LEVERAGE: Our Soldier’s HOMECOMINGS, KOCH BROTHERS, HALIBURTON, CONGRESS, & finally THE END OF WARS
LEVERAGE: Our Soldier’s HOMECOMINGS, KOCH BROTHERS, HALIBURTON, CONGRESS, & finally THE END OF WARS
By Kevin Stoda
I was watching an old episode of LEVERAGE [1] the other night. This was the episode, known as “The Homecoming Job”, and it certainly strikes me to be as pertinent as ever to development and understanding of contemporary American culture, political-economy, and social memory.
Here is a short summary of that 2008 episode. “In the . . . ‘The Homecoming Job’, the [Leverage] team (now operating as Leverage Consulting & Associates) runs a scam on the head of a military contracting firm responsible for critically injuring their client, a US Army reservist. Ford's old insurance company is mentioned in this episode. They learn that the company has stolen taxpayer money from the government, and Nathan insists they arrange to return it to the government (although they do keep a portion for the hospital treating the injured veteran).”
As noted above, I was struck by how current this 2008 TV program is. You should be similarly dismayed. This is particularly true because the reality of war and of congressional manipulation by corporations remain at the heart of what is wrong in & with America—now and historically. Even this past month there have been further scandals from private military contracts, government soldiers losing track of monies in war zones, and congressmen who are fully in the pockets of an out-of-control schemes & scandals of unbelievable proportions vexing our economy and the American desired role in the world.
(1) AMERICAN FORCES ARE STILL IN IRAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_%28TV_series%29#Episodes
The aforementioned fictional [LEVERAGE episode #1: 2008] story remains still current most of all because America still has troops in Iraq and American soldiers are still “Coming Home” from that war wounded. See the CNN special link (below) which commemorates only a small percentage of American Homecoming Casualties in both wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html
You can get other up-to-date data or information on American military war deaths from the Military Times as well.
http://militarytimes.com/valor/
Last August 2010, when Obama made a speech to the troops in Iraq, there were still 50,000 troops in there, and since that date, wounded soldiers continue to come home.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/02/text-of-obamas-speech-on-iraq/
Reports are that Obama currently will leave 40,000 troops in Iraq through this next election cycle.
Meanwhile, American families are still crying for attention: "Don't forget us. . . . ‘We're still there, It's not over until ever last soldier is home.’"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/31/eveningnews/main6823851.shtml
In the “Homecoming” episode, the Leverage characters note the obvious: There was a lot of wasted and stolen money in the bungled USA takeover of Iraq during the first few years of that war. For example, in the film it is claimed that at 9 billion dollars soon went missing. (The actual numbers are much higher.) Worse, since the invasion in 2003, there have been a lot of lost lives [2] for which many Americans and their friends and families are still paying heavily as individuals and communities. They are paying physically, financially, and emotionally.
““Every vote that Congress has taken for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has failed to take into account the actual cost of these wars by ignoring what will be required to meet the needs of veterans,” said Chairman [House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Bob] Filner. “The Congress that sends them into harm’s way assumes no responsibility for the long-term consequences of their deployment. Each war authorization and appropriation kicks the proverbial can down the road. Whether or not the needs of soldiers injured or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan will be met is totally dependent on the budget politics of a future Congress which includes two sets of rules – one for going to war and one for providing for our veterans who fight in that war.”
http://democrats.veterans.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=642
The fact is, Iraq and Afghanistan have been wars of long-term-attrition for all sides in the conflict. The rule of guerilla fighting and many other modern-war practices today is to create as many wounded as possible. This is primarily because, usually, it takes three, four or more soldiers working-together to rescue each injured soldier in a battle arena—hence mines are the favored weapon by both sides over both the short and long term.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/12/eveningnews/main6477674.shtml
Robert D. Kaplan has written, “The long tail of suffering that extends from the war front to the home front, and from dead and wounded soldiers and marines, sailors and airmen, to their wives and children, and to their children’s children, is statistically numbing and heartrending. Of the 2.2 million American troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, several hundred thousand have sustained physical and psychological wounds. The figures of 4,417 dead from Iraq and 1,368 from Afghanistan (as of November 10, 2010) are well-known and oft-quoted. But the physically wounded from both wars number more than 40,000, a staggering number, and roughly three-quarters of them have been wounded in a serious life- and family-affecting way. According to the Army Office of the Surgeon General, between 2001 and 2009 doctors performed 1,286 amputations, three-quarters of which were of major limbs.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=903
This is why just this past week the U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that in his opinion: “any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.”
http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/defense-secretary-robert-gates-in-my-opinion-any-future-defense-secretary-who-advises-the-president-to-again-send-a-big-american-land-army-into-asia-or-into-the-middle-east-or-africa-should-have-h/
Meanwhile, many American (and Canadian) veterans wonder if it was all worth it because they feel too-often mistreated when they come home, i.e. often due to the lack of care at some medical facilities they have either had to beg to receive or have never, in fact, received. [3]
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/your-local-veterans-administration-hospital
The writers for the TV series LEVERAGE (from 2008) certainly continue to strike chords with many Veterans who feel that their hospital and clinics of the Veteran Administration have continued to be underfunded. Too many—such as those portrayed in LEVERAGE’s “Homecoming”--have had to seek or now desire to obtain outside medical treatment and resources upon arriving stateside.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/19/buck-once-again-va/
(2) WASTED AND STOLEN MONEYS IN IRAQ OCCUPATION EFFORT
Naturally, if much of the trillions of U.S. tax dollars that had been funneled into the Iraq War, Iraq Rebuilding, and Iraq Occupation efforts had not been stolen, misused or given to the wrong folks, there might be some sense of support left in American hearts and pocket books for some of the continuing Asian wars and occupations in 2011. However, this has not been the case. American trust in the military’s word on anything is as low as its expectations that the continuing wars and occupations in Asia will succeed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/28/951034/-Maybe-you-shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-supported-trillions-in-unfunded-wars
Let’s get the facts straight! Only a decade ago, “[d]eficits weren’t a priority when nearly all Republicans and a good number of Democrats voted for the ill conceived and ill advised invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq close to a decade ago. They weren’t a priority when tens, if not hundreds of billions went to waste or were just “lost” in Iraq – not knowing if they ended up in the hands of those who were the stated enemy. They weren’t a priority when billions of no-bid contracts were handed out like candy, with no accounting.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/28/951034/-Maybe-you-shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-supported-trillions-in-unfunded-wars
The American public has given congress and the executive branch an incredibly long leash. However, following the housing crash--that was followed by a stock market and mutual fund crash -- and the 11+ percent or more national jobless rate, the American public have had enough of the DOD’s bottomless pits in Asia.
In short, the party has long been over for the excesses of George W. Bush’s 3 wars: War on Terror, War on Afghanistan, and War on Iraq. Yet, the Congress and Executive Branch keep the sink hole widening. Americans, as a whole due not believe in the bankrupt paradigms of the Clinton’s, the McCains, the Roy Blunts, the Pat Roberts--and the majority of other congressmen in the USA!!! [4]
http://www.mfso.org/
There has been little concern in Washington over the decade for “the drain on the economy, [i.e.] the massive deficits being caused by these trillions – coupled with the massive tax cuts at the same time. [Likewise] There was little to no concern when the levees in Louisiana couldn’t hold back, despite prior warnings. [Similarly] There was little to no concern when bridges were collapsing in Minnesota” etc.
In summary, there has been “little to no concern when the amount of money being borrowed was a neverending pit, or when the weapons being used weren’t really suitable for the kind of “war” that was being waged. There was little to no concern when the debt was piling up and our country’s coffers were being raided for “business opportunities” for looting by private companies post invasion rebuilding. There was little to no concern that this government was paying private contractors scads of money for ‘security’ in Iraq – with no accountability and on numerous instances, with highly questionable behavior.”
This situation has not changed through March 2011.
INVESTMENTS THAT KEEP ON GIVING
In the “Homecoming” episode of the LEVERAGE, one of the military contractor and other main character posing as a private military-contractor-lobbyist stated basically the truism in America today:
“There is no better investment in today’s insecure economy than to elect your own congressmen. Most congressmen are reelected as incumbents and stay in office on average about 20 years.” [5]
According to the military dependent industries and corporate America as a whole, this is an investment that keeps on giving and one which is worth reinvesting and maintaining over the long term, America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
As I heard that truism about investing in American congressmen, I recoiled in horror but recognized that is certainly how the Koch Brothers and others play the game.
http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/blog/?p=1755
“David and Charles Koch each worth $21 billion. They own Koch industries, an oil and chemical giant that stands the second largest privately owned company in the U.S. In 1980, David Koch ran to the right of Ronald Reagan as a libertarian party`s vice presidential candidate. When that failed, they changed tactics and decided to buy Washington instead.” See the endnote on how this is done in more detail. [6]
The Koch brothers and most all congressmen are operating as follows. This comes from an interview with CBS Uyger with Kathleen Hennessy of the LOS ANGELES TIMES:
UYGER: Let me ask you about Representative Mike Pompeo, he`s from their [the Koch Brothers] home district and he has some interesting ties to them. Can you tell us about that a little bit?
HENNESSEY: Sure. Congressman Pompeo has a long relationship with the Koch brothers there. He received a bit of investment in a company that he started many years ago which he since sold. And, you know, he`s from their home district. So, he`s known quantity to them and connected to their industries and for instance, he hired a former Koch lawyer as his chief of staff.
UYGUR: That`s funny. Again, a wonderful coincidence where they invest in his business, he makes some money and then when he`s in Congress, he hires their guy as chief of staff. Again, probably just a coincidence. So, let`s go to Fred Upton who is also on the committee. Now, he was a little skeptical in regards to the right wing talking point on global warming. He originally tells a little bit about that. Where was his original position and where is he now?
HENNESSEY: Well, his original position and his original statements indicate that he at the very least considered global warming a serious problem that needed to be taken seriously. He as part of an effort to win the chairmanship once Republicans had won in November, won control of the House, he had to, you know, make sort of a campaign for the chairmanship and there was some opposition from other conservative groups and he made a lot of steps basically sort of toughening up his rhetoric on the EPA in particular and its role in regulating greenhouse gases. And he was successful in that effort. And, you know, became the chairman and shortly after came out and wrote an Op-ed in “The Wall Street Journal” basically endorsing the same policy that Americans for prosperity has been advocating for a long time.
UYGUR: They`re among these top ten donors. He gets the money from them. Kind of changes his position, all of a sudden, he thinks global warming is no big deal. But probably a wonderful coincidence. All right. Now, one last question for you real quick. You know, we got the pollution that might come from refineries, et cetera, but there`s actually an excellent investment for them because it also affects their taxes, right? Tell us a little bit about that.
HENNESSEY: Well, I don`t want to say that this is part of a — I guess that their approach and their tactics is one that`s sort of been taken by democratic fundraisers and benefactors as well, that they sort of in many ways describe themselves as following the playbook of George Soros and other — and that they are trying to coordinate sort of various groups advocating for a point of view and that`s what they would argue that they are doing in this effort.
UYGUR: All right. I know. Their point of view saving them millions perhaps billions in taxes. Well, look at that. Again, a wonderful coincidence.
Here are the facts: “The United States now spends 54 percent of the money expended worldwide on defense, according to the Swedish-based Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s 2010 yearbook, i.e., more than the rest of the world combined. In real dollars, that’s approximately $1 trillion per year in defense/security programs, once Defense Department outlays, the cost of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, and security spending in other federal agencies (such as Homeland Security, State, Energy, HHS, and intelligence) are included. It’s a cost of nearly $9,000 per household in the United States every year.”
Seriously, the same thing goes on with Halliburton, Lockheed, and other military dependent corporations. They buy our congressmen by taking the long-term investment view in a product that keeps on giving.
CONCLUSION
In short, America is at a cross-roads. Just, as the 14 smart Democratic senators in Wisconsin have given time and space to the state to allow clear-thinking on the issue of collective bargaining and state budgets, America’s smartest congressmen must observe the facts and see what needs to be in the cards on cutting the USA defense budget. According to Thomas R. Eddlam of the NEW AMERICAN, “with America in a budget crisis, many people are beginning to ask the essential questions:
• How much spending do we really need?
• Does the nation really need to spend more than the rest of the whole world combined to be safe, or is spending only more than the three or four next biggest spenders on defense enough?
• Can the United States leverage its uniquely advantageous global geographic position — isolated from much of the world by two oceans — to spend a little less than the next biggest spender?
Eddllam continues, “One odd pair of Congressmen have decided the U.S. government can be safe and still spend a little less on defense: Representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Last summer Paul, arguably the most conservative Congressman in Congress, and Frank, arguably the most liberal, proposed more than $100 billion in cuts in the defense budget for each of the next 10 years, partly based upon scaling back American troop commitments to Europe and some other foreign bases. The two noted that though the United States provided security for Europe and Korea during the Cold War when the two regions were impoverished from war, it’s time to pull our troops out. The two argued in the capital-based periodical The Hill: ‘Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it.... The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense.’ Frank and Paul argue that this defense spending no longer fulfills a defensive ‘need’ for protecting American citizens and their property. Some of their suggested savings include:
• $80 billion: Reduce troops in Europe and Asia by 50,000 (one-quarter of the total);
• $147 billion: Roll back Army and Marine Corps growth as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end;
• $176.6 billion: Reduce U.S. navy fleet to 230 ships and retire two (of 11) aircraft carriers;
• $157 billion: Cut or eliminate weapons systems — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, MV-22 Osprey, kC-X Tanker, and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle — and cut $50 billion in research;
• $113.5 billion: Reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal; cancel the Trident II missile program; retire 1,000 deployed warheads, seven Ohio-class SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines), and 160 Minuteman missiles;
• $81 billion: Trim nuclear weapons and space missile defense spending;
• $120 billion: Reduced personnel costs by reforming military pay and healthcare systems;
• $100 billion: Require commensurate savings in command, support, and infrastructure as military is reduced.
Eddlam summarizes the main point for all Americans—not just progressives or conservatives. He says, “One might criticize the Paul-Frank commission because it appears to be heavily based on cutting weapons programs, and one can reasonably argue about which weapons programs should or should not be cut. What’s not debatable is that if the United States closes its bases abroad and follows George Washington’s advice “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” both equipment costs and costs related to the number of personnel would automatically be greatly reduced. For example, the Paul-Frank proposal expects to save only $147 billion over 10 years from winding down the Afghan and Iraq War troop commitments. But this is only a small part of the savings that could be achieved. President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal calls for $164.5 billion to be spent in 2011 alone for those two wars, which is close to the average annual cost of the wars according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimated in September 2010 that the total cost of the two wars was more than $1.1 trillion.”
The bottom line is: “Why the huge cost? Because the bullets and bombs that are being exploded during the wars have to be replaced. The cost of purchasing such armaments for the unnecessary Iraq War (or in the case of Afghanistan, the no longer necessary war) is wasted. And new bombs must be purchased, often at a cost of millions of dollars per bomb.”
NOTES
[1] “Leverage is an American television drama series on TNT that premiered in December 2008.[1] The series is produced by director/executive producer Dean Devlin's production company Electric Television. Leverage follows a five-person team of professional thieves, computer experts and con artists, headed up by former insurance investigator, Nathan Ford, who use their skills to right corporate and governmental injustices inflicted on common citizens.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_%28TV_series%29
[2] Concerning the so-called WAR ON TERROR, following summary of total casualties comes from Wikipedia. However, it is a very incomplete list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Casualties
There is no widely agreed on figure for the number of people that have been killed so far in the War on Terror as it has been defined by the Bush Administration to include the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and operations elsewhere. Some estimates include the following:
• Iraq: 62,570 to 1,124,000
Main article: Casualties of the Iraq War
• Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12–19, 2007 estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. The range given was 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths. A nationally representative sample of approximately 2,000 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."[105][106][107][108]
• Between 392,979 and 942,636 estimated Iraqi (655,000 with a confidence interval of 95%), civilian and combatant, according to the second Lancet survey of mortality.
• A minimum of 62,570 civilian deaths reported in the mass media up to 28 April 2007 according to Iraq Body Count project.[109]
• 4410 US military dead. 31,844 wounded in action, of which 13,954 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours.[110]
• Afghanistan: between 10,960 and 49,600
Main article: Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
• According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database,[111] between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by US Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003. This estimate counts only "impact deaths"—deaths that occurred in the immediate aftermath of an explosion or shooting—and does not count deaths that occurred later as a result of injuries sustained, or deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of the US airstrikes and invasion.
• In an opinion article published in August 2002 in the magazine The Weekly Standard, Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute,[112] questioned Professor Herold's study entirely on the basis of one single incident that involved 25-93 deaths. He did not provide any estimate his own.[113]
• In a pair of January 2002 studies, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives estimates that "at least" 4,200-4,500 civilians were killed by mid-January 2002 as a result of the US war and airstrikes, both directly as casualties of the aerial bombing campaign, and indirectly in the resulting humanitarian crisis.
• His first study, "Operation Enduring Freedom: Why a Higher Rate of Civilian Bombing Casualties?",[114] released January 18, 2002, estimates that, at the low end, "at least" 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed in the aerial bombing campaign in just the 3 months between October 7, 2001 to January 1, 2002. The author found it impossible to provide an upper-end estimate to direct civilian casualties from the Operation Enduring Freedom bombing campaign that he noted as having an increased use of cluster bombs.[115] In this lower-end estimate, only Western press sources were used for hard numbers, while heavy "reduction factors" were applied to Afghan government reports so that their estimates were reduced by as much as 75%.[116]
• In his companion study, "Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war",[117] released January 30, 2002, Conetta estimates that "at least" 3,200 more Afghans died by mid-January 2002, of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of the US war and airstrikes.
• In similar numbers, a Los Angeles Times review of US, British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services found that between 1,067 and 1,201 direct civilian deaths were reported by those news organizations during the five months from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002. This review excluded all civilian deaths in Afghanistan that did not get reported by US, British, or Pakistani news, excluded 497 deaths that did get reported in US, British, and Pakistani news but that were not specifically identified as civilian or military, and excluded 754 civilian deaths that were reported by the Taliban but not independently confirmed.[118]
• According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion by the spring of 2002.[119]
• Somalia: 7,000+
• In December 2007, The Elman Peace and Human Rights Organization said it had verified 6,500 civilian deaths, 8,516 people wounded, and 1.5 million displaced from homes in Mogadishu alone during the year 2007.[120]
• USA
• Two radicals, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, conducted sniper attacks in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia in October 2002. Ten people were killed and three others were critically wounded in those shootings.[121]
• June 1, 2009, Pvt. William Andrew Long was shot and killed by Abdulhakim Muhammad, while standing unarmed outside a recruiting facility in Little Rock AR.[122][123]
• On November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan, an Islamic extremist, shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 others in Fort Hood, Texas.[124]
Total American casualties from the War on Terror
(this includes fighting throughout the world):
US Military killed
5,800
US Military wounded
40,000
US Civilians killed (includes 9/11 and after)
3,000 +
US Civilians wounded/injured 6,000 +
Total Americans killed (military and civilian) 8,800 +
Total Americans wounded/injured 46,000 +
Total American casualties 54,800 +
[3] On the other hand, many Americans—like myself do not even half health care. The VA hospital system has been reported to be a good minimal model for all American citizens, but the USA government has failed to provide health care for the 50 million adults and youth who need it.
[4] Consider registering and joining American military families marching and calling for the end of wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan this coming March 19-22, 2011.
https://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6726/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=39344
[5] This is actually not an exact quotation because I saw the episode on AXN TV and can’t just replay it. This is a best-as-I-can-do quote. Sorry.
[6] The gist of one important interview on CBS (concerning the Koch Brothers from Kansas) last February is at this site:
http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/blog/?p=1755
The corporate approach of the Koch Brothers works as follows. (Believe me, Halliburton and others do the same.
First of all, they [the Koch Brothers] decided …, you know what, why don`t we start think tanks? So, they funded 35 conservative or libertarian groups. They spent almost $48 million to fight global warming or that opposition to global warming groups, of course. That was from `97 to 2008. I wish they would fight global warming, they do the opposite. And we`ll tell you why in a second. They also funded the CATO Institute, the Federalist Society, and Americans for prosperity. These are some of the largest conservatives groups in the country. Now, let`s go to America for prosperity. They spent $40 million in the 2011 election cycle mainly against Democrats.
They use that in 100 races across the country in Congress. And with that money, they held rallies, they did phone banks, they canvas door to door, basically pretending to be grassroots when in fact, all they cared was not just about the congressman but specifically about the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And what did they do there? Well, they spent $279,500 and they gave it to 22 of 31 Republicans on the committee. They also gave 32,000 to five Democrats. Now, why did the Americans for prosperity care about the new Republicans on the House panel? Well, I`m going to get to that in a second.
But look at what they did with the freshman. Five of the six freshmen benefited from Americans for prosperity in 2010. So, hey, they are definitely on their side. Nine of the 12 signed on to the pledge on greenhouse gases that they wanted Americans for prosperity wanted them to take. So, what was that pledge? Well, here it is. They said that the pledge on greenhouse gases is quote, “ask politicians to denounce a democratic led effort to compel oil refineries to clean up emissions of greenhouse gases through a so-called Cap-and-Trade system.” Now, do you get what`s happening here, folks?
They are in the oil business and they are saying, hey, we don`t want oil refineries to get cleaned up. Because if you clean up oil refineries and have less pollution and less global warming, it costs the Koch brothers a tremendous amount of money. So, they invest a little bit of money to buy these politicians, they specifically target the commerce and Energy Committee and then voila, look at that, hey, those are all my boys! And what`s the first thing they want to do? The Republicans of course want to limit the EPA from controlling global warming. Say, hey, back off the oil refineries. Those guys paid our bills. That`s how our politicians get bought and in this case by the Koch brothers.
By Kevin Stoda
I was watching an old episode of LEVERAGE [1] the other night. This was the episode, known as “The Homecoming Job”, and it certainly strikes me to be as pertinent as ever to development and understanding of contemporary American culture, political-economy, and social memory.
Here is a short summary of that 2008 episode. “In the . . . ‘The Homecoming Job’, the [Leverage] team (now operating as Leverage Consulting & Associates) runs a scam on the head of a military contracting firm responsible for critically injuring their client, a US Army reservist. Ford's old insurance company is mentioned in this episode. They learn that the company has stolen taxpayer money from the government, and Nathan insists they arrange to return it to the government (although they do keep a portion for the hospital treating the injured veteran).”
As noted above, I was struck by how current this 2008 TV program is. You should be similarly dismayed. This is particularly true because the reality of war and of congressional manipulation by corporations remain at the heart of what is wrong in & with America—now and historically. Even this past month there have been further scandals from private military contracts, government soldiers losing track of monies in war zones, and congressmen who are fully in the pockets of an out-of-control schemes & scandals of unbelievable proportions vexing our economy and the American desired role in the world.
(1) AMERICAN FORCES ARE STILL IN IRAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_%28TV_series%29#Episodes
The aforementioned fictional [LEVERAGE episode #1: 2008] story remains still current most of all because America still has troops in Iraq and American soldiers are still “Coming Home” from that war wounded. See the CNN special link (below) which commemorates only a small percentage of American Homecoming Casualties in both wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html
You can get other up-to-date data or information on American military war deaths from the Military Times as well.
http://militarytimes.com/valor/
Last August 2010, when Obama made a speech to the troops in Iraq, there were still 50,000 troops in there, and since that date, wounded soldiers continue to come home.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/02/text-of-obamas-speech-on-iraq/
Reports are that Obama currently will leave 40,000 troops in Iraq through this next election cycle.
Meanwhile, American families are still crying for attention: "Don't forget us. . . . ‘We're still there, It's not over until ever last soldier is home.’"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/31/eveningnews/main6823851.shtml
In the “Homecoming” episode, the Leverage characters note the obvious: There was a lot of wasted and stolen money in the bungled USA takeover of Iraq during the first few years of that war. For example, in the film it is claimed that at 9 billion dollars soon went missing. (The actual numbers are much higher.) Worse, since the invasion in 2003, there have been a lot of lost lives [2] for which many Americans and their friends and families are still paying heavily as individuals and communities. They are paying physically, financially, and emotionally.
““Every vote that Congress has taken for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has failed to take into account the actual cost of these wars by ignoring what will be required to meet the needs of veterans,” said Chairman [House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Bob] Filner. “The Congress that sends them into harm’s way assumes no responsibility for the long-term consequences of their deployment. Each war authorization and appropriation kicks the proverbial can down the road. Whether or not the needs of soldiers injured or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan will be met is totally dependent on the budget politics of a future Congress which includes two sets of rules – one for going to war and one for providing for our veterans who fight in that war.”
http://democrats.veterans.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=642
The fact is, Iraq and Afghanistan have been wars of long-term-attrition for all sides in the conflict. The rule of guerilla fighting and many other modern-war practices today is to create as many wounded as possible. This is primarily because, usually, it takes three, four or more soldiers working-together to rescue each injured soldier in a battle arena—hence mines are the favored weapon by both sides over both the short and long term.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/12/eveningnews/main6477674.shtml
Robert D. Kaplan has written, “The long tail of suffering that extends from the war front to the home front, and from dead and wounded soldiers and marines, sailors and airmen, to their wives and children, and to their children’s children, is statistically numbing and heartrending. Of the 2.2 million American troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, several hundred thousand have sustained physical and psychological wounds. The figures of 4,417 dead from Iraq and 1,368 from Afghanistan (as of November 10, 2010) are well-known and oft-quoted. But the physically wounded from both wars number more than 40,000, a staggering number, and roughly three-quarters of them have been wounded in a serious life- and family-affecting way. According to the Army Office of the Surgeon General, between 2001 and 2009 doctors performed 1,286 amputations, three-quarters of which were of major limbs.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=903
This is why just this past week the U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that in his opinion: “any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.”
http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/defense-secretary-robert-gates-in-my-opinion-any-future-defense-secretary-who-advises-the-president-to-again-send-a-big-american-land-army-into-asia-or-into-the-middle-east-or-africa-should-have-h/
Meanwhile, many American (and Canadian) veterans wonder if it was all worth it because they feel too-often mistreated when they come home, i.e. often due to the lack of care at some medical facilities they have either had to beg to receive or have never, in fact, received. [3]
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/your-local-veterans-administration-hospital
The writers for the TV series LEVERAGE (from 2008) certainly continue to strike chords with many Veterans who feel that their hospital and clinics of the Veteran Administration have continued to be underfunded. Too many—such as those portrayed in LEVERAGE’s “Homecoming”--have had to seek or now desire to obtain outside medical treatment and resources upon arriving stateside.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/19/buck-once-again-va/
(2) WASTED AND STOLEN MONEYS IN IRAQ OCCUPATION EFFORT
Naturally, if much of the trillions of U.S. tax dollars that had been funneled into the Iraq War, Iraq Rebuilding, and Iraq Occupation efforts had not been stolen, misused or given to the wrong folks, there might be some sense of support left in American hearts and pocket books for some of the continuing Asian wars and occupations in 2011. However, this has not been the case. American trust in the military’s word on anything is as low as its expectations that the continuing wars and occupations in Asia will succeed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/28/951034/-Maybe-you-shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-supported-trillions-in-unfunded-wars
Let’s get the facts straight! Only a decade ago, “[d]eficits weren’t a priority when nearly all Republicans and a good number of Democrats voted for the ill conceived and ill advised invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq close to a decade ago. They weren’t a priority when tens, if not hundreds of billions went to waste or were just “lost” in Iraq – not knowing if they ended up in the hands of those who were the stated enemy. They weren’t a priority when billions of no-bid contracts were handed out like candy, with no accounting.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/28/951034/-Maybe-you-shouldn%E2%80%99t-have-supported-trillions-in-unfunded-wars
The American public has given congress and the executive branch an incredibly long leash. However, following the housing crash--that was followed by a stock market and mutual fund crash -- and the 11+ percent or more national jobless rate, the American public have had enough of the DOD’s bottomless pits in Asia.
In short, the party has long been over for the excesses of George W. Bush’s 3 wars: War on Terror, War on Afghanistan, and War on Iraq. Yet, the Congress and Executive Branch keep the sink hole widening. Americans, as a whole due not believe in the bankrupt paradigms of the Clinton’s, the McCains, the Roy Blunts, the Pat Roberts--and the majority of other congressmen in the USA!!! [4]
http://www.mfso.org/
There has been little concern in Washington over the decade for “the drain on the economy, [i.e.] the massive deficits being caused by these trillions – coupled with the massive tax cuts at the same time. [Likewise] There was little to no concern when the levees in Louisiana couldn’t hold back, despite prior warnings. [Similarly] There was little to no concern when bridges were collapsing in Minnesota” etc.
In summary, there has been “little to no concern when the amount of money being borrowed was a neverending pit, or when the weapons being used weren’t really suitable for the kind of “war” that was being waged. There was little to no concern when the debt was piling up and our country’s coffers were being raided for “business opportunities” for looting by private companies post invasion rebuilding. There was little to no concern that this government was paying private contractors scads of money for ‘security’ in Iraq – with no accountability and on numerous instances, with highly questionable behavior.”
This situation has not changed through March 2011.
INVESTMENTS THAT KEEP ON GIVING
In the “Homecoming” episode of the LEVERAGE, one of the military contractor and other main character posing as a private military-contractor-lobbyist stated basically the truism in America today:
“There is no better investment in today’s insecure economy than to elect your own congressmen. Most congressmen are reelected as incumbents and stay in office on average about 20 years.” [5]
According to the military dependent industries and corporate America as a whole, this is an investment that keeps on giving and one which is worth reinvesting and maintaining over the long term, America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
As I heard that truism about investing in American congressmen, I recoiled in horror but recognized that is certainly how the Koch Brothers and others play the game.
http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/blog/?p=1755
“David and Charles Koch each worth $21 billion. They own Koch industries, an oil and chemical giant that stands the second largest privately owned company in the U.S. In 1980, David Koch ran to the right of Ronald Reagan as a libertarian party`s vice presidential candidate. When that failed, they changed tactics and decided to buy Washington instead.” See the endnote on how this is done in more detail. [6]
The Koch brothers and most all congressmen are operating as follows. This comes from an interview with CBS Uyger with Kathleen Hennessy of the LOS ANGELES TIMES:
UYGER: Let me ask you about Representative Mike Pompeo, he`s from their [the Koch Brothers] home district and he has some interesting ties to them. Can you tell us about that a little bit?
HENNESSEY: Sure. Congressman Pompeo has a long relationship with the Koch brothers there. He received a bit of investment in a company that he started many years ago which he since sold. And, you know, he`s from their home district. So, he`s known quantity to them and connected to their industries and for instance, he hired a former Koch lawyer as his chief of staff.
UYGUR: That`s funny. Again, a wonderful coincidence where they invest in his business, he makes some money and then when he`s in Congress, he hires their guy as chief of staff. Again, probably just a coincidence. So, let`s go to Fred Upton who is also on the committee. Now, he was a little skeptical in regards to the right wing talking point on global warming. He originally tells a little bit about that. Where was his original position and where is he now?
HENNESSEY: Well, his original position and his original statements indicate that he at the very least considered global warming a serious problem that needed to be taken seriously. He as part of an effort to win the chairmanship once Republicans had won in November, won control of the House, he had to, you know, make sort of a campaign for the chairmanship and there was some opposition from other conservative groups and he made a lot of steps basically sort of toughening up his rhetoric on the EPA in particular and its role in regulating greenhouse gases. And he was successful in that effort. And, you know, became the chairman and shortly after came out and wrote an Op-ed in “The Wall Street Journal” basically endorsing the same policy that Americans for prosperity has been advocating for a long time.
UYGUR: They`re among these top ten donors. He gets the money from them. Kind of changes his position, all of a sudden, he thinks global warming is no big deal. But probably a wonderful coincidence. All right. Now, one last question for you real quick. You know, we got the pollution that might come from refineries, et cetera, but there`s actually an excellent investment for them because it also affects their taxes, right? Tell us a little bit about that.
HENNESSEY: Well, I don`t want to say that this is part of a — I guess that their approach and their tactics is one that`s sort of been taken by democratic fundraisers and benefactors as well, that they sort of in many ways describe themselves as following the playbook of George Soros and other — and that they are trying to coordinate sort of various groups advocating for a point of view and that`s what they would argue that they are doing in this effort.
UYGUR: All right. I know. Their point of view saving them millions perhaps billions in taxes. Well, look at that. Again, a wonderful coincidence.
Here are the facts: “The United States now spends 54 percent of the money expended worldwide on defense, according to the Swedish-based Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s 2010 yearbook, i.e., more than the rest of the world combined. In real dollars, that’s approximately $1 trillion per year in defense/security programs, once Defense Department outlays, the cost of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, and security spending in other federal agencies (such as Homeland Security, State, Energy, HHS, and intelligence) are included. It’s a cost of nearly $9,000 per household in the United States every year.”
Seriously, the same thing goes on with Halliburton, Lockheed, and other military dependent corporations. They buy our congressmen by taking the long-term investment view in a product that keeps on giving.
CONCLUSION
In short, America is at a cross-roads. Just, as the 14 smart Democratic senators in Wisconsin have given time and space to the state to allow clear-thinking on the issue of collective bargaining and state budgets, America’s smartest congressmen must observe the facts and see what needs to be in the cards on cutting the USA defense budget. According to Thomas R. Eddlam of the NEW AMERICAN, “with America in a budget crisis, many people are beginning to ask the essential questions:
• How much spending do we really need?
• Does the nation really need to spend more than the rest of the whole world combined to be safe, or is spending only more than the three or four next biggest spenders on defense enough?
• Can the United States leverage its uniquely advantageous global geographic position — isolated from much of the world by two oceans — to spend a little less than the next biggest spender?
Eddllam continues, “One odd pair of Congressmen have decided the U.S. government can be safe and still spend a little less on defense: Representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Last summer Paul, arguably the most conservative Congressman in Congress, and Frank, arguably the most liberal, proposed more than $100 billion in cuts in the defense budget for each of the next 10 years, partly based upon scaling back American troop commitments to Europe and some other foreign bases. The two noted that though the United States provided security for Europe and Korea during the Cold War when the two regions were impoverished from war, it’s time to pull our troops out. The two argued in the capital-based periodical The Hill: ‘Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it.... The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense.’ Frank and Paul argue that this defense spending no longer fulfills a defensive ‘need’ for protecting American citizens and their property. Some of their suggested savings include:
• $80 billion: Reduce troops in Europe and Asia by 50,000 (one-quarter of the total);
• $147 billion: Roll back Army and Marine Corps growth as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end;
• $176.6 billion: Reduce U.S. navy fleet to 230 ships and retire two (of 11) aircraft carriers;
• $157 billion: Cut or eliminate weapons systems — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, MV-22 Osprey, kC-X Tanker, and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle — and cut $50 billion in research;
• $113.5 billion: Reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal; cancel the Trident II missile program; retire 1,000 deployed warheads, seven Ohio-class SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines), and 160 Minuteman missiles;
• $81 billion: Trim nuclear weapons and space missile defense spending;
• $120 billion: Reduced personnel costs by reforming military pay and healthcare systems;
• $100 billion: Require commensurate savings in command, support, and infrastructure as military is reduced.
Eddlam summarizes the main point for all Americans—not just progressives or conservatives. He says, “One might criticize the Paul-Frank commission because it appears to be heavily based on cutting weapons programs, and one can reasonably argue about which weapons programs should or should not be cut. What’s not debatable is that if the United States closes its bases abroad and follows George Washington’s advice “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” both equipment costs and costs related to the number of personnel would automatically be greatly reduced. For example, the Paul-Frank proposal expects to save only $147 billion over 10 years from winding down the Afghan and Iraq War troop commitments. But this is only a small part of the savings that could be achieved. President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal calls for $164.5 billion to be spent in 2011 alone for those two wars, which is close to the average annual cost of the wars according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimated in September 2010 that the total cost of the two wars was more than $1.1 trillion.”
The bottom line is: “Why the huge cost? Because the bullets and bombs that are being exploded during the wars have to be replaced. The cost of purchasing such armaments for the unnecessary Iraq War (or in the case of Afghanistan, the no longer necessary war) is wasted. And new bombs must be purchased, often at a cost of millions of dollars per bomb.”
NOTES
[1] “Leverage is an American television drama series on TNT that premiered in December 2008.[1] The series is produced by director/executive producer Dean Devlin's production company Electric Television. Leverage follows a five-person team of professional thieves, computer experts and con artists, headed up by former insurance investigator, Nathan Ford, who use their skills to right corporate and governmental injustices inflicted on common citizens.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_%28TV_series%29
[2] Concerning the so-called WAR ON TERROR, following summary of total casualties comes from Wikipedia. However, it is a very incomplete list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Casualties
There is no widely agreed on figure for the number of people that have been killed so far in the War on Terror as it has been defined by the Bush Administration to include the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and operations elsewhere. Some estimates include the following:
• Iraq: 62,570 to 1,124,000
Main article: Casualties of the Iraq War
• Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12–19, 2007 estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. The range given was 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths. A nationally representative sample of approximately 2,000 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."[105][106][107][108]
• Between 392,979 and 942,636 estimated Iraqi (655,000 with a confidence interval of 95%), civilian and combatant, according to the second Lancet survey of mortality.
• A minimum of 62,570 civilian deaths reported in the mass media up to 28 April 2007 according to Iraq Body Count project.[109]
• 4410 US military dead. 31,844 wounded in action, of which 13,954 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours.[110]
• Afghanistan: between 10,960 and 49,600
Main article: Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
• According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database,[111] between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by US Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003. This estimate counts only "impact deaths"—deaths that occurred in the immediate aftermath of an explosion or shooting—and does not count deaths that occurred later as a result of injuries sustained, or deaths that occurred as an indirect consequence of the US airstrikes and invasion.
• In an opinion article published in August 2002 in the magazine The Weekly Standard, Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute,[112] questioned Professor Herold's study entirely on the basis of one single incident that involved 25-93 deaths. He did not provide any estimate his own.[113]
• In a pair of January 2002 studies, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives estimates that "at least" 4,200-4,500 civilians were killed by mid-January 2002 as a result of the US war and airstrikes, both directly as casualties of the aerial bombing campaign, and indirectly in the resulting humanitarian crisis.
• His first study, "Operation Enduring Freedom: Why a Higher Rate of Civilian Bombing Casualties?",[114] released January 18, 2002, estimates that, at the low end, "at least" 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed in the aerial bombing campaign in just the 3 months between October 7, 2001 to January 1, 2002. The author found it impossible to provide an upper-end estimate to direct civilian casualties from the Operation Enduring Freedom bombing campaign that he noted as having an increased use of cluster bombs.[115] In this lower-end estimate, only Western press sources were used for hard numbers, while heavy "reduction factors" were applied to Afghan government reports so that their estimates were reduced by as much as 75%.[116]
• In his companion study, "Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war",[117] released January 30, 2002, Conetta estimates that "at least" 3,200 more Afghans died by mid-January 2002, of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of the US war and airstrikes.
• In similar numbers, a Los Angeles Times review of US, British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services found that between 1,067 and 1,201 direct civilian deaths were reported by those news organizations during the five months from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002. This review excluded all civilian deaths in Afghanistan that did not get reported by US, British, or Pakistani news, excluded 497 deaths that did get reported in US, British, and Pakistani news but that were not specifically identified as civilian or military, and excluded 754 civilian deaths that were reported by the Taliban but not independently confirmed.[118]
• According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion by the spring of 2002.[119]
• Somalia: 7,000+
• In December 2007, The Elman Peace and Human Rights Organization said it had verified 6,500 civilian deaths, 8,516 people wounded, and 1.5 million displaced from homes in Mogadishu alone during the year 2007.[120]
• USA
• Two radicals, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, conducted sniper attacks in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia in October 2002. Ten people were killed and three others were critically wounded in those shootings.[121]
• June 1, 2009, Pvt. William Andrew Long was shot and killed by Abdulhakim Muhammad, while standing unarmed outside a recruiting facility in Little Rock AR.[122][123]
• On November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan, an Islamic extremist, shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 others in Fort Hood, Texas.[124]
Total American casualties from the War on Terror
(this includes fighting throughout the world):
US Military killed
5,800
US Military wounded
40,000
US Civilians killed (includes 9/11 and after)
3,000 +
US Civilians wounded/injured 6,000 +
Total Americans killed (military and civilian) 8,800 +
Total Americans wounded/injured 46,000 +
Total American casualties 54,800 +
[3] On the other hand, many Americans—like myself do not even half health care. The VA hospital system has been reported to be a good minimal model for all American citizens, but the USA government has failed to provide health care for the 50 million adults and youth who need it.
[4] Consider registering and joining American military families marching and calling for the end of wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan this coming March 19-22, 2011.
https://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6726/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=39344
[5] This is actually not an exact quotation because I saw the episode on AXN TV and can’t just replay it. This is a best-as-I-can-do quote. Sorry.
[6] The gist of one important interview on CBS (concerning the Koch Brothers from Kansas) last February is at this site:
http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/blog/?p=1755
The corporate approach of the Koch Brothers works as follows. (Believe me, Halliburton and others do the same.
First of all, they [the Koch Brothers] decided …, you know what, why don`t we start think tanks? So, they funded 35 conservative or libertarian groups. They spent almost $48 million to fight global warming or that opposition to global warming groups, of course. That was from `97 to 2008. I wish they would fight global warming, they do the opposite. And we`ll tell you why in a second. They also funded the CATO Institute, the Federalist Society, and Americans for prosperity. These are some of the largest conservatives groups in the country. Now, let`s go to America for prosperity. They spent $40 million in the 2011 election cycle mainly against Democrats.
They use that in 100 races across the country in Congress. And with that money, they held rallies, they did phone banks, they canvas door to door, basically pretending to be grassroots when in fact, all they cared was not just about the congressman but specifically about the House Energy and Commerce Committee. And what did they do there? Well, they spent $279,500 and they gave it to 22 of 31 Republicans on the committee. They also gave 32,000 to five Democrats. Now, why did the Americans for prosperity care about the new Republicans on the House panel? Well, I`m going to get to that in a second.
But look at what they did with the freshman. Five of the six freshmen benefited from Americans for prosperity in 2010. So, hey, they are definitely on their side. Nine of the 12 signed on to the pledge on greenhouse gases that they wanted Americans for prosperity wanted them to take. So, what was that pledge? Well, here it is. They said that the pledge on greenhouse gases is quote, “ask politicians to denounce a democratic led effort to compel oil refineries to clean up emissions of greenhouse gases through a so-called Cap-and-Trade system.” Now, do you get what`s happening here, folks?
They are in the oil business and they are saying, hey, we don`t want oil refineries to get cleaned up. Because if you clean up oil refineries and have less pollution and less global warming, it costs the Koch brothers a tremendous amount of money. So, they invest a little bit of money to buy these politicians, they specifically target the commerce and Energy Committee and then voila, look at that, hey, those are all my boys! And what`s the first thing they want to do? The Republicans of course want to limit the EPA from controlling global warming. Say, hey, back off the oil refineries. Those guys paid our bills. That`s how our politicians get bought and in this case by the Koch brothers.
Labels: LEVERAGE Our Soldiers HOMECOMINGS KOCH BROTHERS HALIBURTON CONGRESSfinally THE END OF WARS
posted by Kevin Anthony Stoda at 2:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home