidential nominees for this is ridiculous. They are one of how many? The entire gov't is responsible for it and Bush is at the top. This mess started when he was in office and he should be responsible for cleaning it up. Perhaps he should give up his salary/pension. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the gov'tal leaders mistakes?
I think politicians should start having to carry malpractice insurance. Doctors are made to be responsible for their errors, so should the politicians.
yes, they will, but not for a long time, thanks to Mr. Bush. NM
x
article from baltimore sun..time for bush to go
From The Baltimore Sun: After Katrina fiasco, time for
Bush to go
After Katrina fiasco, time for Bush to go
By Gordon Adams
September 8, 2005
WASHINGTON - The disastrous federal response to
Katrina exposes a record of incompetence, misjudgment
and ideological blinders that should lead to serious
doubts that the Bush administration should be allowed
to continue in office.
When taxpayers have raised, borrowed and spent $40
billion to $50 billion a year for the past four years
for homeland security but the officials at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency cannot find their own
hands in broad daylight for four days while New
Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast swelter, drown
and die, it is time for them to go.
When funding for water works and levees in the gulf
region is repeatedly cut by an administration that
seems determined to undermine the public
responsibility for infrastructure in America, despite
clear warnings that the infrastructure could not
survive a major storm, it seems clear someone is
playing politics with the public trust.
When rescue and medical squads are sitting in Manassas
and elsewhere in northern Virginia and foreign
assistance waits at airports because the government
can't figure out how to insure the workers, how to use
the assistance or which jurisdiction should be in
charge, it is time for the administration to leave
town.
When President Bush stays on vacation and attends
social functions for two days in the face of disaster
before finally understanding that people are starving,
crying out and dying, it is time for him to go.
When FEMA officials cannot figure out that there are
thousands stranded at the New Orleans convention
center - where people died and were starving - and
fussed ineffectively about the same problems in the
Superdome, they should be fired, not praised, as the
president praised FEMA Director Michael Brown in New
Orleans last week.
When Mr. Bush states publicly that nobody could
anticipate a breach of the levee while New Orleans
journalists, Scientific American, National Geographic,
academic researchers and Louisiana politicians had
been doing precisely that for decades, right up
through last year and even as Hurricane Katrina passed
over, he should be laughed out of town as an impostor.
When repeated studies of New Orleans make it clear
that tens of thousands of people would be unable to
evacuate the city in case of a flood, lacking both
money and transportation, but FEMA makes no effort
before the storm to commandeer buses and move them to
safety, it is time for someone to be given his walking
papers.
When the president makes Sen. Trent Lott's house in
Pascagoula, Miss., the poster child for rebuilding
while hundreds of thousands are bereft of housing,
jobs, electricity and security, he betrays a careless
insensitivity that should banish him from office.
When the president of the United States points the
finger away from the lame response of his
administration to Katrina and tries to finger local
officials in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La., as the
culprits, he betrays the unwillingness of this
administration to speak truth and hold itself
accountable. As in the case of the miserable execution
of policy in Iraq, Mr. Bush and Karl Rove always have
some excuse for failure other than their own
misjudgments.
We have a president who is apparently ill-informed,
lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by oil
baron cronies, religious fundamentalist crazies and
right-wing extremists and ideologues. He has appointed
officials who give incompetence new meaning, who
replace the positive role of government with expensive
baloney.
They rode into office in a highly contested election,
spouting a message of bipartisanship but determined to
undermine the federal government in every way but
defense (and, after 9/11, one presumed, homeland
security). One with Grover Norquist, they were
determined to shrink Washington until it was small
enough to drown in a bathtub. Katrina has stripped
the veil from this mean-spirited strategy, exposing
the greed, mindlessness and sheer profiteering behind
it.
It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly,
troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich
lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their
strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden
gracefully and mindfully out of Washington and
returned to their caves, clubs in hand.
Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at
the Elliott School of International Affairs at George
Washington University, was senior White House budget
official for national security in the Clinton
administration
Bush busted again for the second time in 2 months...
by the courts for criminally violating the US Constitution. When are they going to impeach him? We get 24/7 front page JonBenet coverage (very sad story), but nothing on the crooks in the White House. All the drama with Watergate and Clinton IMO pales in comparison to what is on this President's mantle. What a mess.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/082105LINDORFF.shtml
I am not a Republican. Yes, I voted for Bush the first time....
and voted for him the second time because I did not think John Kerry was the right man for the job. If another Democrat had won the nomination I might well have voted Democrat the last round.
The democrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years. Their involvement in the fannie/freddie thing and their total unwillingness to accept any of the responsibility has me voting a straight Republican ticket this year and I have NEVER done that before. Because the idea of Barack Obama AND a democratic majority makes NE nauseous. The country deserves better.
Bush, "The Decider" still has time
to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.
I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).
More Double-0 Bush spying, this time on our computers
NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' on Computers
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet WriterThu Dec
29, 7:24 AM ET
The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on
visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict
federal rules banning most of them.
These files, known as cookies, disappeared after a privacy activist
complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency
officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue
raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid
reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a
major concern, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy
and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. But it does show a
general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even
following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until
2035 — likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.
Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie
use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary,
permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web
browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies
already on.
After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies, he
said.
Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet
browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For
instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that
require them.
But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even
if no personal information is actually collected.
In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits
federal agencies from using persistent cookies — those that aren't automatically
deleted right away — unless there is a compelling need.
A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them
must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.
Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier
version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague
assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not
sufficient.
Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said
mistakes happen, but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say
anything about doing it accidentally.
The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it
authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court
orders.
Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this
month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the
eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from
American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of
domestic and international communications.
The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve
the surfing experience and not to collect personal user data.
Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions
whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great
for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does
not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional
visits.
The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures
that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track
computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a
congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.
In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its
sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.
It's "phase"...... time to stop blaming Bush
@@
That was just ignorant. Bush did steal the election but THIS TIME WE WON HAHAHAHAHAHAHA NM
NM
Conservatives believe Bush didn’t act in time because God told him to get rid of poor black people
on welfare and old people on Social Security because they cost taxpayers too much money.
A radio talk show host just said that…and I agree. They can’t admit that Bush has shown us all how he will refuse to protect Americans in a national emergency, even though he used that as a campaign promise, and that Bush doesn’t even have to care any more since he can’t be President again. I hope they can live with their collective conscience. That is if they have one. I’m starting to believe they don’t.
You should but evidently you don't.
Did you bother reading it before you posted?
Evidently everybody here gets this
except you. It will never fly. Will be looking forward to your retraction on this stupidity.
You evidently don't know what a NeoCon is.
She is not one of them. Why do you think Bush & Cheney and other NeoCons are upset by this pick.
Is this what the democrat party has turned into...hateful, mean-spirited, sour, and jealous. Your comments are about the lowest I have seen in a long time.
The only thing I can think of is that you thought because Bush was such a horrible president and everyone hates him that Barack and Joe would just be able to waltz in and take over. Now the republicans have a good VP candidate and there is more and more discussions about how JM has just elevated his chances of winning. The more people are learning about her the more they are like her and all reports for both conservative and liberals are in agreement with one thing...this is an amazing lady and definitely qualified to become the first woman president in history.
You are just grasping at straws trying to invent things that are not true and just stir up trouble.
Your comments are so juvenile. I just say thank goodnes at least I'm not in grammar school anymore.
Well you evidently didn't -
read the article. Can't stand hearing that McCain and Obama are closing in on the polls can you. Not even when it's from CNN which is a liberal station.
Next you really need to change your name. If you are a Christian I am glad I am not one because all you are filled with is hate!
Evidently you are not following your own thread
The rational people are the Obama folks who will not engage in the foolishness of the conspiracy theory to nowhere and the brick wall...well, that would be you, "Everyone should be interested!"
She has it right - evidently you don't know what it means
In Wikipedia: In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation.
Dictionary.com: 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
For sure Obama is committing treason.
Whether he gets in or not Hillary Clinton should file a law suit against him. She understand the country better than he does and would make our country a better. We all know whose skeletons are in Hillary's closet. Obama's are just starting to come out.
If they lose I truly hope to hear of a lawsuit as Obama's lies will be what causes them to lose and the democrats a chance of getting in.
So you say, but evidently the courts
I have a tendency to agree with them....so do an overwhelming majority of rational citizens who are just as disgusted as I am over the mental illness that is the driving force behind this lunacy.
Evidently, she did't quite catch your drift.
nm
Evidently these tiresome accusations
Ever get the feeling you are being tuned out? Boy cries wolf once too often?
Evidently, better than you do. I'm backing the winner,
Better luck next time. Do us all a favor and nominate Failin/Bailin/Palin in 2012.
Different strokes for different folks, but evidently....
I respect your opinion, but do not share it...not on any level.
Evidently not. It's 2930 more days until 01/17/17.
x
Evidently, this is nothing new - check date
Recently, one of the most irksome members of the Senate, Joe Lieberman (I-Clowntown) expressed openness to one of the boldest and most effective climate-change policies possible. Some background,
A cap-and-trade system begins by placing a cap on carbon emissions and distributing permits (permission to emit a certain amount of CO2) equal to the capped amount. The notion is that permits will be bought and sold, allowing market forces to determine where emission reductions can be made fastest and easiest. The question is how to distribute those initial permits.
When the EU carbon trading system was established, permits were given away based on emissions, meaning the biggest polluters got the most permits. The idea was that those polluters most needed the money because they had the biggest reductions to make, but in practice it was an enormous financial windfall for their shareholders and prompted very little action on their part to reduce emissions.
The alternative is to sell the permits at auction. This would, in effect, put the proceeds in government coffers rather than in the pockets of utility shareholders. The question then becomes: what should the gov't do with all that money (up to $50B a year)?
The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade proposal, released early this year, was widely seen as the "moderate" bill that could get some support from Senate Republicans. One of the biggest criticisms it faced is that it would auction only 20% of the permits -- 80% would be given away to polluters.
But an intriguing item in Politico indicates that Lieberman may be open to changing that:
Lieberman, following a forum sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute Wednesday, said such a change to his legislation was possible. "We've heard [calls for a 100 percent auction] from some stakeholders and heard that from some of our members. We're thinking about it. Warner and I haven't closed our minds to that. It's on the table," he said.
This could be huge news. The L-W proposal is viewed as the middle of the road. If it moves to 100% auctioned credits, that will effectively sanctify it as the new baseline. The policy and political implications are both huge.
Prove it - You evidently have done your research
I just went back through the last three pages to when I first began posting. Never once did I start off badgering posters calling them names. Not to Mrs. B or anyone else on this board. I have even posted that I was wrong on some issues. I'm never disrepectful of posters. Just because I have a difference of opinion with someone doesn't mean anyone should be disrespectful and I'm not.
So seeing as you are acusing me of having a nasty attitude I want you to find the post and prove it. I've just gone through every single post. I have not been the one initiating anything. But call me Newton, and yes I'll reply by calling you Einstein. So I guess that makes me the nasty name calling and not her?
Telling someone I think they are wrong and explaining why is not having a nasty attitude. Calling someone names for no reason is.
My pardons to you, then. It was evidently picked up by
Fox and of course had the 'ole Fox spin put on it, riling up once again the unstable.
Evidently you hadn't heard the latest.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
and
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76933
Evidently, some rich folks have a conscience
for the sake of COUNTRY FIRST.
Evidently he does not understand the gravity of the crisis.
Farewell to Iraq trip timing and all.
Evidently you didn't read the package.
Most of the money will not go to the people. So far, I have not come across anything that deals with foreclosures, etc. The item I posted last night from our local newspaper is the so-called stimulus package that will help foreclosures.
Read the doggone bill that they are trying to pass, please. Then you may see the light of day.
Evidently you didn't read the post....
no one said a black person wouldn't vote for anyone but Obama (HELLO.....Steele, etc., etc.).
You evidently have not been listening with an open mind
It sounds like you too have been listening to the left wing media. Rush Limbaugh has come out as one of the most powerful and positive voices. What he says is just the way it is. It is what more and more people are feeling. People are listening to him and his ratings have been skyrocketing because of what he has to say. He tells it like it is and the liberals are trying their best to trash him but it isn't working. Like Rahm Emanuel who takes what he says and twists it and outright lies. It's funny how good the liberals are at lying and distorting the facts. Rush Limbaugh is not the only reason but one of the main reasons why we will see a surge in more Americans moving to being conservative. They are tired of the same ol rhetoric garbage and not being told the truth from the liberal media and this is why MSNBC (Olberman & Matthews shows) are tanking big time.
You evidently have not been listening with an open mind
It sounds like you too have been listening to the left wing media. Rush Limbaugh has come out as one of the most powerful and positive voices. What he says is just the way it is. It is what more and more people are feeling. People are listening to him and his ratings have been skyrocketing because of what he has to say. He tells it like it is and the liberals are trying their best to trash him but it isn't working. Like Rahm Emanuel who takes what he says and twists it and outright lies. It's funny how good the liberals are at lying and distorting the facts. Rush Limbaugh is not the only reason but one of the main reasons why we will see a surge in more Americans moving to being conservative. They are tired of the same ol rhetoric garbage and not being told the truth from the liberal media and this is why MSNBC (Olberman & Matthews shows) are tanking big time. Rush Limbaugh is the Democrats worst hope/fear to losing the next election. Not the only reason though because the Democrats are doing a great job of that on their own.
You evidently have no idea - the parts fit just fine
It's called creativity. Having a sexual relationship is more involved than only the act to have a child. There is the emotional aspect and the joy of it. When you love someone you find a way to express it, and you have fun.
You evidently didn't read my post - it was not a question
of if you think he's done harm. He has, it's a fact and no matter how much you want to cover it up you can't. You think bowing to our enemy, telling other countries we are selfish, and that we don't want our jobs so they can have them, tripling our deficit (nothing Bush had to do with -sorry can't pull that crap anymore), lining the pockets of his rich friends and CEOs, filling his cabinet with unqualified crooks and thieves, and the list goes on and on and on. And that's just the first 90 days. So the question was how many more years will it take to undo the harm. You can keep drinking the kool-aid thinking socialistm/communism is fine. It is not. Even the other countries keep telling him - "Don't go there, it is not a path you want to take", while other country leaders who are telling him not to go there are saying "why aren't you listening to us. We've been there and done that and it doesn't work".
Hence, how many more years will it take to undo the harm he has already done (and its only been less than 90 days). My guess is at least 2. It's going to be hard once he's out of office, but I do have faith the country will bounce back as long as we have some decent politicians in the office and take congress out from the control of the crats.
Evidently, pubs didn't care that McC directly denied
tried to diffuse all the scare tactics fall-out. What I want to know is why would McC supporters and their campaign turn a blind eye to a frightened senile old woman and keep right on pushing agendas that will produce more such embarrassing moments for their own candidate? Is this the kind of leadership we can expect under a McCain regime? How disconnected is this candidate from his own campaign management and supporters? Is that really the picture you want to paint for him? How much more fuel do you guys intend to use to stoke the fires of ignorance, division and deceit?
McCain seemed really sad last night when he tried to reassure that shaking, frail, senile old woman, but instead of looking presidential, he just looked like a beaten down has-been. Congratuations on an utterly moronic campaign strategy. Enjoy the fall-out.
Evidently, Cheney doesn't agree...NODDED OFF during the drivel
Now THAT'S disrespectful!
Terrorists
Why in hell would I want to convey anything to terrorists but stay hell out of our country or they will die? You, on the other hand want them to like us....I couldn't give a rat's behind what terrorists think about us except that they know we will kick their asses all the way to the meeting with virgins they want so desperately to get their hands on.
If you want to stick flowers in their guns go ahead. I would like to stand back and watch that.
Besides, since when do we let terrorists
decide who is going to be our next President? Are we so insane that we let a suspect endorsement by a terrorist organization sway our votes one way or another? OMG! I honestly can't believe this! I'm wondering what the people in the Twin Towers or the people on those planes on 9/11 (especially the ones that fought the hijackers) would think about their country now? Makes me sad to think that there are people who would cowtow to terrorist organizations. We should really all know better than that.
We will never have terrorists
under control per se, but at least we can give power back to the Muslims who don't want us dead. The more control the terrorists have and the bigger area they have to work in....the more of a threat they are to us. That is what this war means to me.
As for Obama....he himself has ridiculed this war and yet states that he will find Osama Bin Laden. Is he not raging war here? Obama himself has said that he will not take military force off of the table. Who is to say that Obama won't pull us out of Iraq and sent us to Pakistan to rage war there. We can't fight terrorists in Iraq because that is wasteful and wrong, but Obama wants to go to Pakistan and hunt down terrorists....same thing isn't it. Talk about double standards.
He is going to be spending all this money with no funding and says he will save money ending this war but it sounds to me like he could be starting a war elsewhere and then what money will he use to fund his programs.....TAXES....TAXES.....TAXES.........ON EVERYONE!!! Including the middle class that he now supposedly is looking after even though he voted before to raise taxes on us middle folks. Nothing but rhetoric to get in the office.
|
Posted September 20, 2007 | 05:06 PM (EST)