pan6467

Impeachment against Bush..... that leaves Cheney in power...... THAT SCARES ME FAR MORE THAN BUSH STAYING IN POWER.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ObieX

Couldn't agree more with that. I would be suprised that Bush wasn't bumped off by him yet if i didnt know what a puppetmaster he (Dick) is.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Mephisto2

Come on.

Let's be honest here.

Does Bush deserve to be impeached? Absolutely not. A poor decision was made, and many lives have been lost as a result. But what is needed now is leadership (something I actually believe Bush is fully capable of providing), and a clear exiit stratgey from Iraq.

I believe the "chickenhawks" in the Bush camp have been discredited. I lament the fact that Powell has decided to retire (or has been "retired"), but at the same time I think the current Administration has shown some common sense recently. The invitation to Abbass has been invited to the White House is (hopefully) a sign of "softening" in the US position towards the Middle East.

Who knows what will happen. We can argue for years over what has happened, but I believe we should concentrate now over what could happen; indeed, over what should happen.

This most recent report from the White House over WMDs is simply a reaffirmation of what we knew (or were told) from the interim report in September 2004. I'm not apologizing for the past mistakes, but I'm concentrating on what we should all hoping for. And that is a firm, consistent and clear strategy with how to deal with the current situation in Iraq.

Mr Mephisto

roachboy

i do not see the logic here, mr. mephisto.

there are, it seems to me, two problems: the one (dissolutions of responsibility for this war) is linkable (but not necessarily so) to the other (question of impeachment).

when i used the word impeachment earlier, i did so with specific reference to the emergence of new, extensive documentation about this administrations policies of torture, its extent, its administrative reach, etc...ther eshould be political hell to pay for this administration on the second. there should be political hell to pay for this administration on the first as well, but it is more complicated.

to back up:
how does the fact that the fabricated-ness of the wmd claims have been revealed repeatedly since the period before bushwar got underway function to make these problems ok?

how is this not simply repeating one of the administrations main claims to legitimate its own conduct? "ah well, poo poo, we have known about this for a while now"--does that not seem a bit surreal to you?

this kind of move is purest damage control. i am surprised to read/hear folk recapitulate it as if it reflected upon questions of substance. i imagine there was serious political hardball played to prevent this from coming out too officially before the election.

conservative ideology has sold itself on the basis of personal responsibility, whatever that means (it is a code term that as often means let the poor die as it does anything ethical)....now you have the spectacle of the bush administration, which has used this trope of personal responsibility to construct something of a Leader cult for television purposes, trying to evade responsibility by any means necessary. the problem is not cowboy goerge and his band of mayberry machiavellians--it is faulty intelligence---the problem is not the particular agenda of the neocons within this administration, but universal. "everyone," they are now saying, was fooled by the same data. that is empirically false. what is its function? to dissolve blame. nothing more, nothing less.

on the other, you have a politics of the individual, of the Leader, within which the Leader's subjective relations to the world operate as structuring of politics (the discourse of resoluteness and other, lovely, resonant terms drawn from the late 1930s in europe)...how do you square the two? how are you to trust the "leadership" that might be possible for the bush administration given the debacle that is this war? why would you do it? what possible basis would you have?

it is almost as if the karlrove machinery is making arguments that would dissolve the question of impeachment as part of thier public strategy. the defense you would get is that you are seeing now.

it seems that the matter of sanctioning torture is different, in that it is a crime against humanity. that can, and should, be an impeachable offense. god knows it is far far more serious than a blowjob. i do not think that the matter of impeachment should be eliminated by calculations like the above, that you would end up with cheney. i think it is a matter of holding bush to account for his actions.

it would be a shame indeed to have this administration, which talks ad nauseum about the question of democracy, demonstrate what it really means--that the people are free one day every four years and then in a mediated manner--and that apart from that one day, anything goes--unless of course you are not a conservative.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

tecoyah

I personally, would consider impeachment hearings worth the effort/disruption considering the extent of evidence condemning this administration. I have always believed in "the buck stops here" mentality of the presidency. If indeed Mr. Bush was unaware of the goings on (on whichever front you decide to investigate, and there are many) then he would be relatively incompetent, and deserving of impeachment. If by chance, he WAS aware and allowed or condoned these actions, he needs to be removed from office along with the guilty members of his cabinet.

I am not suprised by this latest shift in direction, it is almost refreshing.
But I am disgusted.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tellumFS

See, and here's the thing: From what I've seen, George Bush doesn't have the leadership qualities to get us out of Iraq.

Going into Iraq was on this Administrations agenda since before they took office (Paul O'Neill was saying that they were openly talking about it), and they set up an office in the Pentagon to deal with Iraqi intelligence, ignoring the intelligence that the Administration didn't like. Furthermore, the State Department was working on plans for post-Saddam Iraq, but those plans were shelved in favor of the Pentagon's plans (remember it - it's the one where the Iraqis welcome us with flowers). The WMD was a red herring, and GWB knew it. He lied to us, the world, and probably himself to justifiy this invasion.

As John Kerry said: "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". Wrong war? For the moment, yes. We should have been hunting Al-Qaeda. Wrong place? Again, same reason. Some with wrong time. We could have dealt with Hussein after Al-Qaeda. Instead, we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a pickle. Yes, we won the intial combat, but who knows what kind of blowback this war is going to cause (especially since we went in with very few allies.)

Doesn't seem like very good leadership, from where I stand.

Bodyhammer86

Completely disregarding the fact that he voted in favor of the war earlier.

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

Kadath

Completely glossing over the question of whether it was indeed the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

__________________
it's quiet in here

tecoyah

Completely disregarding the fact that this thread has nothing to do with John Kerry.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Willravel

Completly disragarding....I've got nothing.

Bush was either incompetent, negligent, or guilty. None of those are particularly good to be, espically for a president of the United States. That's the bottom line.

He won't be impeached, though. He has survived so much so far, and no one seems to be willing to put his feet to the fire. The idea of an untouchable president should scare the bejesus out of all of us, but it doesn't. That's the scariest thing of all.

FoolThemAll

Evidence of a bald-faced lie from the president, please. It's really odd, the ratio of times I've seen this accusation to times it's been supported.

Also rather interesting that many on the left that agreed with the peacekeeping efforts in other areas of the world suddenly found liberation to be an insufficient justification when used by a republican president. But I suppose that's a bit of a tangent.

Generalized language aside, you're right. Many conservatives became inconsistent in their beliefs during the Bush administration. Some resolved the dissonance by changing their views altogether, towards this 'neocon' mindset. It's hard to tell who genuinely had a change of heart and who changed merely to fit the conservative mainstream.

I believe that going to war was the right decision at the time, given the information known (and the information 'known') by the U.S. and others.

In retrospect? First off, it's a leap to claim that the ending of the search demonstrates that Iraq never had WMD. To ask a question already asked in this thread, a question I asked my TV screen last night while watching the Daily Show, exactly why is it unreasonable to suspect we can't find the WMDs in Iraq because they've been moved to Iran? Secondly, monetary ties to terrorism might be enough of a justification in my mind, depending on which terrorist groups.

If there really were no WMD and no U.S.-threatening terrorist ties?

I still wouldn't be considering it a completely wasteful venture. I'd still be expecting some good out of it. I'd still currently see some good in it. I'd still reject any relevance of alleged oil motives. I still wouldn't see the validity of Vietnam comparisons.

But I wouldn't have supported it.

And I wouldn't have supported it with the sketchy evidence we have right now. Unless there's some very damning evidence of a Saddam-terrorism link I've missed.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

boatin

I think you miss the point of 'many on the left'. My opinion is not that a war of liberation is a bad thing. My point is that that is not how the administration justified the war. THAT was WMD - back to the thread starter. The shifting justifications for war is what makes me crazy.

If it had been about liberation, there might have been a plan for how to actually do that without destroying the country/infrastructure.

If it had been about liberation, and Iraq were put on a list of other places that need liberation, and prioritized accordingly, I would have been all for it. But it wasn't. It was about WMD, remember?

But no one cares about that now. Somehow the American people have bought the notion of liberation.

FoolThemAll

See, I don't get that mindset. "The war has a good justification, but it's not the one being used officially. The one being used officially isn't true. Therefore, I'm against the war." That doesn't make sense to me.

That second paragraph I quoted is the first semblance of an explanation for that mindset I've heard. But it's my understanding that liberation WAS an objective from the start, even if it wasn't always a justification in their minds. I imagine that they did have a plan. Perhaps it wasn't the best they could've come up with.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

ObieX

Off the top of my head i could probably point to the claim that Iraq had attemped to purchase nuclear material from Africa. However this one is open to speculation due to the deniability and apparent "ignorance" of the president on this issue. Even though various agencies knew either that the information was worng or probably wrong they still signed off on it and it made it into the speach anyway. It is my belief that if you are going to mak a case to go to war, the evidence you produce had better be 100% undeniably TRUE beyond all reasonable doubt. The use of this HIGHLY suspect, if not blatantly false, information is distasteful to say the least.


There is a difference between a peace-keeping force and an invasion/occupation of an entire country and complete removal of it's government.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Willravel

Americans were told by President Bush and his administration that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq because of the imminent threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism.

"Saddam was a known and a visible threat, and we kept deferring dealing with him. The previous administration had, and even the incoming Bush administration was conducting a rather leisurely review of Iraq. Sept. 11 said, "Be careful. You don't have unlimited time to deal with these threats." So naturally attention focused on a threat that we had known and understood, but hadn't acted on." Quoted from Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defence Policy Board.

He went on to say "Weapons of mass destruction were, of course, an important part of the rationale. We knew that Saddam had them. The U.N. had determined that he had chemical and biological weapons, that he had a nuclear program that was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. He refused to account for those weapons.

"The inspectors had been constructively dismissed from Iraq in 1998. We knew there was activity hiding things. We knew the organization responsible for hiding them. So the picture was reasonably clear, although incomplete. He had weapons, he was moving them around, he had an organization to hide them and he wouldn't account for them. So it was an obvious concern. Sept. 11 had focused everyone's attention on what terrorists could do if they were to employ weapons of mass destruction. …"

This is a quote from Rishard Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations; director of policy planning at the State Department, March 2001 - June 2003:
"I think the first thing to say about this war is that it was an elective war. It was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war against Iraq; certainly not when we did, certainly not how we did it. I think the principal reason we did, from my point of view, was weapons of mass destruction. We knew that the Iraqis had chemical and biological weapons. They had a history of using chemical weapons. We obviously also knew their history of trying to acquire nuclear weapons. For many of us, a powerful argument was simply that we did not want to live with that uncertainty about what the Iraqis might do with it, whether they'd use them directly, whether they'd hand them off to terrorists. So war, if you will, was a policy choice to essentially interrupt the possibility that the Iraqis would either use or hand off weapons of mass destruction."

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...necessary.html

FoolThemAll

Yeah. Ratio remains the same.

Certainly. What's the relevant difference(s), in your view?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

ObieX

How do you NOT see a difference?

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Rdr4evr

10,000 civilian deaths? If only it were that low (as if that's not enough). Don't believe what the US media spews about how many civilian deaths have occured in Iraq as it is utter non-sense.

ObieX

That 10k number has been floating around for quite some time now. I'm sure its higher than that by now.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Rdr4evr

10k has been floating around since few months into the war. Imagine what that number could be now. Sad.

I don't know what everyone here is even arguing about. The fact is this:

Bush lied about WMD and ties to terrorism
Stupid citizens believed him
Bush illegally invaded Iraq killing thousands of innocent people
Stupid citizens re-elected him
Bush now states there are no WMD's
Stupid citizens will move on with their lives

ObieX

I still find it hilarious that so many people STILL believed that Iraq had ties to 9/11 at election time (and probably still do.) Even the president himself came out and said that Iraq had no ties to 9/11 at all whatsoever before the war with Iraq even began. Stupid citizens indeed.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

FoolThemAll

Link, please.

That wasn't what I asked. Of course I see differences. Which ones are relevant to the context?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

JohnBua

Look at the opposite of this. I guess the people in Iraq, accourding to you, can go die and be oppressed as long as you get free government money.

tellumFS

The New Yorker seems to think that the President mentioned the "yellow cake" purchase in his State of the Union, and that it didn't happen.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

That's the first link I could find...There's more regarding that.

tellumFS

Ohp, and the Washington Post didn't seem to agree with the Al-Qaeda links, either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

From the article:

and

Do a search for the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Bush has stated repeatedly that Iraq was a central front in the War on Terror. This at the very best was misleading, as many Americans make the connection between "War on Terror" and "Al-Qaeda".

Rdr4evr

I thought it was common knowledge that Bush lied to justify war. Either way, if you do a simple search, you will get a good 30,000 pages that explain his lies in detail. For example, the one below is nice and comprehensive.
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/

ObieX

The relevent difference is that this war was not needed. Usually when America sends in a peace-keeping force there is usually an actual fight that needs someone to step between. I liken a peace-keeping force to a principal or teacher stepping in between two fighting students and sending them each to their respective corner. This war however was more like the teacher walking up to a student doodling on his desk and punching him in the face.

This has nothing to do with (D) vs. (R). This has everything to do with RIGHT AND WRONG. This has everything to do with bringing death to tens of thousands of INNOCENT people in Iraq in my name, in your name, in your neighbor's name, in you mother's name, in my mother's name.. in the name of every single citizen of the United States of America. That blood is now on OUR hands. I for one don't like having blood on my hands over false information and lies.

There was doubt about almost every single piece of information posed to justify this war. As i said above, if you are going to take your country to war you had DAMN well better be sure you KNOW what you're doing it for.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

tellumFS

And for the number of deaths - Right now there are no real reliable numbers on civilian deaths, but estimates are between 17,000-100,000. Depends on who you ask, I guess.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...16_3?hub=World

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in660728.shtml

Mephisto2

I'm not sure which logic (or argument) you are referring to.

I have no "logical" reason to defend Bush or state that impeachment is inappropriate. That's just my opinion. Everyone here should know I'm no fan of the current Administration, and/or Bush in particular!

You know, I think the Republicans devalued the American political system in their hate-campaign against Clinton. Calling for his impeachment because he lied over a blow-job was just ridiculous. It set a dangerous precendent. Now, impeachment is tossed around willy-nilly by political pundits.

- He lied? Impeach him!
- He was wrong, and should have known better? Impeach him!
- I don't like the current President. Impeach him!
- You tried it with our guy. Impeach him!

It gets tiresome.

Impeachment should only be used in extreme cases. In the face of a clear and consistent, pre-meditated and cynical attempt to lie to the People (capital P) or the Senate/Congress, with a view to hiding, promoting or undertaking illegal activity. I'm not convinced Bush is guilty of this. Why? Not because I don't think he lied, but because there's still debate on whether (as far as the US is concerned) the war was illegal in the first place. Furthermore, impeaching Bush because there were no WMDs found is just plain silly. I believe he believed there were. Hell, even I believed there were. In fact, and let's not forget this, there were WMDs. We know this because Hussein used them.

What really bugs me is the changing of the goal-posts. Now we continue to hear that Iraq was linked to 9/11, that Iraq was sponsoring anti-American international terrorism, that the war was to protect America. This is all nonesense. That's why I don't like Bush. At least, that's one reason. But even I don't see the value in impeaching him. Why descend to the Republican levels of political cynicism and pettiness?

He lied to justify the war. Well, so what? He should not have been reelected. But he was, so the American people (or at least 50.1% of them) don't care. Let's move on and chalk this one up to experience. Next time you want to run against a popular President, make sure to choose a candidate with charm and one that appeals to the Southern states. Not that difficult really.

Do you think Bush personally approved torture? I do not. I think Rumsfeld did and should be sacked. But not the President.

Yes it does. And that's the [raison d'etre of a democracy. If you don't like what an Administration does, vote it out. The American people had their chance and, depending upon your opinion, either stuffed up or supported his policies regardless. But impeachment over this? I don't believe so.

Honestly, I don't think it would have made much difference. You know why? Because, whilst foreign policy and US actions in Iraq may mean a lot to Democrats. But guess what? The majority of Republicans just don't care. The election was won (again) on domestic issues and, most people agree, on "moral issues". The Democrats failed to take the high moral ground. They let themselves be defined by the Republicans. They reacted to smears and innuendo. They didn't act or seize the initiative. They were seen to be wishy-washy. For shame!! The DNC should all be sacked and someone who knows what they are doing should handle the next election.

This information would have made no difference to the election. In fact, this information is just a repeat of the Interim Report from September 2004. Didn't make much difference then, won't make much difference now.


I agree. And I don't believe Bush would have been involved in sanctioning the actions in Abu Ghraib or Guatanamo Bay. As far as I know, it has been proven that this was Tenet, Rumsfeld and new AG designate (Rodriugez?).

Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached.

- He hasn't done anything impeachable
- Impeaching him would limit the freedom of subsequent Presidents
- Impeachment would set a dangerous precedent
and most importantly
- Bush is not WORTH using such a powerful tool

Just don't re-elect one of his cronies in four years time.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

EXACTLY!!!!

Use the tools at your disposal and elect a Democrat. Stop whining about the fact that Bush was re-elected even though he didn't deserve it. Most of us know that, but that's the flip-side of living in a democracy!

Keep impeachment for criminals like Nixon.


Mr Mephisto

Lebell

Thank you for an excellent post, Mr. Mephisto.

Yes, we could continue to argue this issue and yes, I could bring up the reasons why the invasion was still justified yet again, but honestly, what would be the purpose?

Those who insist Bush should be impeached will not change their mind (as they did not change their mind the other 99 times the arguments were presented), so I think that the best thing to do is move on and find what common ground we can, as well as to learn from our mistakes, as I think the current administration is doing.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

“With the might of God on our side we will triumph over Iraq. God will watch over our troops and grant us a victory over the threat of Saddam’s army. God will bless us and keep us safe in the coming battle.” GWB - State of the Union Address

“God told me to strike at al Qa’ida and I struck them."
and
"And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." - GWB - quoted July 1, 2003 issue of Haaretz, one of Israel's leading newspapers

Bush condemned Osama Bin Laden for declaring a Holy Jihad on America and the West, but he does the very same thing in defending his reasons for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. If God is going to tell us to attack people, maybe He can show us where the WMDs are and maybe He can link Saddam with the al Qaeda. Just a reminder.

Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq were:
1. Possible connections with al Qaeda
2. WMDs
3. Liberation

We've already seen that 1 and 2 were wrong. If #3 turnes out to be a lie, will that finally convince people this was the wrong war? Nope. Some people are stuck in their dissonsnce. The cognative dissonence pandemic will not be undone by news reports. This may take years and generations to undo.

I don't want to impeach Bush, I just want to remind him that he is responsible for the lives of ever American and the lives of people in countries we invade as well. He is responsible for the 17,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost in the second Gulf War, just as Saddam is responsbile for the million lives he took from his own people when he was in power. As the head of the executive branch and commander in cheif of the armed forces, the ultimate responsibility of the Iraq war is his. Going in to Iraq without a well planned exit strategy and basing the invasion on poor intelligence is his responsibility.

Mephisto2

Well said.

Indeed, not only remind him, but remind everyone who voted for him.


Mr Mephisto

tellumFS

Indeed, perhaps the use of impeachment is strong. But, at the very least, I do think he needs a censure. Can the Congress do that? I don't see why not.

I'd imagine that impeaching him would just turn him into a martyr...something I'd rather not see.

That said, I still think he's a very poor leader. (And I'm sticking to the lying accusation, I do think he willfully mislead the American people, and tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the U.N.)

uncle_el

perhaps there are two young hobbits scurrying up a mountain currently!!!

i'm not surprised by the information (as noted by mr mephisto, this is just a reiteration of information already provided)... but it just saddens me that people still don't see the light. i fear that this too will be glossed over, as many of the things that have occurred during bush's reign over america, have been glossed over.

__________________
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

matthew330

That's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

\\Pats Rdr4evr on the head

I feel confident you'll move on with your life as well, a little less drama might speed the process along.

roachboy

my plan is to track down some of the books cited in the nytimes review above to see about the extent of sanctioning of torture (by which i mean the admnistrative levels that sanctioned it---we know already the ag, rumsfeld, the highest levels of the military command. but it is, after all, bush's responsibility, and you will not convince me that he did not condone these practices. but i have not seen a smoking gun, so to speak. my interest in the word impeachment is, again, directly tied to this matter.

as for the question of the war, in general i actually agree with you, mr mephisto, in your last post. i do however have trouble maintaining sang froid about it. maybe because i have to live here. and i do not find it a good thing at all, for anyone, that any administration is allowed (explicitly or implicitly) to lie to the public about the reasons for war. i would have said the same thing about johnson had he run for, then been elected to, a second term as a function of the tonkin gulf fantasy.

except on one point: i am not sure i buy the idea that lying to the public about war is or should be part of the presidents "freedom" to exercize power. i am not sure of the precedent. but the bottom line is that i would consider torture to be the issue around which a cogent argument for impeachment could be elaborated.

given the appalling way in which this administration has carried out damage control, i think that the counter argument would be that impeachment would be tantamount to a judicial coup d'etat. well, so be it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mephisto2

Well ignoring the petty minded insulting tone of your post, why do you think it's stupid?

Mr Mephisto

Rdr4evr

It's stupid to you for obvious reasons, which are better left unsaid. I also find your comment amusing because you can throw out insults, but you can't prove me wrong. The truth hurts doesn't it?

Mephisto2

I didn't exactly mean it like that.

I meant that if Bush is impeached for invading a country, with the support of Congress and key Democratic party members, and it turns out later that the invasion was wrong and/or based upon faulty intelligence, then later Presidents are less likely to engage in interventionist engagements.

Perhaps that's a good thing.


Mr Mephisto