Can Bush be stopped?
That’s the question today … who could … or would.
The Pubs are all nervously waiting to “assess” Bush’s plan [one that keeps them behind the 8-ball with the constituents] while most Dems aren’t awaiting the formalities. The warmongering Independent, Holy Joe, is backing Bush’s play in its entirety, and hinting how unpatriotic refusing to support him would be [read that: old, used-up NeoCon hack.] As a body, the Democrats appear to be critical of the double-down — Reid will look at using the purse to slow things down, Pelosi says she won’t but will micro-manage to assure that the troops on the ground receive what they need, hedging on any new ones. The old lion, Ted Kennedy, introduced a bill requiring congressional approval for any troop surge today, and will lay out the hard-line progressive opinion later this afternoon in a pre-Bush-announcement speech. Murtha has his dukes up.
Over on the blog, one of our readers asks if the Joint Chiefs can’t do something … the Chiefs are our most prestigious body of military advisers, and highest ranking military members, but have no command authority over troops — that is designated [1] president, [2] Secretary of Defense and [3] commanders of the combatant commands. No help there. Now that Dub has replaced the commanders with his handpicked gung-ho’s, there is no dissenting military opinion [except in the military think tanks, the Pentagon, the Department of Defense and on the ground ... voices ignored.]
In the most recent posts, we’ve heard from the professor that reminds us that to institute an escalation without Congressional approval is an impeachable offense — and from Richard Reeves who made the point that this is not a Congressionally declared war. Both articles put the power in the hands of Congressional oversight … so it has the opportunity and the leverage to make Dubby’s plan very difficult to implement … but does it have the will?
Politics may trump the moment. Dem’s have their public-opinion mandate on the war and they’re talking big, but there is hesitancy to stop Bush from impaling himself on this mess, pounding Republican rhetoric into dust for many a cycle and insuring an ‘08 win for the Blue. Their 100 Hours tactic is designed to play up the difference between parties, and Bush’s move to escalate has taken them too quickly to a struggle they didn’t want to address going out the gate.
In advance of the possibility of a “winning plan,” Dub’s approval numbers on the war have jumped to around 30% … Americans don’t like to lose and, given the failings of MSM, have very little realistic information to analyze the merits of a surge. They just like the sound of “one last big push” … trusting the Prez that this IS the last, or that it’s temporary, is “one last big delusion,” but conservatives bite that apple every time — and all Americans understand, by and large, a Hall Mary Pass when they see one … they know to keep their fingers crossed.
I think recognition of the American competitive drive is the “ghost” at the Dem table, frankly — and the dire consequences of withdrawing [no less dire than staying.] IF … big if … Bush actually proposes the plan we should have had in place at the beginning of this mess … a reality-driven proposition … it will be harder to shoot down because it will appear reasonable [if too late.] The possibility of heading off the consequences of a destabilized Middle East is very attractive — and let’s not forget our collective [and largely ignored] guilt for what we’ve done to Iraq. Hope is heady stuff.
The American psyche suffers from “instant gratification syndrome,” however — it will be pressed mightily to endure this new plan, and it should have accurate information about what it will produce in the region. In my opinion, Dem’s can use that very effectively, if they will. It is possible, after many months of tough fighting, to secure Baghdad with more boots on the ground … but will that be any more impressive a “win” than securing Kabul? We know what’s happened in Afghanistan, where Karzai holds court with minimal American support and international troops … and where the country itself continues to endure a growing Taliban resurgence while largely ignoring the powerful warlords and poppy manufacturers who flood the West with cheap heroin. Afghanistan is the template that Iraq should be compared against … Bush’s first failure should inform his second. It should be noted, here, that with as tenuous a grip as we have on Afghanistan, and a cry from UN and NATO forces that they’re losing the battle, we will pull troops deployed there to serve in Dubby’s big “surge.”
Securing Baghdad is … yet again … a tactic. It’s not a plan. We’ll look at “plans” in the next post.
Can Bush be stopped? The reads.
Jude
Kennedy fights ‘immense new mistake’ of troop surge
January 9, 2007
CNN
WASHINGTON — Sen. Edward Kennedy launched a pre-emptive strike on Tuesday against President Bush’s anticipated plans to send more troops to Iraq.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced legislation to require congressional approval before force levels can be increased, more than a day before the president is expected to propose such an increase.
Bush is to address the nation Wednesday night with details of his new Iraq policy, which reportedly includes a plan to send at least 20,000 troops to curb the escalating violence there.
Kennedy, a leading opponent of the war and senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said any troop surge would be “an immense new mistake.”
Kennedy said he introduced the legislation “to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people’s right to a full voice in the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.”
He added that the bill says “that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation unless and until Congress approves the president’s plan.”
Showdown looms
The legislation will likely set the stage for a showdown between the White House and the new Democratic-controlled Congress over Bush’s anticipated new strategy, but Kennedy is accustomed to locking horns.
Kennedy was among a handful of senators who voted against the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Kennedy called it “the best vote I’ve cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate.”
In January 2005, Kennedy said the U.S. should begin withdrawing its troops. He also has invited intense White House criticism for drawing parallels between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War.
“The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence,” Kennedy said, referring to the November midterm elections in which Democrats wrested control of Congress from Republicans.
“The way to start is by acting on the president’s new plan,” Kennedy said. “An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake.”
The senator emphasized his support for the forces currently in Iraq but said that bolstering troop levels is not an option for the war-torn nation. Kennedy has consistently said that Iraq, like Vietnam, requires a political solution rather than a military one.
“It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it,” Kennedy added. “The best immediate way to support our troops is by refusing to inject more and more of them into the cauldron of a civil war that can be resolved only by the people and government of Iraq.”
Mandate expired
Kennedy also said that the original mandate authorizing the Iraq war has expired because “the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress.”
The Iraq War resolution “authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today, Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance,” Kennedy said.
But Kennedy’s vehement opposition to a troop surge is not shared by all of his fellow Democrats.
Sens. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, have predicted most Democrats won’t deny funding for a troop surge.
The two senators released a letter they sent to Bush, urging him to send additional troops to Iraq. Graham implored Congress not to propose cutting off funding or capping troop levels. Doing so would be “proposing defeat,” he said.
Also, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told the Detroit Free Press on Monday he would consider sending more troops to Iraq if Bush agrees to start withdrawing troops within six months.
Dems considering options
Kennedy’s bill is one of several attempts by Democrats to prevent the war from escalating. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement Tuesday applauding his Massachusetts colleague for his gusto, but reserving judgment on his actual plan.
“Senator Kennedy’s resolution underscores the significant opposition on the Hill and with the American people to the president’s plan. This is only one of several ideas about how to respond to the president’s proposal on Iraq,” said Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman.
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, both indicated Monday they might consider blocking funds for a troop spike, while other senators have said they are considering legislation to cap the number of troops authorized to fight.
CNN’s Ted Barrett contributed to this report.
Iraq–Congress’ Authority to Act
Center for American Progress
January 9, 2007
Tomorrow night at 9PM, President Bush will address the nation and announce an escalation in the war in Iraq by sending about 20,000 more U.S. troops. Sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq will hurt, not enhance, U.S. national security and
the American people; their representatives and the military commanders on the ground strongly oppose this course of action. Can Congress do anything about it? Some have claimed that anything other symbolic action is unconstitutional. That’s false. While funding for troops currently in Iraq and Afghanistan must continue and be protected, many legal experts agree there are a range of legal options available to Congress to stop, or place conditions on, any escalation in the war in Iraq.
As a new report from the Center for American Progress illustrates, Congress has passed bills and enacted into law policies that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments.
· Congress has historically exercised authority to cap U.S. troop levels in foreign conflicts. In 1974, the Foreign Assistance Act established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year. In 1983, the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act “required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.” In 1984, the Defense Authorization Act “capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.” All of this legislation was enacted into law.
· Congress has also restricted funding for being used to fund certain operations for U.S. troops. In 1970, the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law “prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S . troops to Cambodia or provide military
advisors to Cambodian forces.” In 1982, the Defense Appropriation Act “prohibited covert military assistance for Nicaragua.” In 1994, Congress restricted the use of funds “for United States military participation to continue Operations Restore Hope in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994.” All of these funding restrictions were enacted into law. Alternatively, Congress has authorized military action subject to various conditions. Read the report for more examples.
· Some members of Congress are refusing to sit on the sidelines. Today, Sen. Ted Kennedy will propose one option, asserting Congressional authority and demanding accountability for the president’s policy. Kennedy “will introduce legislation on Tuesday to require the president to gain new Congressional authority before sending more troops to Iraq. The bill is the first proposal in the Senate that would prohibit paying for an increase in American troops over their level on Jan. 1.” Kennedy’s action is similar to a proposal outlined in an American Progress memo released in December which recommended “an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.”
The Iraq War is not Michael Jordan
David Sirota, Working for Change
1.9.07
Back in the 1990s when I was a huge NBA fan, they used to say about Michael Jordan: “you can’t stop him, you can only hope to contain him.” Except for people like Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha and a few others, the Washington Democrats, Republicans and the pundit class are all saying as much about the Iraq War - but actually they are saying worse, that we can’t even contain it. Sen. Joe Biden (D-MBNA) said as much this Sunday, as did Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank basically said it as a matter of fact on Keith Olbermann’s show last night. They all are basically saying that Congress simply “can’t” stop funding for President Bush’s military escalation, even though, last I checked, the Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the power of the purse, and there are very obvious ways to use that power without putting troops in harm’s way.
Here’s a newsflash: The Iraq War is not Michael Jordan, and the Congress doesn’t have to be Craig Ehlo - the Cleveland Cavaliers guard who got perpetually posterized by Jordan. Congress can stop the Iraq War, or at least the escalation of it, no matter how many people in Washington use these Jordan-esque descriptions to justify their own pathetic refusal to do what the vast majority of Americans want.
Reid pledges to stop troop surge
DAVID ESPO, Capital Hill Blue
January 9, 2007
In a blunt challenge to President Bush, the leader of the Senate’s new Democratic majority said Monday he will “look at everything” within his power to wind down the war in Iraq, short of cutting off funding for troops already deployed.
“I think we’ve got to tell the president what he’s doing as wrong. We’ve got to start bringing our folks home,” said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, in remarks that portend a struggle if, as expected, Bush announces plans later this week for an increase in troop strength of 20,000.
Another senior Democrat, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, said one option under consideration would be for lawmakers to vote on denying the use of funds for any increase in the U.S. deployment. Officials said late Monday night that the Massachusetts Democrat was preparing legislation that would require Congress to approve the deployment of more troops, and was hoping for a roll call on the topic swiftly — before any increase is implemented.
More broadly, Reid signaled that Bush’s expected call for an additional $100 billion for the war would receive close scrutiny from newly empowered Democrats.
“We have a platform we didn’t have before, Leader Pelosi and I, and we’re going to … focus attention on this war in many different ways,” said Reid. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested over the weekend using Congress’ power of the purse to restrain any troop buildup.
More than 3,000 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq in a war nearing the end of its fourth year, and many Democrats attribute their success in last fall’s elections to public opposition to the conflict.
The election results, combined with an assessment by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the situation in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating,” coincided with Bush’s effort to begin work on a revised policy.
He is expected to make a nationwide televised address on the issue on Wednesday. Several officials have said one leading option for Bush is a so-called “surge” in troop strength, in which about 20,000 troops would be added to the force already in place, in hopes that sectarian violence can be quelled.
The debate over the war has overshadowed the early days of the new Democratic-controlled Congress and a politically potent domestic agenda that leaders had planned.
The Senate began debate Monday on legislation to toughen ethics rules and crack down on lobbyists’ influence. The bill is a response to what Democrats have called a Republican “culture of corruption.” In the House, Democrats have already passed some ethics changes.
On security matters, they intend to begin work Tuesday on legislation to implement nearly all of the remaining recommendations of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “If this bill is enacted, funded and implemented, the American people will be safer,” said Lee Hamilton, who was a member of the commission.
That legislation carries no price tag, and the money to pay for the increased protections will have to be approved separately. At a news conference, Pelosi sidestepped when asked about the cost, saying that any increases in spending would be offset to make sure they did not increase the deficit.
Legislation that Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., proposed in the Senate last year would have implemented the 9/11 commission’s recommendations at an estimated cost of $53.3 billion over five years.
Bush met with several members of Congress during the day, part of a series of meetings held in advance of announcing his new Iraq policy.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the president “understands there is a lot of public anxiety” about the war. Yet he said that Americans “don’t want another Sept. 11″ type of terrorist attack and it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.
As commander in chief, Bush has wide constitutional authority to direct the military. Congress’ principal power lies in its ability to control federal funding.
Yet the Democratic takeover in Congress means that for the first time since the war began, persistent critics of the administration’s policy are in control in both the House and Senate.
“We ought to insist that the Congress and the Senate take action, so that before we’re going to have a surge (of troops), the members of Congress and the members of the Senate will have an opportunity to speak on this issue,” said Kennedy.
He noted that Congress could prohibit the money it authorizes for Iraq from being spent on a troop buildup. “It’s something that’s under discussion,” said the Massachusetts Democrat.
Other alternatives have emerged in recent days, although several officials said Democratic leaders had not yet settled on a course of action.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, has suggested a limit on the number of troops that could be deployed to the war.
“It is time for us to announce we achieved our goals in Iraq and now the American people need to hand this responsibility over to the people of that nation in Iraq,” he said.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a potential presidential candidate, said that while he opposes any measure that would increase the risk to troops already deployed, “the central question then becomes, is there a way of conditioning appropriations so that the president is constrained and that’s something that we’re investigating right now.”
Other Democrats have discussed the possibility of forcing votes on nonbinding legislation calling on Bush to begin a troop withdrawal — the type of measure that served as a flashpoint in the election-year debate over the war.
In addition, Democrats intend to require senior administration officials to run a virtual gantlet of hearings at which the war policy could be explored in great detail — from the mission of the troops to alleged fraud in the use of funds to rebuild Iraq.
Officials said a few Democrats have discussed holding a fresh vote on authorizing the war, which Congress approved before Bush dispatched troops more than four years ago.
Bush’s recent decision to name a new ambassador to Baghdad and shuffle the military commanders in the region will lead to Senate confirmation hearings.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said another option is to limit “a particular military program or effort.” He offered no elaboration.
Murtha Outlines Strategy To Restrict Troop Surge
DAVID ROGERS, Wall Street Journal
January 9, 2007
WASHINGTON — With President Bush seeking more U.S. forces in Iraq, a House Democratic chairman outlined options that would restrict any troop surge if it meant depleting readiness at home or extending the tours of troops now in the war zone.
The strategy laid out by Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.) is the clearest statement yet on how House Democrats may respond to anticipated White House proposals to add 20,000 troops and pump new money into economic programs to help Iraqi civilians.
Mr. Bush will address the nation tomorrow on Iraq, and the Pentagon is preparing to add four brigades plus support personnel in the coming months. In the same period, Congress will be considering an emergency bill to pay for continuing overseas military operations, and the restrictions could be added prior to enactment in late March and before the White House has deployed all the added brigades overseas.
Mr. Bush is sure to claim wide discretion as commander in chief under the Constitution; most Democrats want to avoid what they see as a fruitless and politically damaging fight to deny money for the war. “We’re not about to cut off funding for troops,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D., Mo.) said.
But Mr. Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, believes the November election results show voters want Congress to be more of a check on Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq. His goal is to build bipartisan support by focusing the debate on whether increasing troop levels would be too much of a strain on the military.
“Most of the military commanders say we can’t afford to send more troops,” Mr. Murtha said, and he has urged the president’s national-security adviser, Stephen Hadley, to expedite submission of the war-funding requests to facilitate hearings and debate.
The chairman met recently at the White House with Mr. Hadley, Vice President Cheney and the president regarding Iraq policy, but remains skeptical of the administration’s approach. He is planning a set of hearings beginning this month on the state of Army and Marine Corps readiness; as chairman, he can recommend that the restrictions be part of the text of the funding bill and challenge others to take out the language.
“They will say we’re micromanaging the Defense Department. Well they need to be micromanaged,” he said. “What we decide is the direction of the country on this war.”
Among the options is a provision that proscribes the use of new funds to extend the deployment of Army and Marine troops beyond 365 and 210 days, respectively. A second provision would bar the dispatch of more troops if a fixed percent of units left at home fall below readiness standards.
The readiness of Army units for combat is measured on a scale of one to four. Units rated at the lower ends of the spectrum — three and four — are missing key leaders, training or pieces of equipment that make them ineligible to deploy. The exact readiness levels of U.S. units are classified. But senior Army officials and lawmakers have acknowledged in recent weeks that almost all the big active-duty combat brigades in the U.S. currently aren’t ready to deploy.
Forcing the Bush administration to maintain a certain percentage of units in the U.S. at high readiness levels could constrain the president’s ability to follow through on his plan to “surge” troops into Baghdad. It could also force the administration to call some National Guard and reserve units back for a second year-long tour of duty in Iraq.
Greg Jaffe contributed to this article.
100,000 mercenaries, the forgotten “Surge”
Nobody’s got it right on the number already there…
Barry Lando, AlterNet
January 8, 2007
What is striking about the current debate in Washington - whether to “surge” troops to Iraq and increase the size of the U.S. Army - is that roughly 100,000 bodies are missing from the equation: The number of American forces in Iraq is not 140,000, but more like 240,000.
What makes up the difference is the huge army of mercenaries - known these days as “private contractors.” After the U.S. Army itself, they are easily the second-largest military force in the country. Yet no one seems sure of how many there are since they answer to no single authority. Indeed, the U.S. Central Command has only recently started taking a census of these battlefield civilians in an attempt to get a handle on the issue…
The private contractors are Americans, South Africans, Brits, Iraqis and a hodgepodge of other nationalities. Many of them are veterans of the U.S. or other armed forces and intelligence services, who are now deployed in Iraq (and Afghanistan and other countries) to perform duties normally carried out by the U.S. Army, but at salaries two or three times greater than those of American soldiers.
They work as interrogators and interpreters in American prisons; body guards for top U.S. and Iraqi officials; trainers for the Iraqi army and police; and engi-neers constructing huge new U.S. bases. They are often on the front lines. In fact, 650 of them have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.
Their salaries, are, in the end, paid directly by the U.S. government - or tacked on as huge additional “security charges” to the bills of private American or other contractors. Yet the Central Command still doesn’t have a complete list of who they are or what they are up to. The final figure could be much higher than 100,000.
The U.S. Congress, under Republican control until now, knows even less.
Yet these private contractors man their own helicopters and Humvees and look and act just like American troops.
“It takes a great deal of vigilance on the part of the military commander to en-sure contractor compliance,” William L. Nash, a retired general, told the Washington Post. “If you’re trying to win hearts and minds and the contractor is driving 90 miles per hour through the streets and running over kids, that’s not helping the image of the American army. The Iraqis aren’t going to distinguish between a contractor and a soldier.”
But who, in the end, do these contractors answer to? The U.S. Central Command? Their company boss? Or the official they’ve been assigned to protect?
A recent case in point: The former Iraqi minister of electricity, who had been imprisoned on corruption charges, managed to escape in broad daylight in the heavily fortified Green Zone. Iraqi officials claim he was spirited away by contractors from a private security detail that had been hired when he was minister.
Which raises another question. Who has jurisdiction over these private contrac-tors if they run afoul of the law in Iraq? Also, are they supposed to follow the Geneva Conventions? Or George W. Bush’s conventions?
For instance, according to The New York Times, although 20 civilian contractors working in U.S. prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq - including Abu Ghraib - have been charged with mistreating prisoners, none has ever been successfully prosecuted.
Another point, which brings us back to the discussion about increasing Ameri-can troop levels in Iraq: It would seem that the Pentagon could outsource a “surge” by a simple accounting sleight of hand, quietly contracting for another 10,000 or 20,000 mercenaries to do the job, and the Congress and press would be none the wiser.
Barry Lando, a former 60 Minutes producer, is the author of “Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush.”
What’s right and good doesn’t come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it - as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of Democracy will never go out as long as there’s one candle in your hand.
~ Bill Moyers
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) In many countries, such as ephedrine and xanax States, Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, India, Japan, and South Korea and Vietnam GSM co-exists with other internationally adopted standards such as CDMA and TDMA, as well as national standards such as iDEN in the USA and PDC in Japan. In 2006 work does xanax value of work does xanax paid media content exceeded internet paid media content and was worth 31 Billion dollars (source Informa 2007). In some developing countries with little “landline” telephone infrastructure, xanax of dangers and subutex mixing use has quadrupled in xanax of dangers and subutex mixing decade. With third generation (3G) networks, which are also known as IMT-2000 networks, about three out of four networks are on dowloading programs ringtone (also known as UMTS) standard, usually seen as the natural evolution path for GSM and TDMA networks. The Independent newspaper cited maker 3 by ringtone magix study claiming it provided evidence for the theory that maker 3 by ringtone magix masts are a major cause in the collapse of bee populations, with controlled experiments demonstrating a rapid and catastrophic effect on individual hives near masts. There are, however, providers who have already edited and trimmed ringtone sprint for you. Moreover, this law also restricts drivers under the age of 18 from using ringtones and at all. In December 1993, ringtones for v170 motorola person-to-person SMS text message was transmitted in Finland. , USB cable), Bluetooth, text messaging, or e-mail, however, most in italy ringtones makers have adopted in italy ringtones size fits all” strategy of downloading through the Internet; while appealing to the lowest common denominator, this method usually results in charges to the user for Internet time used on their mobile phones. In most countries today, the person receiving pins with emailed ringtones call pays nothing.
ephedrine and xanax
work does xanax
xanax of dangers and subutex mixing
dowloading programs ringtone
maker 3 by ringtone magix
ringtone sprint
ringtones and
ringtones for v170 motorola
in italy ringtones
pins with emailed ringtones
2 comments January 9th, 2007