Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Pelosi: We don’t want to hear any good news
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, April 05, 2008

This just chaps my, well, it irritates the hell out of me:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

“We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when in fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.
Nancy Pelosi wouldn't know "ground truth" in Iraq if it was spoon fed to her. And she certainly hasn't any idea of ground truth in Basra. What Nancy Pelosi is doing is rewording the embarrassing "willing suspension of disbelief" Hillary Clinton used. In fact, Pelosi, et al, aren't really interested in what Petraeus and Crocker say and they damn sure don't want to hear anything which could be interpreted as good news.

What a poor argument for the benefits of a seniority system she and Harry Reid are.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I also note that Maliki has ceased government raids in the region, making it appear ever more a victory for Sadr. With a massive Shi’ite protest planned, this is still a volatile situation. So yeah, I think it would be wrong for Petraeus to try to spin Basra, he needs to be straightforward. I don’t read anything in that statement that says ’no good news.’ Even the Iraqi government admitted that Iran played a major role in ending the violence. So I expect from Petraeus what he gave us last time: a straight, sober, honest assessment. I don’t see that Pelosi is asking for anything less.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Circle this date on your calendar and alert the media! I agree with Scott Erb.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Nancy’s statement was made Apr 3rd. The Iraqis were still fighting as of early Friday.

So Erb, unless Nancy is announcing strategic information out of turn, she was talking about the incorrectly reported ceasefire of earlier in the week.

Regardless, unlike the early mistake ceasefire reports, it seems that its Maliki who’s in the driver’s seat.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
So I expect from Petraeus what he gave us last time: a straight, sober, honest assessment. I don’t see that Pelosi is asking for anything less.
My take on McQs post was that very point. What gives Pelosi the impression that Patraeus would present anything less than a "straight, sober, honest assessment." To even imply anything less is insulting. She is merely setting the stage for what I expect will be another "willing suspension of disbelief" moment, but this time coming from Pelosi.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Yep, the Iranians did in fact play a major role.... after members of the Iraqi parliament took a page from the Copperhead playbook and went behind his back.

Shades of Jim McDermott, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Good Democrats all.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
My take on McQs post was that very point. What gives Pelosi the impression that Patraeus would present anything less than a "straight, sober, honest assessment." To even imply anything less is insulting

I love coming here and watching people who spend every waking moment calling every government statement a lie, and every politician and bureaucrat a liar, come over here and get shocked at the very idea that military officers would lie to the public. You would think that the Vietnam War was 200 years ago instead of 20.
Heck, you would think that the entire period of 2003-2007 January, full of military officers telling the public all kinds of optimistic statements that were not lies, had never happened at all. Down the memory hole we go, etc.

Now, me personally, I don’t expect General Petraeus to tell any falsifiable lies. Heck, I don’t have any particular suspicions at all that he won’t generally believe what they’re saying. That’s the fun part of questions like "So how are things going with your job responsibilities?" There’s no such thing as lying. Any opinion you have in the world, it’s as true as any other one.

Like any military officer - or any other human being with a shred of ambition in similar circumstances - Petraeus will put the most positive-sounding assessment on his own job performance and results, as humanly possible. Anyone in a management position who takes his opinions at face value is a fool. Nancy Pelosi’s a pretty smart cookie, nor has she backed down in the face of absurd right-wing villification over kabuki political bullsh*t.

For Q, of course, this isn’t about accuracy. It’s about glorification and the paying of homage to the institution he personally identifies with. Let us not question the character of members of the Master Race - clearly scum like us are not even fit to raise the question.

But we will.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
members of the Master Race
And there we have it. Glassy’s true beliefs on the military. Godwin’s law? bueller?

You used to be a worthwhile opponent, but now you sound like a less intelligent mkultra, and believe me that is scrapping the bottom of that particular barrel.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Glasnost has a point: you guys are very cynical of big government programs and trusting politicians, yet when it comes to the war and military officials, it’s as if somehow it’s an insult to doubt what the government says. There’s a disconnect there.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Glasnost has a point:
about the master race?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t know "ground truth" in Iraq if it was spoon fed to her. And she certainly hasn’t any idea of ground truth in Basra.
I understand that Pelosi’s perspective on this is different than McQ’s, but reports are that she’s a pretty intelligent and successful woman, so I doubt if the above insult is accurate. It seems more of a "if you don’t share my point of view then you deserve to be ridiculed" kind of attack.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Glasnost has a point: you guys are very cynical of big government programs and trusting politicians, yet when it comes to the war and military officials, it’s as if somehow it’s an insult to doubt what the government says. Don’t you see that soldiers are no better than politicians? The fact that they volunteer to go into harm’s way to protect the rest of us is completely irrelevant. They are not perfect, and we know that because of Abu Graib, Haditha, and so forth. Therefore by the holy principle of moral equivalence, they’re no better than a congressman that stores his payoffs in his freezer.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
I understand that Pelosi’s perspective on this is different than McQ’s, but reports around the faculty lounge are that she’s a pretty intelligent and successful woman. After all, she was smart enough to know the surge wasn’t working, just as I was, and you dense righties just keep on saying it was successful even though we anti-war leftists, with our godlike powers of political science, have categorically declared it a failure. So I doubt if the above insult is accurate, at least from the perspective of someone who wouldn’t recognize intelligence if it spit in his eye.

It seems more of a "if you don’t share my point of view then you deserve to be ridiculed" kind of attack. Just like everyone does against me all the time. How you can do that to we brilliant leftists is just beyond me.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Erb, how would you react to the Dean of your school announcing to the School newspaper that it would be nice if Professor Erb would not resort to Palgiarism. The implication?

When someone swears to tell the truth, which Patreaus will swear to do do when offering testimony to congress, you would expect to hear the truth. But I guess not so in your world. To you and Glasnost, you expect all will lie in order to push an agenda. Would you lie under oath? If not, then why would you expect Patreaus to do so.

And as for Glasnost:
clearly scum like us are not even fit to raise the question.
You called it right. I agree with you - You are scum!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
You used to be a worthwhile opponent, but now you sound like a less intelligent mkultra

It pisses me off when Q gets lathered up on the moral thundering horse, along the lines of "how dare Nancy Pelosi question this modern-day DeGaulle in any of his statements". Um, because it’s literally her fuc*ing job to do *exactly* that?

We don’t hold Congressional Hearings on the performance of military operations for Congresspersons to compliment Gen. Petraeus on his bloody haircut and give pro forma victory speeches.

What Q seems to want from Pelosi re Petraeus is reverence and obedience. Her mind on Iraq should be the Buddhist Rock Garden, a blank slate from which his words should fill, and she should simply listen and accept, then go forth and regurgitate. In the real world, that would be literal stupidity.

And, Capt. Joe? Spare me the "Hate the troops" bullsh*t, as you’ve been right there on the bandwagon when Q dissects and "questions the judgement" of military folk such as Sanchez, Fallon, various retired generals, antiwar veterans, etc, etc, etc. There’s a corno-f*cking-copia of military folks out there who think this war is dumb, and none of you give them the time of day before merrilly throwing them over the side. You support the troops who tell you what you want to hear - and that’s the end. No beef with Gen. P. specifically, but asking any general on how his operation is going is like asking a CEO how his company is doing. There’s only one imaginable answer. It’s got nothing to do with the man or his institution. I’ve got nothing against the guy myself, but there’s no way he deserves the kind of free pass & or foot massage that Q seems to think is his due.




 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I think Pelosi could have been more tactful in use of words, and in assuming that the General would put a spin on the events. Should I assume that she will make the event into a political circus, then, based on the same cynicism?

Also, did anyone hear think Petraeus put a spin on the Surge’s chances before it happened? No. In fact, the military kept downplaying the potential successes...
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
p.s. Glasnost, CEO’s often have to tell the bad news, too. Yes, while they think their plans have a chance, sometimes they have lay people off and re-structure. They also have quarterly profit reports that can only be massaged so much.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://

Glasnost!
It pisses me off when Q gets lathered up on the moral thundering horse, along the lines of "how dare Nancy Pelosi question this modern-day DeGaulle in any of his statements". Um, because it’s literally her fuc*ing job to do *exactly* that?
Look in her quotes. Do you see a question mark anywhere in there? She’s not questioning anything. So I guess she’s not doing her job by your standards. And that was kinda McQ’s point.

You claim that Patraeus is ambitious, but unless he intends to run for office, he’s pretty much at the top of his game. Pelosi on the other hand is on the record stating that the war is lost and unwinnable, so her credibility and her legacy as the first woman Speaker of the House is on the line and it’s ultimate affect on the electoral future of the Democrats. Mark my words, glasnost, come November anti-war, will no longer be a winner.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com

It pisses me off when Q gets lathered up on the moral thundering horse, along the lines of "how dare Nancy Pelosi question this modern-day DeGaulle in any of his statements". Um, because it’s literally her fuc*ing job to do *exactly* that?
Exactly. If it were a Republican congress and they were investigating the IRS, and the same kind of thing was said about the head of the IRS, then I doubt their moral outrage would be so intense — quite the opposite. Because he personally like Petraeus (or at least what he symbolizes — I doubt McQ knows him well enough to really know his personality), they seem to think it wrong or insulting to warn him ahead of time not to spin and to be fully honest. But of course that’s the job of oversight. Petraeus does not deserve any kid gloves treatment just because he wears a uniform, that’s irrelevant to the task at hand. Because routinely, government officials testifying before Congress put the best spin on their particular situation, and committee hearings always have to dig to make sure they are getting the full story. That’s how bureaucratic politics is played, that’s the dance between the executive branch and Congress, especially when Congress is effectively using its oversight powers.

And when I read what Pelosi said, I really can’t understand McQ’s outrage. She didn’t say anything against him, she seemed reasonable. But to McQ it suggests she is too stupid to know truth when it is spoon fed to her, and it essentially he launches a broadside personal attack. Bizarre.

For what it’s worth, I think Petraeus is generally honest, and probably isn’t bothered by Pelosi’s comments, she’s signalling to him the kind of questions she’ll ask. In a sense, it helps him.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
It pisses me off when Q gets lathered up on the moral thundering horse, along the lines of "how dare Nancy Pelosi question this modern-day DeGaulle in any of his statements".
Quit whining Glasnost -it’s a very simple point: There’s a time and a place for questioning whatever Petraeus has to say, and that’s in the hearing. Until then she should keep her pie hole shut, cool the preemptive attacks and quit inferring that anything but the truth is what she expects. My guess is she wouldn’t know the truth if it paraded in front of her. And frankly, given her track record, she should be more worried about her credibility than someone else’s.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Until then she should keep her pie hole shut
No, that’s never how it’s done. You need to educate yourself on how Washington works, McQ. This is normal, it’s nothing for you to get into get into a lather over and launch personal insults against Pelosi. I think you’re realizing the surge is failing (Biden said so too, and he’s no anti-war fringe — quite the contrary) and you don’t like the way the discourse is turning. Well, take it out on Pelosi if you wish, but the reality is that she speaks for much of the country in telling the government: give us the full story, don’t spin. I, for one, trust Petraeus will, but I think it’s important that Congress send the Executive branch a message: we’re taking our job seriously, and we expect not to have the usual spin that so many witnesses before committees give. Petraeus isn’t special just because he wears a uniform. It’s called Congressional oversight, Petraeus has to answer to Congress.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
PS - Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency, a very powerful person whose duty it is to make sure Congress gets the whole picture on current conditions, so as to determine what they will fund/approve. Petraeus is a government official, in the military, in charge of an important operation in Iraq. He is far below Pelosi in the power structure, and she is no more out of line than any superior who is telling a subordinate "I don’t want this report to be rosey, I want the facts." I think also Pelosi has to say something like this so that the left in her party are convinced that she’s not going to avoid the tough issues — she was criticized by that wing of her party for being too soft on Petraeus and the administration in the past. So this is normal. Petraeus, I’m sure, understands all that.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
It’s called Congressional oversight, Petraeus has to answer to Congress.
There you are wrong - although it may just be semantics. Petraeus has to report to Congress, he answers only to his chain of command and Congress is nowhere in that chain.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency
Then her comments about Petreaus were very un-Presidential.
she is no more out of line than any superior who is telling a subordinate
And I guess, from her perspective, she may very well consider herself his superior. But as I mentioned previously, Patreaus answers to his chain of command and Pelosi is nowhere in that chain. That is not to say she not deserving the respect of her position, and Patreaus has done nothing disrespectful toward her or Congress - regardless of how little they deserve that respect (my opinion).
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
General Petraeus is a West Point graduate and a brilliant, professional military officer, who unlike Congress, is responsible through his chain of command to abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In his capacity as Commander, he is required to submit a report and present it to Congress. That report is an official statement. Here is what the UCMJ says:

"907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

"Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

If Congress were subject to UCMJ, political activity would be much different.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
No, that’s never how it’s done. You need to educate yourself on how Washington works, McQ. In Washington, Democrats are allowed to demagogue any issue at any time. Republicans, of course, are not, and our faithful colleagues at the NYT and Washington Post will call them on it if they do. But Democrats can say anything they need to that promotes gaining and holding power.

This is normal, it’s nothing for you to get into get into a lather over and launch personal insults against Pelosi. I think you’re realizing the surge is failing (Biden said so too, and he’s no anti-war fringe — quite the contrary) and you don’t like the way the discourse is turning. Of course, I’ve said many variations on that ever since the first casualty drops, but all we on the anti-war left have to do is keep up the pressure and rhetoric about how the surge is failing, and our allies, uh, sorry, the terrorists in the Middle East will get the signal and keep on killing innocent people, therefore making our predictions come true. And that’s not our fault, even though if we projected a united front that would lessen the violence. Because our responsibility is to humble the US, and it doesn’t really matter how many innocent people have to die to make that happen. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, as it were.

Of course, this reality is a bitter pill for you to swallow. Well, take it out on Pelosi if you wish, but the reality is that she speaks for much of the country in telling the government: give us the full story, don’t spin. Well, except the news media of course. Their job is to spin government and war news so the left side looks good and you Republicans, soldiers, and conservatives look like the mean baby killers you are.

I, for one, trust Petraeus will, but I think it’s important that Congress send the Executive branch a message: we’re taking our job seriously, and that job is to retain power by any means necessary. Because we’re so much more moral and caring than you righties. And we expect not to have the usual spin that so many witnesses before committees give. Petraeus isn’t special just because he wears a uniform. No one who wears a uniform is special. I’ve already covered that earlier: Soldiers have been caught doing bad things, and by the holy principle of moral equivalance, they’re no better than criminals.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
If Congress were subject to UCMJ, political activity would be much different.
One thing I learned while living in Washington is not only that lies are common in American politics, but expected. Of course staff of a Senator are working on his or her re-election, even though obviously it’s illegal. I trust Petraeus more than I would most any politician because politicians aren’t held to much of standard, unless they make a Spitzer like error or claim they were under sniper fire when they weren’t. I just don’t think Pelosi’s statement was all that objectionable — also, I suspect it was aimed at much at her party’s left (to assure them she’ll be tough) as at Petraeus.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
One thing I learned while living in Washington (note how I seamlessly work in my superior experience) is not only that lies are common in American politics, but expected. Of course staff of a Senator are working on his or her re-election, even though obviously it’s illegal. But whatever it takes to retain power - you know how it is.

I trust Petraeus more than I would most any politician because politicians aren’t held to much of standard. And that in no way contradicts my earlier quote of "Don’t you see that soldiers are no better than politicians?" Because the magnificent edifice of post-modernism allows this kind of pseudo-contradiction, as long as each part is useful in refuting the mean, nasty attacks of the right.

Republican politicians should be removed from office as soon as they praise Strom Thurmond, but Democratic politicians are not held to any kind of responsibility at all for their actions, especially unless they make a Spitzer like error or claim they were under sniper fire when they weren’t. I just don’t think Pelosi’s statement was all that objectionable. It plays right into my own prejudices, so of course I thought it was fine. Also, I suspect it was aimed at much at her party’s left (to assure them she’ll be tough) as at Petraeus. And reassuring the left is plenty of excuse for lying or any other activities that will allow Pelosi to retain power.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
One thing I learned while living in Washington is not only that lies are common in American politics, but expected.
It is a sad commentary indeed if that is the legacy of American politics.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
It is a sad commentary indeed if that is the legacy of American politics.
Yes - I came back from DC very cynical. I left at a time when my career there was moving forward, maybe it was the naive South Dakotan in me, but I just hated the power games and fundamental dishonesty. I was 25, and my dad thought I was crazy — he had to go from saying his son was working as an aide to a Senator, going on trips to Greece and Turkey, etc., to saying I was now a night manager at a Rocky Rococo’s in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. But it was the best decision I ever made, and one reason why I retain a real distrust of American politics. No disrespect to those who play the political game, there are pragmatic idealists there who say "this sucks, but if only the plotting power hungry types play then we’re really screwed." I respect those folk for trying to bring some honor to politics. But I couldn’t play that kind of game.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Hate the troops" bullsh*t,
When you call them nazis then that is a fairly large amount of hate, n’est-ce-pas?

As for the rest of what you said here is my answer —- Yawn
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
When you call them nazis then that is a fairly large amount of hate, n’est-ce-pas?
Except, of course, they aren’t being called Nazis. People tried to use Dick Durbin’s comment where he compared the tactics used in some cases to the tactics used by the Nazis, but that is a far cry from actually calling ’the troops’ Nazis. There are real questions about torture and US tactics. One can compare the choices with those of more heinous regimes. One can reject that comparison. But it is dishonest to try to say that the comparison is the same as calling the troops Nazis, or espousing hate.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
but that is a far cry from actually calling ’the troops’ Nazis.
Well, there was that master race comment, so I am definitely do think that Glassy intended that specific meaning, otherwise why make that kind of comparison.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Now, me personally, I don’t expect General Petraeus to tell any falsifiable lies. Heck, I don’t have any particular suspicions at all that he won’t generally believe what they’re saying.
Well, it’s a good thing you’re guarding that Wall of Truth for every one of us. We owe you our gratitude. Godspeed.
Nancy Pelosi’s a pretty smart cookie

reports are that she’s a pretty intelligent and successful woman
Aren’t these the type of statements about Petraus that make you gag? These are the sober and balanced assessments... from the View.
Um, because it’s literally her fuc*ing job to do *exactly* that?
Please spare me. She’s surely not doing it out of a service-to-country orientation as opposed to giving the leftist pitbulls some raw beef. To believe the former is the real suspension of disbelief. She’s from the most liberal district in CA. She simply HAS to say such things for fear that her home will burn to the ground.
Her mind on Iraq should be the Buddhist Rock Garden, a blank slate from which his words should fill, and she should simply listen and accept, then go forth and regurgitate.
You don’t have a problem with that on Kos or MyDD. Why should it be any different here?
(or at least what he symbolizes — I doubt McQ knows him well enough to really know his personality
Oh so rich given your personal testament to Pelosi’s character. Or... do you KNOW her? How often does she visit Maine?
You need to educate yourself on how Washington works, McQ.
More frothy richness. (Sits at master’s feet.) Tell us how it works, Prime Minister. No, I mean how it REALLY works. Pomposity redux!
(Biden said so too, and he’s no anti-war fringe — quite the contrary)
But he’s a Democrat first, meaning he simply must not go all George Bush on the war. He can’t afford to, for fear that his house will be burned to the ground and a giant Rove effigy will be burned on his lawn.
But it was the best decision I ever made, and one reason why I retain a real distrust of American politics.
...despite my nagging penchant for assuming Dems are generally good and decent people.
People tried to use Dick Durbin’s comment where he compared the tactics used in some cases to the tactics used by the Nazis, but that is a far cry from actually calling ’the troops’ Nazis.
This is fundamental to your disconnect to the average American. I realize that as an academic you have a refined ability to parse words over and beyond most of us flyover types, but it forms the basis for your general dishonesty in regards to these situations. Politicians (or anyone else for that matter) don’t need to use Nazi or Pol Pot references to describe war-time actions unless they intend to paint with that broad brush. Otherwise, basic descriptions of the isolated incident would do just fine. This is what honest observers do. The fact that you tend to excuse these sorts of things from certain public figures speaks volumes... about you.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider