Democrats & Liberals Archives

What Does Andrea Mitchell Know That She's Not Telling Us?

What is Andrea Mitchell, of NBC news, trying to tell us about the NSA domestic spying program? During an interview with New York Times reporter James Risen, who broke the story, Mitchell asks a rather peculiar question.

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.

I can understand the question about spying on journalists in general; but why did Mitchell bring up Amanpour in particular? Does Amanpour, Mitchell or NBC have reason to believe that she was the target of NSA spying? What is the significance if she was? After all journalists have contacts all over the world, some that the government might consider a security threat. But this particular journalist had another contact. One the Bush administration may have considered a political threat.

Christiane Amanpour, a CNN correspondent, happens to be married to Jamie Rubin. Mr. Rubin was Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs and spokesman for the State Department during the Clinton administration. Even more interesting is the fact that he served as foreign policy advisor for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

Now, if Amanpour was the target of wiretapping, then certainly that eavesdropping would have included anyone who used her computers or phones, including Rubin. The implications of such a wiretap would be that Rubin's conversations would have been captured as well. Conversations with John Kerry, other campaign advisors and Democratic leaders.

On Wednesday, MSNBC.com posted the official transcript of the interview. This led AMERICAblog to question if Bush, had indead, wiretapped Amanpour. Two hours later NBC deleted the section of the transcript with Mitchell's question and Risen's answer . Notice that the transcript contains this disclaimer: "Following is an edited transcript of the interview." This leads to the question, why would NBC alter the official transcript?

After TVNewser posed that question to NBC, they released this statement:

Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry.

This is very significant. If NBC wishes to continue it's investigation into the Amanpour matter before airing the interview, then obviously there is something Andrea Mitchell knows; but she's not talking. Yet.

Posted by JayJay Snow at January 6, 2006 1:42 AM
Comments
Comment #110582

It certainly sounds like NBC is on the trail of something. It’ll be interesting to find out what. Keep us posted.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 6, 2006 3:57 AM
Comment #110592

NBC was right to pull that reporting as it appears to represent just the beginning hunch of and investigative effort, rather than evidence of malfeasance. That said, I have little doubt the spying was used for many purposes not intended or legally defensible.

The psychology of being charged with the dual responsibility to 1) prevent the next 9/11 and 2) insure the vindication and continued hold on power by one’s own political party, coupled with the power to spy on anyone who “might” consititute a threat on either front, creates incredible motivation and justification to use that power for both purposes. This psychology already brought down one president, and as we all know, when it comes to power, history repeats itself again, and again.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2006 6:53 AM
Comment #110593

I would like to see this investigation continue without being “tried in the media”. If the law was broken, then the guilty should pay - whoever they are.

But isn’t it amazing that when the Clintons had stolen FBI files on political opponents “found” in the White House, that it was just a big mistake. The Media didn’t want to find out how they got there or who wanted them. The “scandal” was just swept under the rug. The law was broken and nobody cared. Can you smell the hypocrisy? Most Americans can and could care less when the media cries foul, but covers up for their friends.

If Christiane Amanpour called a suspected terrorist residing outside the US, for whatever reason, then if the NSA eavesdropped - good, they were doing their job. George Bush didn’t need to spy on political opponents to win in 2004, the Democrats made winning easy by offering up John Kerry.

Posted by: mac6115cd at January 6, 2006 7:52 AM
Comment #110605

Anyone remember the scene in All the President’s Men when Frank Wills notices the tape on the door in the Watergate, preventing it from locking? Just a thought …

Posted by: bobo at January 6, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #110607

mac6115cd:

Well said. Thank you.

David R. Remer:

You have little doubt that spying was used for many purposes not intended or legally defensible. - This has already brought down one president…….

It seems to me that you just can’t wait to have the president found guilty of something……anything. Let’s don’t wait for an investigation, let’s just hang him from the higest tree right now. Could it be the news media may be incorrect in their reporting? They have been wrong in the past you know. If this administration did something illegal, then let the investigation run it’s course and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: dodge at January 6, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #110608

Already we see the main rightwing excuses:

(a) Clinton did something too
(b) BushCo isn’t convicted (yet)
(c) She has a foreign name, so she’s a terrorist sympathyzer/co-conspirator.
(d) Not only that, she’s in the liberally biased main-stream-media so she’s guilty, by default (see (b) above) of being a another stupid Bushhater
(e) It wasn’t that KKKarl can make Mother Theresa seem like a prostitute, but Kerry really didn’t win 3 purple hearts for getting shot in a war he didn’t bail on, or the McCain cheated on his wife while actually being a closet queen, etc… etc… etc…

Oh, let’s not forget to add “if” so I can’t call them on the hypocracy of it all…

David,

They edited a question out of a transcript. Is this another midnight call from Bush to a publisher?

All that being said, she’s probably a good one to tap. Should have been through FISA, though, like all the rest. With oversight, etc…

Posted by: Dave at January 6, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #110611

“The law was broken and nobody cared. Can you smell the hypocrisy? “

Hypocrisy is a bunch of draft dodging industrialists diminishing the value of all veterans, past and present, while waging an unjustified war.

Hypocisy is a man running as a compassionate conservative who takes away the civil rights of the very citizens who put him in office.

Hypocrisy is the current administrations efforts to denigrate any dissenting views, attack the messengers, and intimidate anyone who dissagrees with them.

Hypocrisy is to point out that “Clinton” did this or that “and nobody cared.” The Republicans cared then and they don’t want anyone to care now that they are under the microscope. Perhaps nobody remembers the $40 million spent chasing Clinton and White Water, etc. Some of us do. Now you are under the microscope and you don’t like it very much because you have a lot more to hide than Clinton ever did.

You think giving your illegal campaign contributions to charity will negate any votes obtained due to the bribes? Republicans will not be exonorated by contributing to charity after the fact. The public will not abide by these illegal tactics and you can no longer silence or intimidate the press. The American public is demanding to know the truth.

Posted by: Mike USAF 69-73 at January 6, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #110613
But isn’t it amazing that when the Clintons had stolen FBI files on political opponents “found” in the White House, that it was just a big mistake. The Media didn’t want to find out how they got there or who wanted them. The “scandal” was just swept under the rug.

By “swept under the rug” surely you mean being investigated by independent prosecutor Ken Starr and seperately a Congressional oversight committee - both of which exonerated the Clintons.

Let’s get this straight. Both David Remer and Dodge have said that this information from Andrea Mitchell is “reporting”. It is not. Andrea Mitchell, nor NBC, have reported anything. It was simply a question from a reporter to an interview subject. However, the potential information that led to the question is the interesting part.

We’ll see what happens, but yes Dodge, it sure is fun to speculate about!

Posted by: Burt at January 6, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #110620

The speculation is not in line with the type of wiretapping that it looks like was done.

In the world of switching calls, if she received a call from outside the U.S. from a terror suspect, the NSA may have intercepted her call. It doesn’t follow that she was being investigated or that people she was talking too were caught up in anything.

As far as I know (and nobody has said otherwise) no calls were monitored that both originated and ended in the U.S., which would leave out most of the things you are worried about.

So unless these prominent Dems were not only discussing confidential party strategy with a journalist (that opens some ethical problems of its own) and doing so while traveling internationally over unsecured phone lines, you really can’t come up with a really bad scenario.

If Christiane Amanpour is outside the U.S. talking to terrorists on the phone, I don’t see any problem with knowing that. Should we set up a wall around her, so that the terrorists know that if they call her the machines will shut down?

Posted by: Jack at January 6, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #110622

“George Bush didn’t need to spy on political opponents to win in 2004, the Democrats made winning easy by offering up John Kerry.

Posted by: mac6115cd at January 6, 2006 07:52 AM “

Richard Nixon didn’t need to do what he did either. He would have won the election without the “dirty tricks” and tapping of the DNC at Watergate.

Paranoia, rationalizing that anything justifies the means… corruption of power…

“good intentions” are not only coming from the “left”

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 6, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #110623

The latest from Eschaton:

A senior us intelligence official tells us that our colleague Christianne Amanpour has never been targeted by the National Security Agency and nor has any other CNN journalist. The NSA as you know is the eavesdropping intelligence agency - the US government’s big ear - and from time to time the offical says wiretaps overseas or other intercepts turn out to include Americans or what they call US persons which includes people who work for us companies and does so inadvertently. But if the NSA finds it has tape and trasncript of such a person by law it is required to be immediately erased, deleted, gotten rid of. US intelligence officials rarely comment on who they may or may not have collected information about, but because of all the web blogosphere attention this was getting today, this senior official was willing to look into it for us, and to be quite clear in his denial — frankly, I get the impression the NSA is as puzzled by Andrea Mitchell’s question, and NBC’s decision to put it out on the web, as we were.


Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 6, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #110631

President Bush is just and wise. All hail President Bush.

Posted by: Bill at January 6, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #110633

Lisa:

if the NSA finds it has tape and trasncript of such a person by law it is required to be immediately erased, deleted, gotten rid of
The NSA is also required by law to get a warrant within 72 hours of tapping into a US citizen. We now know, with Bush’s own admission by his Presidential order, such a warrant is no longer required.

What else don’t we know? What other laws are being broken by some other secret orders?

Posted by: Dave at January 6, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #110641

There,maybe that will keep me off the no fly list.

Posted by: Bill at January 6, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #110647

You guys do know that author who wrote “Bush’s Brain” is on the No Fly List right?

Posted by: Aldous at January 6, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #110650
George Bush didn’t need to spy on political opponents to win in 2004, the Democrats made winning easy by offering up John Kerry.

mac,

If it was so easy for Bush to win in 2004, then why did he run the longest and nastiest Presidential campaign in history? Why did he recieve more votes against him than any other President in history? I hardly call 51%-48% an easy election.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 6, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #110652

Dave, that I have no idea on, was just passing on the updated information that I had read.

Given no one seems to know where Andrea got the idea to ask the question in the first place and she doesn’t appear to be talking about it, which is more responsible journalism? Leaving a transcript up with information that might not be correct that wasn’t meant to be released or deleting it until they had confirmation?

Would the NSA even admit it if it was true? That’s doubtful as well.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 6, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #110669

Dave:

How interesting it is that the number two “excuse” you blame Republicans for using is, and I quote: “BushCo isn’t convicted (yet)”.

I thought for a moment that America abides by the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard, but here you are calling that venerable standard merely an “excuse”.

I’ll await your dance around the statement obfuscations, but you spelled it out really clearly…more clearly, in fact, than most would be willing to. By admitting that you don’t want or need to wait for the proof, the evidence, the legal charges, the investigations etc before declaring guilt, you trod all over the moral high ground of American jurisprudence.

Thanks for making it so clear where you stand.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 6, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #110681

Dave has a veritible pletora of evidence to be cynical and/or sceptical.

From the very begining Bush has plainly shown that the main operational plan his Administration (many whould say Regime) is always to tell the BIG LIE first. They also have a documented record of secretly paying journalists to become their covert biased propagandists. Experience dictates that only the profoundly deaf, dumb, and blind or the medicially certified “brain dead” can afford to take take anything they say at face value. In fact,numerous instances of documented evidence{actual recordings of their own statements} has proved, by accepting the opposite of what they say is truth, it is exponentually more likely to find it.

One thing that’s virtually certain; experienced journalists never inject this kind “of off the wall” question without some specific purpose. Whether it is meant to be propaganda to misdirect , incentive to dig deeper, or public enlightenment—- only tinme will tell.

Posted by: Richard at January 6, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #110687

Aldous, Bill, or anyone,
I’ve obliviously missed something - what “No Fly List”?

Oh and what was the comment I read earlier, something about someone getting on this blog and getting into the computer systems?

Posted by: Linda H. at January 6, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #110692

jbod,

We’ve had this discussion before. There is no more doubt in my mind that BushCo is guilty by “the preponderence of evidence” (see civil case law)
Does that mean “beyond reasonable doubt”? No. But that is not the standard I wish to apply to the president of my country. I apply “beyond reproach” How about you? Or is Not proven, “we have to let the trial figure it out” good enough for your president?

Posted by: Dave at January 6, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #110704

Half of you people just don’t know what the hell your talking about. How does it feel to come down on the side of people like Hitler and Stalin, when you defend Saddam saying this was an “unjust war”, knowing that he killed thousands of people like that??? Do you REALLY think that he didn’t have WMD, when he is a supporter of the “Arab Nation”? Iran and Syria sign a letter of agreement declaring their mutual support in case of “aggression” by the west. Iran agreed to house the Syrian killers, and Syria agrees to store any Iranian “nuclear technology and systems” if the west imposes sanctions. What is it that you don’t understand, folks. Do you not realize that they will kill you, in the same fashion as they would me, if they ever get their hands on you??? You keep defending people who are hell bent on killing you. They are of the same mind as the Japanese of WWII. They will die for their cause. The question is not if we will die for ours, but, will we get them first before they get to us!!!

Posted by: Jeff at January 6, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #110723

Your wasting your breath, Jeff - They don’t get it and never will.

Posted by: THC at January 6, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #110729

So you defend Bush based on the fact that Saddam was a “bad man”? I guess you think just because we’re doing the same things as he did, killing and torturing our detainees, we’re not as bad simply because we’re “the good guys”.

BTW, no one is defending who Saddam was. But you are right about one thing, some people will never get it. About 40% at current count.

Posted by: Dave at January 6, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #110766
Half of you people just don’t know what the hell your talking about.

Yes. Your half.

How does it feel to come down on the side of people like Hitler and Stalin,

Guys who took away their people’s freedoms under the guise of nationalism? Who does that remind you of? Who is “coming down on the side of Hitler and Stalin”?

when you defend Saddam saying this was an “unjust war”,

Not unjust - just stupid. Especially the way it’s been run.

knowing that he killed thousands of people like that???

George W. Bush: “I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraq.”

Do you REALLY think that he didn’t have WMD, when he is a supporter of the “Arab Nation”?

Yes, I really believe that Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded Iraq. The main justification I have for that belief is the fact that there were none.

Iran and Syria sign a letter of agreement declaring their mutual support in case of “aggression” by the west.

And this supports your rationale for Iraq how?

Iran agreed to house the Syrian killers, and Syria agrees to store any Iranian “nuclear technology and systems” if the west imposes sanctions. What is it that you don’t understand, folks.

What I don’t understand is how Iran’s nuclear capability was diminished by the war Iraq. If nothing else, they stepped on the gas to get it moving seeing the U.S. on either side of them. Invading countries that have nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs does very little to improve our security or allow us to deal with real threats like Iran and North Korea.

Do you not realize that they will kill you, in the same fashion as they would me, if they ever get their hands on you???

Uh, when exactly was an Iraqi gonna “get his hands on me”? Instead of apologizing for inept leadership and inane foreign policy of the Bush administration, why not call out and demand that they actually pursue the terrorists who attacked us like Osama Bin Laden. Remember him?

You keep defending people who are hell bent on killing you.

Actually, you are, by allowing the President to ignore Al Qaeda and those countries that are actually developing WMDs and supporting his actions to tie up our military against people who are very little threat to us. That makes you weak on terrorism and a threat to your own safety.

They are of the same mind as the Japanese of WWII.

Yeah, and we all saw how well that turned out for them.

They will die for their cause.

As will you probably, going to your grave thanking Bush for doing such a great job in protecting you.

The question is not if we will die for ours, but, will we get them first before they get to us!!!

Not if you continue to back this inept administration in their half-baked plans.

P.S. THC, I’d say thanks for your 2 cents, but I didn’t want to overvalue your comments.

Posted by: Burt at January 6, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #110781

Well done, Burt, well done.

Posted by: ray at January 6, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #110804
As far as I know (and nobody has said otherwise) no calls were monitored that both originated and ended in the U.S., which would leave out most of the things you are worried about.

Jack, it’s been widely reported that the program included purely domestic spying. I’m surprised you missed that.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 6, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #110822

AP

I stand corrected but unrepentant.

According to your article:

“Eavesdropping on communications between two people who are both inside the United States is prohibited under Mr. Bush’s order allowing some domestic surveillance.

But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants. In all, officials say the program has been used to eavesdrop on as many as 500 people at any one time, with the total number of people reaching perhaps into the thousands in the last three years.”

It sounds a lot like honest and not harmful mistakes. Using and international cellphone in the U.S. sounds like a legitimate mistake and one that doesn’t bother me.

I just can’t can outraged about this. I am glad the President is protecting us. For the last years you guys have complained that he wasn’t keeping his eye on the terrorists. Evidently he was.

Posted by: Jack at January 6, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #110825

You’ve got to love Andrea Mitchell.

She’s the same one who wondered what all the fuss was about when the Plame investigation broke.

According to her, everybody in Washington already knew the “open secret” of Valerie Plame and her job.

She backed off of that pretty quick.

Posted by: sanger at January 6, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #111947

Burt, Thanks for showing that I know EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Thanks for a job well done, buddy. I will sleep very well tonight.

Posted by: Jeff at January 10, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #112154
I stand corrected but unrepentant.

Naturally. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at January 11, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #112224

Half of you people just don�€™t know what the hell your talking about.

Yes. Your half.

That was a real good come back, Burt. Shows your really thinking.

How does it feel to come down on the side of people like Hitler and Stalin,

Guys who took away their people’s freedoms under the guise of nationalism? Who does that remind you of? Who is “coming down on the side of Hitler and Stalin”?

Nationalism?!? Democracy, Burt, Democracy. You know, freedom and bill of rights and all that stuff.

when you defend Saddam saying this was an �€œunjust war�€,

Not unjust - just stupid. Especially the way it’s been run.

Stupid?!? I served in the USAF for over 20 years, sir. He invaded another country, and had plans on invading more. Some of the men I served with were on the UN weapons inspection team and were wounded by the “WMD’s that were not there” as late as the year 2000. We went in in 2003. How long did he have to hide them in S***A?????????

knowing that he killed thousands of people like that???

George W. Bush: “I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraq.”

Yes, I stand with the men of WWII who killed thousands of the enemy who put their lot in with the dictators and murders. You bet!!!

Do you REALLY think that he didn�€™t have WMD, when he is a supporter of the �€œArab Nation�€?

Yes, I really believe that Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded Iraq. The main justification I have for that belief is the fact that there were none.

Notice you didn’t say that he never had them!!! That’s the point, buddy. He DID have them at one point. We know, the French gave him 3 nuclear weapons in the late 1970’s in exchange for the oil drilling rights in Iraq, that the Israel’s destroyed with the F-16 strike in 1980. Do we wait for him to attack us first? I say no.

Iran and Syria sign a letter of agreement declaring their mutual support in case of �€œaggression�€ by the west.

And this supports your rationale for Iraq how?

Refer to the above statements.

Iran agreed to house the Syrian killers, and Syria agrees to store any Iranian �€œnuclear technology and systems�€ if the west imposes sanctions. What is it that you don�€™t understand, folks.

What I don’t understand is how Iran’s nuclear capability was diminished by the war Iraq. If nothing else, they stepped on the gas to get it moving seeing the U.S. on either side of them. Invading countries that have nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs does very little to improve our security or allow us to deal with real threats like Iran and North Korea.

It is not diminished by invading Iraq, but it does show some light on the subject. We have been dealing with this problem since the early 1990’s. When the USSR fell, we have been attepmting to stop them from dealing with the Russians ever since. The Russians have been helping them, as well as Iraq before the war, to get this technology. Example of Russian involvement is the $6 billion deal with Iraq in September of 2002 to provide military equipment for the rebuilding of their military. This is not to mention the French involvement in those efforts. As for North Korea, they are no real threat. I served in South Korea and we are more than able to keep the peace there. Our intrerst is in South Korea and Japan survival as dem. govs. Those folks need our help.

Do you not realize that they will kill you, in the same fashion as they would me, if they ever get their hands on you???

Uh, when exactly was an Iraqi gonna “get his hands on me”? Instead of apologizing for inept leadership and inane foreign policy of the Bush administration, why not call out and demand that they actually pursue the terrorists who attacked us like Osama Bin Laden. Remember him?

While the capability of an “Iraqi” to get his hands on you is remote, you fail to see the point. This is where the “Arab Nation” comes in to play. Since the British divided the Arab world when they pulled out of their occupation (colonies) those who believe in an Arab Nation have attempted to erase those lines that were placed on them. Those who believe in that nation was who I was talking about. Remember, most 9/11 attackers were Saudi. (Arab Nation believers/Al Qaeda are one in the same)

You keep defending people who are hell bent on killing you.

Actually, you are, by allowing the President to ignore Al Qaeda and those countries that are actually developing WMDs and supporting his actions to tie up our military against people who are very little threat to us. That makes you weak on terrorism and a threat to your own safety.

Again, from an Arab Nation view point, there is no difference between Iraq, Syria, Al Qaeda, they all have the same goal.

They are of the same mind as the Japanese of WWII.

Yeah, and we all saw how well that turned out for them.

You got the point, buddy.

They will die for their cause.

As will you probably, going to your grave thanking Bush for doing such a great job in protecting you.

For my daughters to grow up in a better world free of terrorist who wish to impose their world view on them, yes.

The question is not if we will die for ours, but, will we get them first before they get to us!!!

Not if you continue to back this inept administration in their half-baked plans.

FDR - 1941: “Absolute victory”

P.S. THC, I’d say thanks for your 2 cents, but I didn’t want to overvalue your comments.
Posted by: Burt at January 6, 2006 05:56 PM

Posted by: Jeff at January 11, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #112690

Jeff,
I am confused with which comments are yours and maybe ones that are being replied to. Possibly by putting quote marks around other people’s comments would help.

So, if I my remarks aren’t in response to your beliefs then my apologies… it was just hard to tell which were your thoughts and which were the ones you were replying to.

I don’t know if you are saying that all Arabs are Al Qaeda? That is not the truth so I don’t know what was meant by that. There are two major sects of Islam, and they both believe the other is heretical… the Shiites and the Suuni. If you look at the 10 year war between Iraq (a secular dictatorship dependant on Suuni control) and Iran (Shiite theocracy) you will see the vicousness of their hatred for each other.

There is a third sect called the Wahabi who are really wacko fundamentalists. They were formed in the Saudi region and they are the predominant power in Saudi Arabia. This is also the land of Mecca. The Wahabi make the Shiites and the Sunnis look like boy scouts.

There was no opposition to the President’s actions in Afganistan. There was a very clear connection between 9/11, the Taliban and Al-Qadea. We had them on the ropes… pinned up in mountains and falling apart.

Generally unknown, there was dissention within the terrorists organizations and the Arab world. Some terrorists thought that it was a terrible mistake to attack the US. There was some celebrating shown on TV by Arabs, but not all Arabs… especially Arabs in positions of power.

Our focus, the pressure on OSB and Al-Qaeda, the international support (western and Arab) was jeopardizied because of the faulty rationale used to invade Iraq. Not to mention the unilateral way in which it was done.

Someone is claiming 3 nuclear weapons belonged to Iraq? From the French? I am unable to verify this… could whoever made this claim please provide some source?

From everything I know… the UN inspectors had a pretty good grasp of what Iraq had and didn’t have.

As a matter of fact, there is a new book out about the CIA and its intelligence leading up to the war… one of the stories is about how an Iraqi expatriot from Philly went back to Iraq before the war to talk to her uncle who had worked on the nuclear programs… he told her that the programs had been shut down for almost 10 years and he wasn’t working on anything like that. She went back and reported this to the CIA. This is one example.

As Americans, demanding accountability from the President to use our military forces in a rational and responsible manner does not give aid to anyone. It does not equate us with Stalin, Hitler or any other tyrant. If they had had people demanding accountability from them then their names would be forgotten years ago.

People want to kill us. Yes! We understand that. We want them stopped. Not by invading any country that is on someone’s $#!) list… but because they are a clear and present danger.

Our energies have been spread thin, anger and resentment has increased the number of terrorists because of the arrogance and irrationality of the actions by this administration. We have lost the goodwill of nations willing to help us because of the anger at the attack against our country.

We do still have to deal with a hostile Iran and N. Korea. Doing so is more difficult because of our already crying wolf with Iraq.

I will just repeat it because I really want to make this my focus…

Stalin, Hitler and all the other bloody tyrants and killers of our recent past would be nothing more than footnotes is some dry history book if they had had the people demanding accountability!

So please, anyone that wants to say that we are being irresponsible for questioning our President… please consider if this is true!

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 12, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #112823

Jeff,
I am confused with which comments are yours and maybe ones that are being replied to. Possibly by putting quote marks around other people’s comments would help.

So, if I my remarks aren’t in response to your beliefs then my apologies… it was just hard to tell which were your thoughts and which were the ones you were replying to.

J: Sorry about that. I am new to this, so I will indent. Mine are every first and third statements. Burt’s are every second statement. 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, etc….

I don’t know if you are saying that all Arabs are Al Qaeda? That is not the truth so I don’t know what was meant by that. There are two major sects of Islam, and they both believe the other is heretical… the Shiites and the Suuni. If you look at the 10 year war between Iraq (a secular dictatorship dependant on Suuni control) and Iran (Shiite theocracy) you will see the vicousness of their hatred for each other.

J: I am sorry for any confusion. I didn’t mean that all Arabs are Al Qaeda. I was drawing a line between Al Qaeda’s stated mission of creating an Arab Nation, with other Arabs of like mind. That is the purpose of Al Qaeda, and some other Arab leaders and persons. I in NO WAY am saying that all Arabs are Al Qaeda.

There is a third sect called the Wahabi who are really wacko fundamentalists. They were formed in the Saudi region and they are the predominant power in Saudi Arabia. This is also the land of Mecca. The Wahabi make the Shiites and the Sunnis look like boy scouts.

J: Yes, I served in Saudi Arabia three separate times, Desert Shield/Storm, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom. I know exactly what you are talking about.

There was no opposition to the President’s actions in Afghanistan. There was a very clear connection between 9/11, the Taliban and Al-Qadea. We had them on the ropes… pinned up in mountains and falling apart.
Generally unknown, there was dissention within the terrorists organizations and the Arab world. Some terrorists thought that it was a terrible mistake to attack the US. There was some celebrating shown on TV by Arabs, but not all Arabs… especially Arabs in positions of power.

J: This is very true. They made the same mistake Japan made in WWII thinking we would cut and run.

Our focus, the pressure on OSB and Al-Qaeda, the international support (western and Arab) was jeopardizied because of the faulty rationale used to invade Iraq. Not to mention the unilateral way in which it was done.

J: It was not faulty. Even my friend who was on the UN weapons inspection team stated that they were signs of Al Qaeda/Iraq mutual support everywhere. From the airplane that was used for training “security forces in case of a terrorist hijacking”, to reports of high level meetings between officials. In the first Gulf war, Iraqi intelligence operatives took on the identities of dead Kuwait citizens, cut themselves passports in their new names, and disappeared into the world. We are still on the lookout for these folks to this day. Saddam simply was going to attack the US if it was the last thing he did.

Someone is claiming 3 nuclear weapons belonged to Iraq? From the French? I am unable to verify this… could whoever made this claim please provide some source?

J: The Israeli government made this announcement right after the Iraqi war. They stated that they had hard intelligence that the French had given them these weapons in exchange for the oil drilling rights in Iraq. That’s right, the whole ball of wacks. No company, unless it was French, could drill for new oil in Iraq. This is the reason for French opposition to the war. A change in Iraqi leadership would cancel this contract arrangement. You have heard it said they we did it for the oil, well, they did it for the oil. As stated in my earlier comments, the Russians had a $6 billion contract for weapons purchases by the Iraqi’s before the war, well, there was their reason for opposing the war. I firmly believe that Germany was the only country who had half a reason to oppose us. They were coming out of a recession at that time, and an interruption of their oil flow from the gulf (well over 60% comes from there for them) would hinder their recovery.

From everything I know… the UN inspectors had a pretty good grasp of what Iraq had and didn’t have.

J: Yes they did. They were able, according to my friend on the UN inspection team, to account for 80% of their known pre-gulf war (1991) stockpile. The problem was, we could not find, document, or other wise get them to account, for the other 20%. This is THE REASON why we invaded. President Bush was not willing to take the chance that Saddam was hiding, or had given some, most, or all, of his WMD’s that were unaccounted for, to terrorists. And, given the extremely suspect circumstances of some of his reported, or known contacts with terrorist organizations, (like the PLO) (he gave $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber in Israel) we could not take the chance. And that is the argument, folks. Are you, knowing now what you know, willing to take the chance that he would, and continue to, support terrorists that have shown by demonstration, and/or statements, make the decision to start, or continue to, supporting terrorist who are/were hell bent on attacking not just the Unites States, but our allies as well? THAT is THE question. I said NO. Terrorists had attacked us on 9/11! I was not willing to take the chance again. We had to attack and prevent, if possible, another attack against us or our allies.

As a matter of fact, there is a new book out about the CIA and its intelligence leading up to the war… one of the stories is about how an Iraqi expatriot from Philly went back to Iraq before the war to talk to her uncle who had worked on the nuclear programs… he told her that the programs had been shut down for almost 10 years and he wasn’t working on anything like that. She went back and reported this to the CIA. This is one example.

J: Yes, it was shut down, but not closed. They found the entire program documents buried in the back yard of one of the head of the program. And, this finding confirmed the Israeli account of the French connection. It proved what they said was true.
As Americans, demanding accountability from the President to use our military forces in a rational and responsible manner does not give aid to anyone. It does not equate us with Stalin, Hitler or any other tyrant. If they had had people demanding accountability from them then their names would be forgotten years ago.

J: Rational??? Responsible??? By you hear today discussing this, yes. By comments calling Bush “Hilter”, NO!!! By saying it was all lies, NO!!! That is NOT rational or responsible. Nor is it American, in my opinion. I can not imagine my grandmother acting like some of these people when my grandfather was a Japanese POW for 3 years and 4 months during WWII. I can’t see it folks. It is NOT rational, nor is it responsible.
People want to kill us. Yes! We understand that. We want them stopped. Not by invading any country that is on someone’s $#!) list… but because they are a clear and present danger.

J: I hope I have made my case on this one above.

Our energies have been spread thin, anger and resentment has increased the number of terrorists because of the arrogance and irrationality of the actions by this administration. We have lost the goodwill of nations willing to help us because of the anger at the attack against our country.

J: Do a little home work, basically the ones who opposed us are listed above, and for the reasons stated. If they opposed us, they usually had a vested interest in Saddam staying in power, or were dictators themselves scared senseless by our determination to see terrorism brought to justice.
We do still have to deal with a hostile Iran and N. Korea. Doing so is more difficult because of our already crying wolf with Iraq.

J: Iran and North Korea were hostile BEFORE we went into Iraq. Not after.

I will just repeat it because I really want to make this my focus…
Stalin, Hitler and all the other bloody tyrants and killers of our recent past would be nothing more than footnotes in some dry history book if they had had the people demanding accountability!

J: Hitler was appointed by the German government as Chancellor before he came to power, Darren. He was supported up until the end of 1944 by his people. Germany was NOT a democracy. And that is what gives us hope, ours is. The truth will come out for President Bush, just as it has for Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc… But showing irrational, irresponsible, and down right comforting to our enemy by statements that can be seenas in support, or providing encouargement of those entities, during a time of war, is WRONG. You would have been shot in WWII, and the Civil War, for making those, and other types of statements that I have heard in the press. It simply is wrong. It was great talking with you.

Posted by: Jeff at January 13, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #112907

Hi Jeff,
I appreciate the response and not taking anything personal in my questions! It really was just difficult for me to read at first and I never want to be accused of either putting words in other’s mouths or misrepresenting what they say.

I agree, in our past there were instances where civil rights were quashed in the name of our being at war. The Aliens and Sedition act of WWI comes to mind.

What is being taught today is that this was a dark time in our history. It was unnecessary and the laws were definitely used to silence political opposition for reasons other than the war effort.

Now, the last part of your comments. Hitler rode to power on the lawlessness of the post WWI landscape. Each competing political party had their own army.

The population, isolated from the true cost of the war in bloodshed and were easily manipulated into believing that the Social Democratic Party government betrayed Germany. Whether or not Germany at this time was a democratic country is really ticklish… They were the only ones left to sign a treaty after the abdication of the Kaiser.

Elections were called in an attempt to form parties and to hold elections for the formation of a democratic government.

There were a lot of opportunities to stop Hitler on his rise to power. He clearly laid out his aims in his book… people either chose not to believe him, or were not concerned with his aims.

What he did promise was to void the Versallis treaty, restore Germany to its greatness and its rightful position in Europe based on its moral superiority and eventually its military might.

Industrialists hoping to destroy the Bolshivicks and their belief that they could control Hitler lead to their support of him. They were proven wrong.

The same with the SA on the morning following the “Night of the Long Knives” where the military generals made a pact with Hitler to eliminate the paramilitary army for their support.

I would, in no way, shape or form compare President Bush to Hitler. I might, in some instances, draw parallels between some of the similarities I see in the political arena to conditions that would lead to unbridled power… by any President.

Such as Hitler’s statements concerning messages… propaganda… simple and direct… repeat something over and over until it becomes the truth… avoid discussions with intellectuals… keep the message to the “common people”.

I agree N. Korea and Iran were hostile and working on nuclear weapons before Iraq. Iraq should have been grouped with them and international means used to try to limit their danger and their nuclear goals. This would have been an international concern for all to stand behind.

It appears that the President’s actions in Iraq lead to a loss of focus and a willingness to cooperate with us by other nations. Possibly in fear that this would be taken as an approval for more unilateral actions by this President?

He has shown recently that even when he tries to admit a mistake he just cannot help but point fingers at any that might have supported him based on the information he provided them.

A consensus against N. Korea and Iran was wasted and now we are having to deal with them piece meal and with the oppostition abroad and at home caused by this war in Iraq.

Yes, there was a mistake, a miscalculation made, like in WWII. But not by the man responsible for Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto who is now as famous for his prediction:

“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”

The majoy focus of my statement was that the cooperation with the President on Afganistan clearly shows that the Democratic party was behind President Bush’s actions.

There was an absolute connection between the 9-11 terrorists, Al-Qeade, the Taliban and Afganistan.

The Democratic party was just as anxious to get to the heart of the terrorists and tear it out!

When it comes to Iraq… there were enough questions and unknowns to justify caution. But, there was no caution… it was full speed ahead and don’t get in my way!

To me, this showed that bipartisan politics was only possible when it was the Democrats agreeing with the Republicans… not an effort to persuade but an effort to draw a line between following him or being unpartiotic, sypathetic to the enemy (which our support of Afganistan clearly showed not to be true) and not supportive of the troops.

There was even a woman on her saying that we were hoping for more soliders to come home in body bags so we could use them for the next election!!! How sick it that? Just logically at the most extreme left as we can go there are people demanding an immediate removal of all troops… why? Because they don’t want any more soldiers to come home in body bags for any reason. That is the level that the rhetoric has come to.

As I have stated before… I do believe we need to “stay the course” in Iraq. This is because of what Gen. (Ret.) Powell said on the eve of hostilities… “We break it, we bought it!”

So, here I am, a liberal supporting the maintaining of the troops in Iraq. My regret? That people might assume that my support of this is in any way supportive of the President’s justification for going in… the way it has been managed so far… and the way it is still kind of hit and miss today.

Even today President Bush is saying that discussion is good. This is a far cry from his previous statements. He still wants to try to frame what is “responsible” debate… which means what?

In Iraq, we are trying to present to them an Ideal… one of democratic rule of law… where even minorities need not fear the majority because their rights are respected and protected. That speech is better than bullets.

Do we self censor ourselves to appease the terrorsits and not piss them off of give them encouragement? Or, do we do what we have always done… what we treasure and what we want to present to the world as an alternative to violence? Speak out! Debate! Not fear reprecussions and knocks on the door in the middle of the night because we disagree strongly with the President. This would be especially benefical to Iraq where the smallest dissent meant a trip to the torture rooms.

It is my belief, that worse than speaking against the government… it gives more aid to the enemy if they can see that through fear, we are willing to sumbit to changes in our political arena based on them! To me, that encourages them and gives them hope to contiue doing what they are doing.

Thank you very much for your communicating with me!

I too was in the USAF for 10 years. The Nov. 17th organization tried to bomb my car years ago when I was stationed in Greece. Did you ever hear of ELF ONE?


Posted by: Darren7160 at January 13, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #112922

Elf, One? Yes. Glad you made it back safe.

While I sincerly appreciate your candor in this matter, and the history lesson and reminder (I just received the 10 DVD Complete History of WWII for Christmas, and man I’m loving it) :)

Our democracy can handle the debate, I have no question about that. And our democracy can handle the war, I don’t question that. But our effort in this war cannot handle the unbelievable comments coming from some on that side of the arguement. And I believe they know it, and that is why they are doing it. I am old enough to remember Vietnam. And they killed our effort in that war, and they are trying to do it again. And we will not let them. We will keep the course until we win. It is just that simple.

I believe that some in the administration have wrong motives. I was VERY glad to see “Wolf” get the boot. And, I don’t really trust Rummy. But Bush has the right motive at heart, and Cheney is a God send. His knowledge of the black ops has saved us many times. Brooklyn bridge being one. But again, those that are attacking with the purpose of trying to defeat our effort in this war, will not succeed, if I have anything to say of it.

I am glad to see their are a few of the Kennedy Democracts left in the party. I am a Reagan Democract myself, who now am a GOP District and Regional Chairman, and a member of the state GOP executive committee. Just great to talk to you. Best wishes.

Posted by: Jeff at January 13, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #112929

Hi Jeff,
By a mysterious set of coincidences… I missed ELF ONE. They had an airshow that weekend on base and I went to the beach with a cool or beer instead.

Come the next day I went to my unit and half of it was gone. They had come to my house but didn’t reach me or leave me a note. I was scheduled for the next deployment but got orders to Turkey.

In my career field we didn’t stay stateside to long. I had just finished a tour in Greece, was in Florida for 12 months and then off to Turkey. After that I was back in Greece for 2 1/2 years and then CA.

I do know that there is irresponsible talk. I do not support them.

This has been an ongoing demonization of the Democratic party and I am getting to my fill. It seems that the Republican party wants to believe that they have a complete monopoly on Patriotism, American values, Morality, War on Terror, you name it.

I do not know if you will agree with me… but I have been hitting both sides pretty hard concerning any attempt to characterize their party as the pro-military one and the other’s as not supportive of our troops.

My reasoning… they never asked us if we chose to continue our service whenever there was an administration change. It was understood that we were serving America and not a particular party or President. Seriously? If there ever was talk about politics it was which one might give us a larger paycheck if elected… not which one pandered to us more.

Our military is the most professional, highly trained and motivated military ever to be fielded… and some people wish to patronize them as if they are silly simpletons who do not understand that debate and dissent is part of what they are trying to defend.

I agree with Wolf being shown the door. I would love to see Rummy shown the door too! Compared to Brown in FEMA… Rummy is almost to the point of criminally incompentent.

Some wish to point to the current military and their being quiet on a lot of issues. What they don’t understand is most people in the military are loath to speak out against civilian superiors that they disagree with. It just isn’t the way things are done.

There can be a lot of disagreements with the way Rummy lead us up to and into the invasion… changing manpower requirements, tactical and strategic objectives… whatever.

However, you don’t get to where they are at in the military by telling civilians what cannot be done… but by doing whatever they are told to do. To make work whatever idiotic plans they are finally given into a reality.

There are hints of the problems that the military leadership is having… but since it seems to be coming from press that some consider “liberal” everyone can choose to not believe it.

I love history too! I am going to be a social scienc teacher in middle-school. I collect history textbook, video collections and relgous and miliarty history books… as well as biographies of some of historys famous and infamous. One I really recommend is “A History of Warfare: By Viscount Montgomery of Almein fame.

I really do, regardless of the rationale behind his actions, think that President Bush could have handled this whole thing differently. I do believe that he, just like OBL, miscalculated what America was willing to accept. I really do.

Disingenousness upsets me because it insults my intelligence. I would rather be told that this is the way something is going to be… instead of someone feeding me a line, believing I am stupid. What I was being told as the rationale for the war was not making sense. To me or to many others.

For example… President Bush is using the “possibility” that with these types of wire taps we could have avoided the 9-11. Possibly… but the actual recordings of the conversation was translated after the terrible event.

It completely disregards all the legally attained evidence leading to there terrorists that was mishandled. This is clearly an attempt to quite critics in the name of preventing attacks again.

Thanks for your times and thoughts…

Oh, I just couldn’t go with Reagan… I do not believe supply side economics. It goes against what I believe is the purpose of the market place to determine that winners and loosers in an open market. It just seemed to reward winners and losers equally at the expense of the consumer who should be making the decision through their purchase of goods and services… not because of tax breaks. Also, in my experience… the money did not trickle down… it actually floated!

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 13, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #112968

Darren,

The demonization comes from a number of corners within the GOP. One corner is the anti-socialists. Anything with “social” attached gets attacked. I believe a little socialism, like leaven in the lump, makes the bread rise. These are are folks that opposed FDR and the new deal. The second group is the hawks. This is Wolf and Rummy. Rummy almost get his butt handed to him like wolf, but, he is just a little smarter at it. The third is what I call the “Old GOPers”. Angry at the last 40 years of Dem control of the house and senate, (pre-1994)and are anti-labor like nobody can be. However, us Reagan Dems have taken control of the GOP and are slowly but surely removing these Old Timers out.

We believe in a number of things;

1) We believe the state has a vested interest in the life of the unborn. The bill of rights applies to them as it does us.

2) Supply side economics. Reagan was not the first to mention supply side economics, Kennedy was. I am suprised that you didn’t know this. Check out Kennedy’s speech in New York City in 1962. He was the first president to say that “lowering taxes raises revenue”, not Reagan. Of course you know that Reagan until 1964 was a Dem. I have often said, “What it meant to be a Democrat in the 1950’s and 1960’s, is what it means to be a Republican today.” I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that.

3) We believe in a Capitalist Democracy, and not a Socialist Democracy. That is the differance between us and the French. Pure capitialism is very harsh, and not what we want or need. Thus the need for Democracy, to keep it in check, and make MINOR reapportionment for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. All with the goal in mind of helping them be self supportive. And where the system is stacked against them, put into place temporary stop gap measures to help them become self supportive, and then remove the measures. Pure socialism takes the goal setting dreams of the people away from them. The EU is still looking at a 8% to 10% unemployment rate while we are at a great 4.9%. Pure socialism never works. It takes a delicate mix of capitalism and a small amount of social welfare.

Gov never stays for long, yet always looks for ways to help you make your dreams come true.

As for wiretaps, this is a real mess. First, you have someone claiming whistleblower protection on an NSA program. Problem was, nothing was illegal, therefore no protection. Illegal! you may say. Sorry folks, it is not. Even Clinton knew that when he authorized the wiretapping (without a warrant), search (without a warrant), and the installation of an IR camera (without a warrant)in the home of Aimes in 1994. You remember, the man who was the number 3 guy in the CIA who was giving secrets to the Russians and is now serving a life sentence in Federal prison? If what Persident Bush was/is doing is illegal, than Aimes should be set free. Clinton also authorized the wiretapping (without a warrant), and spy satelite tracking (without a warrant) of person thought to be involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. My point is this, when it comes to protecting the american people from our enemy, the President has the authority to do just that. And if you are found to be helping the enemy, you are gulity of a crime, and you will pay!!!

The reason why this is a story, is because a well known press person was doing a story on OBL, and that persons spouse worked for the Kerry campaign. People are wondering what was listened to. I am to, but that is not an excuse to blow a very valuable tool in the war effort. That is my point.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff at January 13, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #113004

Good points… and I will try to look up Kennedy and the Supply Side Econonmics. I still am not convinced that it is the best way to go.

2) One of the things intersting about stuff like economics is you can stimulate economic growth by providing more money to a company through less taxes… thus allowing them to grow. There can be no dounting that. What I have seen, way too often is the week after a company is given a tax break benefical to them and announced to us that it would increase jobs… the same company is laying off people!

Unlike education (NCLBs accountability) and welfare reform, there is no accountability.

Another way to look at it can be… you give the money to the consumer. Through the competition of the marketplace, the consumer decides which company will succeed. This stimulates competition, innovation and better prices with the companies competing against the others for the consumers business. With the added benefit of the consumer having a better standard of living becuase of the purchase of the goods and services.

Both are equally possible and I like mine because it gives the consumer the benefits and it also allows them to determine the successful companies. With that success the companies can use their proifts to expand and grow.

1) Concerning abortion. This has been asked in other topics by myself on this blog… the republican party has had dominance on the Federal level for 5 years now.

Why have they not come up with a whole wide range of options available to a woman to use instead of abortion. In other words, instead of trying to limit every single abortion sometime in the future, why have they not used as many ways possible today to provide options. Tax breaks out the ass for adoptive couples… incentives for women to carry the child to full term? Some sort of proactive effort?

Some of us more cynical types believe that it might be that the Republicans are happy to leave things as they are at the moment. It is a win-win situation for them to proclaim themselves the Pro-life party which gives them a lot of support from people that would vote Democrat but can’t get past the “Pro-Life” thing.

You have to admit… when it comes to active, affirmative things to reduce abortions, the Republicans have not been overwhelming with their actions.

3) No arguments there from me.

As far as the taping/tapping. This may be way outside the issue, but is it possible that being a memeber of the intelligence community, a person as part of their employment, are subject to administrative spying? You know what I mean? Okay, you can work for us in the intelligence community, but as a condition of employment we reserve the right to monitor your telephone calls, have you take random polygraphs, have your bank accounts verified…

I have been doing a few quick checks…

I am disappointed that President Clinton authorized this. It goes against everything that I believe in.

If he were still in office and this came out I would be demanding to know why he didn’t get a warrant!

As I have mentioned on this site before… if a terrorist is allowed to go free because of tainted evidence… who would people blame? The people doing the unauthorized/illegal wiretapping or the judge that has to throw out the evidence?

This just brings up my point. If I believe it is illegal with President Bush, then I also believe that it was illegal under Clinton.

We can claim precedence if the original actions are found to be legal… but we cannot do that if the original instance was illegal (which I believe it might be).

Expectation of privacy has a lot to do with what is legal when it comes to searches. I don’t know if the law has changed… but I remember about 10 years ago a court ruled that police could monitor cordless phones (not cell phones)outside of houses.

Their rationale… a person using a phone with a cord has an expectation of privacy that the use of the phone over time has become accoustomed.

A person using a cordless phone has to know that their conversation is going out over the air so they are not expecting the same level of privacy.

When it comes to satallite surveillance, is that any different than the police following a person in their car while looking for evidence?

Take care.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 13, 2006 7:07 PM
Post a comment