Obama Sets the Right Middle East Peace Timeline

posted by John Nichols on 07/23/2008 @ 3:56pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Newsvine
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (32)

Subscribe Now

When I interviewed former President Carter about how to pursue and achieve peace in the Middle East, he made two essential points.

First: "It is possible for an American President to advance the peace process, to achieve meaningful progress. It is also necessary--more necessary now than it has ever been."

Second: To achieve meaningful progress, however, a president must start immediately.

"As you know, it is not generally expected that they will do this in the first year or two of their administration," Carter said of the work of prodding Israel and its neighbors not merely to negotiate but to make the compromises necessary to achieve a lasting peace. "President Clinton did not do it until his last year in office, and President Bush now is saying that he is going to try and do something. I'm not bragging about myself, but I started in the first two months of my administration. We finished it the second year I was in office. It is possible to achieve progress, if you start early enough and make it clear that peace is a priority of the administration."

Carter is, of course, correct.

Despite the battering he takes from those who do not know the Middle East, and from those who for reasons of politics do not want to see peace between Israel and Palestine, Carter is the only member of the fraternity of current and former presidents who has any useful advice to offer an incoming American leader with regard to advancing a peace process.

That is why, when we sort through all of the statements that Barack Obama made during his recent visit to the Middle East, the only one that really matters is this: ''My goal is to make sure that we work starting from the minute I'm sworn in to office to try to find some breakthroughs."

It is the commitment to engage from Day 1 that is critical.

As Carter explained to me, this has less to do with timing than with priorities.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders have grown accustomed to American Presidents who do not pay serious attention to the region until they are in the legacy-building stage of their tenures. Only when a president is thinking about how he might win a Nobel Prize for Peace does he decide to try and skip across the minefields of the Middle East.

By then, as Clinton learned and as Bush is learning, it is too late. A lame-duck president is not in a position to make progress in a part of the world that, for better or worse, responds best to strength and stability.

Obama, whose world tour was sufficiently successful to stir serious discussion of what his presidency might entail, will be in a unique position to promote peace in the region. Unlike Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who refused to meet with the Palestinians, Obama has held the right meetings with right players and begun to make the connections that will be necessary to promoting peace in the region.

More importantly, Obama has got the timeline right.

A president who is serious about Middle East peace must start working to achieve it on Day 1 -- not on that day, late in a failed administration, when it occurs to him that history tends to reflect favorably upon peacemakers.

Comments (32)

I may not agree with Obama on everything but I am impressed with his campaign. He and his staff have a good sense of time and setting priorities. Of course there are roadblocks here and there but that is expected in the overall project. It is likely that Obama's staff already formualated an eight year project for his office. This is a huge contrast to the current administration which can't seem to get their heads out of their rear.

Posted by fredfromsj at 07/23/2008 @ 3:17pm
No thanks! The Carter administration is remembered as the most ineffectual presidency EVER! He took credit for a supposed middeast so called"peace" he virtually had NOTHING to do with, remember the gas lines with America held hostage by OPEC, remember the sorry ineffectual inaction when Iran seized our embassy (see American soil for the ignorant)and took Americans hostage! Remember how a texas oilman DID get his people out of Iran making the U.S. goverment under Carter look like the idiots they were!

A vote for Alibama is a vote for another Jimminey Peanutman!

Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/23/2008 @ 3:19pm
Is it then accurate to say that this is the reason why Obama wants to put prosecuting hsuB/cHeney admin, but for the most egregious crimes, off for a while? Is this really more important?

So it's between petty crimes and misdemeanors leading to war, unconstitutional spying on US citizens, torture, negligent entrustment, partisan political use of government facilities/equipment, DoJ obstruction of justice, etc. - versus - peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

Uuhmmmm, wonder if that will bring peace to the Sunni and Shia? Or to the Afghani Jihad and Taliban? The Turks and Armenians...

Good thought, but I'd prefer to get the criminals in jail here and then do there. Jimmy C. didn't have to deal with Nixon as he came into office; Ford paid for the commute though. Just a thought.

(BTW - as an aside, another thought specifically for FrGr-- since he did ask a while back and I just came up with the 'proper' non-existent-surge comparison:

There have been more US soldier casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008-- than there were in the very 1st 6 months of the Iraq war in 2003.)

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 8:54pm
er, Ford paid for the 'pardon' though

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 9:03pm
Say what you want to about Carter's gridlocked Presidency... but he has spent the ensuing 28 years doing international humanitarian stewardship and analysis. His insights on 'where do we go from here' are invaluable as we reconsider the true costs of a burdensome and bludgeonsome military approach to the world's troubles.

Prosperous Democracies rely heavily on healthy economic infrastructures, stable and safe living environments, and freedom of speech... and these are not militaristic jurisdictions under normal circumstances.

Obama wouldn't be where he is today... if a commanding sector of the US voting public was 'sold' on the idea that war begets a 'profound and lasting' public welfare...

We're not sold on it, are we...

An imperialistic empirical approach to 'nation building' in the hot spots of a world embarking on a new millennia can only divert our attentions from the pressing dilemmas that face the world population as a whole.

The incredible benefits of our stewardship of of the biosphere are only beginning to be clear to us. We have reached the point where the 'conservation of resources' is our most valuable resource... and the care we take in nurturing a preeminent 'peace economy' based on the rejuvinational dynamics of life in harmony with nature and one another... is our only 'weapon'.

It is possible, after all...;^)

Posted by ttr at 07/23/2008 @ 9:16pm
starting from day 1 means simply extending the process out. It will not lead to any lasting peace.

Golda Meir put it best: "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 9:22pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 9:22pm

damn sand niggers!

it's ALWAYS their fault, ¿right?

that's why it's really important to leave lots of cluster bomblets around to make sure those kids never grow up to hate cluster bomb makers.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 10:30pm
Golda Meir put it best: "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 9:22pm

exactly.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 10:38pm
Golda Meir put it best: "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 9:22pm

exactly.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 10:38pm

hey, jm,

i hear they're going to give (back) nebraska to the druids.

they say it's their ancestral home.

i guess you can go live in one of them refugee camps in kansas.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 11:07pm
A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India).

No country favors taking Israel's side, including the UNITED STATES, WHERE 71 PERCENT FAVOR TAKING NEITHER SIDE.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 11:24pm
It is fitting that the Nation should speak of Obama and Carter in the same breath. The foreign policy disasters occurring on Carter's watch are legendary and unprecedented, and all indications are that an Obama Presidency would be similar.

Obama, whose foreign policy consists of talking to our enemies while bombing our allies, told the assembled veterans at the VFW Convention in Kansas City last year, "All our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq."

But there was a military solution in Iraq in Gen. David Petraeus' brilliant anti-terrorism strategy that paved the way for Iraqi political and religious reconciliation. If things are heating up in Afghanistan, it's because al-Qaida and its jihadist brethren, having been defeated in Iraq, have fled there to make a last stand.

Obama's views on Iraq and Afghanistan have ranged from the inconsistent to the incoherent. He'd have us believe he supported defeat in Iraq because he wanted victory in Afghanistan. Yet his subcommittee has held no hearings on Afghanistan, and when he was part of a congressional delegation that visited Iraq in 2006, he passed on the opportunity to continue on to Afghanistan.

On May 24, 2007, Obama in fact voted to cut off all funding for all our military efforts in Afghanistan (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181). His support for a surge there seems predicated on stopping alleged U.S. atrocities.

Three months after he voted to cut Afghan funding, Obama said on Aug. 14, 2007: "We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure there." Shades of John Kerry and John Murtha.

Obama was asked by ABC's Terry Moran recently: "If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?" Obama replied: "No, because keep in mind that . . . ." An incredulous Moran asked, "You wouldn't?"

Obama continued: "Keep in mind . . . these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I'm absolutely convinced of, is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with."

Huh? Knowing we would win, he'd still oppose the surge and suffer defeat in Iraq just because he just didn't like George Bush?

The Times spiked McCain's op-ed, which will now receive wider circulation, because it reminds voters of Obama's dangerous and naive foreign policy that only starts with being wrong on Iraq and the surge.

The judgment of both Obama and his sycophants at the Times is open to question.

Posted by pontificus at 07/24/2008 @ 02:41am
The foreign policy disasters occurring on Carter's watch are legendary and unprecedented, and all indications are that an Obama Presidency would be similar.

Posted by pontificus at 07/24/2008 @ 02:41am

Disastrous for the Military Industrial Complex exorbitant profiteering perhaps.

Jimmy C. didn't have Faux Woos, nor their mini-educated mentality of dic'tator lovin' repub new con lemmings that believe people rode dinosaurs on horse saddles-- essentially having to contend with a loud whining pack of perv's that take wide precarious stands swallowing anything the dic'tator philosophy feeds them.

But then again most people see them for what they are now.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 08:47am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 9:22pm

Before anybody takes him at face value....ask LVLIB a question-

"Larry, do you believe that peace between Israel and 'the Arabs'....is POSSIBLE?"

His answer will show the truth.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:16am
precis of act two: "uuuhhmm, this meat, it's be right gristly! --pass me that mustard . . ."

actual history, facts rather than plainchanting a misfigured past--

such as this recommendation from nichols, in which we're served up, so much pie in the sky . . .

now that the "bete noir" O slouches to'rd bethlehem.

I don't know who to fear more, nichols, or the critical (no pun here) editorial insouciance of The Nation! their sandwiching such egregiously contradictory 'history information' between covers of one issue.

the spineless pragmatism nichols uses [that's baloney, implicitly slathered with credentializing-mayonnaise; The Nation's non-stickie brand, i believe it's called PanGlossian] for writing up, and citing Carter as a model!

when, straight out of R. Sheer's article, that i quote, are the hamburgered facts. He says,

" I came across a 1996 press release from the publisher of 'From the Shadows--The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War', written by current Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the ultimate insider, who was on Carter's National Security Council staff. The publisher's book promo boasts that thanks to Gates, who ran the CIA for many years, we learn of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen--six months before the Soviets invaded."

In short, the Democratic President baldly lied to us when he justified support for the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan who were battling the secular government in Kabul as a necessary Cold War response to a Soviet invasion. That Gates's account is accurate was affirmed in a blurb for the book by none other than Brzezinski, hailing it as "a most impressive achievement ... especially pertaining to the U.S. policy on Afghanistan."

It is hardly reassuring that Brzezinski has resurfaced in presidential politics, this time as an occasional adviser to Barack Obama, or that there is talk that Obama, in a burst of bipartisan enthusiasm, might ask Gates to stay on as defense secretary."

concocted in the Kitchen of the Bleeding Heart, by sous-chef Nichols, then handled by The Nation busboys, this weird pseudo-polemic theatre ought to be

swinging out the doors to us, a near-fatuous or sated, electorate, while

we'll be finishing our bread, speculatin' at Starbucks probably, and sidewalk cafe places like that.

Posted by camarada at 07/24/2008 @ 10:20am
precis of act two: "uuuhhmm, this meat, it's be right gristly! --pass me that mustard . . ."

actual history, facts rather than plainchanting a misfigured past--

such as this recommendation from nichols, in which we're served up, so much pie in the sky . . .

now that the "bete noir" O slouches to'rd bethlehem.

I don't know who to fear more, nichols, or the critical (no pun here) editorial insouciance of The Nation! their sandwiching such egregiously contradictory 'history information' between covers of one issue.

the spineless pragmatism nichols uses [that's baloney, implicitly slathered with credentializing-mayonnaise; The Nation's non-stickie brand, i believe it's called PanGlossian] for writing up, and citing Carter as a model!

when, straight out of R. Sheer's article, that i quote, are the hamburgered facts. He says,

" I came across a 1996 press release from the publisher of 'From the Shadows--The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War', written by current Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the ultimate insider, who was on Carter's National Security Council staff. The publisher's book promo boasts that thanks to Gates, who ran the CIA for many years, we learn of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen--six months before the Soviets invaded."

In short, the Democratic President baldly lied to us when he justified support for the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan who were battling the secular government in Kabul as a necessary Cold War response to a Soviet invasion. That Gates's account is accurate was affirmed in a blurb for the book by none other than Brzezinski, hailing it as "a most impressive achievement ... especially pertaining to the U.S. policy on Afghanistan."

It is hardly reassuring that Brzezinski has resurfaced in presidential politics, this time as an occasional adviser to Barack Obama, or that there is talk that Obama, in a burst of bipartisan enthusiasm, might ask Gates to stay on as defense secretary."

concocted in the Kitchen of the Bleeding Heart, by sous-chef Nichols, then handled by The Nation busboys, this weird pseudo-polemic theatre ought to be

swinging out the doors to us, a near-fatuous or sated, electorate, while

we'll be finishing our bread, speculatin' at Starbucks probably, and sidewalk cafe places like that.

Posted by camarada at 07/24/2008 @ 10:45am
precis of act two: "uuuhhmm, this meat, it's be right gristly! --pass me that mustard . . ."

actual history, facts rather than plainchanting a misfigured past--

such as this recommendation from nichols, in which we're served up, so much pie in the sky . . .

now that the "bete noir" O slouches to'rd bethlehem.

I don't know who to fear more, nichols, or the critical (no pun here) editorial insouciance of The Nation! their sandwiching such egregiously contradictory 'history information' between covers of one issue.

the spineless pragmatism nichols uses [that's baloney, implicitly slathered with credentializing-mayonnaise; The Nation's non-stickie brand, i believe it's called PanGlossian] for writing up, and citing Carter as a model!

when, straight out of R. Sheer's article, that i quote, are the hamburgered facts. He says,

" I came across a 1996 press release from the publisher of 'From the Shadows--The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War', written by current Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the ultimate insider, who was on Carter's National Security Council staff. The publisher's book promo boasts that thanks to Gates, who ran the CIA for many years, we learn of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen--six months before the Soviets invaded."

In short, the Democratic President baldly lied to us when he justified support for the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan who were battling the secular government in Kabul as a necessary Cold War response to a Soviet invasion. That Gates's account is accurate was affirmed in a blurb for the book by none other than Brzezinski, hailing it as "a most impressive achievement ... especially pertaining to the U.S. policy on Afghanistan."

It is hardly reassuring that Brzezinski has resurfaced in presidential politics, this time as an occasional adviser to Barack Obama, or that there is talk that Obama, in a burst of bipartisan enthusiasm, might ask Gates to stay on as defense secretary."

concocted in the Kitchen of the Bleeding Heart, by sous-chef Nichols, then handled by The Nation busboys, this weird pseudo-polemic theatre ought to be

swinging out the doors to us, a near-fatuous or sated, electorate, while

we'll be finishing our bread, speculatin' at Starbucks probably, and sidewalk cafe places like that.

Posted by camarada at 07/24/2008 @ 10:46am
>>>Golda Meir put it best: "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 9:22pm <<<

No, peace will come when both Israelis and Palestinians realize that that they are from the same Abrahamic root, believe in the same God, and share the same spiritual values.

This notion of separateness is all in their head, as the God of Abraham is the same God of Ishmael and Issac.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 12:25pm
Delirium's own tremens... an awful way to go...

Posturing with lemons... to cynicise the show...

Staggeroniosities... phoney words of wit

Clogging curiosities... with torpid lines of...

Posted by ttr at 07/24/2008 @ 12:27pm
in response to camarada at 07/24/2008 @ 10:46am

Posted by ttr at 07/24/2008 @ 12:29pm
"Larry, do you believe that peace between Israel and 'the Arabs'....is POSSIBLE?"

His answer will show the truth.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:16am

Possible yes. Likely, no. I have seen no sign that the Arabs are beginning to love their children more than they hate Israel and the Jews.

When they agree that Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign and Jewish nation; when they stop proclaiming that Jerusalem must never belong to the Jews; when they stop believing that killing Jews is the desire of Allah and renounce those teachings in the Qu'ran, maybe.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 12:56pm
Bwahahahah:

"The U.S. Embassy in Berlin has instructed Foreign Service personnel stationed there not to attend Sen. Barack Obama's public rally today, which the State Department this week labeled a "partisan political activity" prohibited under its regulations for those serving overseas."

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 1:08pm
We all need to stand up together... the entirety of humanity... and swear both to our God(s) and to each other...

That killing one another is not an option.

Civilization is based on nothing less...

Posted by ttr at 07/24/2008 @ 1:10pm
"Government employees serving in the United States are permitted to attend such events under the Hatch Act, which bars other partisan activity, such as contributing money or working in behalf of a candidate...

...The American Foreign Service Association, the union of the diplomatic corps, objected to the ruling, calling it an "unnecessarily narrow interpretation" of the Foreign Affairs Manual. "The fact that you are working for the U.S. government overseas should not preclude political activity that you could engage in in the United States," one retired senior Foreign Service officer said.

Indeed, the administration has a long and tawdry record of trying to browbeat government agencies into submission, whether it's the CIA or the Centers for Disease Control. The State Department is perhaps highest on the list of conservatives and neocons who see it as the center of disloyalty and treachery. But this latest action represents a new low. If it's going to these lengths, the Bush administration must be really worried about Sen. John McCain's prospects."

http://tinyurl.com/6dlnvc

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 1:24pm
pet

ty

dic'

ta

tor

ship

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 1:32pm
lkhj and bla bla, and

as enwlitsch,

wanhn whtch

is a secondary

language wi yee, pls stop posting yr doggerel, aiiieee . . . that is so impertinent, tho it be ever so

quickly contrived.

you'd be of the subset sent for re-mindwashing

soon's the theo-utopia you hallucinate comes to pass!

if you were lurkey, you might pass that first test, and be

sent to the limbo of re-mind w a t c hing.

everjuan has a place in this perfect whirl'd arrangement!

Posted by camarada at 07/24/2008 @ 1:37pm
This notion of separateness is all in their head, as the God of Abraham is the same God of Ishmael and Issac.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 12:25pm

You are half right. Yes, Ishmael knew through his father, the same G-d as Isaac. However, Islam does not worship the same G-d.

How do I know? Because G-d would not say His agreement with Israel is eternal and then proceed to raise up someone else with a command to destroy them as the Qu'ran does. Not to mention a 1000 or more other direct contradictions.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 1:47pm

This FALSE dispute over whether it was Ismael or Issac who was to be sacrificed by Abraham pales in comparison to the significance of the sacrifice itself, in that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son (regardless of which one) to do God's will.

The central point of the Biblical story of sacrificing what is personally dear for the greater good has been lost in this so-called dispute between Jews and Muslims about which son was to be sacrificed, and the sooner Jews and Muslims realize the folly of this and embrace their common heritage, the sooner they can move on in peace and brotherhood, as their forefathers (Ishmael and Issac) really were brothers, and had the same father in Abraham, and worshiped the same God.

This ignorant Christian fundamentalist view that "Allah" (the Arabic word for God) is different than the God they worship shows a gross lack of understanding of Biblical history and the story of Abraham.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 4:05pm
......killing one another is not an option.

Civilization is based on nothing less...

Posted by ttr at 07/24/2008 @ 1:10pm

I'm sorry, over human history, if we weren't "killing one another", I have serious doubts that human "Civilization" would be where it is today!

"killing one another" is certainly one facet of Darwinism, isn't it? The strong survives and get to propagate?

We know you Libs are very tolerant of Islam....cutting off hands, heads, stoning deaths, death warrants for cartoonists and all that civilizational stuff, but really, do you want the Mayan "Civilization"...human sacrifices with ripping out the heart and all THAT good stuff.....to be your "Civilization"?

Human Civilization is based on, at its core, "killing one another" (on a tribal basis) until at some point, --which we may never reach due to unknown Geo event(s)--we are in fact, all similar......racially, genetically, culturally, etc.!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/24/2008 @ 5:06pm
Until we leave Darwin's historical predeterminism behind... we can't really call ourselves civilized. It is only barbarism that the social darwinists court, with their 'holier than thou' cash grabs and market manipulations... face it... a level playing field is the true mark of a civilized society. Tipping the scales of Justice and fairness in either direction is not the work of providence... or 'evolution'... or even brains.

It is the 'work' of greed, ignorance, and short sighted self-centeredness... all instinctual and survival based though they be... that inhibits the human condition (and genome) from making it's next evolutionary leap.

Don'tcha think?

Posted by ttr at 07/24/2008 @ 6:10pm
.....a level playing field is the true mark of a civilized society.....

Don'tcha think?

Posted by ttr at 07/24/2008 @ 6:10pm

No, I don't think! A "level playing field" for all of humanity will not happen in 10,000 years....maybe longer!

How many "level playing field" exist in the world of, let's just say, mammals? How may species do the term Alpha Male is applicable to?

You Libs disguise your ultimate, but forever UNattainable goal, of "level" results by using buzz words such as "level playing field", `equal opportunity', Affirmative Action.....all of which boiled down, is Racism.

Underneath it all, whether you know it or not, we are actually in agreement....that half of the people by definition, are born below-average/inferior and nothing can change that!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/24/2008 @ 7:15pm
Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 4:05pm

Interesting subterfuge. You ignore my point and then stress something that is simply a red herring.

Try and focus on the issue. If they worship the same G-d, why would He tell Israel they have an agreement eternally with them and then command Mohammad to kill the Jews wherever you find them?

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:35pm
-the term Alpha Male-

by 2HAPPY at 07/24/2008 @ 7:15pm

You need to get out more. 'Alpha Males' have gone the way of the dinosaurs... at least what I perceive to be your conception of what an alpha male is... Seems to me that 'Iron John' was a changing Phenotype... as was John Wayne... as was 'Capt. Kirk'...

Jean Luc Picard... now we are getting more up to date!

My point...? That the concept of "alpha male" evolves along with the species... So... a peace loving 'leader' who uses diplomacy and understanding in place of fear and threats of violence... is a big step up the evolutional ladder.

Hear that ladies? You've got a whole new paradigm to bolster with your 'appropriately placed' affections!

Just joking girls...;^)

Posted by ttr at 07/24/2008 @ 8:51pm