Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Aid To Dependent Iraquis

babybottle.jpg

Slate's William Saletan looks for the Reagan legacy in Bush, and instead finds the nanny state alive and well and living in Iraq:

Bush told the crowd, "history will remember Ronald Reagan as the man who brought down the Soviet Union and won the Cold War. And now we're involved in what I have called the great ideological struggle of the 21st century." In the war on terror, Bush argued, Iraq remains central. He pledged that he, like Reagan, would prevail.

But anti-communism abroad was only one of Reagan's theories. Another was anti-socialism at home. A government that spends tens of billions of dollars to prop up able-bodied people, year after year with no deadline for self-sufficiency, breeds dependency. That's what Bush has done in Iraq: He has made it the largest, most counterproductive welfare program in American history. Talk about leading your party astray.

...Finally, when critics question whether the program is serving its stated goals, they are vilified as opposing those goals. Throughout his career, Reagan scorned the "war on poverty" for using good intentions to cover up bad results. Poverty, he observed, was winning the war. The real purpose of the "war on poverty" rhetoric, he charged, was to make critics look unpatriotic: "Anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always 'against' things, never 'for' anything."

This critique nails the occupation of Iraq in every respect. Not necessarily the invasion, but the occupation. According to an article by a former Reagan defense official in the U.S. Army journal Military Affairs, Bush's disbanding of the Iraqi army in May 2003 "changed the mission of the American soldiers from liberators to occupiers." Bush, having failed to find weapons of mass destruction, shifted his rationale to nation building. He bragged about funding infrastructure and vowed not to withdraw until the country was exemplary.

Links in the original piece are live at the Slate link above.

Posted by aalkon at November 7, 2006 11:25 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1822

Comments

> Bush, having failed to find
> weapons of mass destruction,
> shifted his rationale to nation
> building.

It's just not true. But golly, it's election day! If Democrats want to try to sell this pathetic fantasy just one more time, they by all means, let 'er rip. Hurry, though, OK? By my clock it's twenty to seven in NYC morning drive; if you hustle, you can still get Kerry on the radio to offend a few more people.

It's ironic that ever since the got sold to WaPo (and actually for sometime before), Slate is just another liberal outlet.

Posted by: crid at November 7, 2006 3:42 AM

Kaus is so on this this morning. I suppose it's kinda like Christmas morning for polysic pundits.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153082/&#perverse

Posted by: Crid at November 7, 2006 4:04 AM

"t's just not true. But golly, it's election day! If Democrats want to try to sell this pathetic fantasy just one more time..."
OK, Crid, if this is just not true, either
1. We DID find WMD's, and Bush never thought to publicize it.
2. We DID NOT engage in nation-building, and Bush's trumpeting that we were was all a clever feint.
So, which part of this was a fantasy? A pathetic fantasy, in particular, like cheerleading for a war that has killed more people than Saddam did, started a civil war, and will likely inflame the Middle East for decades, while staying safely at home.
Speaking of body counts..
Hey, remember back when, you mocked the death counts that for the war that I provided? You didn't actually come up with any yourself, or say HOW these body counts were off, though. Now that a little known rinky-dink school called Johns Hopkins has come up with a figure well above any I cited, I'm still waiting to hear your retraction. Or better, your own estimates of war death. Don't forget to cite sources.
Hey, if you know where the WMD"s are, quick! Call Rove! You'll be out of your basement and on the White House lawn by sundown! Won't that be a thrill! But hurry! You can still make a difference in the polls...

Posted by: Cat brother at November 7, 2006 6:39 AM

(Reads Kaus)
Nope, didn't see anything there about WMD's found, or mission accomplished, just references to 'more Iraq-style wishful Bush thinking," And a mention of the 'mess that Bush has gotten us into."

Posted by: Cat brother at November 7, 2006 6:54 AM

I'm at work and must put off brutally dismembering your rhetoric until later, when the polls are almost closed. But if you think sputtering about "WMDs! WMDs!" can get your needs met, then you go, girl!

Hit that rolodex! Cellphones! Email everyone! Chat up strangers in elevators! SELL!

Posted by: Crid at November 7, 2006 7:22 AM

I just don't see how a "welfare program" metaphor really illuminates anything about our occupation of Iraq. Of course, it's a great way for Saletan to get people all huffy-puffy and indignant about everything within arm's reach. Why not squeeze in a jab at liberal academics while you're at it? I really wish that pundits (left and right) would experiment with tones other than that of the Outrageously Offended Sensibility. It's so Valley Girl 1982.

"Hit that rolodex! Cellphones! Email everyone! Chat up strangers in elevators! SELL!"

Stay home and read Middlemarch! Work on that dissertation about agrarian reform in 15th century France!

Posted by: Lena at November 7, 2006 9:45 AM

Crid, let me help you help me. No long hours at work needed, just tell us all
1. Where those WMD's are, or that Bush did not, in fact, lead us to war claiming WMD's as raison d'etre. This will be a hard sell to anyone who had radio/TV in 2002.
2. A body count for the Iraq war, numbers different than those reached by Johns Hopkins, with references.
Brutally dismember my rhetoric? I don't believe you could brutally dismember a rotisserie chicken with a chainsaw. I DO believe you will fire fat starbursts of desperate verbiage in an effort to obfuscate your original point, that 'no, the White House et al did not EITHER claim Iraq had WMD's, would soon have nukes, and we had to invade before they used these weapons upon us. '

Posted by: Cat brother at November 7, 2006 9:56 AM

Why are we in Iraq? There have been many reasons offered, both good ones and bad ones from all sides. The only thing I'm certain of is that we’re not in Iraq because they have the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Posted by: Roger at November 7, 2006 10:09 AM

You're hitting your head against a brick wall Cat. It's like arguing that men landed on the moon to a conspiracy theorist.

I would reccommend to everyone out there a film I just saw via Netflix called "The Road To Guantanamo". It is a very disturbing look at what the 700+ detainees (including children) have gone through, even though less than a dozen have been charged with any crimes. As Americans we debate this war and why we are fighting it, but we have been very insulated from the overwhelming ugliness. This film concentrates on a young British man and his two friends who went to Afghanistan to get married, and ended up arrested and in Cuba. After years of torture and no legal counsel, they were released with no charges, and certainly no apologies or reparations.

Posted by: eric at November 7, 2006 10:18 AM

To those who want to know Crid's take on Iraq, here's a bit from a dialogue that he and I had a while ago. I think it's more accurate than most in terms of what the administration's real concerns were. His words are in plain italics, and the statements of mine to which he was replying are marked with >, as is his tendency.

I'll go farther than that. Oil is modernity's blood, and Iraq has as good a share as any nation in the world. Our takedown of Saddam had demonstrative power.

There's no "official line" that this was not about petroleum. People aren't being sophisticated, contrary and insightful by saying 'It's all about oiiiiilll.' Yes; oil is valuable. We shouldn't have mass murderers in charge of it.


> it's all over the place

Saddam was, in fact, a threat! Y'know, there's been no great shift in insight that's happened to the left since before the invasion. I think the continuing search for "smoking gun" phrases proves this implicitly; People in Nebraska's shopping malls were not scared of Saddam's WMDs.

But Iraq was undoubtedly turning to shit before the invasion. Every lefty and Democrat you can name was warning us before the Bush administration (and sometimes during) that confrontation was inevitable. To (now) argue otherwise because a Republican is in White House leading the effort --a Republican sufficiently popular to be re-elected-- is grotesque cowardice. Grotesque.

Posted by: justin case at November 7, 2006 11:11 AM

Ooops - html tag issues. Anyway, all words from "I'll go farther than that..." to "Grotesque" are Crid's with the exception of ">it's all over the place"

Posted by: justin case at November 7, 2006 11:14 AM

People in Nebraska's shopping malls were not scared of Saddam's WMDs.

However, I remember Charlie Daniels saying something to the effect of, "Why don't you liberal elites ask the average truck driver if Saddam Hussein is a threat?", the implied answer being yes, though the real response is "Who gives a shit what a truck driver thinks about global politics?"

If we want to flash back to Crid's greatest hits, though, the whole bit about Osama Bin Laden having been killed by a daisy cutter in Tora Bora still cracks me up.

Posted by: LYT at November 7, 2006 12:04 PM

There's no "official line" that this was not about petroleum. People aren't being sophisticated, contrary and insightful by saying 'It's all about oiiiiilll.' Yes; oil is valuable. We shouldn't have mass murderers in charge of it."
Crid and you, Justin, seem to think this means we can invade sovereign nations at will, to control their oil. We'll have to disagree on this point. But if the whole point was to get the oil in non-mass-murderer hands, all the more reason there should have been extensive post-war planning. Crid's usual reply is that the left would have called 'imperialism' - bullshit. Though they, and hopefully everyone else, would call it on the idea that we can invade at will for oil, if the WHite House announced, "We have a complete and extensive plan in place for rebuilding the country after hostilities with Saddam's army have ceased," the country would have gone, "Well, fuck, I hope so, "
"But Iraq was undoubtedly turning to shit before the invasion. Every lefty and Democrat you can name was warning us before the Bush administration (and sometimes during) that confrontation was inevitable."
I read a few Lefties, and I can't think of one. Well, Andrew Sullivan, but he's only considered lefty to some on the far right. Who were all these liberal/Democrat politicians and pundits, calling for armed intervention?
"To (now) argue otherwise because a Republican is in White House leading the effort --a Republican sufficiently popular to be re-elected-- is grotesque cowardice. Grotesque."
Hmm, I see a lot more grotesque cowardice in those arguing for keeping up a war with no visible ending point, more death than Saddam generated, and a country engulfed in civil war and later most likely to become a protectorate of Iran, while crouching safely at home over a keyboard.
If you're blogging from Baghdad, Justin, I will immediately apologize.

Posted by: Cat brother at November 7, 2006 12:45 PM

Cat,
Don't misread me. Where I quoted Crid, it was part of a dialogue in which I was highly critical of this administration in its prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I simply copied his previous statements, because I think that they're pretty much right on in terms of the realpolitik of the Iraq war. Saddam was demonstrably crazy, a perpetual bad actor running a failed state, and sitting on a big pile of oil. This combination, not any one element alone, constituted the real threat. Regardless of whether you or I believe that this justifies what we did, I think Crid is correct that these issues were what motivated Bush & co.

Link to the post here.

Posted by: justin case at November 7, 2006 1:05 PM

Justin, yes, I think you're correct as to Bush's motivation, athough it's difficult to tell how much wanting to leave a 'world legacy' figured in his planning.
Yes, Saddam is/was an asshole, a homicidal maniac, and he should be reincarnated as mange. But the situation now is worse, and the whole region is likely to stay worse for decades to come as a result of our invasion and failed occupation. There are assholes in power all over the world,hell, we sent people to some of their countries to be tortured. Re realpolitik, at the end of the day, you have to look at what was won and lost.

Posted by: Cat brother at November 7, 2006 1:57 PM

If Democrats want to try to sell this pathetic fantasy just one more time....


I love that crid is posting this in the same week that no less a hawk than Richard Perle declared that the war was, in hindsight, a mistake.

Posted by: Stu "El Inglés" Harris at November 7, 2006 2:48 PM

Settle in, this is gonna be a long comment. And be sure and hit Amy's tip jar on the way out.

> in fact, lead us to war claiming
> WMD's as raison d'etre.

This is a bad blog in which to fake knowledge of French. And Lord God knows we've covered this before... I have a disk full of comments about this. Some highlights:

Leading up to the war, we were told we shouldn't fight because our children would be poisoned in the desert. Thereafter, Democrats, including the many who voted in support of the invasion in multiple contexts --and who'd argued for it aggressively in two decades-- tried to pretend that every butcher, baker and candlestick maker in Dayton was frightened to death of Saddam's weapons because of Rove's rhetoric. Which is not how I remember the public mood in February '03. I don't contest for a moment that Bush made too much of a deal about WMDs, but I was convinced to support the invasion on other grounds, and I still don't much regret it. There were plenty of good reasons to take the fucker out, which is why the public let it happen...

And more specifically to this hour, it's why Kerry got his ass handed to him in 2004. Voters like me, who saw Bush has having few redeeming values, at least knew he wouldn't cut and ditch Iraq, as most of Kerry's supporters seemed to petulantly eager to do.

> like cheerleading for a
> war that has killed more
> people than Saddam did

Horseshit. Aside from his abject predations on the citizens of Iraq, Saddam lead a million-point-five casualty war with one neighbor, leaving the border unchanged, and a nearly successful war of annihilation against another. Your math is bogus by orders of magnitude....

And by great leaps of logic. Most killing in Iraq has been by Iraqis upon Iraqis in religious and political efforts. The fact that Saddam's terror had kept the lid on this tension (at the behest of the CIA) doesn't mean you should admire him, or miss him as he hangs.

> will likely inflame the
> Middle East for decades

Perhaps you're a youngster. By March 2003, I thought it was too late to worry that we might be hurting people's feelings, especially by *not* supporting another generation of crime families over there.

I just don't care about you enough to quibble statistics. The stakes are so high, and the counting so partisan, that it doesn't really speak to our values. But when you sit there with your calculator, ask yourself if we should throw the Kurds overboard (again), give Qaddafy his WMD back, re-drain the marshlands, restore Saddam to power and give him a new set of psychotic sons, and rebuild about 15 years worth of radar installations lost to the No-Fly zones.

The question nobody answers: What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq?

> Nope, didn't see anything
> there about WMD's found

I didn't send you there because Kaus agrees with me, or disagrees with you, but because I agree with him: At this point, whoever takes control of government has to deal with Iraq, and can no longer make infantile whines about WMD. But if it costs you any votes in this election, by all means, keep whining! Polls are open here for three more hours. Sell sell sell! It worked so well in 2004!

> tones other than that of the
> Outrageously Offended Sensibility.
> It's so Valley Girl 1982.

Exactly. I'm so shurrrre.

> The only thing I'm certain of is
> that we’re not in Iraq because
> they have the second largest
> oil reserve in the world.

I'm pretty sure that's why, myself. But never forget that Europe gets a lot more of its oil from the Middle East than the United States does.

> Guantanamo". It is a very
> disturbing look

Can't argue. I think we should open up the gates to Guantanamo, hand 'em each a pork sandwich on rye and a Dr. Pepper, and say "Havana's over yonder, Achmed! Be sure and write if you find work!"

It would be a gesture of payback --and only a gesture-- for the Mariel boatlift.

> I remember Charlie Daniels
> saying something to the
> effect of...

You're kidding. You're fucking kidding. We're supposed to worry about Charlie Daniels? Natlie Maynes has nicer thighs.

> the whole bit about Osama
> Bin Laden having been killed
> by a daisy cutter in Tora Bora
> still cracks me up.

I was only wrong as a matter of fact, and still sleep deeply despite grave doubts about the issue... Because as a practical matter, he's well offstage, and already sucking cock in Hell. Right? Right!

> seem to think this means we
> can invade sovereign nations
> at will, to control their oil

The hillbilly tyrant Hussein was *our guy*. The CIA (and others)...

http://tinyurl.com/wogua

...had done everything necessary to keep him in power of over a beligerent, impoverished nation. And that's what will happen again if we don't insist on a righteous government place over there. You imagine yourself to be righteous and law-abiding: I think you're cynical as hell.

> But the situation now is worse,
> and the whole region is likely
> to stay worse for decades

You can't know this, and you're putting yourself into a position of having to pray for it, which is loathesome.

> Re realpolitik, at the end
> of the day, you have to
> look at what was won and
> lost.

'Realpolitik' is an undergrad's word for cynicism. What could you possibly mean by "the end of the day?"

> Richard Perle declared that
> the war was, in hindsight,
> a mistake.

IIRC, Perle's declared the quotes incorrect and shorn of context. Given Grayden Carter's enthusiasms, I'm inclined to believe him.

Anything left unanswered? No? Great...

Friends! What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq?

Posted by: Crid at November 7, 2006 5:15 PM

Friends! What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq?

Allright Crid, I'll bite (as an aside, I quite enjoy your willingness to take everyone on in debates). Some of your assumptions will be right about this, too:

I didn't want much for Iraq. It wasn't on my radar between 9/11 and the time when it became apparent we were going to war there (yes, I'm heartless, given the suffering of the Iraqis under sanctions and the awful oil-for-food mess); nations that were more associated with Islamic fundamentalism (hmmm... Iran?) were higher on the list of nations I thought we should have been worrying about. For all its resources, Iraq was weak, isolated and unlikely to be able to cause serious trouble. We only have limited resources, and it seemed that they could have been better expended elsewhere. Now, I could be wrong, and I can admit that.

So, let's say we really needed to deal with Iraq. Well then, we should have put a lot more boots on the ground, some competent civilians in charge of reconstruction, and done it right. Half-assed warfare has caused us nothing but trouble since Korea - if we do it, we should fucking do it right. We haven't, and it reflects badly on us.

Posted by: justin case at November 7, 2006 6:47 PM

All that's true. But still....

Posted by: Crid at November 7, 2006 7:09 PM

Posted by: Crid at November 8, 2006 3:54 AM

Heh. Crid replied to one of my posts without using the dreaded >'s. A first.

Excellent link, by the way. The historical implications of our Iraq policy are far from clear at this time; I hope that in the long view it is perceived more favorably than now.

Posted by: justin case at November 8, 2006 9:46 AM

(For the record, I don't really agree with everythang, but you knew that)

Posted by: Crid at November 8, 2006 4:10 PM

So Crid, Saddam killed nearly 2 million people (with american provided weapons) in roughly 20 years or a little less that 100,000 a year

Recent studies put the death toll in Iraq at nearly 700,000 Iraqis, coilition forces and forgin fighters and terrorists in 3 years

or roughly 233,000 a year are you sure you want to compare magnitudes?

Also who did all those Kuwaites get little american flags to wave for the cameras during the first gulf war, almost before any of our troops got there, ever think about that?

Posted by: lujlp at November 10, 2006 12:09 PM

> are you sure you want to
> compare magnitudes?

Apples to apples. I want to know precisely who was killed, who killed them, and why. It's no longer sane to doubt that a lot of bad stuff has been unleased in Iraq. Dubya ripped the lid off, but he didn't put the pressure in can. That was done by his father's generation, and his grandfather's... You'll recognize the jowls:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001167

> ever think about that?

No, but by then I wasn't watching a lot of TV. What did you think of the outcome of our first Gulf war? This would be a good opportunity to express yourself.

Posted by: Crid at November 10, 2006 3:22 PM

Hidey-ho, took the weekend off, and what do I find? Crid’s gonna explain how Amy, starting this thread, was victim of a ‘liberal fantasy’ in stating that W brought us to war by claiming Iraq had WMD’s…ha, made you look.
My, there’s been some very large talk behind my vacationing back.
“…making infantile whines about WMD.” Actually, the people I remember doing that were named Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld. And you too, I’ll bet. Now, I wasn’t reading this blog in 2003, don’t know if there was one, but I’d bet money that Crid was going great guns, whining, pleading, whinging, blubbering about the existence of Saddam’s WMD’s. Amy, I doubt you’re still reading this, did this go on?
“But if it costs you any votes in this election, by all means, keep whining! Polls are open here for three more hours. Sell sell sell! It worked so well in 2004!”
Hey, don’t mind if we do. The last few years, Republicans have pressed a war based on false pretense and executed badly, and called everyone who questioned their judgment a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer. And they just got their asses handed to them. Glad to be part of it.
“This is a bad blog in which to fake knowledge of French.”
Actually, my French is OK, or is at least used correctly here. And you’re nobody to talk about bad spelling, Criddy. Amy can correct me if she sees fit.
“Thereafter, Democrats, including the many who voted in support of the invasion in multiple contexts --and who'd argued for it aggressively in two decades—“
Still waiting on that list of left-wingers clamoring to invade Iraq.
… Which is not how I remember the public mood in February '03. I don't contest for a moment that Bush made too much of a deal about WMDs, but I was convinced to support the invasion on other grounds, and I still don't much regret it.”
Of course you don’t, how much has your unit gotten shelled lately? Oh, right, you’re blogging from a basement somewhere, not getting within spitting distance of a recruiter, or any other outfit going to the Middle East (they need truck drivers too, age no problem).
Bush sold this war to the country via threats of WMD’s, false claims of Saddam’s involvement with 9/11, and general jingoism. If he had said straight out, hey, they got lots of oil, and we want it cheap, let’s go invade, THAT wouldn’t have sold with the public.
“…And by great leaps of logic. Most killing in Iraq has been by Iraqis upon Iraqis in religious and political efforts.”
Crid, you bonehead, that killing? That went on under Hussein? THAT was Iraqis vs. Iraqis. You think Saddam went out with a machete, killed a million or more by himself? “The fact that Saddam's terror had kept the lid on this tension (at the behest of the CIA) doesn't mean you should admire him, or miss him as he hangs.”
I admire him as much as much as you love and respect, oh, the Mahdi Army, kidnapping political opponents, torturing them with drills, leaving their bodies on the street. You got one of their bumper stickers?
“I just don't care about you enough to quibble statistics.”
Right back at you. You’re a pussy in your mother’s basement, advocating a war you’ll never get close to. If you were blogging from Iraq or Afghanistan, I could at least grant you the courage of your convictions, wrongheaded as they are. Thank you for sparing me that.
“The stakes are so high, and the counting so partisan, that it doesn't really speak to our values.”
I presume this refers to the John Hopkins study. Please explain in detail where it went wrong, with references. All other right wing bloggers have gotten their asses handed to them when actual statisticians have seen their work. But have at it. And I can’t speak to your values, but reckoning civilian casualties speaks very exactly to my values, and the values most Americans profess.
“The question nobody answers: What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq?”
Oh no, it’s the Dreaded Crid Triple Threat! He asked three times, and it got more powerful each time…well, actually, that’s actually how eight-year olds argue….”I wanna balloon, I wanna balloon…” Crid, this isn’t about ‘what you want.’ It is, or was, the future of a sovereign country, not a birthday party given by your mama. You don’t get to wish (3 times!), click your heels, and get what you want, or W, Rumsfeld, and the various generals would have done it by now. No, the question is, what is your plan?
No really, what is your plan? How are we going to bring democracy to Iraq, as even Bush has abandoned ‘stay the course’? What is your plan for, as you said, “insisting that a righteous government place over there,” which seems a bit stilted, but OK. Where are the additional troops coming from? And how much are you willing to have your taxes raised to pay for it? And I would ask when you’re reporting to Basic, but we know the answer.
“But the situation now is worse,
> and the whole region is likely
> to stay worse for decades
You can't know this, and you're putting yourself into a position of having to pray for it, which is loathesome.”
You’re scrambling now, I understand, but I’m an atheist, and your point doesn’t even follow. And no, I don’t know this, a big meteor could hit the earth in ten years, but I can read a newspaper now, and see what’s going on. But again – what is your projection for Iraq, for
A year from now
Five years from now
Ten years from now?
“Re realpolitik, at the end
> of the day, you have to
> look at what was won and
> lost.
'Realpolitik' is an undergrad's word for cynicism. What could you possibly mean by "the end of the day?"
Realpolitik is generally meant to mean political actions based on practicality rather than ideals, such as when you recommend Iraq because they’ve got lots of oil and they have asshole rulers, rather than abiding by international law. By realpolitik terms, we have failed in Iraq, by creating more terrorists every day, by creating a civil war, and by making the majority of the rest of the world hate our guts. By ‘end of the day,’ I’ll go with Iraq’s situation in one, five, and ten years.
“Anything left unanswered? No? Great...”
Much left unanswered, but what did we expect. Your comments towards the Guantanamo detainees are the kind of thing that make me sure you’ve never gotten within spitting distance of military service. Purely contemptible.
“Friends! What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq? What did you want for Iraq?”
I don’t breathe through my mouth, so I’ll ask it just once – what is your plan for Iraq? With specifics.
“Allright Crid, I'll bite (as an aside, I quite enjoy your willingness to take everyone on in debates).”
Not too fast, Justin, scroll down the threads a bit, I asked him where his peculiar energy against gay rights came from…nothing. And then tumbleweed blew by, and some crickets chirped.

Posted by: Cat brother at November 12, 2006 5:37 PM

You are so snotty!

Posted by: Crid at November 12, 2006 8:23 PM

Leave a comment