0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 03:55 pm
Ticomaya, that satire you posted is far too subtle. Here's how I would enrich it.

With Saddam in charge, everyone knew the law was whatever Saddam said it was. The guilty were whoever Saddam said they were. Now its all going to be made unnecessarily complicated by an assembly that has zero understanding of what the laws should be from situation to situation. Worse the assembly will take days or even months to make decisions that Saddam was able to make in a few seconds or at worst in a few minutes. All we've got so far from this democracy is that those who heretofore were punished are now punishing those who use to punish. What sense does that make?

[size=8]Thank you, Joseph Paul Goebbels (1897-1945).[/size] Cool
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 03:57 pm
Well Ican's is clearer. Tico's funnier.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 04:56 pm
REGARDING BARTON'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DUELFER REPORT
[boldface emphasis added by me]
Quote:
Barton said he quit immediately after the report was completed and stated in his resignation letter that it was because the process was dishonest.

Barton said Duelfer asked him to return in September last year, saying he was working on an "honest report." Barton returned and said he was happy with the final report.

Duelfer's final report in October last year said Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, had not made any since 1991 and no capability of making any.

Barton said he was going public with his allegations only now, "partly 'cause I'm at the end of this process now, and partly because I think the world should know some of the truths which at times I would've liked the world to have known, but I couldn't say anything.""


From this I judge, Barton doesn't disagree with Duelfer's final report in October which also claimed that Saddam was preparing to resume development of WMD after UN sanctions were lifted.

Quote:
Regime Strategic Intent

Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Bagdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminate motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerattions, but secondary.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of feeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 05:22 pm
CLARKE’S MEMOS AND THEIR RECENT RELEASE

klik here

After re-reading the material at the referenced site, I continue to wonder what all the fuss here in this forum was about. Those who read the 9/11 Commission Report and/or listened to their hearings knew Clarke's principal issue long before the last presidential election.

Rice blundered by taking too long to seriously consider Clarke's recommendations.

But what are the serious consequences (if any) of that taking too long. Clarke, himself, admitted a more rapid response by Rice would not have accomplished prevention of 9/11. Also, Clarke, himself, admitted he made no recommendations about whether to invade or not invade Afghanistan. As a result of re-reading Clarke's memos, I am also convinced that Clarke made no recommendations about whether to invade or not invade Iraq.

I think a complaint solely against the timing of President Bush adinistration's release of Clarke's complete memos would be stupid and/or done for propaganda purposes only.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 05:25 pm
Well there's no accounting for some of the stupid going on Ican. Too many simply don't want to look for real things to complain about, so they take anything they can make up or that the media feeds to them and run with it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 11:51 pm
It must be nice to live in your world, foxfrye, where you know why everyone believes what they believe, feels like being god does it?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 01:42 am
Yeah, terrorists are bad, bad people, Brandon, and we risk perpetuating the terroristic insurgency by remaining in Iraq. It isn't only the insurgents that want us out; merely, they're the ones willing to perpetrate violence to affect that end, and they're attracting more and more Iraqis to that cause. Indeed, US policy must be planned around what would appease the people of Iraq, not around our own mulish self-interests. We chauvinistically and idiotically assume that what is in our best, short term interests, is what is best for the Iraqis and the rest world for that matter, but what history has showed us, not that we've learned much from it, is that those myopic policies we pursue come around and bite us in the ass later, creating other, more serious threats to our interests.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 01:44 am
Quote:
Iraq's vote winners start to divide positions of power

By David Enders in Baghdad
15 February 2005


With the votes counted, Iraq's political parties are discussing who might fill the newly elected 275-member Iraqi National Assembly's most powerful positions. There is broad agreement that the next Iraqi President will be a Kurd, the Prime Minister a Shia and the National Assembly Speaker a Sunni.

The two main Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party, have agreed on Jalal Talabani, the leader of the PUK, as their candidate for President. They have also said they would support Hoyashir Zebari, the present Foreign Minister, to keep his position.

The biggest debate at present appears to be among the religious Shia parties who ran as a coalition in the election but have competing nominations for the position. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is pushing its number two man and present Finance Minister, Adel Abudl Medhi, while the Dawa party supports its leader, Ibrahim Jaafari. Both sat on the 25-member US-appointed governing council that disbanded last June.

Jenan al-Obeidy, a SCIRI candidate who will have a seat in the assembly, said: "The other winners like the Kurds, and the Iraqi list all have agreed for him." Members of the Dawa party say the same about Jaafari. Adnan Ali, a spokesman for Jaafari, said an announcement was not expected until early next week. Some think the Shia bloc may not nominate a single candidate. "Their list has 28 parties," Faraj Haidari, a spokesman for the KDP, said. "Just wait for the coming days; the Shia parties will begin to talk to others."

Ahmed Chalabi, the man who supplied the US government with false information about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities and fell further out of favour after he was accused of spying for Iran while a member of the governing council, has claimed he is candidate for prime minister as well.

Mr Chalabi has cast himself as a populist and joined the Shia list to complete what even his detractors admit an is impressive comeback. "I think Chalabi should just be grateful that we let him join the list," Mr Ali said.

Those tipped for all three executive positions so far are men, though Jenan al-Obeidy, one of the senior women in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the two main Shia parties, said she hoped one of the two vice-presidential seats would be filled by a woman.

The Shia list, members of which had predicted a much larger victory than the 48 per cent of the vote they won, said they were considering challenging the results and still had two days to do so, but Mr Ali said a challenge was unlikely.

• Insurgent attacks left three Iraqi National Guard troops, two police officers, two civilians and a US soldier dead yesterday in violence that appears increasingly aimed at security forces.

The National Guards were killed by a roadside bomb in Baquba, 35 miles north-east of Baghdad, which detonated as their convoy was passing.

Mortar shells killed a woman and a two-year-old girl at Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad. The US soldier was killed when a bomb exploded near his patrol in Northern Iraq. Two high-ranking policemen were killed in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad on Sunday night.
Source
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 01:51 am
ican,
what your review fails to take into account is:
1. Al Qaeda are still operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, as a matter of fact, al Qaeda has swelled to numbers that far exceed those that were ever there before our invasion. Our invasions didn't destroy al Qaeda in either country. We killed some of them there, but they remain in both countries. The destruction of bases, like how you point out Clinton's air strikes in Afghanistan, has been irrelevant.

2. There are more al Qaeda in Iraq than before our invasion, and the steady growth in their terrorism indicates that the aid, both actual and perceived, from Afghanistan and Iraq, has been irrelevant to their cause.

As to your conclusion, you fail to take into account al Qaeda that is operating in democratic countries. Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have had no bearing on al Qaeda in those countries, in fact it has made things worse in those countries (e.g. Spain).

So what if my statement ignores the terrorism perpetrated against thousands of Iraqi civilians by their non-democratic government before our invasion and occupation of Iraq, ican. It isn't relevant to my statement that your response didn't address the issue of the terrorism the US is inciting through its occupation of Iraq.

The terrorists in Iraq are waging what they call a war against democracy because of what they perceive democracy to mean: a proxy government set up by the US, for the US at the expense of Iraqis. It is the probable evolution of that kind of "democracy" in Iraq (think, the Philippines) that incites the terrorism in Iraq, along with our occupation thereof which is but a means to that end.

These Iraqis terrorizing Iraqi civilians are largely those who fear being dispossessed and disenfranchised by the kind of democracy described above.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 05:18 am
Rebuilding Iraq: how not to go about it.

I tried to post this before, but I don't think the link worked.

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 05:23 am
Infrablue: Ican still thinks, like C. Rice, that the war on terrorism has to do with nations, as you have pointed out, it doesn't. Borders, governments, and bases are not relevant to this war and the sooner we start fighting that way the better.

Joe(Maybe now would be a good time to actually read the research)Nation
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 07:18 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23018-2005Feb14.html

washingtonpost.com
President Requests More War Funding
Money for Iraqi Forces Rises Sharply
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 15, 2005; Page A04


President Bush asked Congress yesterday for $82 billion in emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the Indian Ocean tsunami, making good on a pledge to dramatically scale up efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces ahead of an eventual U.S. withdrawal.

The package includes $74.9 billion for U.S. military forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $5.7 billion to train and equip Iraqi forces. The latter sum represents more than a tenfold increase in spending on Iraqi forces over last year's request. An additional $1.3 billion would go toward training and equipping security forces in Afghanistan.

"With the help of the United States and coalition partners, the Iraqi and Afghan people have set their countries on the path of democracy and freedom," Bush said in a statement. "As both nations work to cement this great progress, our troops and assistance will continue to play a critical role. . . . I urge the Congress to move quickly so our troops and diplomats have the tools they need to succeed."

White House officials announced several weeks ago that they would request around $82 billion for the current fiscal year; they released details yesterday. It is one of the largest emergency requests in recent U.S. history, coming on top of $25 billion already allocated for the war in 2005. The sum exceeds the president's combined 2006 funding request for the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development, and it is nearly five times the savings Bush is seeking next year in cuts to discretionary spending.

"This is a lot of money," said Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

If enacted, the president's request will push Pentagon war costs since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to more than $275 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. The cost of the Iraq war alone is approaching $200 billion.

"We're now officially about to hit a $200 billion war, with a likelihood of hitting $300 billion, a near-certainty it will reach 250 [billion] and a distinct possibility we'll reach 400 [billion]," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution.

There appears to be little doubt Bush will get his request. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) said the panel will take up the measure in early March, with a House vote shortly thereafter. "It is my hope that we can have this important bill on the president's desk in early April," he said in a statement.

The bill reflects, in part, the monetary cost of a war in Iraq that has not gone as expected. Of the total, $12 billion would go toward repairing or replacing military equipment chewed up by a grinding guerrilla war in the desert. That includes $3.3 billion for armoring vulnerable convoy trucks, adding new defense systems to helicopters and buying other armored vehicles and night-vision equipment.

Nearly $460 million is designated to replace Black Hawk and Apache helicopters destroyed in Iraq. Another $2.4 billion would be used to repair Bradley Fighting Vehicles, upgrade Abrams tanks and armored personnel carriers, and bolster armor protection in vehicles bound for Iraq. About $475 million would fund ammunition for the Army.

Defense Department war planners had hoped to avoid much of that cost, replacing used equipment slowly as more modern weapons systems became available. But with about 150,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, the Pentagon does not have that luxury.

A large part of the request, $36.3 billion, would go to the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another $5 billion would be used to help the Army break down its huge divisions into smaller, more mobile "modular" brigades as part of a major reorganization.

Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute think tank, which has research contracts with the Pentagon, said such "modularity" costs -- while necessary -- hardly constitute an emergency and should have been included in the president's base budget unveiled last week. Much of the costs of replacing equipment will probably turn out to be regular weapons-procurement costs not related to Iraq emergencies, Thompson suggested.

"Why this funding is in an emergency supplemental [request] is hard to explain. It looks as though they want a bigger defense budget without admitting it," he said.

On Capitol Hill, some Republicans and Democrats have criticized the Pentagon's reliance on the supplemental request, saying it curtails congressional oversight and distorts understanding of defense spending. "It removes from our oversight responsibilities the scrutiny that these programs deserve," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told military service chiefs at a hearing Thursday.


But the biggest questions will likely revolve around the tenfold increase in funding for Iraqi security forces. Republican and Democratic defense appropriations aides in Congress said the $5.7 billion request raised numerous questions about how much would go to training, how much would be for equipment, and how much might be used simply to pay beleaguered Iraqi police and national guard units.

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 07:26 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24468-2005Feb14.html?nav=hcmodule



washingtonpost.com
Lawmakers Told About Contract Abuse in Iraq

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 15, 2005; Page A03


A government contractor defrauded the Coalition Provisional Authority of tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds and the Bush administration has done little to try to recover the money, an attorney for two whistle-blowers told Democratic lawmakers yesterday.

The lawyer, Alan Grayson, represents two former employees who charged in a federal lawsuit that the security firm Custer Battles LLC of Fairfax was paid approximately $15 million to provide security for civilian flights at Baghdad International Airport, even though no planes flew during the contract term. Grayson said the firm received $100 million in contracts in 2003 and 2004, despite a thin track record and evidence the government was not getting its money's worth.

A former Coalition Provisional Authority official who briefly oversaw the airport security contract also spoke, depicting a temporary governing body awash with cash but lacking in the necessary controls to ensure that money generated from the sale of Iraqi oil actually went to rebuilding the country.

"I wish I could tell you that the Bush administration has done everything it could to detect and punish fraud in Iraq," Grayson said. "If I said that to you, though, I would be lying."

The Pentagon has suspended Custer Battles from receiving new contracts, but Grayson said the Justice Department declined last fall to help pursue the case, now pending in federal court in Alexandria.

Lawyers representing Custer Battles have denied the charges and have argued that the case should be dismissed because the money that was allegedly stolen belonged to Iraqis, not to Americans. Grayson said that argument has the potential to turn Iraq during the authority's administration of the country into "a fraud-free zone," with contractors not subject to Iraqi or American law.

Yesterday's appearances were organized by the Democratic Policy Committee. Its chairman, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), said the witnesses were called in response to a recent report by the inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction that concluded that the governing authority had inadequate controls over $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds it was supposed to oversee. Former administrator L. Paul Bremer has denied those allegations. Dorgan said Democrats had attempted to get Republican colleagues to hold hearings on the issue but were unsuccessful.

"There is a massive amount of waste, fraud and abuse going on here, and nobody seems to care very much," Dorgan said.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said in an interview that he found some of yesterday's allegations "disturbing." He said his committee has already held hearings on the use of reconstruction funds in Iraq and plans to hold more. "If there's something wrong, we will go after it vigorously," he said.

The former authority official, Franklin Willis, who advised Iraqi ministries on aviation issues, said it soon became clear Custer Battles was not carrying out its obligations. But Willis said the body's contracting officials were stretched far too thin.

On at least two occasions, Willis said, the firm was paid $2 million from a vault in the authority's basement, served up in $100,000 plastic-wrapped bricks of cash.

"We called in Mike Battles and said, 'Bring a bag,' " Willis said.

Michael Battles and Scott K. Custer, both former U.S. Special Operations soldiers, founded the company in 2002. Battles ran unsuccessfully as the Republican candidate for Congress in Rhode Island that year.

After an interview with Custer in January 2004, agents from the Pentagon inspector general's office wrote, "Battles is very active in the Republican Party and speaks to individuals he knows at the White House almost daily, according to Custer." A White House spokesman had no immediate comment.




© 2005 The Washington Post Company
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 08:15 am
Holy information Batman

A compendium of sundry items
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 09:50 am
Yesterday's appearances were organized by the Democratic Policy Committee. Its chairman, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), said the witnesses were called in response to a recent report by the inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction that concluded that the governing authority had inadequate controls over $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds it was supposed to oversee. Former administrator L. Paul Bremer has denied those allegations. Dorgan said Democrats had attempted to get Republican colleagues to hold hearings on the issue but were unsuccessful.

"There is a massive amount of waste, fraud and abuse going on here, and nobody seems to care very much," Dorgan said.


Contrast this with the viscious attacks on the UN concerning perceived faults with its handling of the Oil-For-Food programme; although the US was represented on the controlling UN committee.

The neocons have gone very quiet over this.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:15 am
You're saying the 'viscious attacks' on the UN's handing of the OFF program are manufactured McTag? Are you saying there was nothing fishy about any of that? That the UN has done a good job with that?

As the UN has refused to allow any investigation other than internal, it is unlikely we'll ever know the whole story there. But there is already enough testimony and evidence, reported even by friends of the UN, to convince most people that the UN is not competent or trustworthy to manage something like that.

So far as the U.S. involvement in any 'fishy' or incompetent management of funds, you can be 100% sure that George Bush has enough rabid enemies among the loyal opposition to force a full investigation there. For now there is only what you read in the papers and that is 99% speculation.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:23 am
Foxfyre wrote:
As the UN has refused to allow any investigation other than internal, it is unlikely we'll ever know the whole story there. But there is already enough testimony and evidence, reported even by friends of the UN, to convince most people that the UN is not competent or trustworthy to manage something like that.


Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, heads the independent panel, which investigates the charges that the UN's administration of the Oil-for-Food program was corrupt.


You should perhaps update your information, Foxfyre, since this happened already nearly a year ago.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:32 am
I have been updating it regularly Walter, including noting the problems Voelker is having getting access to people and information he needs to do the investigation. The 'independent panel' was appointed by the UN and has only what authority the UN chooses to give it.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:42 am
Foxfyre wrote:
You're saying the 'viscious attacks' on the UN's handing of the OFF program are manufactured McTag? Are you saying there was nothing fishy about any of that? That the UN has done a good job with that?

As the UN has refused to allow any investigation other than internal, it is unlikely we'll ever know the whole story there. But there is already enough testimony and evidence, reported even by friends of the UN, to convince most people that the UN is not competent or trustworthy to manage something like that.

So far as the U.S. involvement in any 'fishy' or incompetent management of funds, you can be 100% sure that George Bush has enough rabid enemies among the loyal opposition to force a full investigation there. For now there is only what you read in the papers and that is 99% speculation.


Remember ...... go back baaaack ..... the time is in the 80's .................. during the BUSH administration ........... a little event called 'THE SAVING AND LOAN CRISIS'
Some estimates place the loss over the years of taxpayer repayment to be over three trillion dollars. Do the names 'Neil Bush' and 'Silverado' ring a bell? So far when a Bush has been president the country has suffered losses of trillions of dollars, and non of the the loss has been recoverable!
What a strange coincidence wouldn't you say?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:47 am
You can go back there if you wish Geli, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the UN OFF scandal. However, in contrast, the Savings & Loan scandal was investigated by both Dems and Republicans, many were indicted, fined and/or jailed and many many debts were forgiven for a few cents on the dollar by the Clinton administration conducting the investigation. Hands on both sides of the aisle were dirty on that one and honorable people from both sides were anxious to get to the bottom of it.

Now compare that to the investigation going on re the OFF scandal and you'll see there is no comparison at all.
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
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 01:44:42