Bush to reject defense spending
By Steve Benen Thursday Dec 27, 2007 4:00pmThe president went nearly six years in office without vetoing a single bill, but has now had seven. In each instance, lawmakers were well aware of the White House's opposition, but passed the bills anyway, hoping Bush would either change his mind or they could override the veto.
Which is what makes veto #8 so odd.
At the behest of the Iraqi government, President Bush will veto the annual defense authorization bill, saying an obscure provision in the legislation could make Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks vulnerable to lawsuits.
The veto threat startled Democratic congressional leaders, who believe Bush is bowing to pressure from the Iraqi government over a technical provision in the bill. The veto is unexpected because there was no veto threat and the legislation passed both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly.
Democratic leaders say the provision in question could easily be worked out, but in vetoing the massive defense policy bill, military pay raises may be on hold, as well as dozens of other programs.
This is just bizarre. If the provision of the bill was so offensive, why didn't the White House, which was aware of the legislation's progress as it passed, say something sooner?
In the process, Bush has rejected a pay raise for the troops, VA care for wounded veterans, a new "Truman Commission" to fight fraud and waste by military contractors, and expanded job protections for family members of severely wounded troops.
Login or Register to post comments.
Why does George hate America?
Well, I guess that bill wasn't all that important to him then. Like the FISA bill. If he's willing to veto it for the telephone company criminals, then it can't be all that important.
doesn't everybody get it? shrub vetoes the bill and squawks about how it hurts the fragile government in iraq. the right-wing noise machine (aka MSM) goes on and on about that one point and - bingo - nancy and harry buckle like they always do and our jejune dunce of a leader gets what he wants w/o the "baggage" of oversight... ITMFA (but impeach cheney first)
This is looking more & more like a decently well played chess game by the Democratic leadership. They keep forcing into a corner to where he has to reveal himself. Whoever picked that provision was actually pretty damn smart. Think about it, whose bank accounts would be at risk afterwards?
Starting to feel better about this...
If it was passed so overwhelmingly why don't they just over ride his veto....I think he is just doing it to AGAIN make congress look bad. He is a piece of shit for brains and the sooner he is out of office and digging the shit on his pig sty ranch the better this country will be.
This is all about positioning for 2008. The last Republican controlled Congress passed nary a thing, and were too obsessed on Culture Wars and Terry Schiavo. The Democratic Congress has passed bills and resolutions only to be blocked by Fleet equipment needing repugs. Even when such legislation were bipartisan boosh would veto them, and their wouldn't be enough bipartisanship to override the veto.
That way repugs are hoping the reichwing will regain Congress in 2008.
I'm guessing it's that fighting fraud and waste by contractors thing. That's a can of worms they never want to open.
Destroying America at home and abroad....the George W. Bush legacy.
Why don't the dems stand up and loudly declare that Bush DOES NOT represent America's interests and neither does his thug party? He never has. He's owned. We're pwned.
Sorry, I forgot.
Why ask why? They're dems.
Dubya doesn't support the troops!
"a new “Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors"
w wants no accountability.
Wow! Didn't realize what a strong armed democracy Iraq has become. lol
"This is just bizarre."
pretty much describes the past 7 years, and anyone is still surprised by veto #8?
I am not at all surprised by this. They're gonna git while the gittin's good!
In the process, Bush has rejected a pay raise for the troops, VA care for wounded veterans, ... and expanded job protections for family members of severely wounded troops.
"Support the troops" my Quaker behind. This gives new meaning to the term "cynical."
Read Iraqi Government as W's middle finger.
Cuz that's all he's raised there. And it'll be gone almost as soon as he is.
One day near the end of January 2009.
OT: Turns out we were wrong. Faux News IS the most fair and balanced news outlet!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/28/conservativefunded-study_n_7852...
It's not bizarre. The last paragraph explains why he vetoed it.
ysbaddaden @ 6:
Doesn't make sense. The repugs lost out in 2006 because they hadn't done anything constructive. How will it get them in office?
Remember that W doesn't do anything not at least endorsed by or more likely at the instigation of Cheney. Please sign Congressman Wexler's petition if you haven't already.
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/
He's insane.
"[Bush] went nearly six years in office without vetoing a single bill, but has now had seven."
the GOP also controlled congress for six years.
So Iraq decides what is in our budgets? Fucking pussy dems will fold. I get the feeling that if every single seat in congress was democrat, Reid and Pelousy couldn't override a veto...
My take, FWIW.
Shrub (who doesn't care about the troops) is now in the phase of his presidency where he will do everything he can to set up a lousy, losing situation for the next pres, a Dem.
18 kaT
Does anything the reichwing do makes sense?
Besides with politics, if I may be allowed to paraphrase Marcus Twainus paraphrase of Thomaseus Edisonus, politics is one part inspiration, forty eight percent procrastination, and fifty one part damnation (from the electorate.)
What is pwned?
That's the real reason. The Iraqi assets thing was the best he could come up with as a false excuse as to why he's vetoing the bill.
What a flip!
Now Bush is defending the assets of state supported terrorism. What the heck are the troops fighting and dying for?
pablo @ 3:
Almost right. The provisions for seizing Iraqi assets is a smoke screen.
Its actually the provision for fraud and waste oversight that the Bush people must derail. Scrutiny here would wreck the Republicans for decades.
I think Bush did this deliberately just to show the democrats what pussies their leaders are. Of course Nancy and Harry will fold, this just give Bush the chance to make them look like fools twice, on the same legislation.
Jo @ 25:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn
The real problem is the Truman Commission, not the Iraqi assets.
Graft, kickbacks, misappropriation and theft are the order of the day in Iraq. Billions have disappeared without any accounting. Even if the veto is ineffective, it may push back investigations and hearings until after the election. Right now, everything is about saving GOP House and Senate seats next November.
The veto threat startled Democratic congressional leaders
Really?, It surprised the Democratic Leaders? It is truly time to punt Pelosi and Reid.
Listen very carefully, "If there is any hint of oversight, he will veto"
That's it.
As for overriding the veto, because of overwhelming support; now that the Repugs in congress know Bush doesn't like the bill, they will back him on his veto. Just watch. The Repugs will show their true colors. They can't help it.
Why the veto?
"new “Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors"
boosh doesn't believe in defense
Only in being as offensive as possible.
kerplunk @ 30:
The difference between being pwned and owned is one typo.
Jo @ 25:
I've heard two things:
1) That it is part of abbreviated LEET speak that gamers use and arose from the frequent misspelling of "owned" due the the close proximity of the 'o' and the 'p' on the keyboard. Now it's just funny to say "pwned"
2) The word is an abbreviation of "pure ownage"
:)
Just a guess.
Anyway, I think another poster nailed it:
Bushy vetoed this bill for the same reasons he nearly always does: if something doesn't fill the pockets of the corporatacracy, he vetoes it. That includes any money for veterans.
Maybe he accidentally vetoed it. Wouldn't surprise me.
If the Democrats had any balls or sense, they would split the bill up - vote the Truman Commission, the job provisions for vets, and the Iraq assets issue separately.
That would force Bush to approve - or veto - the Truman Commission on its own merits.
Here it comes.
Bush has said he will pocket veto this.
But you can only pocket veto if Congress is not in session.
They have been doing pro forma sessions, so Congress is still in session to prevent recess appointments.
Bush is saying he CAN STILL POCKET VETO it
Relevant words from the AP article...
>>"My withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law," Bush said in a statement of disapproval sent to Congress.
If Congress doesn't challenge this, well, we may as well all go home.
kerplunk @ 30:
Thanks!
don't look at the man behind the curtain, move along, move along......
"In the process, Bush has rejected a pay raise for the troops, VA care for wounded veterans, a new “Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors, and expanded job protections for family members of severely wounded troops."
Sounds to me like that might be what Bush is actually vetoing, and the Iraqi objection is being trumped up as a red herring.
Just had a glimpse of fox news this afternoon. They are discussing about sending troops to combat Al Qaeda in Pakistan. What a joke! Bhutto was against the destabilization of her country and her death and the chaos will benefit the western interest to invade and occupy.
ysbaddaden @ 34:
It's actually a mental condition. He's offensive repulsive.
Do you see now, Nancy? Do you see? You are nothing but a deer caught in the headlights. If you had come in and taken a broom to the place, cleaned out the corruption that YOU GOT ELECTED TO DO this idiot wouldn't be thumbing his nose at our country.
By not doing the will of the people, you are just as guilty. It is a crime what you are doing. What I wonder is how much you got paid to keep impeachment off the table. Or how deeply you yourself are involved in this corruption.
You are aiding and abetting high crimes against the Constitution. Against we the people.
What a failure you are as a leader and as a human being.
Don't blame Bush, he's not in charge of anything. You might as well blame Ronald McDonald if you get a bad cheeseburger at Mickey D's. Blame the ventriiloquist, not the dummy.
Blame His Supreme Excellency, Doctor, Field Marshal, Sith Lord, Vice-President for Life Richard B. (Dick) Cheney.
It seems like only yesterday Generalissimo Bush was mocking John Kerry by saying the "US will never ask for a permission slip from another country".
Another Bush lie comes to light.
-GSD
As long as he doesn't veto the truly important bills - like massive pay raises for all politicians!
And c'mon - what have the troops done for the USA to deserve pay rises and high quality after care when they return home???
Georgie sure has his priorities right! Big business first - everyone else dead last!
Can't wait for his next photo-op visit to Baghdad - wonder if the troops who are being denied pay increases etc will stand up and salute him like they do every other time he visits!
Fox has resurrected OBL after the world heard the news of his demise from Ms. Bhutto.
We have excellent graphics that can make the dead alive and speak.
Bush & Co believes that we the people are idiots and are hypnotized.
Wake up, America!
EZ @ 49:
Yeah, they gotta "catapult the propaganda".
Reality
Shrub is accepted by the American people. (Yes, I know.)
The next several presidents will learn from him...learn in terms of what the American people will accept.
Want change? (And I'm not talking HRC or Obama or even Edwards.)
Vote change.
follow the money.
likely the money socked away is intending to go to US companies via the iraqi government. chances are that cheney got a call in the night telling him that if saddam's victims sue and take the cash the americans can't get to the money.
I thought a couple weeks ago Bush was saying the Dems in congress were anti troops and pro terrorist for not passing this bill faster? Now Bush slows it down even more. I am sure the Iraq lawsuits have nothing to do with the Veto. It is the independent contractor oversight in Iraq part of the bill that scares Bush.
EZ @ 49:
And they would be right. You think a few of us screaming in the weeds is going to change their minds?
As I said in the Daily kos (and I quote myself here):"If this is the same awful bill that funds the wars, then viva Bush!" Reid and Pelosi deserve this type of shit from Bush. What, did they think could actually not do anything to end the wars without expecting bush to blow things on their face? Memo to Reid and Pelosi: Bush needs to be confronted, not appeased.
It's not really bizarre. For the past few weeks the press has widely "praised" Bush for making his last year in office not irrelevant by wielding the veto pen. Folks, he's been getting great press over this - why wouldn't he keep doing it. It's his only feeble chance at having some positive legacy.
Folks,
The train has left the station.
The next president will manage that fact.
Those left at the station will be holding worthless tickets. Looking down the tracks.
Better to seek the exit.
If this does not prove that Bush is mentally deranged, I don't know what will....
Looks like the Dem congress fell for the bluffs of the White House that they needed this bill passed or else civilian furloughs would immediately result.
Now the Shrub has just thumbed his nose at these spineless cavers.
"Democratic leaders say the provision in question could easily be worked out,"
Translation:
"We will gladly capitulate to any of your petulant demands. All we ask is that you articulate them."
Bonkers @ 36:
Win-win++ for Bush. 1) Veto the bill and blame Dems (who won't fight back) for it not passing, 2) block investigation into Iraq waste, 3) avoid precedent of effective non-private sector healthcare for vets, 4) add vets to the increasing number of corporate bond servants, 5) prevent precedent of individuals being recompensed for being tortured (can you imagine how much that's going to cost the US over the next couple of decades).
the last part of that above quote should be attributed to the old space cadet. sorry, i promise i'll learn to use one of these confounded computers someday...
I've give up on Reid and Pelosi, but if Clinton, Obama, and Edwards don't make the republican candidates stand up and criticise Bush on this, then they don't deserve the democratic nomination.
Expect a harsh statement from Pelosi.
Typical.
Speaking of Cheney, is he still trying to put out that fire in his office? I haven't seen a follow up on that story.
It appears that this very well could be further proof that George and his minions have NOT the best interest of America and its citizens.
George W. Bush: American Traitor.
I SMELL A CHALABI!!!!
Scott in Chicago @ 1:
Because we're not (yet: he keeps trying) a banana republic that accepts anything the government says. Because we call him on his lies, obfuscations and weasel words. Because we hate what he and his family have done to this country and are determined not to elect any more GOP. A permanent party? Yes: Democrats. After what Shrubbie has wrought, no GOPer is safe from ridicule and censure.
kaT @ 18:
Well....they've been running on lies and stupidty for 40years. Worked so far.
Besides if you've read anything about Bush the man, from biographies and such, this is how he acts. Like a five year old child.
Thing is are Miss Nancy and 'Sellout' Harry Reid gonna let him dissolve Congress because that's his next step.
Lock and load gentlemen. The war is coming home.
vrk @ 64:
No worries. Edwards will be all overt this.
Obama and Clinton, who stopped taking questions from her meetups today, well.....
---------crickets---------------
The United States Federal Government is flat dead broke. That is why this appropriation stalled.
let the fucking bastard bush veto the defense bill. they have enough votes this time to override his stupidity. since when did the iraqi govt become a US citizen?
fuck bush and his criminal friends and administration.
is uncle jonathan handling the iraqi money like he handled to pinochet money. my mistake, jonathan laundered the pinochet money.
I can't imagine W. ABLE to read a bill. cheney must read it to him,just reading the parts cheney doesn't like....thus...automatic veto.
Fools on the Hill @ 27:
Bush's Oedipal problem. Evangelical Christianity. Piles of money for Halliburton, Blackwater et al. Oil. A new American empire. Etc.
Bush is laughing at anyone who voted in the 2006 elections. It doesn't matter to him that the Democrats have the majority in Congress. It doesn't even matter to him that some Republicans voted with the Democrats. The Congress is irrelevent. Still, we have no checks and balances. Congress better fight back before Bush just locks them out of their chambers and marshall law is instituted. Anything is possible in this new Amerika!
Who knows why this putz does the things he does anymore... Frankly I can't decide if its just subborn spite or some scheme to undermine that new Truman commission... Might be both, might be neither... Either way, I'll be so glad when that sonofabitch is gone next year.... Even happier if he was in jail or the Hague...JD
Ronin Tetsuro @ 42:
ROM Spaceknight @ 61:
GOOD job Georgie !
okay I am confused- it was passed with an overwhelming majority- so doesn't that mean that they have the numbers to over-ride a veto ?( maybe this is a dumb question)...and someone else also asked WHY now ? why if it was such a "concern" about the Iraq crap - why didn't it come up sooner ?
At WhiteHouse.gov, Bush says:
Meaning: "Someone in our administration finally took the time to read it."
Puh-leeeze!!! OK..... Can we get a show of hands of who thinks that the veto is being driven by... A) some clause about Iraqi assets held in the US OR B) the establishment of the “Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors??? Hands? Hands? Yeah me too. The Truman Commission has my vote too. If you think it is the assets problem, I say to you regarding military spending and government contracts just a few names.... Bunnatine Greenhouse, Custer Battles security firm, Blackwater security firm, anything remotely touching Halliburton, KBR, Carlyle Group, or Bechtel, and anything touching the oil industry, including the automotive companies and the entire fossil fuel energy industry. Pres. Dwight Eisenhower was not stupid when he warned America about the military-industrial complex and it's insiduous invasion of the US government. Now all we have to hope for is get the Truman Commission working and than actually have it get results that has actual consequences for the traitors.
Cocaine makes you do funny things.
i think the prez is paranoid. worried the dems will sneak something under his nose. how pathetic.
OK It's time to over ride a veto
first time this Congress over rides a veto?
Slam dunk yes because
Senate vote on bill was 97to3
Bush needs to buy 31 Senators in an election year to seal the deal.
Smells like over ride the veto territory to me.
If Nancy and Harry sell out to Bush;
May they never be elected again.
.
If Congress is in session and the president doesn't take action (signing or vetoing) a bill for a 10 days (not including Sundays) , it automatically becomes law. Now Bush is dumb enough to think that just because he says congress isn't in session that it's not and he's going to pocket veto by just not signing.
So wait the 10 days then take it to court and get it declared a law.
No veto over ride is required!
That obscure provision
Dollars to doughnuts, that when the smoke clears and it becomes clear why they decided to veto the thing, it will indeed be because of that obscure provision allowing lawsuits against Iraqi govt assets. No, they don't care about US-based assets of the govt of Iraq per se, but lawsuits means sunlight and public accountability of those assets, which are things we are not going to get from Congress, which is supposed to be our forum for public accountability, but could get from less timid private individuals taking their chances on a day in court. It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing, and the principle of doing the people's business in public has become deeply suspect in our supposed republic.
Perhaps "Iraqi" assets in US banks are really big oil, Halliburton, etc. assets.
Since he bitched for a month because they didn't give him a bill, with a withdrawal date from Iraq, and told the country in a Saturday speech how bad bad bad they were for not sending a bill so the troops could get equipment, now they send the bill and he wants to veto it. Not for the stupid reason he spewed to the country, but because it gave the military a 3.5 raise and more health benefits. Something he told congress he didn't want. He wanted a much much lower pay raise and not as much money for benefits.
After all if congress gave all that money to the troops it would be less for his contractors in Iraq. AND THAT'S THE DAMN REASON HE IS CONSTANTLY SENDING ALL THAT MONEY TO IRAQ, for Halliburton, Dyncorp, Bechtol and all the rest.
The president went nearly six years in office without vetoing a single bill...
****************************************
You forget that this was at least in part due to his frequent use of signing statements. Even though he didn't actually veto those bills, he effectively took the teeth out of at least some of the new legislation by including "escape clauses" into his signing statements (the McCain Anti-Torture Bill is one example).
Why doesn't he just do one of his signing statements and cross out the part he doesn't like? He always does whatever the hell he wants to do anyway.
"If the provision of the bill was so offensive, why didn’t the White House, which was aware of the legislation’s progress as it passed, say something sooner?
In the process, Bush has rejected a pay raise for the troops, VA care for wounded veterans, a new “Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors, and expanded job protections for family members of severely wounded troops."
Asked and answered.
Especially the 'Truman Commission' section.
no matter what Bush does the beltway bumpkin media call him "pro military"
This sounds an awful lot like Telco Immunity, but instead, its Iraqi immunity. Well, at least we know who comes first.
George Bush doesn't care about military people or accountability for Iraq.
Well there's your answer right there:
The new Truman Commission.
How obvious was that? What a douche.
Blue Lensman @ 16:
Dude - the "doctor" that issued that report is a paid media consultant for Faux Noise. So much for fair OR balanced.
Merlyn Trey Hunter @ 4:
Hey Merlyn, if the dems could even play checkers I would be really impressed. Your assumption that they were playing Machiavellian games by planting a poison pill in the bill suggests they were aware of this conflict of interest in bushco. The sad reality is that darth and chimpy want that 3.5% military raise to go to haliburton blackwater et al. It was the repugs who where playing secret games when they bitched about not getting their military spending bill on time and then throwing it back for any reason other than the truth.
Bill @ 39:
I've read that this is the neocons first step in challenging the pro forma sessions as a way to block recess appointments. Just Bush and his cronies to figure out further ways to put party over country and flush the Constitution down the toilet.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/12/29/MN37U6HFT... It appears this bill in it's current form would expose all the money that Saddam Hussien recieved from the US........courtesy of Ronnie and GHWB......so ofcourse he's going to veto it.........can't have the public knowing the truth.
Congress should slip a little clause into the next defense appropriations bill this January, that authorizes the impeachment of Bush.
If it slips by him, we're all set.
If he vetoes it, it's gonna look very self-serving.
“Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors,
This is the part Bush REALLY objects to. If congress starts digging into the backgrounds of these contractors, a whole lot more skulduggery is going to become public. Anyone who watched the two little sessions questioning Prince in congress knows he personally has ties directly to Bush. How many more?
snitramc @ 97:
That is correct---S. Robert Lichter, the director of CPMA is a paid consultant to Fox---
and CPMA does not have any connection to George Mason University either---they are just located in their campus. CPMA portrays themselves as "objective" but based on their past actions clearly promote right wing causes against the "liberal" media. Their "objectivity" seems to be relative, how Neocon of them.
Nice try, Blue Lensman, but looks like your propaganda spewing pals at Pravda got busted again.
mudshark @ 100:
That's one of the theories I had for why the war happened in the first place: protect W's father from all the military assistance he gave Saddam in the 80s.
Looks like the REAL problem is a phrase about accountablility. Nothing to do with the above, but protecting his usurped power and denying oversight to congress. Fascist.
Bush is absolutely right!
We don't need no stinking 'Defense spending'.
Nobody's attacking us.
We need 'War spending', lots of it, so we can keep spreading 'Democracy'.
This bitch is pissed off because Congress refused to allow him to move in with his illegal recess appointments this time, so this is a form of his kind of retaliation.
Ass hole
Nothing odd about this veto. You gave the explanation yourself
in your post. The legislation contains "a new “Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors "
The given reason is a cover.
The President appears to be saying, "Because I did not sign the bill within 10 days, and Congress is on Holiday, the bill has been vetoed with a pocket veto."
However, this is a misstatement of the Constitution, and contrary to facts.
1. The Constitution says,
The Constitution does not say, "if either House or Senate is adjourned" but if "Congress is adjourned.
2. The Senate, for purposes of blocking recess appointments, was still is session with the "proforma sessions." This means, contrary to the President's assertions, the Congress was not adjourned, only the House was.
Again, the Constitutional requirement is that the entire Congress be adjourned to prevent the President from returning the bill. Rather, because the Senate was still in session, the President could have -- but did not -- return the bill.
Conclusion
The bill is law.
Going Forward
The President's assertions it is "not a law" appear to be an excuse to blame Congress for something that the President doesn't like. We don't know what the President really doesn't like; or whether he as no other objection to other clauses. It appears the President wants to be able to go to the Iraqis, "Look, I did all I could, and we blocked it," knowing full well the public could bring cases.
Bush intends for this to be addressed in court, and delay the public knowing that he's unable to stop Congress from opening the door to litigation against the Iraqi government.
What's needed is a litigant with standing to bring a case, challenge the President's claims -- that this is "not" a bill because it has been "pocked vetoed" -- and bring a claim under the law against the Iraqi government.
Questions
- Now that the President has sent a "pocket veto" (which is not Constitutionally valid), let's see all the "post-decision-memoranda" related to this effort.
- Where in the Constitution, despite the Senate still being in session with proforma sessions, does the President get to "veto a bill with a pocket veto" but he cannot conduct "recess appointments"? This is not consistent: Either the Congress is out of session, and he can use a pocket veto and pass recess appointments; or the Congress is in Session, and he cannot use a pocket veto and cannot pass recess appointments. Tee Senate, still being in session to block a recess appointment, means Congress is not out of Session.
- Which Congressional leadership -- despite the plain language of the Constitution -- apparently "doesn't get it" and needs to be removed from their Speakership position? If the Speaker is saying, "We'll override this pocket veto" it appears she doesn't understand what "the Senate still being in session is" or how this relates to Congress "not being adjourned." Only the House is adjourned; but the House is not the Same as the Congress.
Public needs to put some pressure on the Staff counsel in Congress to discuss publicly these issues; and lets get some competent leadership in the House who will challenge the President' nonsense on this "veto".
It's over the Truman Commission and the money accounts of Iraq--money that's likely being funneled through those accounts to friends of--tah-dah!!--Goerge W. Bush (and his family) and friends/backers of Richard Cheney.
Well, he didn't outright veto this one. He simply sent it back unsigned. Called a "pocket veto." It's sort of the limp penis of vetoes. Not a very manly man's way of doing it.
Actually, Bush vetoed the bill because high-ranking Iraqi govermentalists threatened to pull their money out of American busniesses if Bush signed the bill. They said this because they would need to protect their assets, and stop them from being frozen by legal disputes.
What happens to the American economy (which is just getting back on its shaky legs) if billions of dollars are suddenly pulled out of it?
Login or Register to post comments.