"No One Can Say They Didn't See It Coming"

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
"No One Can Say They Didn't See It Coming"
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com

Wednesday 31 August 2005

In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

Biblical in its uncontrolled rage and scope, Hurricane Katrina has left millions of Americans to scavenge for food and shelter and hundreds to thousands reportedly dead. With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico. But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.

In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups conducted a joint expert study, concluding in 2004 that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary, much less a Category 4 or 5, hurricane. "There's no way to describe how mindless a policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection," said one of the report's authors. The chairman of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality dismissed the study as "highly questionable," and boasted, "Everybody loves what we're doing."

"My administration's climate change policy will be science based," President Bush declared in June 2001. But in 2002, when the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a study on global warming to the United Nations reflecting its expert research, Bush derided it as "a report put out by a bureaucracy," and excised the climate change assessment from the agency's annual report. The next year, when the EPA issued its first comprehensive "Report on the Environment," stating, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment," the White House simply demanded removal of the line and all similar conclusions. At the G-8 meeting in Scotland this year, Bush successfully stymied any common action on global warming. Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which has produced more severe hurricanes.

In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, warned in a statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking": "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy ... Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle ... The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease." Bush completely ignored this statement.

In the two weeks preceding the storm in the Gulf, the trumping of science by ideology and expertise by special interests accelerated. The Federal Drug Administration announced that it was postponing sale of the morning-after contraceptive pill, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its safety and its approval by the FDA's scientific advisory board. The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa accused the Bush administration of responsibility for a condom shortage in Uganda -- the result of the administration's evangelical Christian agenda of "abstinence." When the chief of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Justice Department was ordered by the White House to delete its study that African-Americans and other minorities are subject to racial profiling in police traffic stops and he refused to buckle under, he was forced out of his job. When the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting oversight analyst objected to a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded for work in Iraq to Halliburton (the firm at which Vice President Cheney was formerly CEO), she was demoted despite her superior professional ratings. At the National Park Service, a former Cheney aide, a political appointee lacking professional background, drew up a plan to overturn past environmental practices and prohibit any mention of evolution while allowing sale of religious materials through the Park Service.

On the day the levees burst in New Orleans, Bush delivered a speech in Colorado comparing the Iraq war to World War II and himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt: "And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to the region was by bringing freedom to Japan." Bush had boarded his very own "Streetcar Named Desire."
 
So where was Sidney Blumenthal for all the years he was in the Clinton administration? Why didn't he do something about it? We've known that the levees in New Orleans could only stand a Cat 3 Hurricane for, what, 40 years now? What a hypocrite. What politicizing. How pathetic.
 
No Fossten, what is pathetic is that you respond to an article with factual evidence by attacking the author instead of addressing the article, once again. Typical Repug response!
 
Hey Fossten, here's a bunch more authors and news outlets you can attack!!!

BUSH LEFT GULF COAST VULNERABLE TO DISASTER

Katrina could be the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States. But it was not a surprise. Experts have been warning for years of the potential catastrophic devastation that a category 4 or 5 hurricane could have on the Gulf Coast. And in Louisiana, local officials have fought for federal funding to implement hurricane defense plans that could have avoided the widespread flooding of New Orleans. But under the Bush Administration, funding for those projects has been continuously slashed, leaving the Gulf Coast unprepared for such a disaster.

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS FUNDING CUT BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Federal Government Has Neglected Disaster Preparedness, Left Enormous Vulnerabilities. Disaster and emergency experts have warned for years that governments, especially the federal government, have put so much stress on disaster response that they have neglected policies to minimize a disaster's impact in advance. Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, said “It's going to be very evident that there were an enormous number of vulnerabilities that weren't addressed. There's going to be a lot of finger-pointing.” [Newhouse News Service, 8/31/05]

Disaster Mitigation Programs Slashed Since 2001. Since 2001, key federal disaster mitigation programs, developed over many years, have been slashed and tossed aside. FEMA’s Project Impact, a model mitigation program created by the Clinton administration, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half, and now communities across the country must compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars. [Baltimore City Paper, 9/29/04]

In 2003 White House Slashed Mitigation Programs In Half. In 2003, Congress approved a White House proposal to cut FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) in half. Previously, the federal government was committed to invest 15 percent of the recovery costs of a given disaster in mitigating future problems. Under the Bush formula, the feds now cough up only 7.5 percent. Such post-disaster mitigation efforts, specialists say, are a crucial way of minimizing future losses. [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]

Bush Continuing To Propose Cuts To Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers will be cut in 2006. Bush’s 2005 budget proposal called for a 13 percent reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget, down to $4 billion from $4.6 billion in fiscal 2004. [Associated Press, 2/6/05; Congressional Quarterly Online, 2/3/04]

Under Bush, FEMA Reverted To Pre-Clinton Status As One Of The Worst Agencies. Former President Clinton appointed James L. Witt to take over FEMA after its poor response to Hurricane Andrew. Witt adopted recommendations and FEMA was described as an agency reborn: “transformed itself from what many considered to be the worst federal agency to among the best.” But FEMA under the Bush administration has destroyed carefully constructed efforts. After the 9/11 attacks the agency’s inspector general in 2003 criticized portions of FEMA’s response, citing “difficulties in delivering timely and effective” mortgage and rental assistance to those in need. [USA Today, 6/1/2005]

STATES FORCED TO CARRY MORE OF THE BURDEN

States Expected To Shoulder More Of The Burden In Emergency Management With Fewer Funds. “The federal focus on terrorism preparedness has left states with an increased responsibility to provide support for natural disasters and emergencies,” noted a report released by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) this summer. “State budget shortfalls have given emergency management programs less to work with, at a time when more is expected of them. In fiscal year 2004, the average budget for a state emergency management agency was $40.8 million, a 23 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003.” [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]

Bush Tried to Cut Federal Percentage of Large-Scale Natural Disaster Preparedness. The administration made a failed attempt to cut the federal percentage of large-scale natural disaster preparedness expenditures. Since the 1990s, the federal government has paid 75 percent of such costs, with states and municipalities funding the other 25 percent. The White House's attempt to reduce the federal contribution to 50 percent was defeated in Congress. [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]

BUSH CRIPPLED HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS IN LOUISIANA

Bush Opposed Necessary Funding For Hurricane Preparedness In Louisiana. The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. Ultimately a deal was struck to steer $540 million to the state over four years. The total coast of coastal repair work is estimated to be $14 billion. In its budget, the Bush administration also had proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need. [Newhouse News Service, 8/31/05]

Republican Budget Cut New Orleans’ Army Corps Of Engineers Funding By A Record $71.2 Million. In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding. It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said. “I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction,” said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Money is so tight the New Orleans district instituted a hiring freeze. The freeze is the first of its kind in about 10 years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the Corps' Programs Management Branch. [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]

Landrieu Called Bush’s Funding Priorities Shortsided. Landrieu said the Bush Administration is not making Corps of Engineers funding a priority. “I think it's extremely shortsighted,” Landrieu said. “When the Corps of Engineers' budget is cut, Louisiana bleeds. These projects are literally life-and-death projects to the people of south Louisiana and they are (of) vital economic interest to the entire nation.” [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]

Emergency Preparedness Director Furious With Project Cuts. A study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now. Terry Tullier, the New Orleans emergency preparedness director, said he was furious but not surprised to hear that study had been cut from the Bush budget. “I’m all for the war effort, but every time I think about the $87 billion being spent on rebuilding Iraq, I ask: What about us?” he said. “Somehow we need to make a stronger case that this is not Des Moines, Iowa, that we are so critical that if it hits the fan in New Orleans, everything this side of the Rockies will feel the economic shock waves.” [Times-Picayune, 9/22/04; New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]

Flood Protection Projects Put On Hold Because Of Republican’s 2006 Budget. One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president. The Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects in a line item where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. “We don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem,” Naomi said. [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
:N
 
No one expected that weak spot to be on a canal that, if anything, had received more attention and shoring up than many other spots in the region. It did not have broad berms, but it did have strong concrete walls.

Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said that was particularly surprising because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded." "It did not have an earthen levee," Dr. Penland said. "It had a vertical concrete wall several feel thick."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See how this works. The levee that broke was just upgraded. Therefore the Bush administration is to blame because they used crappy concrete. Nevermind the fact that this area of breach was a COMPLETED part of the upgrade project.

No wonder the left continues to lose election after election.

Why doesn't the media report this. You think the New York Times will come out with a retraction? Don't hold your breath.

Once again, the left gets *owned*
 
MonsterMark said:
No one expected that weak spot to be on a canal that, if anything, had received more attention and shoring up than many other spots in the region. It did not have broad berms, but it did have strong concrete walls.

Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said that was particularly surprising because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded." "It did not have an earthen levee," Dr. Penland said. "It had a vertical concrete wall several feel thick."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See how this works. The levee that broke was just upgraded. Therefore the Bush administration is to blame because they used crappy concrete. Nevermind the fact that this area of breach was a COMPLETED part of the upgrade project.

No wonder the left continues to lose election after election.

Why doesn't the media report this. You think the New York Times will come out with a retraction? Don't hold your breath.

Once again, the left gets *owned*

It's not 'Owned'...you still have no argument for the fact that if there were more wetlands protecting New Orleans then there would have been no levee break.
 
I'll do you all one better....this goes beyond all cover-up and conspiracy...this goes deeper than any government misdeed. It is shocking, and unbelievable, and indicative of a power structure intent on control. This is exponentially worse than the Skull and Bones.....or even the Illuminati. I have irrefutable proof of what's responsible here. The enemy is clear, and has always been in front of our face.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the culprit here is.............

El Nino and unpredictable weather and climatic patterns.

Honestly, Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't go far to prove intelligence and cogent arguments.
 
MonsterMark said:
How bout the record high levels of sunspot activity?


I think there was a planned strategic lack of Fluffer Nutter in key areas. The details are chilling........

Think of the ramifications as Watergate x Pi (3.14 etc for our publically educated friends).
 
MonsterMark said:
No one expected that weak spot to be on a canal that, if anything, had received more attention and shoring up than many other spots in the region. It did not have broad berms, but it did have strong concrete walls.

Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said that was particularly surprising because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded." "It did not have an earthen levee," Dr. Penland said. "It had a vertical concrete wall several feel thick."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See how this works. The levee that broke was just upgraded. Therefore the Bush administration is to blame because they used crappy concrete. Nevermind the fact that this area of breach was a COMPLETED part of the upgrade project.


So much for "upgrading", doesn't change the fact that the "upgraded wall" failed. If the "upgraded" section failed while the "non-upgraded" section held, the so-called "upgrade" was, in reality, "DOWN-graded". So WHO was responsible for the decision to use that crappy concrete again?? Was it poor engineering, or bugetary constraints that resulted in a "strong concrete wall several feet thick"?? Based on the timeframe of the "upgrading" and all the budgetary cuts going on in this regard, I suspect the wall was a cheap compromise to a broad-beamed levee.

It did not have broad berms, but it did have strong concrete walls.

Sounds like weasle wording to me. More like:

It did not have broad berms like a proper levee, but it did have strong concrete walls that are almost as good.​
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
:eek2: I'd say *owned* ^3
I don't think so.

Congress OK's $10.5 billion to start help rolling

Associated Press September 2, 2005 KAT0903.CONGRESS


WASHINGTON — Congress approved a $10.5 billion down payment Friday to cover the immediate rescue and relief efforts for victims of Hurricane Katrina's sweep across the Gulf, amid complaints that the government's response has been inadequate.

The bill passed the House by voice vote after Senate approval late Thursday. It comes as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the government's front-line responder in natural disasters, is spending more than $500 million a day on Katrina.

The new aid averts the possibility that money might run out before Congress reconvenes on Tuesday.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the bill was only the first step toward a "comprehensive, long-term response to the Katrina disaster.'' He promised Congress would provide more humanitarian aid, combat gasoline price gouging, provide assistance to businesses and the unemployed, rebuild infrastructure and utility systems, and help local law enforcement.

"Make no mistake, this $10.5 billion is initial relief,'' DeLay said.

"I want to thank the Congress for acting as quickly as you did,'' Bush said of the $10.5 billion measure, which he was signing into law later Friday. "But I've got go to warn everybody that's just the beginning.''

The bill combines $10 billion in new FEMA funds — enough to last just a few weeks — and $500 million for the Pentagon's role in the relief mission. The FEMA funds, among other uses, will finance food and emergency shelter, medical care, debris removal, generators and cash payments to hurricane victims. FEMA will also funnel funds to other federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for repairing levees around New Orleans and pumping out the flood waters inundating the city.

Long-term costs were anyone's guess. For starters, it could be months before New Orleans is cleared of flood waters, and until then, it's impossible to determine long-term needs. Many areas have yet to receive visits from federal officials.

:N
 
fossten said:
I don't think so.

Congress OK's $10.5 billion to start help rolling

Day late and a dollar short.
Still doesn't address the fact that shrub has cut Fema and Army Corp of engineer funding since coming in office to help pay for his tax cuts for his "Starship Trooper" contributors.
:N
 
97silverlsc said:
Day late and a dollar short.
Still doesn't address the fact that shrub has cut Fema and Army Corp of engineer funding since coming in office to help pay for his tax cuts for his "Starship Trooper" contributors.
:N

Day late and short for WHAT??? This is absurd. Bush and Congress just gave $10.5 billion to FEMA and you say it's a DOLLAR SHORT? What kind of idiotic point are you trying to make? That Bush should have looked into your crystal ball and seen that a hurricane was coming? Oh, I see. Whatever shortfall there was is being fixed, so WHAT'S YOUR F-ING PROBLEM???

"Worst Bush-hater ever"
 
fossten said:
Day late and short for WHAT??? This is absurd. Bush and Congress just gave $10.5 billion to FEMA and you say it's a DOLLAR SHORT? What kind of idiotic point are you trying to make? That Bush should have looked into your crystal ball and seen that a hurricane was coming? Oh, I see. Whatever shortfall there was is being fixed, so WHAT'S YOUR F-ING PROBLEM???

"Worst Bush-hater ever"
The areas that breached were the areas that were already 'improved'. $500,000,000,000 dollars would not have solved the problem. But it is so easy to point the finger. The entitlement left. I wouldn't expect anything less from them.
 
fossten said:
Day late and short for WHAT??? This is absurd. Bush and Congress just gave $10.5 billion to FEMA and you say it's a DOLLAR SHORT? What kind of idiotic point are you trying to make? That Bush should have looked into your crystal ball and seen that a hurricane was coming? Oh, I see. Whatever shortfall there was is being fixed, so WHAT'S YOUR F-ING PROBLEM???

"Worst Bush-hater ever"
If my point is Idiotic, it's only because I have to "dumb" it down for a simpleton like you. Read (I assume you can do that) the articles above again. Shrub cut FEMA and Army Corp of Engineers funding since coming in office. If the money had been spent on the improvements that the Corp had asked for instead of Tax Cuts for shrubs fat cat friends, the extent of this tragedy may well have been reduced.
You should get a job with the Tobacco industry cause you've developed a real talent for standing up for the Cancer we have in the White House!!!
 
97silverlsc said:
If my point is Idiotic, it's only because I have to "dumb" it down for a simpleton like you. Read (I assume you can do that) the articles above again. Shrub cut FEMA and Army Corp of Engineers funding since coming in office. If the money had been spent on the improvements that the Corp had asked for instead of Tax Cuts for shrubs fat cat friends, the extent of this tragedy may well have been reduced.
As far as violating the rules of the forum, you do a great job. 'Dumb','simpleton', 'assume you can read' all fall into that category. That said, I'll attack too.

Have you not absorbed the fact that where the breaches occured were areas that were already considered 'improved' to the standards that were required;ie. Cat3 hurricane. So where do you get off claiming that any amount of money would have made any difference, because it is obvious that 'NONE' of that money would have gone into the areas that breached?

And I love this line... "the extent of this tragedy may well have been reduced". I think there are some NFL teams that need your help. You must be one hell of a 'monday morning' quarterback.
 
MonsterMark said:
As far as violating the rules of the forum, you do a great job. 'Dumb','simpleton', 'assume you can read' all fall into that category.

My comments are off the subject, but thought I'd share anyway. I enjoy the back-and-forth on current event topics here, but it seems like a lot of the time the dialog is reduced to personal attacks. Often times, folks tend to attack the person rather than simply offering an opposing opinion in a civil manner. I don't think it's in the best interest of the forum to allow people to call others "dumb", "idiots", etc. How cooperative will one member be in assisting another member with a problem or issue when, in another thread, that member called the other a "moron"? I haven't been around here that long and perhaps I'm off-base, but I haven't seen any measures taken to correct that bad behavior.
 
I understand your point, but there is a difference between this forum and other kinds of forums. People here at the LVC are more like a family bickering than two opponents going after eachothers throats. This is evidenced perfectly by raveneyes helping me out with some information on digital cameras, something which he knows a lot bout. He was more than helpful in answering my questions, and even showed a bit of interest in my photography pursuits. Prior to that we had argued for what was probably weeks on multiple threads. Rich and I have had a good convo in the chat section. Although personal attacks do nothing to further anyones arguments, I think that most of the time people take them with a certain grain of salt.
 
bill5 said:
I haven't been around here that long and perhaps I'm off-base, but I haven't seen any measures taken to correct that bad behavior.

A certain amount of latitude has been allowed members that participate frequently and have grown the turtle shell required to do battle in here. Over-handed, heavy moderation does nobody any good. So, while I agree with you, I hope you understand that the guys here have passion, but also have demonstrated respect foer each n one way or the other.

This place is kind of like sitting around the kitchen table with aunts and uncles.

I am pretty much the only 'mod' in here and I choose to keep things fairly open because I believe strongly in freedom of speech.

I have tried repeatedly to post on the Arianna Huffington blog/forum and the posts are always not allowed because they obviously are not met with approval with the folks running the show over there. That does not make for very interesting reading but lots of preaching to the choir. Here, things are a little looser and you'll see almost every situation resolved ITSELF without the need to moderate and delete. That is what I am most proud of around here. We handle things ourselves. Stick around. Maybe we can get you to engage. Just remember to bring the thick-skin raincoat with you. We do get downpours from time to time.

BTW, Welcome!
 
97silverlsc said:
If my point is Idiotic, it's only because I have to "dumb" it down for a simpleton like you. Read (I assume you can do that) the articles above again.
Oooo, you got me...that was almost a 5th grade level cut down...

97silverlsc said:
Shrub cut FEMA and Army Corp of Engineers funding since coming in office.
So? The only part cut was for parts already improved and the New Orleans mayor even acknowledged that that was irrelevant to this tragedy, so your point is worthless. Not even a "nice try."
97silverlsc said:
If the money had been spent on the improvements that the Corp had asked for instead of Tax Cuts for shrubs fat cat friends, the extent of this tragedy may well have been reduced.
More lousy mix/match of old, used-up rhetoric and talking points, doesn't even make any sense.
97silverlsc said:
You should get a job with the Tobacco industry cause you've developed a real talent for standing up for the Cancer we have in the White House!!!
I'll take that as a compliment to me and a sophomoric insult to the President.

You know, Phil, after some reflection, I think you SHOULD only cut/paste articles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top