B.

I'd say it's choice #2, which is what these guys are now going to repeat to scare people back into supporting the surge. Everyone gets spooked about gas prices. I guess we'll have to open our ears for Rush and Hannity to repeat how Democrats want you to go bankrupt at the pump.

"To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.

Versus if we stay and watch the sectarian violence that's been going on for years continue, watch as gas prices keep going up as they have been for years now, watch as al Qaeda remains at large as it has since 9/11, and watch as Iran does nothing much since the U.S. is pretty much handing them the region on a silver platter thanks to the incompetence of President Bush.

For a guy from Vegas, you'd think he'd know when to fold 'em.

(b).

The lies Petraeus and Crocker told him were entirely different.

[Trolling Deleted]

"To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.

Oddly, back in 2003 when opponents of the attack on Iraq predicted that there would be genocide, gas prices in the US would rise, al Qaeda would continue its expansion, and Iran would expand its influence in that part of the world following our invasion, they were attacked as deluded and hysterical fantasists by the right wing.....

Yeah, the world petroleum markets really will be squeezed without all that oil that Iraq has been exporting.

mhr-
Republicans appear to want our troops to stay in Iraq until they are killed. Bush is doing nothing to actually bring peace to Iraq. As long as Republicans enable his blood-lust, they aren't doing a thing to win (a word that has absolutely no meaning in this context any more).

luci-
Maybe Porter misheard. They told him that those things would happen if we attacked Iran.

Republicans want our troops to die for nothing.
Some support.

Similar arguments were made when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The conflict was supposed to dramatically increase gas prices, but it didn't happen. Saudi Arabia responded quickly to increase their production. In fact, they responded so well that James Baker had to go to Saudi Arabia to convince them to cut back on production to prevent oil prices from falling. The oil supply is tighter than it was back then, but Iraq's oil production share is also lower. I just don't see gas prices rising that much even if Iraq's production were reduced to zero. What is strange, however, is that the people making this argument are the same ones who think an attack on Iran wouldn't have such an effect. Given that Iran could shut down the Strait of Hormuz and block about half of the world's oil supply, you would think an attack on Iran would have a far greater effect on oil prices. But these arguments are merely scare tactics and are not based in reality, so I guess we shouldn't expect them to be rational.

C - "None of the above"

Petraeus and Crocker are professional soldiers and patriots and have given a clear statement based on thoughtful analysis.

mhr, This is a time for rational thought, not hysteria. Patriots of good will are desperately asking, "Are we doing more harm than good by staying in Iraq?" That's the question. But anybody who asks it is being accused of being unpatriotic.

Do you, mhr, think we should not be trying to get honest answers to that question?

(1) The Suunis and Shiites are already fighting a civil war that will end in genocide (although it might accelerate if we left, since they wouldn't have to take time out from genocide to shoot at us);

(3) al-Qaeda is already using Iraq to expand. In fact, if we had never invaded Iraq, we probably could have gone into Pakistan and annihilated them in 2002, so just by invading Iraq we allowed al-Qaeda to expand.

(4) Iran is already the strongest Arab state in the region, since the only thing containing them was the threat that Saddam would go apeshit and start a war.

So, of these scenarios, $8 or $9 gas is the only one that hasn't already happened. And yes, that would be bad. But I'd rather have $9 gas than lose any more guys over there.

mhr, you are truly one wierd dude ... tbrosz please come back. at least you were occasionally able to make an honest argument.

AI, I hope thats sarcasm.

You may well be correct, but the question remains, did they say what Porter claims they said.

If a, then I would have to say c is wrong since its not supported by clear rational analysis.

That leaves b, Porter lied, or more politely stated completly misrepresented what they said. Then again using the phrase to the man, pretty much makes it lie, because there is absolutely no way they said exactly the same thing.

tbrosz please come back. at least you were occasionally able to make an honest argument

Perhaps true, butthat just increases his shame in that most of the time he chose not to.

I will admit, though, that tbrosz was at least an independent if thoroughly blinkered voice, as opposed to the GOP/neocon shills and hacks Kevin has populating his boards now ("ex-liberal," brian, etc.).

Stefan on August 30, 2007 at 1:40 PM:

You're not supposed to remember that. Your programming has somehow failed. Report to the nearest Fox News Re-education Station immediately for a software upgrade.

How did Porter forget to mention the lions and tiger and bears? Oh, well...

Petraeus and Crocker, honest brokers? Give me a break.

1) How could Iran take over AND Al-Qaeda expand in Iraq? Wouldn't those two be mutually exclusive?
2) EIGHT dollars a gallon? Even if every last oil well in Iraq is destroyed, Iraq only represents 3% of the world's oil production.

I'm confused...which part of those points is not going to happen?

ok, the gas price increase to that level is unlikely, albeit not impossible.

genocide, check.
Iranian hegemony...not inevitable but quite possible.
al qaeda continuing its expansion, check.

now...if you want to make an argument that those things will also happen if we stay...that's possible.

Why are the Iraqi Deputy President and the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister concerned with US gas prices?

A Democratic representative from Oregon makes the same case as the Repubican representative from Nevada.

From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen.

I choose A. These scumbag politicians received their talking points from American generals, who love war, killing, mutilation and fear.

Tom Veil,

if they said it...I imagine it would be more nuanced than that.

i.e. something more like "al qaeda will reestablish itself in the Sunni areas while Iran will dominate Shiite areas, much of Baghdad and oil production (principally in the Shiite south).

Iran is already the strongest Arab state in the region,

Which is especially impressive when you consider that Iran isn't even an Arab state....

Nathan, you dishonest hack, increasing gas prices, ethnic cleansing, and expansion of Iranian and al Qaeda's influence in Iraq are all happening right now,/i>, as a result of Bush's invasion and incompetenc occupation.

Now: Why should we continue to expend American blood and treasure ostensibly to prevent any or all of the above, when we aren't?

And after dazzling us with that answer, tell us why you haven't joined up.

No, strike that -- as piss-poor of a lawyer you must be, I'd never dream of inflicting you on the US military. I'd pity your squadmates as much as I do your clients.

To a person, they said ... gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon... if we leave,"

Remind me again why the danger of high gas prices is a reason to stay in Iraq, but not a reason to not bomb Iran?

If an "R" is involved always pick (b).

Kevin, you need three choices at least to have a good multiple choice quiz. Anyways, the answer is neither a) or b). The administration, the generals, and Rep. John Porter are simply all on the same page doing agitprop for a common agenda. They are already getting the MSM on the same page too.
See David Ignatius' op-ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901930_pf.html

"...Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war's least understood turning points: America's decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq's January 2005 elections.
"Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not," Allawi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We fought the elections with virtually no support whatsoever, except for Iraqis and the Iraqis who support us..."

Well, well. It is time to start the shit clock on Iran I guess. It looks like we are fixing to pull a switcheroo with Maliki and put in Allawi-because if it wasn't for all that damn Iranian meddling he would have won the elections anyways. Hey, I thought the Republicans always thought money is equivalent to free speech, so what's with the hypocrisy here? Iran is just another political action committee isn't it?

Oh yeah, and if we provoke Iran into attacking us or our new "friends" we can freely bomb the shit out of them and gas can then go to $8 or $9 a gallon, but that would be Iran's fault not ours.

I choose B, with Porter banking, at little or no risk, on Petraeus and Crocker not calling him publicly on it.

We could resolve this quickly if some reporter would flat-out ask Petraeus and Crocker if they said that. Also, if I had a pony.

as piss-poor of a lawyer you must be

The law showed him the door. Now Nathan manages a karaoke bar or does balloon animals in Washington Square or something like that, I forget what. Something that was Nathan's idea of "the arts."

Ah, Kevin.

If Kevin was honest with himself, he'd grudgingly admit that violence in Bagdad was dramatically down since the surge. Admit that our troop's moral was high. Admit that Sunnis and Shia and Kurds come had come together this last weekend to produce the political settlement that's needed to end the insurgency.

What more evidence of progress do you want? A ticket tape parade in downtown Bagdad.

Petraeus a hack, or Porter a liar. Hmm.

Can I go with "all of the above"?

I think Porter is FOS. There is nothing wrong with Patreus and Crocker indicating that genocide would be a major problem if we were to leave (hell, it already is!), but where do they get off predicting what would happen to gas prices? How is it in their expertise to make a judgement like that? It isn't, and I don't think they'd allow themselves to be played for fools by a schlub like Porter.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is not an international organization. It is not associated with bin Laden and the attacks of 9/11 in the United States. It is a group of Sunni Arab revivalists who are more properly called Salafi Jihadis. Their particular ideological outlook has existed for many decades but the invasion of Iraq led to the empowerment of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who served as a nucleus for their becoming an armed resistance movement in Iraq. They are a very small force when compared to the main players. Their exit from the scene would not change much in Iraq and it has nothing at all to do with the so-called "war on terror".

It is true that the war has increased Iran's influence but that is because the US defeated their greatest enemies and allowed sympathetic governments, their co-religionists in Iraq, to come to power through democratic elections. No doubt Mr. Cheney is planning to nip Iran's influence in the bud quite shortly.

Gregory, you moron,

um, didn't you see the part where I said that might happen even if we don't withdraw?

but you're too busy wacking off to your insult writing to notice that I made your point for you.

shove it asshat.

"Our guys on the ground?" Oh, yes, liberals support the troops. They just want them to lose. Some support!

Not quite, mere hapless retard, we want them home safe. Unlike blood thirsty chickenshits like yourself, who bravely send in others to do your fighting.

What more evidence of progress do you want? A ticket tape parade in downtown Bagdad.
Posted by: egbert

No, egghead, maybe now it's safe enough for you to enlist. The day you do will be the day I believe violence is down in Iraq.

(4) Iran is already the strongest Arab state in the region, since the only thing containing them was the threat that Saddam would go apeshit and start a war.

FYI, Iran isn't Arab, it's Persian, and Iranians don't speak Arabic but Farsi. Persians and Arabs have historically been enemies.

I'm missing Kevin's point. Other than the gas price comment, I thought the other comments demonstrate mastery of the obvious and don't recall seeing serious dispute with them here on this site. More Al Qaeda? Duh. More sectarian killings? Duh. More Iran meddling? Double duh. The real battle for Iraq probably commences once we depart.

In reading Kevin's post and the comments it makes sense if one recognizes that the real debate is who will get the blame for all of it, rather than whether it will happen or not.

"What more evidence of progress do you want? A ticket tape parade in downtown Bagdad.
Posted by: egbert"

How about the Iraqi legislature actually passing some laws to back up the alleged agreements? We should remember that there was an "agreement" on the oil law in January. Passage was supposedly imminent, but the law has since gone nowhere. Is there any reason to believe that the current situation is different? Oh yeah, there is: the Iragi government is currently even more dysfunctional than it was in January. So we should expect that legislation now is even less likely. Assuming, of course, that the probability of progress in January was greater than zero.

If Petraeus spent his time worrying about every politician who exaggerated or lied, he'd have no time left to win the war.

he'd have no time left to win the war.

By the way, for anyone who doesn't know, you really can succesfully apply the Heimlich maneuver on yourself using the back of a chair.

However, it's probably easier to just not eat lunch while reading the blogs.

FYI, Iran isn't Arab, it's Persian, and Iranians don't speak Arabic but Farsi. Persians and Arabs have historically been enemies.

Wow, that's my bad. And a failing of American education, too, since I never once was told this in high school or college (and I went to a pretty good college).

Anyway, despite the bad ethnic identification, my point still stands. Iran is the most powerful state in the region whether we're there or not, simply because Saddam isn't there anymore.

Then there is possibility (c), namely: Republicans are filthy, lying perverts who will say or do anything to maintain their sick form of corporate fascistic governance and imperialistic waste of taxpayer dollars on weapons of slaughter.

My money is on (c).

Who knows. It's hard to say since they were probably meeting in a bathroom and the echo in there is terrible. Then, there's all the hand signals under the stall walls and it's possible they weren't even talking to each other at all.

Probably one said 8 or 9 and the other one didn't understand the meaning and just thought of gasoline prices going higher and higher.

Maybe one said 'We face a disaster" and the other thought he meant if there was a withdrawal.

It's so hard to get these Republicans to come out with the Truth.

Looks like Dems need to ignore them and just run the country our way.

I'm guessing a) that they really did say that stuff.

In Iraq, frankly, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't so I'm not surprised if they say this kind of thing.

1) re: genocide. I think the presence of the US is helping keep the body count down. A horrible thought.
2) re: al Qaeda. I think that al-Queda will flourish whether the US leaves or stays in Iraq. Iraq was not a friend of Al Qaeda before our invasion, but we have turned it into al Qaeda's recruiting and training ground. Good job, Bushie!
3) Gas prices. Hard to say. They are likely to rise one way or another. For the past four years we ought to have been engaged in radical measures to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil so this particular issue would be moot. But no. Not with oilmen in charge. So, is this the evidence that the invasion of Iraq WAS all about oil, after all?
4) Bush's invasion has strengthened Iran's influence in the region. The only way we can hope to offset what the Republicans have done--strengthening our enemy--is to stay. Or we can hope to make the accommodations necessary to live with a stronger Iran. Or we can commit suicide and launch a doomed attack on Iran. One can only wish that Bushco had listened to us before they launched shock and awe.

What this analysis suggests is that Bushco needs to be handed over to the International War Crimes court. And we need to slap a 10-year, 10% surcharge on every Bush pioneer & Ranger out there who have supported his incompetence. Talk about failure. Worst.President.Ever.

2) re: al Qaeda. I think that al-Queda will flourish whether the US leaves or stays in Iraq. Iraq was not a friend of Al Qaeda before our invasion, but we have turned it into al Qaeda's recruiting and training ground. Good job, Bushie!
Posted by: PTate in FR

I mostly agree with your other 3 points, but AQI has managed to shoot itself in the foot in Iraq and we're/they're winning that one now. The tribes that previously supported them have now rejected them. When we go there will probably be a new role for AQI in the fight against the Shia.

...and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leaveFinally some good news. Let them have the bottomless money pit.

Someone should ask Rep. Ellen Tauscher. She was there.

So far I haven't read that she has confirmed Porter's description of what he heard.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6720331?nclick_check=1

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/29/tauscher-returns-from-iraq/

However she makes it clear that they were pushed very hard on the matter of the U.S. staying in Iraq. Maybe she heard those assertions, and didn't care to repeat them because she thought they were untrue.

"Not surprisingly, [Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurdish politician,] blamed a lot on the Sunnis and their inability to coalesce around a leader and give that leader empowerment to make decisions that will stick," she said. "He made a very impassioned plea not to abandon them, to stick with them. ... These are all very sobering arguments, but in the end I told him I didn't support the surge because I didn't see enough political activity toward reconciliation."

By the way, for anyone who doesn't know, you really can succesfully apply the Heimlich maneuver on yourself using the back of a chair.

Dollface, that was pretty fucking funny.

You know, I don't think that Republican adoption of the slogan "Blood for Cheap Gas" would go over very well with anyone right now. Even the dimwitted ditto-heads and Bush dead-enders would see how close it was to the protest signs "No Blood for Oil."

You know, I don't think that Republican adoption of the slogan "Blood for Cheap Gas" would go over very well with anyone right now. Even the dimwitted ditto-heads and Bush dead-enders would see how close it was to the protest signs "No Blood for Oil."

Nah... they would just assume that the "blood" referred to is that of Iranians....

um, didn't you see the part where I said that might happen even if we don't withdraw?

Yes, Nathan, you dishonest toad -- the problem is, it isn't a case of "might happen," it's happening right now.

But you know, I honestly couldn't say whether that latest bit of hackery from you is a result of your oft-exhibited dishoenst partisanship or your oft-exhibited stupidity. It'd be just like you to screw up your tenses.

Good Ford, man, I pity your clients. Why on Earth did a piss-poor debater like you ever go into law to begin with?

In reading Kevin's post and the comments it makes sense if one recognizes that the real debate is who will get the blame for all of it, rather than whether it will happen or not.

Well duh, you moron, because we generally recognized the disaster invading Iraq would create before it even happened, and certainly as Bush's incompetent occupation was unfolding, while asshats like you were chanting "mushroom clouds!" and "painted schools!"

Now with the chaos firmly taken hold -- the sectairan strife and resistance to occupation predicted by Bush I and Colin Powell back in 1991 sadly come to pass -- we recognize loathsome toads on the Right -- hi, "ex-liberal"! Hi, Red State Mike! -- polishing up the Dochstosslegende.

Well, that dog won't hunt, Mike ol' pal. The carnage in Iraq, the ethnic cleansing, the shocks to the oil supply, the training of terrorists on the bloody streets of Iraq, the infiltration of al Qaeda into a failed state where they formerly held no sway -- were all caused by Bush's invasion. They exist right now, thank you very much, Nathan, not in some hypothetical future, and if they get worse, it'll be Bush's fault still.

The question before the nation is should Americans continue to pay a high price in blood and treasure to stave off disaster until Bush can punt the sorry mess in his successor's lap and let him and the neocons pretend they didn't fuck up with deadly consequences. And the overwhelming answer of the American people -- including many so-called war supporters, who are conspicuous in ther bloggy presence Stateside instead of bolstering the ranks of the cracking Army -- is not just no, but hell, no.

moron
Posted by: Gregory

Idiot

If Petraeus spent his time worrying about every politician who exaggerated or lied, he'd have no time left to win the war.

Too bad Petraeus seems to be worrying more about exaggerating and lying than winning the war. But then, his own COIN manual says he can't with the number of troops he has, so exaggerating and lying may be his only recorse.

That's a pathetic rejoinder even for you, "ex-liberal." What's the matter, not getting the jollies you used to from your slimy obvious lies? Or is the magnitude of the disaster you neocon assholes have wrought overcoming even your own psychodrama? deither way, you just cant resist stinking up the place, can you?

mhr: Some support!

Short of Purple Hearts, Navy tells vet to buy own - Houston Chronicle 8/17/07

Soldiers Detail Walter Reed Problems - Wash. Post 3/14/07

Unsecured Munitions Responsible for Half of U.S. Casualties in Iraq - Government Accountability Office 3/23/07

as bush says....they volunteered....

If Petraeus spent his time ....he'd have no time left to win the war. ex-lax at 3:07 PM

"Anyway, despite the bad ethnic identification, my point still stands. Iran is the most powerful state in the region whether we're there or not, simply because Saddam isn't there anymore."

I'm not sure that is true. I would consider Turkey to be in the region. It does, after all, border both Iraq and Iran. And Turkey has the largest army and the largest economy in the region. All it's missing is nukes, but Iran doesn't have any either. People tend to ignore Turkey for some reason, but they won't able to ignore them for long. If the referendum on Kirkuk goes through in December, we will certainly be hearing from Turkey.

Of course what cheerleaders for the deaths of innocents don't say is that None of these results would have happened if George W. Bush hadn't assaulted the Iraqi people.

I realize it is fashionable among those who assume a 2:1 ratio of innocents to expected victims of extra-judicial killings is acceptable and that merely being in the same area with a suspect is like having an explosive venereal disease to imagine that the consequences of leaving are greater than the consequences of the conquest of Iraq. But it simply isn't so. Those consequences are, without question, the result of the poorly planned, badly executed conquest and occupation.

As for blame, that's pretty clear. George W. Bush organized this clusterfuck. The Republicans did everything they could to ensure that an uncountable number of Iraqis would die. The military, ignoring their fundamental obligation to reject orders to commit war crimes, went along because it's no fun to be a military if you can't blow shit up (and here we see their attitude towards the human victims - which explains why they aren't counting them).

But then there's a certain type whose jingoism is greater than their intelligence and who mistake swagger for thought who will support the slaughter of any human beings - especially if they get to use the all purpose bully's excuse "he started it when he hit me back."

The occupation is a disaster. That it would be was predicted by flaming liberals like Dick Cheney. 9/11 didn't change any of the reasons not to assault the people of Iraq. If Iran has increased its influence in the region, you can thank the clueless on national security Republicans and their military/ex-military enablers.

gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon

So are we being told the war is about oil.

Strange too how gas prices just about tripled with the Bush position and decison to take out Saddam.

And very accurate statement:

Republicans appear to want our troops to stay in Iraq until they are killed. Bush is doing nothing to actually bring peace to Iraq.

Supporting the troops means keep our military there until they come home in body bags or without limbs. And as Baghdad Burning blog said and news as does the poll numbers show how Iraqi deaths have gone up during the surge - I really don't think Bush gives a rats ass about Iraqis, Bushie just wants to try and get the Hydrocarbon Framework law passed - that IS the ONLY benchmark Bush is interested in.

Maliki should TELL BUSH to LEAVE - with the games Bush plays. At last Maliki would show that he is on side of the Iraqi people AND NOT Bush's lap dog.

Is egbert a parody? No one could be that dense and robotic. His remarks are formulaic.
He must drink heavily and laughingly post, or something.

There was never any indication that Bush or his enablers thought the first thing about the fate of the Iraqi people. They were bit players in the real drama - ensuring Bush was a "War President" and using the War Machine as props for the Republican Propaganda Machine.

For two elections it worked - in 2002 the "liberal" media helped push the RNC lie that this was an issue of vital national security and the Republicans did well.

In 2004 the Wartime President beat a challenger (though by the slimmest of margins given his massive institutional advantages and the lack of concern by the "liberal" press about the way the occupation was going, the lies that led to the occupation or even Bush's failure to serve when it was his turn) on the backs of the dead Iraqis and the dead soldiers.

For those who ask what should be done I will repeat the correct answer:

Get Out Now.

There is a possibility that the troops are doing some good. There is a certainty that they are an occupying army. There is a certainty that the soldiers are largely ignorant of the language and culture. There is a certainty that some, possibly most, of the unrest is a product of the occupation and ignorance.

The people who should be mediating the civil war should be people who know the language and culture. It should be people who are less likely to find a random citizen and murder him because they are pissed that some other citizen they can't find has been released several times from jail.

Does that mean people like Syria and Iran? Yes. Does that mean giving them greater influence in the region? Yes. Is that going to be the result no matter what? It's already happened.

Should it be done with the support of the US? Absolutely. By handing this over to people who actually care about the fate of the Iraqi people we will help defuse some of the damage caused by Bush's war. That we would still be paying for the repair would be one of the mitigating factors.

But we need to think about what kind of nation we are. The bloated military is an attractive nuisance allowing would be conquerers like George Bush an all too willing force to destroy nations and entirely the wrong tool to build them.

Seriously, Kevin: fruit of the poisoned tree. It doesn't matter what we think. You know?

Because no matter how much you think you know about the war, every single Iraqi knows it's much, much, much worse. Every single Iraqi has lost a relative. I would never forgive anyone who invaded my country for no apparent reason and killed my brother or cousin or aunt or uncle and mumbled something about breaking a few eggs. Would you?

**gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon**

barrel of oil on 1/20/2001: $22.50

barrel of oil on 8/30/2007: $73.36

mr irony,

Enviros stopping new refinerys????? Riiiiight.

Would be easy to pick (b) and pile on, but, when we have a Rep. Brian Baird, (D) morphing into his Repug predecessor, Linda Smith, makes it tougher.

Baird believes that we have an obligation to use Crazy Glue to affix all of those pieces of Hummels, Iladros, Rosenthals and fine china and crystal back together because we broke most of them. Of course, a lot of that Glue has stuck to our hands and the pieces have become mixed up. Rebreak time?

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.