1
   

MCCAFFREY TELLS IT LIKE IT IS

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 09:37 am
GEN BARRY MCCAFFREY has been a very vocal critic of the handling of the war in Iraq for good reason. Some of his opinions have changed and you might be interested. Seems that Negroponte quietly turned things around and no one yet realizes it.



Failure Isn't an Option
And success in Iraq, though not assured, is within reach.

BY BARRY R. MCCAFFREY
Saturday, July 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Iraq has changed dramatically in the year since my last visit. Last month I was honored to visit the coalition leadership in Baghdad, as well as Iraqi Security Forces and U.S. Army and Marine combat units throughout the country. Thanks to an excellent personal security detail, I was able to cover a lot of ground quickly in the extremely violent and tricky environment presented by the ongoing insurgency and the extensive criminal activity faced by military forces, contractors and journalists, as well as the suffering Iraqi civilian population.

One thing has not changed in Iraq--our fighting forces on the ground represent the most combat effective, courageous, and well-led military capability we have ever fielded. This may be insufficiently understood and valued by those who monitor this conflict. Their casualties are a fraction that we should expect given the level of cunning and firepower that has targeted them with automatic weapons fire, mortar and rocket attacks, RPG strikes, the greatly feared suicide bombers, and remotely detonated improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. We currently lose a battalion a month of soldiers and Marines killed, wounded and injured. Our troops remain confident and demonstrate incredible bravery and restraint. Their sergeants, lieutenants, and captains are in many cases now in their third combat tour since 9/11. The in-country re-enlistment rate is sky-high in elite units like the Army's Third Infantry Division (250% of objective). This U.S. fighting force in Iraq of 140,000 troops (more than half of whom are National Guard and Reserve Forces) is the crown jewel of our national security guarantee to the American people in the war on terror.

In addition, I was very reassured to see the enormous cooperation and teamwork of the U.S. military and U.S. Embassy senior leadership. Our brilliant former ambassador John Negroponte and the steady and experienced four-star joint commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, have put together a seamless and mission-oriented strategy that has jumpstarted the economic recovery, pushed to the forefront the Iraqi interim government, and rationalized the huge burn rate ($5 billion a month) of U.S. Treasury resources in spite of an environment of great chaos and endemic corruption.

Two new realities have emerged since the successful elections of the Iraqi interim government. First, the Iraqi Security Force (ISF) is now real and appearing in great numbers (169,000 police and army). They have real equipment (automatic weapons, some tanks and armored personnel carriers, personal body armor, light trucks, radios), and the beginnings of a national command and control and logistics system. They are increasingly well prepared for operations by the national training system created by the incredibly talented Lt. Gen. Dave Petraeus.

Many of these forces (perhaps 60,000 plus) are now operating in the cities and rural areas of Iraq and confronting the insurgency with courage and resolve. The ISF has taken horrendous casualties--600 killed and 1,800 wounded since the election. The losses have deepened their commitment. Recruiting has gotten easier--not more difficult. By next summer there will be 250,000 Iraqis in the uniforms of their Armed Forces and the Interior Ministry Police. The Iraqi units that I observed in training and action are patriots with a commitment to creating a new Iraq. I don't use these words lightly--the creation of the ISF is the crux of the war. In my view, these ISF units by next summer may well allow a significant drawdown of a third or more of the deployed U.S. forces.

Finally, in my judgment, the Sunni population (20% of Iraq) that enslaved and ruined Iraq over the past 35 years has now collectively decided they made a fundamental misjudgment in sitting out the last election. In my view, if the constitutional process can be nurtured to a successful conclusion and allow elections of a new government in December--then we will see the high point of the insurgency pass this coming January. The energy will begin to drain out of the violent maelstrom of Iraq and by the fall of 2006 we will see the beginnings of a stable and viable Iraqi state.

This will continue to be hard work in Iraq. Progress will be nonlinear. Casualties will be a trailing indicator of successful political integration. Iraq will be bloody at least through the coming summer even given the positive findings I believe are likely. To succeed, we must sustain both a robust U.S. military presence and continuing significant U.S. taxpayer economic support to develop Iraq's infrastructure for the coming three to five years. If we adopt a publicly articulated "exit strategy," we risk reversion to a bloody civil war that will destroy all that we have accomplished through the great daring and courage of the military, State Department and CIA interagency team.

From the beginning, I have believed Iraq was the right war, in the right place, at the right time. President Bush showed great political and moral courage knocking down the sanctuaries of both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, many believe these operations were badly executed because of fundamental misjudgments and micromanagement by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon civilian leaders. Now we have the right forces in Iraq, superb leadership, growing traction of the ISF, a developing Iraqi-led political strategy, and an Iraqi economy that is struggling off its knees. We are also in a race against time. The U.S. Army and the Marines are too undermanned and underresourced to sustain this security policy beyond next fall. They are starting to unravel. Congress is in denial and must act. In addition, the American people are losing faith in the statements of our Defense Department leadership. Support for the war is plummeting along with active-duty and National Guard recruiting.

The U.S. Army needs to increase by 80,000 personnel and the Marines by 25,000. In addition, serious targeted recruiting educational and economic incentives need to be provided by Congress. Finally, the challenge of recruiting dedicated young men and women to the Armed Forces calls for public support and involvement by America's political leaders, educators, coaches and parents. Supporting a strong Armed Forces is not the responsibility of Marine and Army recruiting sergeants but all of us who benefit from our national defense.

We must achieve our purpose in both Afghanistan and Iraq of building viable, law-based, nonthreatening states which allow American military withdrawal. There is no reason why we cannot carry out our aim. Failure would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and economic interests for the next 20 years. Our troops in the face of danger are now growing worried--will the American people sustain them to achieve victory or ignore their struggles on the frontier of the war on terror?

Now is the time for nonpartisan, collective leadership to support and guide our strategy in the ongoing operations in Southwest Asia. Lack of political will and clarity will surely snatch failure from the impending realization of our objectives if we do not act to support those who have given so much to America's defense.

Gen. McCaffrey, a professor of international security studies at West Point, led the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division in the 1991 Gulf War.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 936 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:40 am
rayban, General McCaffrey brings up some good points even though I disagree with him on the necessity of having initiated this war. His assessment of Iraq is excellent, but we must also blame this administration for failing to get the American People behind this war, because their message insults everybody. "Stay the course" is not a good message for any war that continues to see more killing and maiming while spending upwards of five billions of our tax dollars every month. It doesn't help the cause when we see or hear about our American soldiers terrorizing prisoners at Gitmo and al Garaib. It also doesn't help the cause when this administration say one thing about our soldiers, but take away benefits from our veterans. When there is no consistency in their message, we begin to wonder if this administration understand anything about truth. General McCafferey failed to address these failings of the administration.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:54 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
rayban, General McCaffrey brings up some good points even though I disagree with him on the necessity of having initiated this war. His assessment of Iraq is excellent, but we must also blame this administration for failing to get the American People behind this war, because their message insults everybody. "Stay the course" is not a good message for any war that continues to see more killing and maiming while spending upwards of five billions of our tax dollars every month. It doesn't help the cause when we see or hear about our American soldiers terrorizing prisoners at Gitmo and al Garaib. It also doesn't help the cause when this administration say one thing about our soldiers, but take away benefits from our veterans. When there is no consistency in their message, we begin to wonder if this administration understand anything about truth. General McCafferey failed to address these failings of the administration.


C.I.
I posted this article for what it says in support of our troops and the efforts of Negroponte as the first US Ambassador to Iraq. Apparently he was extremely effective in a very short time and has not yet received due credit. I think the participants here need to be told the truth about Iraq and even though MCCAFFREY does not address everything, would you agree that it is good to hear some encouraging news about what is going right instead of the constant negativism

I fail to see why we should blame Bush for not getting the American people behind this effort. In the beginning a very high percentage supported the war but that support has dwindled for two primary reasons. 1. The civilian leardership at the Pentagon very badly bungled the first year after the Statue fell......BUT......in all fairness to Rumsfeld, due to the myriad of unforeseen problems I don't if anyone could have done any better. Yes I know he was probably warned about all the things that actually did happen but who could he really trust and which expert to listen to? 2. The second reason and IMO the foremost reason for the dwindling support falls at the feet of the News Media. Good news does not sell newspapers or TV ad time so the media gave the public want it always wants to hear........blood news, news about death, news about atrocities, news about beheadings, news about quagmires, news about comparisons with Vietnam, that most shameful of all wars, news that we are headed for another Vietnam. Then comes the long list of names read by the liberal news anchors pretending to do it for fhe famailies when in actuality they knew it would influence public opinion........and that's what they want......to influence public opinion just as Walter Cronkite did just after TET in Vietnam.

Next C.I., we "STAY THE COURSE" because of the strong message it sends to our enemies who think that when Americans see and hear news of American casualties, we will crumple and quit ......... which you also seem to want......is that what you want C.I.???????

Thanks for your comments
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:36 pm
I believe the war was wrong. The current situation is a disaster and the current policy "Stay the Course" is pure idiocy on a grand scale.

But to people who buy the administration line, I would like to make one point, and ask two questions.

1) Blaming the newsmedia is complete and utter hogwash. In a democracy, it is the newsmedias job to critically question the administration, and the government in a free society has to deal with it.

If you don't like the role of the press in the war, then you don't like Democracy. Blaming the press or Americans who are expressing their beliefs as is their right and responsibility in a Democracy is wrong on many levels.

2) How much cost should America be willing to take? There was a limit that America was willing to pay in Vietnam. In Vietnam it took 8 years and 58,000 US deaths before America collectively said "enough".

There is a limit in Iraq as well, but what should this limit be. We are now facing 2 or 3 deaths a day on average (not to mention the Iraqi deaths). The violence is steadily increasing.

What is the cost that is worth it. Are you really willing to say "any cost" knowing that you are talking about American kids? I promise you America isn't willing to say this-- and this fact is now starting to show.

3) What can we realistically expect to "accomplish" in order to declare victory (and go home)?

The facts on the ground in Iraq are quite a bit more messy that Bush and his puppets are saying. We are basically in the middle of a growing civil war.

The Shia participated in the election (they were the folks with the purple thumbs). But here is the question. How many of them give a rat's ass about "democracy"?

Well, look at who won. Jaafari is an Islamicist who has advocated Sharia law. He is supported by Sistani, who is an Islamic cleric, trained in Iran, who has an amazing amount of power... even over the Americans.

During the elections, Mosques ordered Shia parishoners to vote, not for democracy, but because the Shia would gain power.

The Shia of course support any process, "democratic" or not that give them political power. And that is exactly what they did. the Sunni stayed out of the election for much the same reason.

So the next challenge is to build a Constitution that is agreed upon by the Shia, many of whom want Sharia law and have ties to our Islamic fundamentalist friends in Iran, the Sunni's who were just kicked out of power and fear and dislike the Shia, and the Kurds, who really want their own independant state.

As a backdrop to this is a new struggle on the stage of Iraq, the battle of Islam against the United States. Islamic Radical Militants are flowing into Iraq to fight.

The horrible thing is that this wasn't the case before the war. Iraq has never been a haven for religious extremism. But now it is.

The US presence itself adds a whole new complication that makes it even harder for Iraq to sort out its ethnic problems.

------

This war was a grave error.

The Bush administration is following a failed policy with an unknown (and rising) cost, an unknown timetable and a questionable result.

"Stay the Course" is nothing but empty propaganda. We heard of the "Light at the end of the Tunnel". I hope America says "enough" in less time with fewer casualties this time.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:20 am
The men and women I correspond with on a regular basis who are serving in Iraq tell a totally different story than the ones being reported in the MSM, though. I think that's why so many Americans currently hold the media in such low esteem.

As my friend Omar writes in his daily blog:

It's visible to everyone that debates over the war in Iraq, war on terror, invasion or occupation or whatever you may name it are at peak levels right now.

The process is being questioned, criticized and discussed more profoundly than at any time in the last two years but you know what?

That's not happening in Iraq; you can find such discussions and accusations in America but you can't find them in Iraq.

And...

Politically, the U.S. has made an important conquest so far: That of the hearts and strategic alliance of both the majority of the Shiaa and certainly the Kurds; that accounts for at least 75% of the Iraqi people. And I am sure a sizable part of the Iraqi Sunnis can be won over eventually. The undercurrent of largely unspoken popular support and gratitude remains despite all the hardships, mistakes and even harshness in the relationship between the troops and the population due to the mistrust created by the terrorists. This is something that no amount of Media bias and enemy propaganda can shake off. This is the decisive factor, and this is what is going to prevail in the end of the day.

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_messopotamian_archive.html
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:34 am
ebrown wrote:
1) Blaming the newsmedia is complete and utter hogwash. In a democracy, it is the newsmedias job to critically question the administration, and the government in a free society has to deal with it.


I normally don't respond to rants such as yours but in this case I will make an exception because you are so fervent. The following are my reasons why I think it is wrong for the media to have the power to influence the outcome of a war which a majority of the people supported and believed was absolutely neccessary.

1. During WWII, the media was censored.....we won that war.

2. During Vietnam, the press was given unrestricted access to the battlefield ......we lost that war and Walter Cronkite was accorded superstar status because he declared the war unwinable. Johnson, who inherited the war from Kennedy and who didn't believe in it, threw in the towel.
3. During gulf war 1, the war was won so quickly the press did not have a chance to influence public opinion.
4. That brings us to the present situation......as this war drags on into it's third year the media is putting forth a massive effort to influence the people that we can't win. That is exactly the scenario that bin Laden predicted......when Americans see casualties mounting we will quit. We must not allow that to happen but because of the power of the media we may lose this war. In that event your desired DISASTER will become a reality. Did you like what happened after the Vietnam disaster? The millions killed by the communists after we departed.......I think you have no inkling of the consequences if we leave Iraq prematurely


What you say about the Shia is true. I don't like it and the administration doesn't like it but we have given them the opportunity......if they don't make something of it then so be it. The administration has been forced to concede that any form of self determination which succeeds in Iraq probably won't resemble what we would like to see but we can accept that.
Perhaps if Bush one had not abandoned the Shia after Gulf War 1, the Shia would be more trusting of our advice now.

I know I am wasting my time trying to persuade you of anything because your mind is absolutely closed to any point of view but your own. I have been reading your ongoing rant against Timber and even though his responses are respectful and reasoned, you are not man enough to respond in kind, instead continuing your rant just as you did against my comments. It's the same type of ranting that Howard Dean indulges in and provides proof of why you liberals and Bush bashers are losing ground.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:49 am
JustWonders,

Your statement says more about the people you choose to correspond with, then any fact on the ground.

Yes of course there are many soldiers who completely agree with Bush, and many more who accept it with a sense of duty. The evidence points against the monolithic support that is part of the Bush propaganda.

There is a lot of opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq from within the military. The number of desertions should tell you something if nothing else. The number of soldiers who are talking to groups like the AFSC are increasing dramatically.

There are now military groups opposed to the war- "Iraq Veterans against the War" (www.ivaw.net) for example.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:56 am
JustWonders wrote:
The men and women I correspond with on a regular basis who are serving in Iraq tell a totally different story than the ones being reported in the MSM, though. I think that's why so many Americans currently hold the media in such low esteem.

As my friend Omar writes in his daily blog:

It's visible to everyone that debates over the war in Iraq, war on terror, invasion or occupation or whatever you may name it are at peak levels right now.

The process is being questioned, criticized and discussed more profoundly than at any time in the last two years but you know what?

That's not happening in Iraq; you can find such discussions and accusations in America but you can't find them in Iraq.

And...

Politically, the U.S. has made an important conquest so far: That of the hearts and strategic alliance of both the majority of the Shiaa and certainly the Kurds; that accounts for at least 75% of the Iraqi people. And I am sure a sizable part of the Iraqi Sunnis can be won over eventually. The undercurrent of largely unspoken popular support and gratitude remains despite all the hardships, mistakes and even harshness in the relationship between the troops and the population due to the mistrust created by the terrorists. This is something that no amount of Media bias and enemy propaganda can shake off. This is the decisive factor, and this is what is going to prevail in the end of the day.

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_messopotamian_archive

.html


Thanks for your comments, Just Wonders and for the link to that blog.
Both your comments and the blog lend strong support to what MCCAFFREY said in his article.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:59 am
Ralph Peters illustrates part (most) of the reason Americans are just about fed up with the media. He's almost as disgusted as I am Smile


Quote:
Sit back and press the memory button. Remember how, in the wake of 9/11, the experts warned that we'd suffer devastating casualties when our "soft" troops came up against the "battle-hardened" Taliban? We were assured our efforts would fail, that we'd wind up as badly burned as the Soviets and Brits before us; the entire country would take up arms against any foreign invaders.

Didn't happen. Our military and the CIA delivered a swift, stunning triumph. And our troops are actually welcome.

No one held those errant experts accountable. Now they're back, pouncing on every scrap of bad news in the hope they'll be able to say, "We told you so."

And here's how our media deal with the undeniable progress made in Afghanistan:

Tens of thousands of girls enrolled in schools? Who cares. Peace in most of the country? Boring.

Democratic elections? Non-story. Economic progress? Less than a non-story.

A construction boom in Kabul? About time journalists had a nice hotel. Afghan troops defending their elected government? Zero interest, dude.

Sixteen GIs lost in a helicopter shot down by terrorists? Now THAT'S news.

It is news, of course. We mourn the loss of every one of our service members. And while every American casualty, colonel or corporal, counts equally, the loss of a team of Navy Seals is an operational blow. We want to know what happened.

The problem is the imbalance in the reporting. My friends who serve or served in Afghanistan are bewildered by the only-bad-news-counts coverage. By any objective measure, Afghanistan's an incredible, they-said-it-couldn't-be-done success story. But we only hear that the Taliban is back.



http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:06 am
ebrown_p wrote:
JustWonders,

Your statement says more about the people you choose to correspond with, then any fact on the ground.

Yes of course there are many soldiers who completely agree with Bush, and many more who accept it with a sense of duty. The evidence points against the monolithic support that is part of the Bush propaganda.

There is a lot of opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq from within the military. The number of desertions should tell you something if nothing else. The number of soldiers who are talking to groups like the AFSC are increasing dramatically.

There are now military groups opposed to the war- "Iraq Veterans against the War" (www.ivaw.net) for example.


I hear what you're saying, ebrown. If and when any of those soldiers I hear from support your example of a website, I'll post it here (with permission, of course). Soldiers are citizens, too, so of course there will be some who are against the war, just as you are. My only gripe is that so much of the 'good' these guys are accomplishing either goes totally unreported or gets buried on the last page.

They don't understand why this is and I am at a loss to explain it to them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:11 am
"I normally don't respond to rants such as yours ..." Criticism such as yours has a name, and it's called "ad hominem." Your first sentence speaks to your inability to have a debate on the merits of the subject matter being discussed. It's nice that you support the Bush war in Iraq. It should make you and Bush wonder why the support for this war is now below 50 percent. You haven't read or heard a word ebrown has said; there is something drastically wrong when Iraq veterans begin to speak against any war; a new phenomenon in American politics.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 10:08 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
"I normally don't respond to rants such as yours ..." Criticism such as yours has a name, and it's called "ad hominem." Your first sentence speaks to your inability to have a debate on the merits of the subject matter being discussed. It's nice that you support the Bush war in Iraq. It should make you and Bush wonder why the support for this war is now below 50 percent. You haven't read or heard a word ebrown has said; there is something drastically wrong when Iraq veterans begin to speak against any war; a new phenomenon in American politics.


Your comment makes me wonder if you know what an "ad hominem" is Rolling Eyes

When ebrown starts with..... Blaming the newsmedia is complete and utter hogwash, he has just proclaimed that he has no intention of having a debate. He instead intends to "body slam" me with nothing but proclamations that I am an idiot.

I am aware of two desertions by soldiers who went to Canada. There is some dissent among the troops but I honestly believe that is caused mostly by the suffering of their spouses which is, I admit, true suffering. When some troops are already on their third tour in a three year old war, that causes undue suffering among the families. There is another form of suffering which is far more dangerous and that is the hurt feeling among the troops when the folks back home no longer support their sacrifice. This is what you and ebrown are contributing to......have nice day.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 10:39 am
He never called you an "idiot." That's your own assessment.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 10:45 am
I attacked an idea, not a person. Yes I used very strong language because it is something that I feel very strong about. I never proclaimed you as an idiot, and I never raised questions about your manhood.

In my posts I have done my best to back up up my beliefs with reason. Whether or not I have done this is a matter of opinion, but I think I have certainly made the effort to explain them.

To be honest, your attack didn't bother me much. I am man enough to ignore it.

But read my posts again. You won't find any personal attacks on anyone who is not president of the United States.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 11:23 am
It's obvious rayban has no idea the meaning of "ad hominem." So, here's the definition. I doubt very much he'll understand it after reading it since he considers himself an "idiot" by misinterpreting another's post.

Ad hominem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument [aimed] at the person", but usually translated as "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 11:25 am
"...I normally don't respond to rants such as yours..." Ad hominem.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 12:10 pm
I can plead ignorance to fine tuned debating points since I am not a "Guru in training" but please tell me, what is your excuse for the personal attack on me below?


C.I. wrote:
It's obvious rayban has no idea the meaning of "ad hominem." So, here's the definition. I doubt very much he'll understand it after reading it since he considers himself an "idiot" by misinterpreting another's post.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 12:52 pm
I haven't said anything you haven't claimed for yourself. Just reinforcing what you claim is not an ad hominem. You still do not understand it's meaning.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 02:14 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I haven't said anything you haven't claimed for yourself. Just reinforcing what you claim is not an ad hominem. You still do not understand it's meaning.


Laughing Typical opposition type of argument.........black is white ...... why?........because I say it is. Muddle on C.I.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » MCCAFFREY TELLS IT LIKE IT IS
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 12:52:24