Betsy's Page

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Thomas Ricks' Emily Litella moment

Thomas Ricks has been getting lots of media attention for his book, Fiasco. However, he should be getting as much attention for this accusation that he made on CNN on Sunday. (go to CAMERA.org for the video) He went on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources and made the astounding accusation that the Israelis are deliberately not destroying Katyusha launchers because they feel that having rockets rain down on their country gives them some moral advantage in world opinion.
KURTZ: Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?

THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well.
Just ponder how contemptible the Israelis would be if they were risking their own citizens being injured or killed just to garner some benefit in world opinion - which is never going to favor them anyway. Think of the worldview that the Washington Post Pentagon correspondent must have that he would publicly make such an accusation. And this isn't the first time that that sort of accusation has been aired on CNN. CNN International anchor Rosemary Church (corrected from earlier) also accused Israel of being of capable of shooting down Katyusha rockets but choosing not to. A scary combination of ignorance and anti-Israel thinking.

This is how CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) responded to Ricks,
One wonders who these “military analysts” are and why they have apparently not gone on the record. And why has Ricks so far not written the story in the Post? Can it be that his claims are too much even for the Washington Post to publish?

Whatever the reason, a reporter who thinks that Israel would intentionally allow Hezbollah’s Katyushas to rain down on Israeli civilians would believe anything about Israel, no matter how monstrous. And a reporter who believes that reserve Israeli soldiers would follow orders to not attack rockets that are aimed at their children and wives, and that these soldiers would not immediately go to the Israeli media with the story, is an idiot.

The fact is that Israeli soldiers are fighting and dying, going house to house in Lebanese villages that Hezbollah spent six years preparing as killing zones, to stop those rockets, while at the same time minimizing Lebanese civilian casualties. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been reportedly forcing civilians to stay in the villages to create human shields. Mr. Ricks’ charge is therefore nothing short of obscene, and he should put up or shut up. Let him name his so called “military analysts,”and let him, as the Post’s Pentagon correspondent, explain why their views are persuasive and credible. If he can’t or won’t, he should publicly retract his claim and apologize.
So, we have this vicious accusation lying on the table from the newest media darling, the Washington Post correspondent. Pretty shocking and disgusting, right?

Well, as Emily Litella would have said, "Never mind." Ricks went on Hugh Hewitt's show last night and disavowed the whole accusation.
HH: Great to have you here. I want to spend the vast bulk of our time on Fiasco and Iraq, but first, yesterday, you were on with Howard Kurtz' Reliable Sources, CNN, and in response to a question, you said that some military analyst had told you that Israel had, "purposefully left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon." That was reported on Powerline, Rush Limbaugh read it on the air today, quite a controversy. Anything to add to it, Thomas Ricks?

TR- Yeah, I wish I'd kept my mouth shut. What I said was accurate, that in an off-the-record conversation with some military analysts, a couple had said to me that they thought it was a smart strategy to leave some rocket pockets in place to help the Israelis shape public perceptions, and give their forces more freedom of maneuver in Lebanon. They weren't saying it was a bad strategy. They thought it was pretty intelligent, if it were the case. But I've since heard today from some very smart, well-informed people, that while such a strategy might be logical, and even morally defensible, that they thought the Israeli public just wouldn't stand for it, and they also expressed personal dismay to me that I had passed on the thought, which they thought was irresponsible. (emphasis added)

HH: Do you want to name any of the analysts?

TR: No, it was an off-the-record conversation, and I want to honor that confidence.

HH: Okay, last question. Do you think they were leading you on at that point, or just telling you what they honestly meant?

TR: No, I think...I know from the context of the conversation, it was about many different things. That came up as a part of the conversation. These are very good, smart, retired U.S. military officers.
Oops, never mind.

Now, note how he characterized the off-the-record conversations he had had with military analysts in his conversation with Hugh on Monday night. He makes it sound as if they were just hypothesizing as to what Israel might be doing and assessing whether or not it was a good idea for Israel to play roulette with their citizens' lives. He was quoting retired American officers just tossing around their theories in some off-the-record conversation. Now compare how he described the story to Howard Kurtz. There he makes it sound as if U.S. military analysts had determined that this was indeed what Israel was doing - not some hypothesis based on a Machiavellian analysis, but a tactic that these analysts had determined was actually going on. The difference is subtle, but crucial.

It makes you wonder how he might have played such similar subtle wording games with his book and his Pentagon reporting. Does he regularly turn what retired military analysts say when gaming out what might or might not be going on into something that sounds a lot more definitive when it comes out through his reporter's prism.

I think this is a shocking accusation and retraction. I wonder how widely Ricks is going to shout it from the rooftops that he made such a vile accusation erroneously. I'm cynical enough to believe that he'll feel that going on Hugh Hewitt's show is enough and we won't hear more about his Emily Litella moment.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:25 AM 0 comments

Comments:

Thomas Ricks has been getting lots of media attention for his book, Fiasco. However, he should be getting as much attention for this accusation that he made on CNN on Sunday. (go to CAMERA.org for the video) He went on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources and made the astounding accusation that the Israelis are deliberately not destroying Katyusha launchers because they feel that having rockets rain down on their country gives them some moral advantage in world opinion.

KURTZ: Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?

THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well.

Just ponder how contemptible the Israelis would be if they were risking their own citizens being injured or killed just to garner some benefit in world opinion - which is never going to favor them anyway. Think of the worldview that the Washington Post Pentagon correspondent must have that he would publicly make such an accusation. And this isn't the first time that that sort of accusation has been aired on CNN. CNN International anchor Rosemary Church (corrected from earlier) also accused Israel of being of capable of shooting down Katyusha rockets but choosing not to. A scary combination of ignorance and anti-Israel thinking.

This is how CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) responded to Ricks,

One wonders who these “military analysts” are and why they have apparently not gone on the record. And why has Ricks so far not written the story in the Post? Can it be that his claims are too much even for the Washington Post to publish?

Whatever the reason, a reporter who thinks that Israel would intentionally allow Hezbollah’s Katyushas to rain down on Israeli civilians would believe anything about Israel, no matter how monstrous. And a reporter who believes that reserve Israeli soldiers would follow orders to not attack rockets that are aimed at their children and wives, and that these soldiers would not immediately go to the Israeli media with the story, is an idiot.

The fact is that Israeli soldiers are fighting and dying, going house to house in Lebanese villages that Hezbollah spent six years preparing as killing zones, to stop those rockets, while at the same time minimizing Lebanese civilian casualties. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been reportedly forcing civilians to stay in the villages to create human shields. Mr. Ricks’ charge is therefore nothing short of obscene, and he should put up or shut up. Let him name his so called “military analysts,”and let him, as the Post’s Pentagon correspondent, explain why their views are persuasive and credible. If he can’t or won’t, he should publicly retract his claim and apologize.

So, we have this vicious accusation lying on the table from the newest media darling, the Washington Post correspondent. Pretty shocking and disgusting, right?

Well, as Emily Litella would have said, "Never mind." Ricks went on Hugh Hewitt's show last night and disavowed the whole accusation.

HH: Great to have you here. I want to spend the vast bulk of our time on Fiasco and Iraq, but first, yesterday, you were on with Howard Kurtz' Reliable Sources, CNN, and in response to a question, you said that some military analyst had told you that Israel had, "purposefully left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon." That was reported on Powerline, Rush Limbaugh read it on the air today, quite a controversy. Anything to add to it, Thomas Ricks?

TR- Yeah, I wish I'd kept my mouth shut. What I said was accurate, that in an off-the-record conversation with some military analysts, a couple had said to me that they thought it was a smart strategy to leave some rocket pockets in place to help the Israelis shape public perceptions, and give their forces more freedom of maneuver in Lebanon. They weren't saying it was a bad strategy. They thought it was pretty intelligent, if it were the case. But I've since heard today from some very smart, well-informed people, that while such a strategy might be logical, and even morally defensible, that they thought the Israeli public just wouldn't stand for it, and they also expressed personal dismay to me that I had passed on the thought, which they thought was irresponsible. (emphasis added)

HH: Do you want to name any of the analysts?

TR: No, it was an off-the-record conversation, and I want to honor that confidence.

HH: Okay, last question. Do you think they were leading you on at that point, or just telling you what they honestly meant?

TR: No, I think...I know from the context of the conversation, it was about many different things. That came up as a part of the conversation. These are very good, smart, retired U.S. military officers.

Oops, never mind.

Now, note how he characterized the off-the-record conversations he had had with military analysts in his conversation with Hugh on Monday night. He makes it sound as if they were just hypothesizing as to what Israel might be doing and assessing whether or not it was a good idea for Israel to play roulette with their citizens' lives. He was quoting retired American officers just tossing around their theories in some off-the-record conversation. Now compare how he described the story to Howard Kurtz. There he makes it sound as if U.S. military analysts had determined that this was indeed what Israel was doing - not some hypothesis based on a Machiavellian analysis, but a tactic that these analysts had determined was actually going on. The difference is subtle, but crucial.

It makes you wonder how he might have played such similar subtle wording games with his book and his Pentagon reporting. Does he regularly turn what retired military analysts say when gaming out what might or might not be going on into something that sounds a lot more definitive when it comes out through his reporter's prism.

I think this is a shocking accusation and retraction. I wonder how widely Ricks is going to shout it from the rooftops that he made such a vile accusation erroneously. I'm cynical enough to believe that he'll feel that going on Hugh Hewitt's show is enough and we won't hear more about his Emily Litella moment.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:25 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Thomas Ricks' Emily Litella moment

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Tuesday, August 08, 2006 Thomas Ricks' Emily Litella moment Thomas Ricks has been getting lots of media attention for his book, Fiasco. However, he should be getting as much attention for this accusation that he made on CNN on Sunday. (go to CAMERA.org for the video) He went on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources and made the astounding accusation that the Israelis are deliberately not destroying Katyusha launchers because they feel that having rockets rain down on their country gives them some moral advantage in world opinion. KURTZ: Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other? THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon. KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here? RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me. KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here. RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well. Just ponder how contemptible the Israelis would be if they were risking their own citizens being injured or killed just to garner some benefit in world opinion - which is never going to favor them anyway. Think of the worldview that the Washington Post Pentagon correspondent must have that he would publicly make such an accusation. And this isn't the first time that that sort of accusation has been aired on CNN. CNN International anchor Rosemary Church (corrected from earlier) also accused Israel of being of capable of shooting down Katyusha rockets but choosing not to. A scary combination of ignorance and anti-Israel thinking. This is how CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) responded to Ricks, One wonders who these “military analysts” are and why they have apparently not gone on the record. And why has Ricks so far not written the story in the Post? Can it be that his claims are too much even for the Washington Post to publish? Whatever the reason, a reporter who thinks that Israel would intentionally allow Hezbollah’s Katyushas to rain down on Israeli civilians would believe anything about Israel, no matter how monstrous. And a reporter who believes that reserve Israeli soldiers would follow orders to not attack rockets that are aimed at their children and wives, and that these soldiers would not immediately go to the Israeli media with the story, is an idiot. The fact is that Israeli soldiers are fighting and dying, going house to house in Lebanese villages that Hezbollah spent six years preparing as killing zones, to stop those rockets, while at the same time minimizing Lebanese civilian casualties. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been reportedly forcing civilians to stay in the villages to create human shields. Mr. Ricks’ charge is therefore nothing short of obscene, and he should put up or shut up. Let him name his so called “military analysts,”and let him, as the Post’s Pentagon correspondent, explain why their views are persuasive and credible. If he can’t or won’t, he should publicly retract his claim and apologize. So, we have this vicious accusation lying on the table from the newest media darling, the Washington Post correspondent. Pretty shocking and disgusting, right? Well, as Emily Litella would have said, "Never mind." Ricks went on Hugh Hewitt's show last night and disavowed the whole accusation. HH: Great to have you here. I want to spend the vast bulk of our time on Fiasco and Iraq, but first, yesterday, you were on with Howard Kurtz' Reliable Sources, CNN, and in response to a question, you said that some military analyst had told you that Israel had, "purposefully left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon." That was reported on Powerline, Rush Limbaugh read it on the air today, quite a controversy. Anything to add to it, Thomas Ricks? TR- Yeah, I wish I'd kept my mouth shut. What I said was accurate, that in an off-the-record conversation with some military analysts, a couple had said to me that they thought it was a smart strategy to leave some rocket pockets in place to help the Israelis shape public perceptions, and give their forces more freedom of maneuver in Lebanon. They weren't saying it was a bad strategy. They thought it was pretty intelligent, if it were the case. But I've since heard today from some very smart, well-informed people, that while such a strategy might be logical, and even morally defensible, that they thought the Israeli public just wouldn't stand for it, and they also expressed personal dismay to me that I had passed on the thought, which they thought was irresponsible. (emphasis added) HH: Do you want to name any of the analysts? TR: No, it was an off-the-record conversation, and I want to honor that confidence. HH: Okay, last question. Do you think they were leading you on at that point, or just telling you what they honestly meant? TR: No, I think...I know from the context of the conversation, it was about many different things. That came up as a part of the conversation. These are very good, smart, retired U.S. military officers. Oops, never mind. Now, note how he characterized the off-the-record conversations he had had with military analysts in his conversation with Hugh on Monday night. He makes it sound as if they were just hypothesizing as to what Israel might be doing and assessing whether or not it was a good idea for Israel to play roulette with their citizens' lives. He was quoting retired American officers just tossing around their theories in some off-the-record conversation. Now compare how he described the story to Howard Kurtz. There he makes it sound as if U.S. military analysts had determined that this was indeed what Israel was doing - not some hypothesis based on a Machiavellian analysis, but a tactic that these analysts had determined was actually going on. The difference is subtle, but crucial. It makes you wonder how he might have played such similar subtle wording games with his book and his Pentagon reporting. Does he regularly turn what retired military analysts say when gaming out what might or might not be going on into something that sounds a lot more definitive when it comes out through his reporter's prism. I think this is a shocking accusation and retraction. I wonder how widely Ricks is going to shout it from the rooftops that he made such a vile accusation erroneously. I'm cynical enough to believe that he'll feel that going on Hugh Hewitt's show is enough and we won't hear more about his Emily Litella moment. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:25 AM 0 comments Comments: Thomas Ricks has been getting lots of media attention for his book, Fiasco. However, he should be getting as much attention for this accusation that he made on CNN on Sunday. (go to CAMERA.org for the video) He went on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources and made the astounding accusation that the Israelis are deliberately not destroying Katyusha launchers because they feel that having rockets rain down on their country gives them some moral advantage in world opinion. KURTZ: Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other? THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon. KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here? RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me. KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here. RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well. Just ponder how contemptible the Israelis would be if they were risking their own citizens being injured or killed just to garner some benefit in world opinion - which is never going to favor them anyway. Think of the worldview that the Washington Post Pentagon correspondent must have that he would publicly make such an accusation. And this isn't the first time that that sort of accusation has been aired on CNN. CNN International anchor Rosemary Church (corrected from earlier) also accused Israel of being of capable of shooting down Katyusha rockets but choosing not to. A scary combination of ignorance and anti-Israel thinking. This is how CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) responded to Ricks, One wonders who these “military analysts” are and why they have apparently not gone on the record. And why has Ricks so far not written the story in the Post? Can it be that his claims are too much even for the Washington Post to publish? Whatever the reason, a reporter who thinks that Israel would intentionally allow Hezbollah’s Katyushas to rain down on Israeli civilians would believe anything about Israel, no matter how monstrous. And a reporter who believes that reserve Israeli soldiers would follow orders to not attack rockets that are aimed at their children and wives, and that these soldiers would not immediately go to the Israeli media with the story, is an idiot. The fact is that Israeli soldiers are fighting and dying, going house to house in Lebanese villages that Hezbollah spent six years preparing as killing zones, to stop those rockets, while at the same time minimizing Lebanese civilian casualties. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been reportedly forcing civilians to stay in the villages to create human shields. Mr. Ricks’ charge is therefore nothing short of obscene, and he should put up or shut up. Let him name his so called “military analysts,”and let him, as the Post’s Pentagon correspondent, explain why their views are persuasive and credible. If he can’t or won’t, he should publicly retract his claim and apologize. So, we have this vicious accusation lying on the table from the newest media darling, the Washington Post correspondent. Pretty shocking and disgusting, right? Well, as Emily Litella would have said, "Never mind." Ricks went on Hugh Hewitt's show last night and disavowed the whole accusation. HH: Great to have you here. I want to spend the vast bulk of our time on Fiasco and Iraq, but first, yesterday, you were on with Howard Kurtz' Reliable Sources, CNN, and in response to a question, you said that some military analyst had told you that Israel had, "purposefully left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon." That was reported on Powerline, Rush Limbaugh read it on the air today, quite a controversy. Anything to add to it, Thomas Ricks? TR- Yeah, I wish I'd kept my mouth shut. What I said was accurate, that in an off-the-record conversation with some military analysts, a couple had said to me that they thought it was a smart strategy to leave some rocket pockets in place to help the Israelis shape public perceptions, and give their forces more freedom of maneuver in Lebanon. They weren't saying it was a bad strategy. They thought it was pretty intelligent, if it were the case. But I've since heard today from some very smart, well-informed people, that while such a strategy might be logical, and even morally defensible, that they thought the Israeli public just wouldn't stand for it, and they also expressed personal dismay to me that I had passed on the thought, which they thought was irresponsible. (emphasis added) HH: Do you want to name any of the analysts? TR: No, it was an off-the-record conversation, and I want to honor that confidence. HH: Okay, last question. Do you think they were leading you on at that point, or just telling you what they honestly meant? TR: No, I think...I know from the context of the conversation, it was about many different things. That came up as a part of the conversation. These are very good, smart, retired U.S. military officers. Oops, never mind. Now, note how he characterized the off-the-record conversations he had had with military analysts in his conversation with Hugh on Monday night. He makes it sound as if they were just hypothesizing as to what Israel might be doing and assessing whether or not it was a good idea for Israel to play roulette with their citizens' lives. He was quoting retired American officers just tossing around their theories in some off-the-record conversation. Now compare how he described the story to Howard Kurtz. There he makes it sound as if U.S. military analysts had determined that this was indeed what Israel was doing - not some hypothesis based on a Machiavellian analysis, but a tactic that these analysts had determined was actually going on. The difference is subtle, but crucial. It makes you wonder how he might have played such similar subtle wording games with his book and his Pentagon reporting. Does he regularly turn what retired military analysts say when gaming out what might or might not be going on into something that sounds a lot more definitive when it comes out through his reporter's prism. I think this is a shocking accusation and retraction. I wonder how widely Ricks is going to shout it from the rooftops that he made such a vile accusation erroneously. I'm cynical enough to believe that he'll feel that going on Hugh Hewitt's show is enough and we won't hear more about his Emily Litella moment. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:25 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment