Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Bush will cover up for WH Leaker.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [b]Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests[/b]
    By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and ERIC LICHTBLAU

    Published: October 8, 2003

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 President Bush said on Tuesday that he was not sure whether the Justice Department would determine who disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer to journalists, but he pledged to provide investigators with "everything we know."

    As 2,000 White House employees scrambled to meet a deadline of 5 p.m. Tuesday to turn in to the White House counsel's office all phone records, e-mail messages, notes and other materials that might be relevant to the inquiry, Mr. Bush raised for the first time the possibility that the investigation might come up empty in its search for the the source of the first article to name the Central Intelligence Agency officer.

    Asked by a reporter how confident he was that the F.B.I. would determine who disclosed the identity of the officer, the president responded by asking the reporter how many times he had exposed a source or had seen a source exposed.

    "Probably none," Mr. Bush said in answer to his own question. "I mean, this is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official."

    Mr. Bush said that he wanted the truth and that he had instructed his staff to cooperate fully. But he suggested that one impediment to the inquiry would be the unwillingness of journalists to disclose their sources.

    "I mean, everything we know, the investigators will find out," he said, speaking to reporters after a cabinet meeting at the White House. "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

    Throughout the day, White House employees streamed into Room 214 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building bearing materials that they have been asked for by the Justice Department. The department is investigating whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of the officer, Valerie Plame, who is married to a former ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV.

    Mr. Wilson has been critical of the evidence cited by Mr. Bush in justifying the war with Iraq and has suggested that the administration disclosed his wife's identity to warn other dissenters not to speak up or to punish him for having done so.

    Administration officials said that before the materials were turned over to the Justice Department they would be reviewed by lawyers in the White House counsel's office to determine if they were relevant. The officials left open the possibility that the counsel's office might assert executive privilege on some materials or withhold all or parts of others for national security reasons.

    The counsel's office routinely acted as the gatekeeper for such document requests in investigations into the Clinton administration. But Democrats said they were concerned that the arrangement left the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, with undue control over potential evidence in a politically charged case.

    "I am very troubled by the fact that the White House counsel seems to be a gatekeeper, and I want to know what precautions Justice is taking to ensure that it gets all relevant information from the administration," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

    Government officials said they expect the White House to begin turning over the most relevant documents almost immediately, but that the Justice Department may not get all the records for a week or two, under a schedule agreed to by the White House.

    Mr. Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, has sought to exonerate three top aides to the president. Last week he said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser, had not been involved in the disclosure. Over the weekend he said that neither I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, nor Elliot Abrams, a National Security Council official, had been involved.

    But Mr. McClellan faced intense questioning on Tuesday over whether Mr. Rove or any of Mr. Bush's other aides had spread the identity of the officer once it had become public in a syndicated column on July 14 by Robert D. Novak.

    Mr. McClellan did not answer directly, saying that the focus of the investigation was the disclosure of classified information.

    He said it was "absurd to suggest that this White House would seek to punish someone for speaking out with a different view."

    But some Democrats said that even spreading the word after Mr. Novak's column appeared that Mr. Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. officer was, at a minimum, unethical.

    Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday called for Mr. Rove's resignation. In a letter to Mr. Rove, Mr. Conyers said the adviser had been involved in an effort "to push this classified information to other reporters and give it even wider currency."

    The Defense Department also required its employees to turn over any materials related to the inquiry by 5 p.m. Tuesday, a Pentagon official said. State Department employees have been ordered to preserve any relevant materials but have not been asked to submit them to the Justice Department.

  2. #2
    You whacky conspiracy theorist you! Don't you remember this is nothing more than Monica-gate II? I mean, is there any functional difference between getting a hummer and outing a CIA operative? It's all just naughty in the end.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 02:22 PM
    [b] You whacky conspiracy theorist you! Don't you remember this is nothing more than Monica-gate II? I mean, is there any functional difference between getting a hummer and outing a CIA operative? It's all just naughty in the end. [/b][/quote]
    Just call me Oliver.

    Besides shakin says it never happened.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Uh - Filegate, anyone?

    Besides, Clinton didn't just "get a hummer." He gave falsified testimony about infidelity (getting multiple hummers) during a criminal investigation and while he was under oath. There is a big difference.

    Believe me, the impeachment stuff I have gone over - it was a joke and I 100% blame the GOP. But Clinton [i]did[/i] lie in the Paula Jones trial. Dramatic people could say that he 100% violated Ms. Jones' civil rights by knowingly giving false testimony. Impeachable? Not IMO, but considerably more than "getting a hummer."

    This is on top of Filegate, Whitewater.

    I only bring up Billy to expose current leftist hypcorsiy about WMD. I don't write "Blowjob Bill" or any such nonsense.

    We'll see about this leak. I think this is a fair article. Take it or leave it:

    [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200310070826.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbi...00310070826.asp[/url]

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 03:52 PM
    [b] Uh - Filegate, anyone?

    [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...You just can't let go of the past can you?

    Apparently you agree with CAP(Court Appointed President)Bush and condone and support revealing the names of covert intelligence personal as long as politcal revenge is the motive.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 8 2003, 03:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 8 2003, 03:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 03:52 PM
    [b] Uh - Filegate, anyone?

    [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...You just can&#39;t let go of the past can you?

    Apparently you agree with CAP(Court Appointed President)Bush and condone and support revealing the names of covert intelligence personal as long as politcal revenge is the motive. [/b][/quote]
    Tail - you are just worthless to argue with. You are a partisan-hack. Court-appointed President my a&#036;&#036;. Do you even realize what happened in 2000? What the Florida Supreme Court did and the re-count Gore requested were BOTH grossly unconstitutional, all the National Supreme Court did was get rid of their madness.

    Justice Breyer, in his dissent, ADMITTED that what the Florida SC did was Unconstitutional.

    I don&#39;t support or condone anything and what political revenge are you talking about? Bush, in his SOTU, said the Brits learned about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa, not specifically from Niger and did not reference the forged document. Wilson said he concluded that no transaction went down, not that one was being pursued. The Brits STILL stand by what they said and have introduced additional countries, including the Congo.

    Concerning the leak, again, we shall see. This lady apparently works at a desk and all Wilson does is whine about how much danger she is in, but then in the next breath talks about who should play her in a movie and won&#39;t shut up about her. He said Rove did it, then immediately back-tracked. Leaks happen all the time, and did during every last President in recent history. They should investigate and find out everything they can and deal with the culprit accordingly. But this is basically the same thing the Dems are doing that everyone (including me) got mad at the GOP for doing in 1998. Clinton&#39;s cabinet and his personally committed all sorts of crimes that were investigated.

    It is election-year crap. We will see how it unfolds.

    But discussing things you with is so annoying because you are not capable of any meanigful give and take. You Bush-bash and when someone disgarees with you, you attempt to set these childish logical traps that any moose can learn in Rhetoric 101 and whenever I bring up evidence, you say "don&#39;t live in the past 5ever."

    It reminds me of discussions I used to have with my father about the Bible. He&#39;d quote some passage and try to illustrate how it could be applied to a current issue. When I would quote another passage that was contradictory, he&#39;d simply say, &#39;You can&#39;t quote from Book XYZ in this context - I wasn&#39;t talking about Book XYZ&#33;"

  7. #7
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 8 2003, 02:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 8 2003, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jet Set Junta[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 02:22 PM
    [b] You whacky conspiracy theorist you&#33; Don&#39;t you remember this is nothing more than Monica-gate II? I mean, is there any functional difference between getting a hummer and outing a CIA operative? It&#39;s all just naughty in the end. [/b][/quote]
    Just call me Oliver.

    Besides shakin says it never happened. [/b][/quote]
    There&#39;s that "shakin fixation" again...

    Anyway, let&#39;s see. A person widely known throughout Washington as a CIA analyst is -- gasp -- OUTED as a, well, a CIA analyst. Her husband, the man who accuses Karl Rove of being behind it all (and then backs away from the allegation) is active in Democratic party politics, specifically as an advisor and contributor to Kerry&#39;s campaign. Oh, and he&#39;s a former member of the Clinton team to boot. Gee, notice anything wafting past your nostrils yet, tailgater?

    Then, in a moment of pure revelation, icons such as Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Chuckie-Cheese Schumer and Nancy Pelosi suddenly realize that there is nothing finer than the idea of an Independent Counsel. You know, the concept of which they couldn&#39;t bash enough a few scant years ago?

    This is nothing but yet another example of lame, bitter and dirtball Democratic politics at its finest. As many times as it blows up in your faces (see recent "innocently timed" L.A. Times smear campaign against new California Governor Ah-nold S.), it&#39;s still the only way your sorry team knows how to play.

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 03:34 PM
    [b] This is nothing but yet another example of lame, bitter and dirtball Democratic politics at its finest. As many times as it blows up in your faces (see recent "innocently timed" L.A. Times smear campaign against new California Governor Ah-nold S.), it&#39;s still the only way your sorry team knows how to play. [/b][/quote]

    You are every bit as smug, one-sided partisan hack, and obnoxious as you constantly claim tailgators to be. At least 5ever is objective enough to take a wait-and-see attitude and admit the 1998 thing was a ****storm -- for the record I&#39;m probably more pro-Starr than he was at the time. It was stupid to escalate the blowjob thing into a national crisis, but Clinton absolutely gambled big time, lied under oath, and deserved some of the consequences that came from it.

    Spew all the gripes about "liberal hypocrisy" you want, but if investigation was good enough for your side in 1998 then it&#39;s good enough for the current White House with its widely established reputation for masterful propaganda and strongarming anyone who disagrees with it. And again, CIA LEAKS (if true) ARE MORE SIGNIFICANT TO NATIONAL SECURITY THAN BLOWJOBS.

    [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58650-2003Oct7.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2003Oct7.html[/url]

    Oh yeah, everything in the Post and Times is pure fiction, so this URL is disqualified. Plame trained at The Farm in Virginia so she could sit at a desk in Washington. And Republicans have never lied in office, made dump foreign policy decisions, given corrupt governments ridiculous amounts of aid or technology secrets. Joseph McCarthy was a victim, and anyone who defends Separation of Church and State is a communist who wants to destroy the institution of marriage and prevent people from having kids. Did I miss anything?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 04:34 PM
    [b] This is nothing but yet another example of lame, bitter and dirtball Democratic politics at its finest. As many times as it blows up in your faces (see recent "innocently timed" L.A. Times smear campaign against new California Governor Ah-nold. [/b][/quote]
    Oh, so now you&#39;re supporting the Hollywood elite?

    Make up you&#39;re mind, first you said Tim Robbins had no right to speak out on public policy issues because he was only an actor and now admit that you supported Arnold Schwarzenegger&#39;s election as Governor of California? What gives?

    Oh, you feel it&#39;s ok just because Schwarzenegger has an &reg; next to his name. Now I see.

    You&#39;re a Phoney&#33;&#33;

    BTW, Arnold is not much of a conservative. You&#39;ll probably be really disappointed with him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 04:34 PM
    [b] Anyway, let&#39;s see. A person widely known throughout Washington as a CIA analyst is -- gasp -- OUTED as a, well, a CIA analyst. [/b][/quote]
    shakin...You don&#39;t have any independent knowledge of this.

    I doubt if you could find the Lincoln Memorial if I gave you a map and placed you @ the Washington Monument.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 04:33 PM
    [b] Do you even realize what happened in 2000?
    [/b][/quote]
    Sure I do, the Bush brothers stole the election that&#39;s what happened. But I wouldn&#39;t expect a political hack like you who just parrots RNC talking points to ever admit it. You&#39;re like the person who gets caught shoplifting and gets mad at the store security.

    It&#39;s really too bad you can&#39;t accept other people&#39;s opinions without hurling nasty insults at them. I&#39;m willing to continue having discussions with you but you&#39;ll need to keep your temper in check, your outbursts and personal attacks are unacceptable. Perhaps, you should consider going for counseling so you can learn how to control your emotions.

    Lastly 5-ever...It&#39;s not the "National Supreme Court" its the United States Supreme Court. If you really want to be taken seriously in these discussions you ought to go back to night school and take an American Government course. Because I&#39;m getting tired of carrying you.

  12. #12
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 8 2003, 08:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 8 2003, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 04:34 PM
    [b] This is nothing but yet another example of lame, bitter and dirtball Democratic politics at its finest. As many times as it blows up in your faces (see recent "innocently timed" L.A. Times smear campaign against new California Governor Ah-nold. [/b][/quote]
    Oh, so now you&#39;re supporting the Hollywood elite?

    Make up you&#39;re mind, first you said Tim Robbins had no right to speak out on public policy issues because he was only an actor and now admit that you supported Arnold Schwarzenegger&#39;s election as Governor of California? What gives?

    Oh, you feel it&#39;s ok just because Schwarzenegger has an next to his name. Now I see.

    You&#39;re a Phoney&#33;&#33;

    BTW, Arnold is not much of a conservative. You&#39;ll probably be really disappointed with him. [/b][/quote]


    You are absolutely, unequivocably the king of non-sequiturs. Really -- your scattered blathering and fractured logic is both comical and pathetic to witness. It&#39;s got to be intentional...I mean, it HAS to be. At least I sure HOPE it is. Otherwise I have wasted WAY too much of my life discussing politics with someone whose childhood was clearly spent riding a short bus and wearing a hockey helmet.



    First of all, I am not an Arnold supporter. I made that clear on a thread with you over a month ago. Not surprisingly, you miss the obvious point by a mile. Support the Hollywood elite? Man, it must be scary up inside that noggin of yours...you really make no sense at all sometimes. Here, I&#39;ll slow it down a tad to make it easier for you:


    Dems...apply...****bag smear campaign... ...disgusted...voters...say..."ENOUGH"... ....then...elect...action hero.



    Ah-nold is Maria&#39;s puppet, and we all know where she&#39;s coming from.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 09:45 AM
    [b] Dems...apply...****bag smear campaign... [/b][/quote]
    I guess you never heard of Watergate?

    If you believe that underhanded smear tactics are only limited to the Democrates than not only are you just ignorant your also stupid.

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 9 2003, 10:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 9 2003, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 09:45 AM
    [b] Dems...apply...****bag smear campaign... [/b][/quote]
    I guess you never heard of Watergate?

    If you believe that underhanded smear tactics are only limited to the Democrates than not only are you just ignorant your also stupid. [/b][/quote]
    Yes, I&#39;ve heard of Watergate. And your point is?


    Good one...yeah, you really got me there....

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 10:08 AM
    [b] Yes, I&#39;ve heard of Watergate. And your point is?


    [/b][/quote]
    That both parties use underhanded smear tactics. Apparently this comes as a revelation to you.

    I&#39;m glad I could help.

  16. #16
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 9 2003, 10:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 9 2003, 10:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 10:08 AM
    [b] Yes, I&#39;ve heard of Watergate. And your point is?


    [/b][/quote]
    That both parties use underhanded smear tactics. Apparently this comes as a revelation to you.

    I&#39;m glad I could help. [/b][/quote]
    Who did the Republicans smear in Watergate, Einstein?

    Were Woodward and Bernstein working for Nixon?


    DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...................don&#39;t drool on yourself genius.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 8 2003, 07:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 8 2003, 07:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Oct 8 2003, 04:33 PM
    [b] Do you even realize what happened in 2000?
    [/b][/quote]
    Sure I do, the Bush brothers stole the election that&#39;s what happened. But I wouldn&#39;t expect a political hack like you who just parrots RNC talking points to ever admit it. You&#39;re like the person who gets caught shoplifting and gets mad at the store security.

    It&#39;s really too bad you can&#39;t accept other people&#39;s opinions without hurling nasty insults at them. I&#39;m willing to continue having discussions with you but you&#39;ll need to keep your temper in check, your outbursts and personal attacks are unacceptable. Perhaps, you should consider going for counseling so you can learn how to control your emotions.

    Lastly 5-ever...It&#39;s not the "National Supreme Court" its the United States Supreme Court. If you really want to be taken seriously in these discussions you ought to go back to night school and take an American Government course. Because I&#39;m getting tired of carrying you. [/b][/quote]
    I sholdn&#39;t have capitalized &#39;national&#39; - you are just ridiculous and frankly, not worth the effort.

    Shakin and I have shredded you consistently for months. Everyone sees this.

    It is laughable that you could call me a partisan hack.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 10:17 AM
    [b] Who did the Republicans smear in Watergate, Einstein?

    . [/b][/quote]
    The Watergate scandel and subsequent investigation revealed a pattern of break-ins and dirty tricks that were carried out by Nixon&#39;s so-called "plumbers".

    The leader of the plumbers was a man called Howard Hunt he and his team carried out many covert and illegal operations aimed gathering intelligence that could be used for discrediting any democratic candidate that they considered a potiential threat to Nixon&#39;s re-election. On their staff was a young lawyer from California named Donald Segretti.

    Segretti was in charge of the "rat****ing unit" of the plumbers. This unit was given the job of following the democratic candidates as they campaigned for the primaries and spread rumors about them. Book hotels in their names and not pay the bill and so on.

    The most famous of these smears was the "Canuk letter" where Segretti using what appeared to be Muskie stationary wrote a letter suggesting that Ed Muskie while campaigning in New Hampshire made degogatory comments about people in New Hampshire who had a Canadian backround. AS a result Muskie withdrew his candidicy.

    The break in @ the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Building was just another of along line of intelligence gathering operations carried out by Nixon&#39;s plumbers. Only this time they got caught.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 10:26 AM
    [b] Shakin and I have shredded you consistently for months. [/b][/quote]
    All the two of you ever do is make snide remarks and personal attacks.

    Meanwhile, every single point I&#39;ve made regarding this war has been borne out by the facts. The reality is that I&#39;ve schooled you guys.

    Laugh all you want 5-ever, but with maybe one or two exceptions all of your posts are spoonfed dribble straight from the RNC. You are a low rent political hack.

  20. #20
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Oct 9 2003, 10:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Oct 9 2003, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Oct 9 2003, 10:17 AM
    [b] Who did the Republicans smear in Watergate, Einstein?

    . [/b][/quote]
    The Watergate scandel and subsequent investigation... [/b][/quote]
    The subsequent investigation was a witch hunt nonpareil...


    Anyway, let me get this straight: We are ridiculous for pointing to all things Clinton (because it&#39;s "history"), yet you can reach back in time to Nixon?


    Hypocricy as usual.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us