0
   

Bush's Next Big Lie: 75% Reduction in Sectarian Violence

 
 
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 08:37 am
Bush cooks the books agian

Olbermann: Surge debate already over, Bush wins 'shell game'
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday September 7, 2007


Since last spring, the White House has been saying the nation should reserve debate about America's presence in Iraq and the possibility of withdrawal until after General Petraeus delivers his report on the effectiveness of the surge. However, according to Keith Olbermann, "Today we learned that by then it will have been too late. ... The president has already made up his mind. We are staying."

In an interview with USA Today on Wednesday, White House chief of staff John Bolten confirmed that "Bush wants to make 'it possible for his successor ?- whichever party that successor is from ?- to have a sustained presence in the Middle East.'"

"America's purpose in Iraq now officially, just to be in Iraq," Olbermann commented.

Olbermann's larger point, however, concerned the tactics by which the administration regularly avoids any debate of its policies. "Whether it be about disbanding the [Iraqi] army or about the surge, we have seen this congenital aversion to debate before," he stated. "The shell game is an old and practiced one, the nation debating withdrawal while the administration has only seemed to."

Olbermann reminded viewers of events last fall, when Bush indicated he was taking the Baker-Hamilton Report seriously and considering all options, including the possibility of a drawdown. White House press secretary Tony Snow promised reporters, "Wait until you see the whole package, and then the debate will begin." But just days later, the surge was announced, effectively forestalling debate of any kind.

The same thing is happening now with the build-up to the Petraeus Report. "The administration is expected to cite a 75% decrease in sectarian attacks in Iraq," Olbermann stated. "That sounds great, does it not? But it appears to have been accomplished by severely tightening the definition of a sectarian attack." For example, mass bombings are no longer counted in the totals, only isolated murders.

Olbermann was joined by Newsweek editor and political analyst Jonathan Alter, who called the claim of a 75% reduction "the big lie" and "a joke" and said "they're cooking the books yet again."

"We're going to be sold a bill of goods in the next couple of weeks," Alter concluded. "The Democrats have been cowed by this minimal progress. ... They're going to have -- and deserve -- real problems with the Democratic base for not showing more guts on Iraq this fall. September was supposed to be the moment of truth. It's not going to work out that way."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,173 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 11:23 am
Bush's rhetoric is never about "drawdowns of our troops," it's always about "success." How can anyone miss this psycho's inconsistencies? Just because our troop casualty numbers are down doesn't mean there is "progress." It only means that the sectarian and el Qaeda went underground until our troops are "reduced" to pre-surge levels, but the more important issue is about the Iraqis. Their casualty numbers are up, they feel no security, they have less electricity and food, and more children are becoming orphans. If that's "progress," the world has become upside down!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 11:24 am
And shame on Petraeus for prolonging this already lost war for our country. He will be responsible for more of our soldiers getting killed, and spending our treasure for a lost cause. For how many more years?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 11:31 am
Just this month on Iraq civilian casualties:


Recent Events
Saturday 8 September: 56 dead
Baghdad: car bomb kills 15 in Sadr City -among the victims 2 barbers and 6 of their clients; mortars kill 2 brothers, Baladiyat; 11 bodies.
Diyala: 8 killed in various incidents -a child among them, killed during clashes in Muqdadiya; 3 bodies.
Kufa: bomb kills 5 in market.
Cheman village: 2 bodies.
South of Kirkuk: police find 4 bodies of people killed returning from a funeral.
Daquq: the bodies of 4 members of a family found. They were killed by their son's kidnappers, who had called the family claiming they were about to release him, but shot the family dead instead.


Friday 7 September: 25 dead
Baghdad: 8 bodies.
Kirkuk: car bomb kills 2; gunmen kill 3 people in a car.
Mosul: 3 policemen killed in drive-by shooting.
Saqlawiya: 2 policemen's bodies found.

Thursday 6 September: 59 dead
Baghdad: up to 31 reported dead in US air raid over Washash; roadside bomb, Zafaraniya; 12 bodies.
Tikrit: car bomb kills 3.
Kirkuk: 3 shot dead after prayers at mosque.

Wednesday 5 September: 36 dead
Baghdad: 15 killed by roadside bomb, Sadr City; 11 bodies.
Mosul: PDK member shot dead; suicide bomber attacks police checkpoint, kills policeman; 6 bodies.

Tuesday 4 September: 28 dead
Baghdad: car bomb, roadside bomb kill 6, Zayouna; US forces kill 2 in house raid, Zayouna; 8 bodies.
Mosul: 4 killed in shootings.
Al-Siniya village: 3 security men shot dead.
Galozi village: body of young woman found.

Monday 3 September: 38 dead
Baghdad: car bombs kill 5; 8 electricity workers abducted and killed; 15 bodies.
Dujail: raodside bomb kills child.
Mosul: Al-Iraqiya reporter shot dead; 2 members of Democratic Party of Kurdistan shot dead.
Najaf: gunmen kill assistant police chief of Kufa.

Sunday 2 September: 41 dead
Baghdad: 9 killed by car bomb, Kadhimiya; 13 bodies.
Kut: policeman killed in clashes; 6 bodies.
Diwaniya: 6 bodies.
Mussayab: 2 bodies.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 11:34 am
The conclusion that Bush and Petraeus draws from their "we are making some progress" is based on US soldiers casualty numbers are down (temporarily), but it doesn't matter about Iraqis getting killed and maimed.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 04:57 pm
Hiding Behind the General

Published: September 9, 2007
The military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is to deliver a report to Congress on Monday that could be the most consequential testimony by a wartime commander in more than a generation. What the country desperately needs is an honest assessment of the war and a clear strategy for extricating American forces from the hopeless spiral of violence in Iraq.

President Bush, however, seems to be aiming for maximum political advantage ?- not maximum clarity on Iraq's military and political crises, which cannot be separated from each other. Mr. Bush, we fear, isn't looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public, scare Democrats into dropping their demands for a sound exit strategy, and prolong the war until he leaves office. At times, General Petraeus gives the disturbing impression that he, too, is more focused on the political game in Washington than the unfolding disaster in Iraq. That serves neither American nor Iraqi interests.

Mr. Bush, deeply unpopular with the American people, is counting on the general to restore credibility to his discredited Iraq policy. He frequently refers to the escalation of American forces last January as General Petraeus's strategy ?- as if it were not his own creation. The situation echoes the way Mr. Bush made Colin Powell ?- another military man with an overly honed sense of a soldier's duty ?- play frontman at the United Nations in 2003 to make the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war.

General Petraeus has his own credibility problems. He overstepped in 2004 when he published an op-ed article in The Washington Post six weeks before the election. The general ?- then in charge of training and equipping Iraq's security forces ?- rhapsodized about "tangible progress" and how the Iraqi forces were "developing steadily," an assessment that may have swayed some voters but has long since proved to be untrue.

And just last week, senior military commanders in Baghdad who work for General Petraeus entered the political fray by taking issue ?- anonymously ?- with the grim assessment of Iraq's politics and security by non-partisan Congressional investigators.

As Congress waited anxiously for General Petraeus's testimony, a flurry of well-timed news reports said that he told the White House he could go along with the withdrawal of about 4,000 American troops beginning in January but wanted to maintain increased force levels well into next year ?- just like Mr. Bush. Democrats who once demanded a firm date for the start of a troop pullout immediately started backpedaling.

Withdrawing 4,000 troops and dangling the prospect of additional withdrawals is a token political gesture, not a new strategy. If it proves enough to cow Congress into halting its push for a more robust and concrete exit strategy, that would be political cowardice at its worst.

We hope that General Petraeus can resist the political pressure and provide an unvarnished assessment of the military situation in Iraq. He is an important source of information, of course, but he is only one source ?- and he is not the man who sets American policy. If Mr. Bush insists on listening only to those who agree with him, Congress and the public must weigh General Petraeus's report against all data, including two new independent evaluations sharply at odds with the Pentagon's claim that things in Iraq are substantially better.

The Government Accountability Office found that the Iraqi government has not met 11 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress and that violence remains high, despite the White House's disingenuous claims of success. And a commission of retired senior military officers determined that Iraq's army will be unable to take over responsibility for internal security in the next 12 to 18 months. That is four years beyond what the Pentagon predicted in 2004. It is too long.

Nothing has changed about Mr. Bush's intentions. Waving off the independent reports, he plans to stay the course and make his successor fix his Iraq fiasco. Military progress without political progress is meaningless, and Mr. Bush no more has a plan for unifying Iraq now than when he started the war. The United States needs a prudent exit strategy that will withdraw American forces and try to stop Iraq's chaos from spreading.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 07:03 am
Americans Feel Military Is Best at Ending the War
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MEGAN THEE
Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

On the eve of what is sure to be a contentious debate on Iraq, the results underscored the benefits to the White House of entrusting the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to make the case that an increase in American forces this year had been successful enough to continue into next year.

Today, General Petraeus will appear on Capitol Hill along with the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, in what has become the most anticipated testimony from a military commander in decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10poll.html?ei=5065&en=f3bf0b3b561cebe1&ex=1190088000&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1189429234-RhKsVhlctFLxVI0y4Akjqw


Let's see, who has more creditbility, Oberman, Alder, or our military commanders.

Ithink I'll go with the military.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 07:42 am
woiyo has fallen into the same trap as Powell, Rice, and almost everybody in this administration; they see progress where there are none.

They refuse to acknolwedge the higher death toll, and the lack of security that only worsens every year.

Blind, ding-bats.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 07:45 am
Security in Iraq still elusive

Quote:
Baghdad has become more segregated. Sunni Muslims in the capital now live in ghettos encircled by concrete blast walls to stop militia attacks and car bombs. Shiite militias continue to push to control the city's last mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in the southwest, by murdering and intimidating Sunni residents and, sometimes, their Shiite neighbors. Services haven't improved across most of the capital ?- the international aid group Oxfam reported in July that only 30 percent of Iraqis have access to clean water, compared with 50 percent in 2003 ?- and tens of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their homes each month in search of safety.

Iraqi security forces remain heavily infiltrated by militias, and political leaders continue to intervene in their activities.

Civilian deaths haven't decreased in any significant way across the country, according to statistics from the Iraqi Interior Ministry, and numbers gathered by McClatchy Newspapers show no consistent downward trend even in Baghdad, despite military assertions to the contrary. The military has provided no hard numbers to back the claim.

The only sign of progress is in the homogenous Sunni Arab province of Anbar, where tribes have turned on al Qaida in Iraq and established relative security in a once violent area. But that success has little to do with the 4,000 U.S. troops who were sent to Anbar as part of the surge of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. Instead, it began more than four months earlier, with the formation last September of the Anbar Salvation Council to fight the escalating terror of Sunni extremists. Officials agree that the anti-Islamist coalition in Anbar has yet to ally itself with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and a recent National Intelligence Estimate warned that it might even threaten it.

Elsewhere in Iraq, violence continues to flourish. In the north since the surge began, suspected Sunni extremists have carried out some of the deadliest terror attacks of the war, killing hundreds in car and truck bombings.

In the southern city of Basra, death tolls have increased as rival Shiite militias square off for control.

American politicians have focused on the Iraqi government's inability to meet a series of benchmarks designed to mark steps toward reconciliation. A Government Accountability Office report last week said that the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of the 18 benchmarks and had partially met only four others.

A preliminary White House report in July gave better marks but still pronounced little hope that compromise was near on key issues such as the division of oil revenues, the role in government of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party and the setting of a schedule for provincial elections. The National Intelligence Estimate by the country's 16 intelligence agencies concurred last month.

Bush administration officials are expected to praise recent agreements by some Iraqi leaders and Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to work toward compromise. But Maliki's cabinet still has nearly as many vacancies as it has sitting ministers, and no major legislation governing Iraq's major issues, including a militia disarmament program, has made it to the floor of the Iraqi parliament.

Last week, the parliament, back from its summer vacation, barely had a quorum in its first meetings.

BAGHDAD

Taking control of Iraq's capital city was at the center of Bush's surge strategy in January. At least half the U.S. troop surge is taking place here and surrounding suburbs, where the U.S. focused on establishing so-called joint security outposts in Iraqi neighborhoods to be closer to areas where sectarian violence was claiming dozens of lives each day.

The military threw up concrete walls across the capital to foil car bombs and stop Shiite militia members or Sunni insurgents from entering targeted neighborhoods. One military official said U.S. troops were erecting walls as "fast as they could build them." Most "hardened" neighborhoods, encircled with towering gray walls and with single entrances and exits, are Sunni enclaves, military officials said.

The result is a city now sharply divided into sectarian boroughs where the battle lines have only hardened. Some Baghdad residents say they feel somewhat safer in their neighborhoods, but they fear traveling anywhere else in the capital.

Falah Amin, 52, a Sunni from Adhamiyah, called her neighborhood in northeast Baghdad a prison. Adhamiyah was among the first neighborhoods to be walled off by the U.S. military to protect it from Sunni car bombs and Shiite militias.

"We've been separated from the rest of our city as if we have the plague," Amin said.

The neighborhood, Amin said, is virtually empty. Those left don't have the money or connections to leave, she said.

"Is this to keep us safe or to keep all those outside the wall from seeing what is taking place inside the walled area?" she asked.

Amin expects the worst if U.S. troops pull out and leave Adhamiyah to the Iraqi security forces and a government she doesn't trust.

"First, they will empty Baghdad of the Sunnis, then they will think about security, real security, not now."

Even Shiite residents are concerned. "If the U.S. troops leave, (the Shiite militias) will be free and we will have a Shiite Taliban," said Mohammed al Kabi, 39, a Shiite and once hard-line follower of Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. "I don't believe that the Iraqi government can control the security situation because some of the high-ranking officials cooperate with the militias."

Outside the walled-in neighborhoods, the push to drive Sunnis from Shiite neighborhoods continues in a city that U.S. military officers say has gone from being 65 percent Sunni to being 75 percent Shiite.


This is just part of the article; the rest at the source in the title.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 12:59 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo has fallen into the same trap as Powell, Rice, and almost everybody in this administration; they see progress where there are none.

They refuse to acknolwedge the higher death toll, and the lack of security that only worsens every year.

Blind, ding-bats.


So once again, we have you who knows better than our military about the actual conditions on the ground.

You put your faith in Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy but not the troops on the ground.

You are the reason this govt and this nation is falling into uncertain, insecure times.

So go back to name calling since you do not have the intellectual capacity to objectively analysis anything but your belly-button.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 01:10 pm
woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo has fallen into the same trap as Powell, Rice, and almost everybody in this administration; they see progress where there are none.

They refuse to acknolwedge the higher death toll, and the lack of security that only worsens every year.

Blind, ding-bats.


So once again, we have you who knows better than our military about the actual conditions on the ground.

You put your faith in Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy but not the troops on the ground.

You are the reason this govt and this nation is falling into uncertain, insecure times.

So go back to name calling since you do not have the intellectual capacity to objectively analysis anything but your belly-button.


You have the arrogance and audacity to claim that CI, or others who oppose the war, have no authority to understand conditions on the ground, even in the 21st century with embedded troops, the far reaches of the bloggers in the blogosphere, and the MSM etc, yet somehow maintain that CI is personally responsible for the deplorable condition of the nation.

Pretty bold, albeit contradictory, set of statements. One statement makes CI sound awfully uninformed and ignorant, the other, powerful enough to sway 300 million people. Interesting perspective to say the least.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 01:10 pm
woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo has fallen into the same trap as Powell, Rice, and almost everybody in this administration; they see progress where there are none.

They refuse to acknolwedge the higher death toll, and the lack of security that only worsens every year.

Blind, ding-bats.


So once again, we have you who knows better than our military about the actual conditions on the ground.

You put your faith in Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy but not the troops on the ground.

You are the reason this govt and this nation is falling into uncertain, insecure times.

So go back to name calling since you do not have the intellectual capacity to objectively analysis anything but your belly-button.



It's very simple, really. When Bush and Petraeus continue to tell everybody that the surge is working but doesn't admit the failures. Hundreds more civilians dead every month, more people starving, less electricity, less water (necessary for life), and the open borders. FYI, Colin Powell was also a top military man on Bush's payroll. He lied to the UN and the world, and what he told everybody turned out to be lies. Do you need more "evidence?" More dead Iraqi civilians and open borders means there is no "progress" no matter how they bias their rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 01:18 pm
Another thought; when Petraeus spoke to congress before he took over as commander in Iraq, he told us that the war must be won on several fronts; two of the main ones being diplomatic and political.

Military success is only one-third of his original message, so how can he claim "progress" without addressing the diplomatic and politcal (broken) 'success?' He told a different story to congress today.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 01:32 pm
Whoops, I meant "embedded reporters", not troops.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 01:50 pm
woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo has fallen into the same trap as Powell, Rice, and almost everybody in this administration; they see progress where there are none.

They refuse to acknolwedge the higher death toll, and the lack of security that only worsens every year.

Blind, ding-bats.


So once again, we have you who knows better than our military about the actual conditions on the ground.

You put your faith in Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy but not the troops on tthe ground.

You are the reason this govt and this nation is falling into uncertain, insecure times.

So go back to name calling since you do not have the intellectual capacity to objectively analysis anything but your belly-button.

Who knows better than our military woiyo?

http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/60290/

Or perhaps you should listen to this soldier before you accuse this country of being in uncertain and insecure times. Troops inured to politics
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 02:18 pm
It's no use Parados. The right hates dissent and if there is dissent from the left, they hammer the left. If the dissent comes from a soldier, they hammer the soldier (or his family). It is irrelevent what facts are presented and by who. This is consistent from the run-up to the Iraq war (with their fake pictures, fake accusations and fake claims) to their handling of the current conflict.

You see, the lie must be repeated and repeated and repeated before it becomes truth. Dissent prevents the passage of these "truths".
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 02:40 pm
Poll: Iraqis say security has worsened
By Alan Fram
September 10, 2007

(AP) ?- Overwhelming numbers of Iraqis say the U.S. troop buildup has worsened security and the prospects for economic and political progress in their country, according to a poll released today that provides a strikingly bleak appraisal of the war.



Forty-seven percent want American forces and their coalition allies to leave the country immediately, the survey showed, 12 percent more than said so in a March poll as the troop increase was beginning. Fifty-seven percent ?- including nearly all Sunnis and half of Shi'ites ?- said they consider attacks on coalition forces acceptable, a slight increase over the past half year.



The poll, conducted by ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and Japan's public broadcaster NHK, was released at the start of a critical week in the fight by Democrats trying to force President Bush to begin a withdrawal.



Seventy percent in the survey said they believe security has worsened where the added forces were sent, with another 11 percent saying the buildup has had no effect. Similar numbers said security in other parts of the country has deteriorated and overall economic and political conditions have declined.



Just a quarter said their own communities have become safer in the past half year. Every person interviewed in Baghdad and Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated area where Mr. Bush recently visited and cited progress, said the troop increase has worsened security.



Countrywide, a fourth reported nearby car bombs or suicide attacks in the past six months, with as many or slightly fewer saying they have witnessed snipers, sectarian fighting, kidnappings and unnecessary violence by coalition forces against citizens.



Despite pessimistic views of their lives, virtually all said that separating Iraqis along sectarian lines is bad for the country. Six in 10 said they wanted a unified country ruled by a central government in Baghdad.



Some interviewers conducting the survey reported encountering military operations or suicide attacks, and some were detained by government or militia forces, but all completed their work safely. A handful of interviewing locations had to be changed for security reasons.


The poll was conducted Aug. 17 to 24 and involved face-to-face interviews in Arabic or Kurdish with 2,212 randomly chosen adult Iraqis from across the country. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.


I wonder what the presidents general would have to say about that?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 04:10 pm
Troops say surge works, barely
By Sharon Behn
September 10, 2007






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAGHDAD ?- Many U.S. soldiers on the ground in Baghdad caution that improved security in the capital city will last only as long as the surge. If American troops were to leave, they say, the insurgents could be back within hours.



U.S. forces broke up insurgent networks and curtailed the ability of terrorists to strike, said Sgt. Gregory Rayho, 30, of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the recipient of three Purple Hearts during his time in Iraq.



His overall assessment is upbeat: "It is my opinion that the surge is working."



But he also said continued success in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, where his fellow soldiers patrol, depends on the continued presence of American troops. Should they be withdrawn, the future could be deadly.



"If [the insurgents] really, really wanted it really bad, they could take it back in a day. They could occupy it within hours, but it would take weeks to regain some of the terrain we have denied them," he said

.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/FOREIGN/109100057/1001
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 04:16 pm
That's the reason why I've been saying this war in Iraq cannot be won with 140,000 troops. The border is wide open, and once any town or village is rid of insurgents or al Qaeda, they return once the forces leave to fight another war in another area. It doesn't take a military strategist to see the simple strategy of war.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Sep, 2007 07:49 am
Ambassador's conflicting testimony
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush's Next Big Lie: 75% Reduction in Sectarian Violence
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 10:19:57