|
Banned
|
We can't change direction ....would be a victory for our enemies. So they control Us?
IMO, this is over.....the era of Bush/Cheney political dominance via their "terror card". They've played it tooooo often...to the point that it is now incoherent. The following articles point out and document that they have "bungled" a "war of choice", and that they attempt to distract Americans from that very valid conclusion.
If they are correct....that "changing course"...voting for "the other party's" candidates....would "appease the terrorists"....doesn't it follow that the terrorists have voters who want change, trapped?
The Iraqis were supposed to "stand up"....their US trained security forces now number 300,000,,,,but the US is poised to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, probably because Iraq becomes even more violent and chaotic, no matter how many newly trained Iraqi security personnel join the force that is supposed to keep order. As more US troops have been moved into Baghdad, to restore order in the city's streets, American military deaths hit a two year high, 101, in october.
Mr. Bush and Cheney are making speeches to influence you to believe that our soldiers are being killed to convince US voters to vote for democrats. If they are right....does it matter? If the insurgents in Iraq control who we can vote for, killing our troops, seemingly at will, isn't that evidence that the war has been bungled? If it is not true, aren't Bush and Cheney falsely terrorizing voters who want to divide the Bush/Cheney total hold on political power?
Either way....do they deserve to retain total political control. Bush's "Iraq stands up, we'll stand down", isn't working...they're "up", but they apparently aren't effective or dependable....the result is more Americans are killed in october than in any other month, since late in 2004.
Iraq has become so unsafe, that an article below reports that a major US security firm is pulling it's employees out of that country, after 4 recent employee deaths.
As the "happy talk" about Iraq (it's been gone from these threads for a long while, now....) persisted on these threads, I always cited "progress" in restoring Iraqi electrical energy output, compared to pre-war levels, as a simple benchmark of progress, both rebuilding and security.
An article reports that the effort to restore electricity in Iraq, and many other rebuilding projects have failed, and the most prominent US contractor, Bechtel, is withdrawing from Iraq after the deaths of 52 of it's employees and the wounding of another 49. Iraqis failed to maintain some of the rebuilt public infrastructure projects, and US and Iraqi military and security forces were unable to protect most other reconstructed sites....like power plants, from being damaged or destroyed.
The article says that there are no more US funds for rebuilding Iraq, and that more than 20 percent of the $3 billion that Bechtel was paid for construction projects has to be diverted to secuirty expenses, instead.
Isn't the approaching election, a bit like groundhog day? If the voters listen to the mantra (Bush said of a potential Democratic takeover of Congress: "The terrorists win and America loses.")...we get two more years of "war bunglers" Bush and Cheney, in total political control.
16 months ago, Cheney assured us that: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/">the insurgency in Iraq, was in it's last throes.....</a>
Was he right about that? Was he right about Iraqi WMD? Why would you listen to him tell you to vote for his party's candidates, because he knows that the Iraqi insurgents don't want you to. If they are "in there last throes", why does Cheney say that they control who you vote for.....that they have the power to take away one of the two voting choices in each congressional contests?
If Iraq is lost, after an avoidable, illegal, and unnecessary US invasion and occupation, how is it that anything John Kerry says, important enough to swallow all press coverage and most political discourse, just a week before an important election? Isn't it more important to decide how competent Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have been? Have they performed their duties at a level that justifies giving them two more years with no congressional checks and balances? Shouldn't that be what we civilians and our fellow countrymen in our military are thinking and talking about, expecially since it seems that Mr. Bush and Cheney want us devoting our attention to anything other than how they've been doing, versus what they've been saying, about Iraq?
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101824_pf.html
The Real War
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, November 1, 2006; 12:16 PM
There is a war going on -- and I don't mean the fake one between the White House and John Kerry. I mean the real one, in Iraq.
And each and every day, there's more evidence that President Bush's strategy for winning that war isn't working.
Bush's plan calls for American troops to remain in the country as long as it takes for a democratic central government to take hold. But there's little sign that the government has been able to exercise any authority whatsoever outside the fortified Green Zone. The rest of Baghdad is in the throes of civil war. The Kurdish north is essentially independent, the south is ruled by Shiite militias and the Sunni center is in a state of anarchy.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's supposed unity government surprised everyone by showing it is capable of exercising authority -- but it wasn't the sort of act that bodes well for the future.
Maliki showed he can serve his Shiite militia masters by stopping the U.S. military from bothering them.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103100225.html">Ellen Knickmeyer and John Ward Anderson write</a> in The Washington Post: "American soldiers rolled up their barbed-wire barricades and lifted a near siege of the largest Shiite Muslim enclave in Baghdad on Tuesday, heeding the orders of a Shiite-led Iraqi government whose assertion of sovereignty had Shiites celebrating in the streets. ...
"Maliki's decision exposed the growing divergence between the U.S. and Iraqi administrations on some of the most critical issues facing the country, especially the burgeoning strength of Shiite militias. The militias are allied with the Shiite religious parties that form Maliki's coalition government, and they are accused by Sunni Arab Iraqis and by Americans of kidnapping and killing countless Sunnis in the soaring violence between Iraq's Shiite majority and Sunni minority."
And do you remember how Bush used to describe his strategy in Iraq? (Other than " <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/27/BL2006102700776.html">stay the course</a> ," naturally.)
On <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html">June 28, 2005</a> , Bush proudly announced: "Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
He repeated it over and over again, at least <a href="http://tinyurl.com/y6vttg">40 times</a> , until the phrase was retired almost exactly a year later. His last unprompted use of the phrase was on <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060626-2.html">June 26, 2006</a> : "And as you well know, our standards are, as Iraqis stand up, the coalition will be able to stand down."
At his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html">September 15 press conference</a> , about 10 weeks after he had mentioned it last, Bush was asked if the strategy was still operative. He said it was.
But he put it this way: "We all want the troops to come home as quickly as possible. But they'll be coming home when our commanders say the Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and sustaining itself and is governing itself."
As <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000492.html">Thomas E. Ricks</a> wrote in The Washington Post in October regarding "stand up, stand down": "By strict numbers, the Iraqi side of that equation is almost complete. Training programs have developed more than 300,000 members of the Iraqi army and national police, close to the desired number of homegrown forces. Yet as that number has grown, so, too, has violence in Iraq. . . .
"With the insurgency undiminished and Iraqi forces seemingly unable to counter it, U.S. commanders say they expect to stay at the current level of U.S. troops -- about 140,000 -- until at least next spring. That requirement is placing new strains on service members who leave Iraq and then must prepare to return a few months later. Tours of duty have been extended for two brigades in Iraq to boost troop levels."
And in today's Washington Post, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103101123.html">Walter Pincus</a> has a short story that speaks volumes about why the Iraqis' "standing up" hasn't allowed us to "stand down."
Pincus writes: "U.S. military advisers are confronting difficult behavior from Iraqi soldiers, who tend to fire all their ammunition in response to a single sniper shot or go on rampages even against civilians upon witnessing the death of a colleague, according to Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow, a former adviser to an Iraqi army armored brigade. . . .
"His article, based on his year in Iraq, which ended in June, is in the <a href="http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug06/Grunow.pdf">July-August Military Review</a> and is one of several in recent issues that have dealt forthrightly with concerns of military participants with the U.S. effort to rebuild Iraq's army during the ongoing war. . . .
"Grunow also notes that some Iraqi soldiers do not show up for training that is difficult, and he says that up to 40 percent of some Iraqi units run away in the face of dangerous situations -- without punishment."
The War and the Elections
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1101/p03s01-woiq.html">Peter Grier</a> writes in the Christian Science Monitor: "The White House, as well as some experts outside the government, say al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups deliberately are trying to inflict more casualties to influence next week's midterm elections and break American will. . . .
"Others say the rising toll is not so much the result of a deliberate decision by U.S. adversaries as it is the cost of moving more U.S. troops into Baghdad in recent weeks in an attempt to more fully control the capital city.
"'The October boost in U.S. casualties was almost inevitable the moment the U.S. attempted to stiffen and replace Iraqi forces in an essentially hopeless mission,' writes Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, in his most recent analysis of Iraq."
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061031-8.html
For Immediate Release
October 31, 2006
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room
...Q If I could follow up, on the campaign trail, Senator Kerry was in Los Angeles and speaking to some students, saying if they were able to navigate the education system, they could get comfortable jobs, but "if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Can you react to that?
MR. SNOW: Yes, I'll actually give you a fuller quote. He said: "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
It sort of fits a pattern. You may recall that last year Senator Kerry -- on CBS's "Face the Nation" -- accused U.S. soldiers of terrorizing kids and children in Iraq; and recently also described troop concentrations in Baghdad as "having failed miserably."
What Senator Kerry ought to do first is apologize to the troops....
<h3>.....Helen.
Q Does the President owe the Democrats an apology for saying that the terrorists -- that they will appease the terrorists?</h3>
MR. SNOW: No. Let's take -- you know what's interesting, Helen, and I've said this before --
Q How bellicose was he?
MR. SNOW: I don't think it's bellicose. Look, let's listen to what the Democrats -- or let's think about what Democrats are doing in this election campaign. When it comes to winning the war on terror, what is their plan? They've not said. They have talked about withdrawal --
Q -- 101 in Iraq --
MR. SNOW: -- they've talked about a whole series of things, in terms of complaining -- looking back over their shoulders and complaining about past decisions. But when it comes to the key issue, how do you achieve victory -- they say they want to achieve it, but they won't tell you how. They will tell you what they oppose what the President is doing. They oppose the Patriot Act; they have opposed the Terrorist Surveillance Program; they oppose the program by which we detain, question and bring to justice the worst of the terrorists. So they have opposed all of those things, so we know what they oppose, but we don't know what they're going to do.
Q How does the President propose to win? How does the President -- 101 in October dying --
MR. SNOW: The President understands that it is difficult. This is a man who signs each and every condolence note. He is absolutely aware of the human cost. And he grieves for every family and every person that we've lost. But on the other hand, he also knows two things. First, as General Casey said last week, there is not a single military engagement that we have not won, and we don't give our soldiers credit for that.
Secondly, he also understands that if we were to walk away short of victory it would give terrorists the opportunity to turn Iraq into a stronghold in which they would have access to the world's second largest reserves of petroleum; that they would be able to use oil as a political weapon against the United States, Europe, Asia, could pit the industrialized nations against one another; they could also work in concert with Iran and Syria, which have been active supporters of terror; they no doubt would try to go after Israel, after the Arabian peninsula, perhaps after Egypt.
In other words, the consequences of walking out and leaving a failed state are absolutely catastrophic, and the President understands that. But he also understands the promise of a democratic Iraq.
|
<b>Have Bush and Cheney made the "homeland", safer....or...?</b>
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103101218.html
An Administration Ally Goes Off-Message
By Al Kamen
Wednesday, November 1, 2006; Page A19
....So eyebrows popped up last week when none other than Richard Perle , former Reagan assistant secretary of defense, former Bush brain-truster on the Defense Policy Board, and a key promoter of the war to find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, blistered the administration as "dysfunctional" when it comes to stopping someone from bringing "a nuclear weapon or even nuclear material into the United States.".....
......"Knowing that there are people who wish to do that," Perle said, "knowing they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, you would think that we would have put in place a system or at least be working assiduously in the development of a system that would allow us to detect nuclear material entering the New York Harbor or Boston Harbor or what have you.
"But we haven't done that," he said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies gathering.
"I think we have an administration today that is dysfunctional," Perle said. "And if it can't get itself together to organize a serious program for finding nuclear material on its way to the United States, then it ought to be replaced by an administration that can."
But President Bush , Perle emphasized, is not to blame for this sorry state of affairs. "I haven't the slightest doubt that if one could . . . put this proposition to the president, he would first be shocked to learn that we don't have the capability. Secondly, [he] would immediately order that we develop it."
Shocked? Well, let's see. Bush . . . Bush . . . Ah, yes, 202-456-1414.
|
Quote:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=...ntentid=254091
<b>The GOP Plays Its Last Card</b>
Facing a bleak Election Day next week, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have now made it clear that Republicans are willing to play their last card in an effort to shift attention from their own record and fan fears about Democrats. Campaigning in Georgia in one of the few House districts where a Republican candidate wants him around, <b>Bush said of a potential Democratic takeover of Congress: "The terrorists win and America loses."</b>
Removing any doubt about the deliberate nature of this disreputable line of attack, Cheney said on Fox News that Iraqi insurgents are essentially working to help Democrats. "It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled... [and believe] they can break the will of the American people." This is actually a habit for Cheney, who said on Rush Limbaugh's show on October 17: "I was reading something today that a writer -- I don't remember who -- was speculating on increased terrorist attacks in Iraq attempting to demoralize the American people as we get up to the election. And when I read that, it made sense to me. And I interpreted this as that the terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change."
So there you have it. <b>After botching the Iraq War about as thoroughly as possible, and refusing to admit errors, change strategies or hold anyone responsible for their incompetence, the Bush administration is now arguing that the American people don't have the right to hold them responsible, either,</b> since a Democratic victory would cheer terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. <b>In effect, Bush and Cheney are trying to hold America hostage to their own mistakes.</b>
This breathtaking line of "reasoning" is all the more deplorable because it expresses a sense of complete U.S. helplessness in the struggle against jihadist terrorists. <h3>We can't change direction because that would be a victory for our enemies. So they effectively control us. Given the administration's obsession with denying there are any practical restraints on U.S. freedom of action in Iraq or anywhere else, that's an especially ironic point of view. </h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103000530.html
...Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats
White House Talk Heats Up As Polls Show Tight Races
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01
SUGAR LAND, Tex., Oct. 30 -- President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.....
....Faced with potential GOP defeat in both chambers, Bush and Cheney aimed to avert that by convincing voters that they cannot risk giving the opposition party any power in Washington.
"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday. "That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."
Democrats reacted sharply to the latest White House attacks. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said Bush "resorted to the same tired old partisan attacks in a desperate attempt to hold on to power." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Bush is looking to retain a "rubber-stamp Republican Congress that has done nothing to change our failed Iraq policy."
Cheney, meanwhile, said in an interview with Fox News that he thinks insurgents in Iraq are timing their attacks to influence the U.S. elections.
"It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled," he said. Cheney said the insurgents believe "they can break the will of the American people," and "that's what they're trying to do."..
|
Quote:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=53336
10.31.06
YOU'RE NOT HELPING:
I actually feel sorry for <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061031/D8L3SB884.html">John Kerry</a>. He wants to help. And, yes, this is mainly a controversy manufactured by the highly depressing <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301030.html?referrer=delicious">"Freak Show."</a> But Kerry has a tone-deaf appreciation for his own role in the Freak Show. And for that reason, he was foolish to hold a long press conference responding to his GOP tormenters As one Democrat emails, couldn't Kerry have simply issued a two-line statement saying: <b>"I bungled a joke, Bush bungled a war. Let the voters decide what's more important?"</b> Instead he gathered a bunch of reporters and created a slew of new soundbites. Had he resisted, maybe--just maybe--Bush v. Kerry Round 2 wouldn't be wall-to-wall on the cable networks right now, costing Democrats a precious half-day of news coverage in the campaign's crucial final week.
Update: I'm watching Bush right now speaking at a rally for Georgia House candidate Mac Collins. He is of course quoting Kerry's remarks. "The senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and it is shamelful." Hearty boos. "The senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology." Big cheers. Sigh.
--Michael Crowley
|
Quote:
http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/...8/newsletter01
<b>Kroll pulls security team out of Iraq
Kroll withdrew its bodyguard teams from Iraq and Afghanistan after four workers died in Iraq.</b>
Published: November 1, 2006 - 1:44 pm
(AP) — Manhattan security company Kroll has withdrawn its bodyguard teams from Iraq and Afghanistan after it lost four workers in Iraq, its parent company said Wednesday.
Michael Cherkasky, president and chief executive of Kroll owner Marsh & McLennan Cos., told The Associated Press that the business in the two countries wasn't worth risking the lives of their employees.
In its third-quarter earnings statement issued Wednesday, Marsh & McLennan said that “results for the security group reflected the orderly exit from high-risk international assignments that had limited profitability and no longer fit Kroll's business strategy.”
Mr. Cherkasky said Kroll “will continue to advise our clients anywhere in the world” about security measures.
Marsh & McLennan, whose main business is insurance brokerage, did not disclose how many workers had been withdrawn from the two countries.
|
Quote:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGMIM3RAG1.DTL
<b>Bechtel pulling out after 3 rough years of rebuilding work</b>
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
Bechtel Corp. went to Iraq three years ago to help rebuild a nation torn by war. Since then, 52 of its people have been killed and much of its work sabotaged as Iraq dissolved into insurgency and sectarian violence.
Now Bechtel is leaving.
The San Francisco engineering company's last government contract to rebuild power, water and sewage plants across Iraq expired on Tuesday. Some employees remain to finish the paperwork, but essentially, the company's job is done.
Bechtel's contracts were part of an enormous U.S. effort to put Iraq back on its feet after decades of wars and sanctions. That rebuilding campaign, once touted as the Marshall Plan of modern times, was supposed to win the hearts of skeptical Iraqis by giving them clean water, dependable power, telephones that worked and modern sanitation. President Bush said he wanted the country's infrastructure to be the very best in the Middle East.
But Bechtel -- which charged into Iraq with American "can-do" fervor -- found it tough to keep its engineers and workers alive, much less make progress in piecing Iraq back together.
"Did Iraq come out the way you hoped it would?" asked Cliff Mumm, Bechtel's president for infrastructure work. "I would say, emphatically, no. And it's heartbreaking."
The violence that has gripped Iraq drove up costs and hamstrung the engineers who poured into the country after the U.S.-led invasion.
Bechtel's first reconstruction contract, awarded shortly after Saddam Hussein's overthrow in April 2003, assured the company that it would have a safe environment for its workers. But, by the end, dozens of Bechtel's employees and subcontractors had been killed, some of them kidnapped, others marched out of their office and shot. Forty-nine others were wounded.
Bechtel responded by hiring more guards, driving armored cars and fortifying its camps. Those steps ate up money that otherwise would have brought electricity and clean water to Iraqis.
The size of Bechtel's contracts also shrank over time, as U.S. officials diverted money from reconstruction and toward security. Instead of the nearly $3 billion originally budgeted, Bechtel finally received about $2.3 billion, a figure that includes money the company spent on projects as well as its undisclosed profit.
Mumm directed Bechtel's work from a bare-bones trailer in Baghdad. He is proud of his people for finding ways to work despite the threat of imminent death. Of 99 projects that the U.S. government directed Bechtel to complete, the company finished 97, abandoning only two for security reasons, the company says.
But Mumm's pride is mixed with frustration. Many of those completed projects later fell victim to collapsing security, which made maintenance dangerous and, in some cases, resulting in damage to plants and equipment.
He once hoped the new Iraqi government would turn into a steady Bechtel client, bringing the company lucrative new contracts in a country where virtually every road, power plant and waterworks needs repair.
"Had Iraq been a calmer place while we were there, amazing things could have been done," he said.
The U.S reconstruction push in Iraq is winding down. About $18 billion in funding that Congress approved three years ago was supposed to be spent or committed to specific projects by the end of September. Two of the U.S. government agencies that have overseen the work are scheduled to close shop early next year. The United States and other countries are discussing another round of aid, but if it comes, Iraqi ministries are supposed to take the lead on rebuilding.
"That's really an under-told story -- we've stopped the reconstruction," said Frederick Barton, co-director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies think tank. "There are some things we're still finishing up, but we're wrapping up, and we're stepping back. It's really a tragedy."
What exactly did Bechtel accomplish in its three years in Iraq?
-- The company helped repair 14 electrical generation units, built four new ones and created 25 substations around Baghdad.
-- It restored eight sewage plants and built one.
-- A canal bringing drinking water to Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was dredged and its pumps restored. Seventy small water treatment plants were installed in rural areas.
-- Airports in Baghdad and Basra were repaired to handle civilian flights. The country's international shipping port -- Umm Qasr -- was dredged and its grain elevator refurbished.
-- Baghdad telephone switching stations knocked out during the war were restored, and the country's phone network was reconnected to the outside world.
-- War-damaged bridges on key highways were rebuilt.
-- Almost 1,240 schools were refurbished with new paint, fans and in many cases new windows and doors to replace those looters had stolen.
But many of these accomplishments were undone as security evaporated.
For example, Bechtel added 1,280 megawatts to the nation's power grid and improved the reliability of another 480 megawatts. In the United States, that much energy could light more than 1.3 million homes.
<h3>But Iraq's entire power system this summer produced 4,400 megawatts, just 442 megawatts more than before the invasion. The country needs about 9,000 megawatts to satisfy demand.</h3>
In some cases, the power plants have had trouble getting stable fuel supplies. In others, repaired plants were cut off from the national grid by sabotaged power lines. A series of coordinated attacks Oct. 20, for example, severed Baghdad from power generated in the rest of the country, leaving the city's 7 million residents with only a few hours of electricity each day.
"Infrastructure is assumed by the terrorists, correctly, to be a target," said Michael Izady, a professor at Pace University who has trained U.S. forces in Iraq. "They're not stupid. You just hit the power grid, and you have 120 degrees outside. Ask any American what they'd do after two days of that. Tempers run really high."
<b>Making matters worse, Iraqi workers haven't maintained some of the repaired electrical plants.
U.S. government auditors blame the problem on a lack of funding and the attitudes of Iraqi workers, who in the past rarely did maintenance unless something broke.</b> Auditors visited one plant where new control systems had been bypassed, the blades of new turbines already had oil residue building up on them, and a fire had broken out -- a problem, since the fire extinguishing system was missing key parts.....
|
Last edited by host; 11-02-2006 at 03:16 AM..
|
11-02-2006, 01:44 AM
