Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Russia Could Go Ballistic on American Missile Defense

By Scott Ritter, AlterNet. Posted February 23, 2007.


We’re all in trouble if Russia follows up on its threat to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in reaction to America's attempt to construct missile defense bases in Eastern Europe.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Scott Ritter

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In October 1986 what was supposed to be merely a preliminary meeting between the leaders of the world's two superpowers, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, turned into a historic summit that brought humankind to the brink of total nuclear disarmament. While the Reykjavik, Iceland, summit broke up without this dramatic disarmament threshold being crossed (the Americans and Soviets had reached a contingent agreement to eliminate all nuclear ballistic missiles within 10 years, but the deal fell apart when the United States insisted on being able to deploy its Strategic Defense Initiative missile defense system (SDI, or better known as "Star Wars").

While the world missed an opportunity to walk away from the nuclear abyss altogether, the meeting was not completely for naught. Little more than a year later, from the foundation of trust and respect forged in Reykjavik, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, completely eliminating two entire classes of nuclear missiles (intermediate and short range) and putting into play stringent on-site inspection verification protocols that forever transformed the way in which the world would view arms control and disarmament.

I remember those days well. As an officer in the Marine Corps, I was a member of the original team assigned to the newly created On-Site Inspection Agency, tasked with implementing the INF treaty. In June of 1988, a scant six months after the ink had dried on the INF Treaty document, I had the honor of participating in the first-ever inspection carried out under the INF Treaty as a member of the advance party dispatched to a Soviet missile production facility outside the city of Votkinsk. For the next two years I helped forge a new chapter in arms control history, overseeing the installation of a monitoring facility outside the gates of a factory that had produced SS-12 and SS-20 intermediate-range missiles, and was still producing the modern road-mobile SS-25 intercontinental missile.

In addition to making sure that the Soviets lived up to their end of the bargain (the Soviets had a similar monitoring operation at work in Magna, Utah, where U.S. Pershing II missiles had been produced), our operation in Votkinsk and elsewhere helped facilitate a deeper, broader understanding between two superpowers who had, prior to the INF Treaty, been plotting the destruction of one another. Comprehension of a shared system of human values and ideals tore down barriers of distrust and ignorance of the Cold War era. The INF Treaty led to even greater disarmament initiatives, namely the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), where deep cuts were made in the long-range arsenals of both the United States and the Soviet Union (and, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia and the other nuclear-armed republics).

When President George W. Bush, in June 2001, looked into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and got "a sense of his (Putin's) soul," he should have looked deeper. Although the two world leaders got along quite well on a personal level, their initial meeting was strained by Russian concerns over the expansion of NATO and continuing U.S. efforts to develop a missile defense shield. The signing of the "Treaty of Moscow" in June 2003 likewise should have been a landmark date in President Bush's growing understanding of what makes the Russian leader tick. While President Bush spoke of an agreement "founded on mutual respect and a common commitment to a more secure world," the critical areas of Russian concern (again, the expansion of NATO and the U.S. missile defense system) were addressed only in the theoretical, with there being a distinct need for the United States to deliver demonstrable steps that would reassure the Russians (and Putin) that the United States boded no ill towards their nation.

Today, Putin's "soul" is dark indeed. Having expended considerable political capital in reaching out to Bush in hopes of genuinely improving the relations between Russia and the United States, Putin has not only failed to generate any viable movement in reaching agreements of substance, but has watched Russia's security position be whittled away by American "unilateralism." From the very start of the Putin-Bush relationship, the Russians had strongly cautioned against such unilateral tendencies. The American withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the expansion of NATO up to the borders of Russia in 2004 all severely tested the Russian leader's patience and credibility. The strong-handed U.S.-led approach toward confronting Iran in 2005-2006 strained the U.S.-Russian relationship to the breaking point. But it was the announcement by the United States in October 2006 that it would construct a major missile defense base in either Poland or the Czech Republic that apparently pushed the Russians over the edge.

Putin had tolerated the Bush administration's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, noting that while it wasn't a sound decision, it was one which in his mind posed no direct threat to Russia. But his temerity in the face of American unilateralism and NATO expansion had left him in a precarious position in Moscow. The new U.S. initiative represents everything the Russians had feared: the United States marching inexorably toward the complete nullification of Russia as a world power. This American-centric approach was unacceptable to the inner circles of Russian leadership. Awash in a growing sea of oil revenue, the Russians had for some time been quietly rebuilding their once vast military industrial infrastructure. A few years ago the Russians successfully tested a new road-mobile ICBM, the SS-27 M "Topol," which incorporated performance features designed to defeat the U.S. missile defense system's operational parameters. Now, with the United States poised to construct a missile defense umbrella over an expanded NATO membership that laps at the very borders of Mother Russia, Putin has had enough.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, russia, arms control

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the Soviet Union from 1988 to 1990 as a weapons inspector implementing the INF Treaty and in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 as a weapons inspector overseeing the disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He is the author of "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change," published by Nation Books in October 2006.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Have you ever thought...
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 23, 2007 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how the whole missile defence works anyway? I mean, whats the change of ANY defence system whiping out about 10-000 incoming enemy missiles?

NOT LIKELY, ill tell you that! 1000, maybe!

Reagan and his buddies OFCOURSE knew this perfectly well! SDI(Strategic defence initiative)was first and foremost an OFFENSIVE weapon! The idea basicly is to weaponize space, and ultimate space controll! You basicly make a deadly fist strike, criple your enemies offence abilities, and blast the remaining enemy warheads out of the sky(and take the risk that a couple of your big city centers are going to be destoyed) Now, sdi/missile defence DOES NOT WORK purely as a defence system, because you CANNOT "defend" yourselv from weapons like SS-18 or SS-27! Thats nearly IMPOSSIBLE! The USA would go BROKE if they tried that+China and Russia simply would not allow American space dominance(would blast Americas military satelites out of the sky)

These weapons therefor are 100% WORTHLESS as purely defence weapons, but EXCELLENT offensive weapons! As both offence AND defence weapon Reagans start wars actually works! The idea is, that you have the power to blast enemy satelites out of the sky, and you use hypersonic missiles to kill the enemies missiles before he gets a change to even open his silos! There is no missile "defence" but there is an offensice weapon, wich people call SDI, Missile defence, star wars or what ever you want to call it, but if i were you, i wouldn't be afraid of the ruskies, since there basicly just cowards! However, if they sell those state of the art weapons like SS-27, migs or sunburn/brahmos technology to China, India and Iran...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "basicly just cowards!" LMAO Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Have you ever thought... Posted by: Temporary
» RE: Have you ever thought... Posted by: EagleMB
And by the way...
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 23, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your comparison to the Maginot Line does not hold water! Hitler NEVER conforted this line, he simply went around it, and invadet and enslawed two European countries and peoples, the Belgiums and the Dutch in the prosess, so we really DONT KNOW would have that line worked or not, but my guess is that it actually would have! Anyway, NOBODY is going to shoot you with a ballistic missile(unless you shoot/apear to be shooting first)However, someone just might use "mini" biological/nuclear bombs in your own country WITHOUT any "missile" attached to it! This is going to be A LOT more difficult to counter, and no "star wars" is going to stop this! It was a nice cold war gizmo, but against therese modern threats it has just about 0% effectiness+it sucks up money, and increases global danger because countries like China and Russia belive(and rightly so)that it's actually an offensive weapon! But hey, if you have a few trillion dollars to spare, then why not=P?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The USA has been in violation of the NPT since it signed it
Posted by: wawa on Feb 23, 2007 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9/11 proved a nuclear arsenal cannot provide the USA safety or security.


“Any nation that year after year continues to raise the Defense budget while cutting social programs to the neediest is a nation approaching spiritual death.” - Rev. MLK.

The Peacemakers are the children of God, NOT those that trust in WMD.


But the Bush administration is seeking funding for an initiative to develop new nuclear weapons and rebuild the weapons manufacturing infrastructure left over from the Cold War. This misguided plan will launch a new, costly, and unnecessary cycle of nuclear weapon design, development, and production.

Former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, are calling for the United States to take the lead in efforts toward a "World Free of Nuclear Weapons."

It's time for real leadership and dialogue on nuclear weapons, not to build new ones.

DO SOMETHING:

Urge your senators and representative to reject funding for the administration's misguided plans and to use their leadership, voice, and votes to help achieve the goal of
A Nuclear Free World

THis site will not take the link all together,

so i divided it up;

plz connect it all together and thnx

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/

takeaction/293647497?z00m


=9414778&z00m=

9414778<l=

1172233859

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» BUSH-AMERIKA WILL BE SMITTEN DOWN Posted by: victorberry
Thats a lot of money!
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 23, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was just thinking, that the war in Iraq ALONE costs about 100-million dollars a year, so that ALONE is about 300-000$ to an American. I have a feeling it would be enough to afford publich healthcare, but then again, i could be wrong! Anyway, i was just thinking how much money you use in your military(to stuff that mostly doesent work)But then again, would averadge Americans really settle for 300 000(+extra) a year?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your figures are VERY wrong Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon
» RE: Your figures are VERY wrong Posted by: Temporary
» RE: Your figures are VERY wrong Posted by: Temporary
» RE: Who taught you math??? Posted by: EagleMB
Russia and the USA should be allies against the real enemy
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 23, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which are those crazy moslems. Whether in Checnaya, Europe, Serbia, Middle East, or Asia its primarily one type of religion that is causing most of the trouble- islam. Russia has good ideas how to deal with them, although frequently criticised by those countries who've already given in to the foreign invaders. We should be friends and cooperate in the stupidly named GWOT and let our past conflicts be by-gones. We should, together, blockade the middle east and buy all our fuel from Russia and the former Soviet countries- if they cooperate against moslems there. Yes, we will pay more for energy but we will save money in all these crazy wars, rebuilding contracts, relief aid, loans to rebuild etc. Once blockaded we just wait and let the moslems kill each other off and sort out their own issues until they get to the point of wanting to join modernity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» albrechtkrausse's dreamworld Posted by: Knowmad
» "crazy moslems" Posted by: gary_7vn
» RE: "crazy moslems" Posted by: EagleMB
Bushies are the most dangerous regime ever
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 23, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ignorant, zealous neocons who advise George W. Bush are the most dangerous set of people ever to inhabit the White House. Their lack of knowledge and wisdom about crucial issues -- Iraq, North Korea, arms control, you name it -- has severely damaged U.S. credibility around the world and pushed the major powers toward nuclear confrontation.

We will be lucky if we survive this presidential administration. We must never -- ever -- elect such people again. Anyone who voted Republican in the past two elections should be ashamed of themselves. Never cast another vote for a Republican, even for City Council or School Board. Even if you support a local GOP candidate you support the corrupt national party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

masterful essay from a Giant
Posted by: sldulin on Feb 23, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
world peace through verifiable disarmament protocols-what a concept. I wonder if Sec Rice has ever thought of that, it seems she had a little experience with the Soviet Union. I think she needs a remedial course in US-Russian Cold War history and perhaps a course in International Law as well. Unfortunately I think we have witnessed the complete evisceration of any State Dept role in policy making under Bush. Another Iraq War casualty, State Dept-RIP

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't work but OH those PROFITS
Posted by: JSquercia on Feb 23, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole star wars idea was ridiculous from the start but it sure as hell has been PROFITABLE for those involved including but not limited to the infamous Carlyle Group . Does anyone remember what Condi was supposed to be doing on 911 ? It was giving a speech endorsing the Missile Defense Shield .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A gift from our most recent EU members
Posted by: pingoo on Feb 23, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a European I was absolutely appalled to hear this news. Appalled not particularly at the United States as I am familiar with their desire for global military expansion - nothing new there.

No, I am appalled at the EU and especially with Poland and the Czech Republic. It has only been one year since they entered the European Union as full members and this is their first gift? Who on earth authorised this and where was the debate?!? I remember it being mentioned in the news months ago and all of a sudden, without a word spoken about it for the entire period to this day, the plan has received a go ahead - from who? No one really knows! It just IS. Period.

Did the citizens of Poland and the Czech Republic agree to this? Was there some kind of referendum? Or is this another goddamn shady deal we are all being kept in the dark from untill all the papers are signed and the construction plans are ready to begin?

What kind of a world are we living in these days, when the voting public is rarely consulted on issues that are vital to every single one of us? And when the rare occasion of politicians stepping down from their fortified Ivory Tower to ask for the people's opinion actually occurs, the findings are 'taken into consideration' - which today these days means that they will be binned the moment the public turns their back. Public Consultation suddenly transforms into shallow photo opportunities to fake the appearance of leaders connected to their people while in the background money and shadow governments create laws that tie us all down, tighter day by day.

It makes me sick. We are not talking about a nanny state anymore - this is outright fascism and it is rendering everyone powerless to corrupt politicians in bed with a weapons industry that grow exponentially and pockets record profits who insist they are making the world a safer place.

Fuck Nostradamus, we are living in George Orwells 1984. The similarities are striking as our leaders push towards a world in a state of perpetual war with overly controlling governments that feed people contraddictions like 'give up liberties for freedom', arming the planet to the teeth in the name of security or identity cards and surveillance technology that would somehow without any thorough logical explenation manage to predict oncoming terrorist attacks.

Yet most of us are suckers - better to be safe than sorry seems to be this generations mantra yet it is taken on without an ounce of thought of the consequences as we are all consumed by a frivolous media that puts stories like the verdict of what will be done with Anna Nicole-Smiths corpse, or Britneys wig and the Oscars at the top of the main-stream media news reports.

Unabaited decadence is a clear sign of social decline and anyone who has the most sparse knowledge of human hystory knows well that if not reversed our systems are doomed to failure. Perhaps it is to be welcomed - afterall destruction inevitably results in reneissance of new eras of glory. Its just the bit in-between I am not very keen on living through.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We'll make Russia ours too.
Posted by: symcokid on Feb 23, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's surround Russia with our missiles, but we'll start WW III if they have their missiles in Cuba - this USofA is insane, always looking to start trouble somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bring back the Cold War!!
Posted by: zooeyhall on Feb 23, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We’re all in trouble if Russia follows up on its threat to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in reaction to America's attempt to construct missile defense bases in Eastern Europe. "

Has anyone thought that this might be excatly what the Republican Nazis want? These right-wing cavemen WANT the Cold War back!! That way they can have all attendent benfits: super defense budgets, suppression of civil liberties at home (bring back McCarthy!), pounding propaganda into the sheeple Americans about the "insidious enemy", etc.. etc.

Bring back the good ol' days of the Fifties!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Russia SHOULD go "Ballistic"...
Posted by: channing on Feb 23, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seeing a complete lack of Checks and Balances from the American People on the neocon oligarchy, operating destructively in the world without opposition, I rather welcome a challenge to neocon power from anywhere, even if that means Russia!

Further to the point that Americans are not "getting it", is that when China shot down their satellite from the ground, they weren't "cleaning up" their neighborhood, but letting neocons know, that, renegade though they may be, without military satellites, the US military would be just another "ground-war", and, well, do the numbers if it comes to that: 1% of American population in the military = 3,000,000/ 1% of the Chinese population in the military = 15,000,000, and the Chinese already have a draft making 30,000,000 a lot easier to do than you may think.

You cannot go around the world bullying everyone no matter how much "destructive power" or "wealth" you think you have. Unchecked neocon power will kill us if we don't stop them!

This is not ineptness, as some so obligingly say, but unchecked greed and lust for power, exasperated by a disconnection from reality caused by easy-wealth, the very hijacking of the American nation by the Military/Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his 1960 farwell address.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, that was quick!
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Feb 23, 2007 11:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeez, a mere 16 years from the fall of the Soviet Union during the tenure of Bush pere to its impending revival under the boneheaded management of Bush fils. Who is possibly the only person in the country incompetent enough to bring such a complete cluster fuck to fruition. What escapes me is, now that he's managed to establish enmity with just about every other country on the planet, increased the ranks of terrorists exponentially, run roughshod over the Bill of Rights, manifestly lied himself black in the face to the public, exposed a covert intelligence operative, sanctioned the use of torture, and turned himself into the Tsar of All the Russias, (let's see--did I leave anything out?), why in stinking, steaming hell is nobody making a move to throw this idiotic bastard out of office??? He has almost two entire years left--Christ, he could attack half the Western world in that time! We definitely need to start nudging our Congresspersons. ASAP and incessantly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ernst1
Posted by: robots on Feb 24, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't forget! The US partnered with the Russians to knock
off Hitler. They have been fighting the "wild tribes" of the
Caucuses at least since the 1840's. (See Lermontov's
"Hero of Our Times".) They wiped out Napolean single-
handedly. The suffering of the Russian people is incalculable.
Check out Dimitry Orlov's articles on the collapse of their
economy in the '90s and how much better prepared they are to suffer hardship than spoiled, lousy swagger Americans!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ernst1 Posted by: gary_7vn
U.S. in Talks With Britain on Installing Missile Defense System
Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon on Feb 24, 2007 11:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
U.S. in Talks With Britain on Installing Missile Defense System

By ALAN COWELL
Published: February 24, 2007

LONDON, Feb. 23 — Britain and the United States said Friday that they were discussing the stationing of an American antiballistic missile defense system on British soil.

The United States previously offered to locate the missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland, drawing furious objections from Russia, though Washington argues that the system is not built to defend against Russia but against Iran, principally, and other potential threats.

Prime Minister Tony Blair’s spokeswoman said Friday that Britain had been secretly lobbying for inclusion in the system for some time. “It is our intention that whilst the United States are in the decision-making process, the U.K. should be considered as part of that,” the spokeswoman said.

“The prime minister thinks it is a good idea that we are part of the consideration by the United States” she said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, which the British civil service requires. “We believe it is an important step toward providing missile defense coverage for Europe, of which we are part.”

The possible step, first mentioned in The Economist magazine, seems sure to prove contentious in Britain, and to cloud Mr. Blair’s final months in office, along with two other events that surfaced Friday.

In one, relatives of British soldiers slain in Iraq began a peace vigil in blue nylon tents near Mr. Blair’s office, and in the other, Mr. Blair pondered a new military deployment in Afghanistan.

Just two days after Mr. Blair announced a withdrawal of 1,600 of the 7,100 British soldiers in southern Iraq, Defense Secretary Des Browne said “some additional forces” — possibly about 1,000 soldiers — would be sent to join the 5,600 Britons who are part of NATO forces confronting an expected spring offensive by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Word of the missile defense negotiations followed remarks in Washington on Thursday by Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, who discussed the deployment of missile defenses in Britain, saying, “We are always looking for new ways to partner with the United Kingdom, whether that be co-development or a hosting, or any of the activities of that nature.” He also said that radar systems were already in final testing in Britain.

At first the American Embassy in London made remarks that the British news media seized on as a rebuff of Mr. Blair’s interest. David Johnson, the deputy chief of mission at the United States Embassy in London, told a BBC radio interviewer: “I would see as we go forward. There may be opportunities for us to talk to other countries about other needs, but right now we’re concentrating on the Czech Republic and on Poland as the primary sites where we would be looking for this.”

In a subsequent statement, Mr. Johnson said any suggestion that his remarks “were a rebuff to the British government is nonsense. We have been and will be in discussions with the British government as we develop our missile defense system and be open to opportunities for joint work as we go forward.”

The negotiations are most likely to raise political hackles at a time when many in Mr. Blair’s Labor Party and in the opposition Conservatives are pressing for Britain to distance itself from the United States after their close and sometimes unpopular alliance in Iraq.

Article continued here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scott Ritter for President
Posted by: gary_7vn on Feb 26, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scott Ritter would make a great president. Too bad you will get stuck with Herr Hilary, probably with Lieberman as her running mate. What a country!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]