0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

 
 
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 09:24 am
I know asking to keep this thread clear of the usual anti-Bush rhetoric, but I will ask anyways.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 33,431 • Replies: 842
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 09:25 am
Moving Forward in Iraq
The "surge" is working. Will Washington allow the current progress to continue?

BY KIMBERLY KAGAN
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

In Washington perception is often mistaken for reality. And as Congress prepares for a fresh debate on Iraq, the perception many members have is that the new strategy has already failed.

This isn't an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground, as I saw during my visit to Iraq in May. Reports from the field show that remarkable progress is being made. Violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country.

This is remarkable because the military operation that is making these changes possible only began in full strength on June 15. To say that the surge is failing is absurd. Instead Congress should be asking this question: Can the current progress continue?

From 2004 to 2006, al Qaeda established safe havens, transport routes, vehicle-bomb factories and training camps in the rural areas surrounding Baghdad, where U.S. forces had little or no footprint. Al Qaeda used these bases to conduct bombings in Baghdad, to displace Shia and Sunni from local towns by sparking sectarian killings, and to force Iraqis to comply with the group's interpretation of Islamic law. Shiite death squads roamed freely around Baghdad and the countryside. The number of execution-style killings rose monthly after the Samarra mosque bombing of February 2006, reaching a high in December 2006. Iranian special operations groups moved weapons across the borders and into Iraq along major highways and rivers. U.S. forces, engaged primarily in training Iraqis, did little to disrupt this movement.

Today, Iraq is a different place from what it was six months ago. U.S. and Iraqi forces began their counterinsurgency campaign in Baghdad in February. They moved into the neighborhoods and worked side-by-side with Baghdadis. As a result, sectarian violence is down. The counterinsurgency strategy has dramatically decreased Shiite death squad activity in the capital. Furthermore, U.S. and Iraqi special forces have removed many rogue militia leaders and Iranian advisers from Sadr City and other locations, reducing the power of militias.

As a consequence, execution-style killings, the hallmark of Shiite militias, have fallen to the lowest level in a year; some Iranian- and militia-backed mortar teams firing on the Green Zone have been destroyed. Equally important, U.S. and Iraqi forces have restricted al Qaeda's bases to ever smaller areas of the city, so that reinforcements cannot flow easily from one neighborhood to another.

Many in Washington say the Baghdad Security Plan has just pushed the enemy to other locations in Iraq. Though some of the enemy certainly left Baghdad when the security plan began, this metaphor is inaccurate. The enemy has long been located outside of Baghdad and was causing violence from suburban bases. What has changed is the disposition of U.S. forces, which are now actively working to expel the enemy from its safe havens rather than ignoring them.

To accomplish this, Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno have encircled Baghdad with a double cordon of U.S. and Iraqi forces. They have been preparing the cordons patiently since February, as the new "surge" units arrived. The surge was completed only in mid-June, and the first phase of the large-scale operations it was intended to support began only on June 15. Since then, U.S. forces have begun blocking major road, river, and transportation route around Baghdad. They are also deployed in critical neighborhoods around outskirts and the interior of the city.

On June 15, Gens. Petraeus and Odierno launched a major offensive against al Qaeda strongholds all around Baghdad. "Phantom Thunder" is the largest operation in Iraq since 2003, and a milestone in the counterinsurgency strategy. For the first time, U.S. forces are working systematically throughout central Iraq to secure Baghdad by clearing its rural "belts" and its interior, so that the enemy cannot move from one safe haven to another. Together, the operations in Baghdad and the "belts" are increasing security in and around the capital.

U.S. and Iraqi forces are thereby attacking enemy strongholds and cutting supply routes all around the city, along which fighters and weapons moved freely in 2006. Coordinated operations south and east of Baghdad are at last interdicting the supply of weapons moving along the Tigris River to the capital. U.S. and Iraqi forces are operating east of Baghdad for the first time in years, disrupting al Qaeda's movement between bases on the Tigris and in Sadr City, a frequent target of its car bombs. North of Baghdad, U.S. forces recently cleared al Qaeda from the city of Baqubah, from which terrorists flowed into Baghdad. They are clearing al Qaeda's car bomb factories from Karmah, northwest of Baghdad, and its sanctuaries toward Lake Tharthar. These operations are supported by counterinsurgency operations west of the capital, from Fallujah to Abu Ghraib. U.S. forces are now, for the first time, fighting the enemy in the entire ring of cities and villages around Baghdad.

This is the Baghdad Security Plan, and its mission is to secure the people of Baghdad. Even so, commanders are not ignoring the outlying areas of Iraq. U.S. forces have killed or captured many important al Qaeda leaders in Mosul recently, and destroyed safe havens throughout northern Iraq. Troops are conducting counterinsurgency operations in Bayji, north of Tikrit. And Iraqi forces have "stepped up" to secure some southern cities. The Eighth Iraqi Army Division has been fighting Shiite militias in Diwaniyah, an important city halfway between Basrah and Baghdad. As commanders stabilize central Iraq, they will undoubtedly conduct successive operations in outlying regions to follow up on their successes and make them lasting.

The larger aim of the new strategy is creating an opportunity for Iraq's leaders to negotiate a political settlement. These negotiations are underway. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is attempting to form a political coalition with Amar al-Hakim and Kurdish political leaders, but excluding Moqtada al-Sadr, and has invited Sunnis to participate. He has confronted Moqtada al-Sadr for promoting illegal militia activity, and has apparently prompted this so-called Iraqi nationalist to leave for Iran for the second time since January.

Provincial and local government is growing stronger. Local and tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala, Salah ad-Din, North Babil and even Baghdad have agreed to fight insurgents and terrorists as U.S. forces have moved in to secure the population alongside their Iraqi partners. As a result, the number of Iraqis recruited for the police forces, in particular, has risen exponentially since 2006.

This is war, and the enemy is reacting. The enemy uses suicide bombs, car bombs and brutal executions to break our will and that of our Iraqi allies. American casualties often increase as troops move into areas that the enemy has fortified; these casualties will start to fall again once the enemy positions are destroyed. Al Qaeda will manage to get some car and truck bombs through, particularly in areas well-removed from the capital and its belts.

But we should not allow individual atrocities to obscure the larger picture. A new campaign has just begun, it is already yielding important results, and its effects are increasing daily. Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding.

Ms. Kagan, an affiliate of Harvard's John M. Olin Institute of Strategic Studies, is executive director of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 09:27 am
Can Bush Save the Surge?

Bathed in television lights in a hallway just off of the Senate chamber, five leading Republican senators Tuesday underlined their support for President Bush's so-called surge plan in Iraq. "There is a complete commitment from the president and from the White House that General (David) Petraeus has the time and resources he needs to do the job through September and report back to us," South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters.
Related

Not 100 feet away two other Republican senators held a court of their own, leeching more than a dozen reporters away from the leaders. Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Maine Republicans, were explaining why they feel it's important to pass legislation condemning the surge, which has sent in an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to stem the violence and give Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a chance to unify the different Iraqi factions behind his government. "The almost complete lack of progress since the surge began on the part of the Maliki government suggests that it has... made reform less likely," Collins said.

Collins, Snowe, as well as the leaders, had just emerged from the caucus's weekly luncheon with Vice President Dick Cheney. During the gathering, Cheney sparred in a "vigorous debate" with several senators on why it's important to wait for Petraeus's first report on the strategy due in September. While most Republicans support the new strategy - which has resulted in the bloodiest few months since the end of "major hostilities" in 2003 ?- some in recent weeks have begun to defect, calling for a rethinking, or even redeployment, of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The catalysts for the dispute are several amendments to the Pentagon's $649 billion appropriations bill, which is pending before the Senate this week and next. The White House has been engaged in a full court press to prevent other Republican senators from voting for any one of these amendments and giving Democrats the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster and attach a timeline for withdrawal to the legislation.

Bush has made personal calls, as has Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley accompanied Cheney to the Hill where he met privately with several senators, underscoring to them the importance of waiting until September.

"I met with Hadley just a minute ago," Graham said heading into the lunch. "I think it's pretty clear that ... the White House will oppose all the amendments that will basically undercut the surge."

Senator Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, was one of the senators Bush has reached out to in recent weeks on Iraq. In a "personal conversation," Bush tried to convince Smith to hold his fire until September, Smith said. "It was very heartfelt," Smith said. "He explained a few things that we couldn't know except from his perspective and I appreciated that." But it didn't prevent Smith from this week endorsing the Democratic plan sponsored by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin that would begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days.

Speaking in Cleveland just as senators were heading to lunch in Washington, Bush, himself, made the point Tuesday that the surge hasn't been given enough time to work. "We just started. We got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago," Bush told a business group, adding that he would essentially veto anything that could affect the surge. "American people expect... for military people to come back and tell us how the military operations are going, and that's the way I'm going to play it as commander-in-chief."

The threat did not deter a bevy of proposals as Democrats and Republicans alike shopped for the magic formula to get them to 60 votes. Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, and a group of five other Democrats and six Republicans introduced an amendment that would put in place the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group ?- including direct talks with Syria and Iran and beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops ?- an idea panned by conservatives as going backward seven months in the face of the new surge strategy.

Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, introduced a measure that would force the armed services to give troops longer intervals at home between redeployments. With the other leaders before the television cameras, Senator John McCain criticized that idea as "encroachment on the constitutional rights of the President of the United States."

Collins, who had a "vigorous" conversation of her own with Rice Tuesday morning, said she and Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat, are working on legislation that would have binding recommendations for phased troop withdrawals. At the same time, she is also considering signing onto a yet-to-be-announced amendment by Republican Senators John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Lugar, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, publicly came out against the surge in a surprise speech on the Senate floor two weeks ago. Warner said he will reveal his opinion on how the surge is faring in the amendment, which will be unveiled later this week after Bush delivers a scheduled progress report on Iraq expected Thursday.

While the defections were numerous, the Republican leadership is confident that it will maintain enough votes to block all the controversial amendments, according to several GOP staffers. And, at least one skeptic left lunch pledging to wait until September: Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican.

"Our role ultimately is not going to be at the forefront of being at an ascent of a civil war in Baghdad ... I have no question that that is something we have to be out of, that we will be out of," Coleman told reporters. "The question is, will we be out of it in September with the Iraqis having moved forward with power sharing or not.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 10:38 am
Is the "surge" really working to the extent that we can realisticly see massive troop reduction? My confidence is low.

Have we again fallen into the trap of using our military in a policing operation while leaving those responsible to "nation building" on the sidelines? Yes we have.

This war, and our ONLY reason to be there, ended when we stopped looking for WMD and eliminated the Saddam regime.

The only Bush Bashing I will offer is that he and Rumsfeld never followed proper military protocal from a stratigic perspective from the beginning. They "tried to play nice" with the fromer Iraqi military members and its citizens. This is not how you fight a war.

Yet, there are no alternatives coming forward that make sense (except immediate withdrawal which no one has the balls to submitt). Redeployment, as explained by the democrats accomplishes nothing except send our troops elswhere to get shot fighting for someone elses freedom.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 08:35 pm
Re: Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V
McGentrix wrote:
I know asking to keep this thread clear of the usual anti-Bush rhetoric, but I will ask anyways.


Would be nice, but the usual suspects will be along any moment now .....
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 02:26 pm
Re: Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V
Ticomaya wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I know asking to keep this thread clear of the usual anti-Bush rhetoric, but I will ask anyways.


Would be nice, but the usual suspects will be along any moment now .....


Howdy! Tico, nice to see you're still around. I thought you had joined the 'surge'...Do you still support 'The Decider' ? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 06:11 am
http://i12.tinypic.com/4thrgwx.jpg
http://i14.tinypic.com/624ihp0.jpg
source: Chicago Tribune, 13.07.07, page 8
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 06:15 am
Re: Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V
McGentrix wrote:
I know asking to keep this thread clear of the usual anti-Bush rhetoric, but I will ask anyways.


You can ask all you want but you ain't gonna get it.

Since your so insecure why don't you post on this forum.

Quote:
Free Republic Purge: Conservative Web Site Bans Giuliani Supporters
NY Observer ^ | Published: May 24, 2007 | by Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted on 05/26/2007 1:49:34 PM PDT by Eurotwit

A few weeks ago - in between Hillary Clinton's official entry into the presidential race and the first Republican primary debate of the cycle - the fiery online conservative forum Free Republic marked a decade in operation as one of the premier online forums for right-wing political discussion.

It also experienced one of the biggest internal battles to rock the site since the 2000 election of George W. Bush -- a tumultuous campaign year that nearly tore the site apart, as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support.

At the heart of the latest controversy: the fight over the conservative bona fides of Rudy Giuliani.

Over the past few weeks, chaos has reigned in the "Freeper" community as members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign on the popular conservative web forum. Another significant chunk of commenters have migrated away from the controversial site over the action, according to a number of former site members and conservative bloggers who have been tracking the situation.

In a plaintive post on the blog "Sweetness & Light," exiled commenter Steve Gilbert, who says he does not support the former mayor's campaign, blasted the site's new "anti-Giuliani, anti-abortion jihad." Since George W. Bush was elected president, he wrote, "there haven't been any large scale [Free Republic] purges to speak of - until now."

The fight began one month ago, when site founder Jim Robinson posted an anti-Giuliani manifesto titled: "Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement." Then the virtual ax started to swing. Longtime posters to the freewheeling discussion threads, used to serious no-holds-barred web etiquette, were still stunned by the intensity of the anti-Rudy activity; conservative blogs buzzed with the development.

"Jim Robinson has been going on a tear demonizing Rudy Giuliani, because Rudy (agreeing with the vast majority of Americans), is personally opposed to abortions on a moral levelÂ…" complained a user on the GOPUSA Web site. "Anyone who posts any support for Giuliani at the site, if it's at all forceful, will be banned."

("Normally, we don't allow complaints about other conservative forums," chided the moderator, but "Â…because it is being discussed all over the Internet, I'll make an exception.")

Just a few months ago, Rudy Giuliani placed second in an early Free Republic straw poll; now, his support on the site has been virtually eliminated. "After the ?'April Purge,' I don't think there are any Rudybots left around here," noted Free Republic commenter "upchuck" in one recent post. "And if there are, they're not posting pro-Rudy stuff Smile."

The forums weren't the only venue for the Free Republic's new antagonism toward Mr. Giuliani, which coincided with a wave of comments expressing similar sentiments from other corners of the conservative movement. A few days after Mr. Giuliani's equivocal Roe v. Wade comments at the Republican presidential debate on May 3, a new "STOP RUDY NOW News & Information Thread" was featured on the site, and a newly-created stand-alone category debuted via a link from the homepage: "The Giuliani Truth File." (So far this campaign season, Mr. Giuliani is the only candidate - Republican or Democratic - to be singled out for that level of scrutiny from the Free Republic.)

Why Rudy? Why now? Some conservative bloggers and former commenters contacted for their view of the continuing controversy say they believe that site founder Jim Robinson holds ideologically middling Republicans like Mr. Giuliani responsible for the GOP's congressional loss and current woes. (They asked that their names be kept out of this story for fear of antagonizing the famously frisky site regulars.)

Others claim that the former mayor's top-tier status is spurring frantic site administrators into action. Finally, one popular theory holds that the Free Republic is secretly hoping for another Clinton presidency that would send its Alexa ratings soaring back to levels it hasn't experienced since its halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment, when a since-soured relationship with blog pioneer Matt Drudge and overwhelming anti-Clinton sentiment in Republican ranks helped make Free Republic one of the hottest Web sites in the nation. It hasn't recovered that luster since the Bush administration took over.

"It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an observation," said one blogger, who describes himself as a half-hearted Mitt Romney supporter. "They've still got a brand name that means something, but they're not what they were in terms of real-world impact. A Hillary presidency would get them there."

Robinson himself could not be reached for comment, but his original post laid out his case against Mr. Giuliani - a graphics-heavy presentation of some of the former mayor's most damning moderate quotes in mainstream media venues, along with a color-coded report card tracking his less-than-doctrinaire positions on abortion, immigration, gays and guns.

Robinson, it should be noted, famously blasted George W. Bush's presidential candidacy back in 2000, before a dramatic late-campaign about-face that saw him emerge as one of the GOP ticket's biggest supporters. But whether or not Free Republic experiences a similar election-year shift this cycle, the site's current campaign is spreading a dangerous primary-season meme of Rudy Giuliani as big-city liberal - and turning one of the most influential web forums in conservatism into an exclusive gathering place for those who share that view.


As you can see this is the conservatives view on freedom.

My way or the highway.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 12:54 am
What was wrong with the old thread?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 05:54 am
Beats me. Maybe the conservatives hoped to create an uncorrupted conservative thread so they can tell themselves what a wonderful man Bush is, being sent to us by God to thech those heathen Muslims that freedom is the correct path to happiness.

Iran, thru Israel, will soon see the light (nuke light) and she to will see how wonderful freedom is. And the Bush supporters will tell themselves how the world and history will heap praise and glory on Bush for his manley stand against the Muslim religious fanatics out to destroy the free world.

Quote:
America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right for life. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life.
George W. Bush


Quote:
For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.
George W. Bush


Quote:
Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
George W. Bush


AH, you mean like America and Israel?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_w_bush.html
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 07:58 am
I doubt that a new thread will change the facts: al-Qaida is as strong as it ever was; the world hates us and sees us as a bully; and we have dumped $500 B of treasury on this misbegotten war. Great work, Shrub!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 08:30 am
Is it "the ususual Bush-bashing rhetoric" when the Deputy Attorney General to Ronald Reagan (and who is also an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation and was a contributing author to the articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton) calls for the impeachment of the President and the Vice-President? http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
0 Replies
 
HokieBird
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 10:38 am
Fein voted for Bush in 2000. He voted for Bush in 2004. Now he's whining.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 07:01 pm
blatham wrote:
Is it "the ususual Bush-bashing rhetoric" when the Deputy Attorney General to Ronald Reagan (and who is also an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation and was a contributing author to the articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton) calls for the impeachment of the President and the Vice-President? http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html


Yes actually. You could very well start a separate thread about it.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 07:00 am
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
Is it "the ususual Bush-bashing rhetoric" when the Deputy Attorney General to Ronald Reagan (and who is also an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation and was a contributing author to the articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton) calls for the impeachment of the President and the Vice-President? http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html


Yes actually. You could very well start a separate thread about it.


McG shuts his eyes, places fingers in his ears and intones loudly

"NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA!"
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 10:56 am
Re: Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V
Zippo wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I know asking to keep this thread clear of the usual anti-Bush rhetoric, but I will ask anyways.


Would be nice, but the usual suspects will be along any moment now .....


Howdy! Tico, nice to see you're still around. I thought you had joined the 'surge'...Do you still support 'The Decider' ? Laughing


Do you still believe wild conspiracy theories and hate Jews? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 11:01 am
McTag wrote:
What was wrong with the old thread?


Nothing. Why don't you go hang around there instead?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 11:42 am
Ticomaya wrote:
McTag wrote:
What was wrong with the old thread?


Nothing. Why don't you go hang around there instead?


I want to hang around here and help celebrate the demise of George W Bush, one of the worst disasters that ever befell his country.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 11:51 am
McT, I think most of the world would join you in celebrating. He is a disgrace to the human race.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 11:05 am
HokieBird wrote:
Fein voted for Bush in 2000. He voted for Bush in 2004. Now he's whining.


This comment rests upon a well-established logical and democratic truism:

Where one has previously voted for (or thought well of, or spoken out in favor of) a particular candidate (or party) then one is henceforth obligated, as a logical matter and as a matter of personal character within a democracy, to refrain from any and all critical speech (or criical thought) regarding said candidate or party.

Do we have it right here, HokieBird?
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 Supporters' Aftermath Thread V
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2026 at 12:28:22