Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 28, 2017

The United States military has spent more than $5.6 trillion on conflicts since 2001, more than three times the Pentagon's actual estimate, according to a new study. The Department of Defense reported earlier this year that it had spent around $1.5 trillion on conflicts, including putting troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, air raids in Syria and Iraq to battle the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and a drone campaign and raids against extremists in Pakistan. But that figure appears to underplay the real cost of war for the American taxpayer, at least according to the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University. It puts the total cost at $5.6 trillion, or $17,000 for every man, women and child. The $5.6 trillion does not include U.S. military assistance outside of the war against ISIS, such as Tunisia, the Philippines or Egypt.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The Pentagon's initial estimate put the taxpayer cost at $7,740 per taxpayer for the conflicts since the Al-Qaeda-hatched 9/11 attacks in New York that killed almost 3,000 people. But, there are many indirect costs besides the guns and bombs plus the grave consequences of using them. The study examines not only the money spent by the Pentagon but also the State Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security, for resources dedicated to the "war on terrorism."

The total costs include financial support for allies in the battle against extremist groups, mostly from eastern Europe, such as Croatia, Georgia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, and a trillion dollars added for the care of veterans who may have received injuries in the conflicts.

The U.S. has spent 16 years in Afghanistan, a conflict that is set to continue with President Donald Trump announcing in September an expansion of the U.S. military presence there to battle the Taliban and ISIS.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The DoD should be funded wholly by taxes on the 1%. Only then will this nonsense stop.

#1 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-28 08:31 PM | Reply

"The oil will pay for the war."

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-28 08:51 PM | Reply

The DoD should be funded wholly by taxes on the 1%. Only then will this nonsense stop.

#1 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2017-11-28 08:31 PM

Great idea...but they already do:

2016 Individual income taxes paid by top 1% (39.5% of $1.37T): $541B.

2016 DoD budget: $522B.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 09:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#3.
That's some really bad math.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So, they get to pay for wars, but not the infrastructure that get's them wealthy.

#5 | Posted by bat4255 at 2017-11-28 09:28 PM | Reply

#4

Nothing bad about it.

The 1% by definition use 1% of the services under the Federal Budget, they have a surplus of 1.5% of the personal income taxes paid after deducting the DoD budget so are actually paying an additional .5% in taxes towards everyone elses services while paying for their collective defense.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 09:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

So, they get to pay for wars, but not the infrastructure that get's them wealthy.

They pay their share for that too, plus a little extra.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 09:31 PM | Reply

"The 1% by definition use 1% of the services under the Federal Budget"

You're crazy if you actually believe that. The bailout alone disproves your claim.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 09:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Great idea...but they already do:

2016 Individual income taxes paid by top 1% (39.5% of $1.37T): $541B.

2016 DoD budget: $522B.

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Even if your numbers are accurate (prolly not, no offense), corporate profits are at record levels and have been so for quite some time. Plus there's trillions parked in overseas tax havens ... so anyone saying that the 1% is paying their fair share is pure BS.

The way to stop these stupid wasteful wars is to bring back the draft.

Put Trump's kids (and the rest of the kids from America's millionaire and billionaire families) in an army infantry unit on the Korean DMZ and things will change in a hurry.

#9 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-28 10:09 PM | Reply

"The 1% by definition use 1% of the services under the Federal Budget"

LOL.
Whoever wrote your old material, you need to hire that person back.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 10:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

They pay their share for that too, plus a little extra.

#7 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2017-11-28 09:31 PM | REPLY SO WHAT?
Poor people pay more for wars because they pay with their lives and general well being. Furthermore they are less likely to profit in any substantive way from their efforts,. The rich are all about profit and paying less for everything.... and no they are not paying nearly as much as the poor relative to how the loss of that money effects their lives.

#11 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2017-11-28 10:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Even if your numbers are accurate (prolly not, no offense)

None taken, because they are accurate:

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update: In 2014, 139.6 million taxpayers reported earning $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes. The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent" Those are the 2014 numbers for taxes, the 2016 numbers are higher. You can google the 2016 DoD budget, it is accurate.

corporate profits are at record levels and have been so for quite some time. Plus there's trillions parked in overseas tax havens

Agreed, and that isn't what we are talking about. However, that just adds more to the pot once they get taxed, and the new tax law will tax that $$

so anyone saying that the 1% is paying their fair share is pure BS.

Not saying that, was just responding to Bored's #1

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:06 PM | Reply

Whoever wrote your old material, you need to hire that person back.

#10 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-28 10:30 PM

I know you get tired of me being right most of the time...refute it if you can.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:08 PM | Reply

Poor people pay more for wars because they pay with their lives and general well being. Furthermore they are less likely to profit in any substantive way from their efforts,.

I know reading comprehension has never been your strongpoint, but show me where we were even talking about the cost of war on the poor in the first 3 posts.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:09 PM | Reply

The bailout alone disproves your claim.

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-11-28 09:49 PM

Are you claiming that Obama lied to us when he said that the US got paid back every cent of the Bank Bailouts in 2012? I mean we know that Politfact rated his claim that we got back all the Auto Bailout money back as Mostly False (gasp) but was he lying to us about that too?

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:13 PM | Reply

"However, that just adds more to the pot once they get taxed, and the new tax law will tax that $$"

That money is being counted, and used to reduce the proposed increases in the deficit. With the additional income, they're only about $1.2 trillion short, but you know...growth.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:15 PM | Reply

#16

Tax bill isn't even passed in the Senate yet...take a deep breath and give your arms a break from all that flapping.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:17 PM | Reply

"Are you claiming that Obama lied to us"

I'm claiming the $17 trillion ended up mostly in the hands of the 1%.

I'm also claiming you know that as well.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Tax bill isn't even passed in the Senate yet"

And where do you think law comes from?

Frankly, it's not the differences in the House and Senate tax bills that freaks me out; it's the similarities.

Clearly, it's not tax reform at all; it's simply a redistribution of wealth upward. It's also precisely targeted. Losers include workers, itemizers, schools, students, the elderly, teachers, charities, and (in general) blue-state residents. Winners are the extremely wealthy, and the extremely, extremely wealthy. A few non-itemizers get thrown a few bucks for a few years, but we all know that's not what this is about: it's about rich donors demanding to cash in, hundreds-fold, and the bought-and-paid-for Republican lawmakers --------- them, to the detriment of America.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

$17 trillion ended up mostly in the hands of the 1%.

No, I didn't know that the entire yearly Gross Domestic Product for the US ended up mostly in the hands of the 1%. Funny how I missed that.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:29 PM | Reply

#19

Use your inhaler and stop believing everything that HuffMediaTruthTalkingPoMattersOutPointMemo feeds you.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:31 PM | Reply

Correction: $16 Trillion

"No, I didn't know "

The Fed created $16 Trillion out of thin air, by writing in on a line. Who on earth do you think got that money???
www.forbes.com

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Use your inhaler and stop believing everything that HuffMediaTruthTalkingPoMattersOutPointMemo feeds you."

Too rich.

Piss on Forbes, if you must.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:34 PM | Reply

"I know you get tired of me being right most of the time...refute it if you can."

So, I'm supposed to refute "The 1% by definition use 1% of the services under the Federal Budget"
Okay. Let me see your definition please.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 11:37 PM | Reply

The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus

www.beliefnet.com

www.biblegateway.com

biblehub.com

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-28 11:38 PM | Reply

From the Forbes link:

The audit of the Fed's emergency lending programs was scarcely reported by mainstream media - albeit the results are undoubtedly newsworthy. It is the first audit of the Fed in United States history since its beginnings in 1913. The findings verify that over $16 trillion was allocated to corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for "financial assistance" during and after the 2008 fiscal crisis.

"I didn't know that the entire yearly Gross Domestic Product for the US ended up mostly in the hands of the 1%. Funny how I missed that."

Yeah. Funny.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The 1% by definition use 1% of the services under the Federal Budget, they have a surplus of 1.5% of the personal income taxes paid after deducting the DoD budget so are actually paying an additional .5% in taxes towards everyone elses services while paying for their collective defense."

You might be surprised to learn of the existence of funding instruments other than the personal income tax.
Did you know those exist? Did you know, as taxes, they're all regressive in nature?
I bet you did!

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 11:39 PM | Reply

"The findings verify that over $16 trillion was allocated to corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for "financial assistance" during and after the 2008 fiscal crisis."

LOL, "purportedly."

"Here's a huge pile of money. (Don't tell anyone, but this might be of assistance to you financially!)"

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-28 11:41 PM | Reply

"You might be surprised to learn of the existence of funding instruments other than the personal income tax."

Income taxes provide about 1/3rd of the government's income. You'd think it was 100%, from the way income taxes are treated.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-28 11:50 PM | Reply

#25

Not Forbes, just Tracey Greenstein (her bio and tagline "I write about Green Travel.") Hardly an economic expert, and she has zero support for her claim that the Fed "created" an amount that equals the entire GDP of the US without anyone noticing. Glad she discovered that, the other 99% will be pissed.

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:53 PM | Reply

You might be surprised to learn of the existence of funding instruments other than the personal income tax.
Did you know those exist? Did you know, as taxes, they're all regressive in nature?
I bet you did!

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-28 11:39 PM

I know, and the personal income tax only accounts for 47.3% of the Federal Budget!

Isn't Civics fun!

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-28 11:57 PM | Reply

Income taxes provide about 1/3rd of the government's income.

Wrong again, maybe Tracey Greenstein's Green Travel Blog can give you the correct answer.

Or The Tax Policy Center, but you won't get the great eco-friendly travel tips with your Macro-economics investigative work.

#32 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:00 AM | Reply

In all seriousness Dan, you are a tax accountant, how can you possibly believe any of the information in that Forbes link is true?

That is Smokestacks on the Moon type material, you are better than that.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:03 AM | Reply

"Wrong"

My bad: income tax = 40%

"how can you possibly believe any of the information in that Forbes link is true?"

Here's from the Politifact site. it agrees with you about the $15 Trillion, suggesting it's more like $1.5 Trillion, but it also suggests my central point about money being created is correct.
Calabria says at the end of the day, those tables in the GAO report don't tell you much about the creation of money in any enduring respect. For that, you would look at the money supply. A common measure of the dollars in circulation is called the M2, and there's no question it has gone up a lot. According to data from the Federal Reserve, we now have $2.1 trillion more floating around than we did four years ago. If one is concerned about the value of the dollar, this is an important figure. It isn't the $15 trillion Paul mentioned, and it has just about nothing to do with the GAO report, but it is a real issue for anyone who cares about diluting the power of the dollar.

bolding mine.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:12 AM | Reply

According to data from the Federal Reserve, we now have $2.1 trillion more floating around than we did four years ago. If one is concerned about the value of the dollar

That's more like it, have you ever heard of Quantitative Easing, because that is what they are talking about. When the central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply, that creates the 2.1T that references. The Fed, over the past 3 quarters has now been "selling" those securities, thereby erasing that money from the money supply. If they can unload all of those securities at cost then the QE will be an unqualified success.

QE was extremely controversial (and still is) but it has been credited, in hindsight, for bolstering the very weak recovery during the past 5 years.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:19 AM | Reply

More bad: 40% was income tax across the board, including Fed, State, and Local.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:19 AM | Reply

"have you ever heard of Quantitative Easing"

Yes, of course.

"that creates the 2.1T that references."

And it's only a portion of the amount since the meltdown.

So we're back to square one. Who do you think ended up with most of that created money? Keep in mind the wealthiest 1% now own half the wealth.
www.cnbc.com

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:23 AM | Reply

For reference, QEIII was approved by the Fed in 2012 and was creating electronic money for purchasing $40B per month of government securities. Over 4.75 years, that amounted to 2.175T, and the Fed stopped buying and started selling. They don't disclose the sell rates but they have averaged 225B a quarter so far, and if the economy stays strong that could accelerate.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:24 AM | Reply

#38
Thanks for the info.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:30 AM | Reply

Who do you think ended up with most of that created money?

Mostly the government, since 95% of the QE purchases were in US, State and Muni Bonds.

And you are right about the 1% with 1/2 the wealth.

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:43 AM | Reply

"Mostly the government, since 95% of the QE purchases were in US, State and Muni Bonds."

And who got the fees for the government to sell to the government?

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:47 AM | Reply

#41

No one, since the Fed also indirectly underwrites Govt. Securities they had no fees. The Fed just called the issuing entity, told them how much they were going to buy and electronically transferred that money into their accounts. It is my understanding that they got a 2% discount on the bonds but that is unverified.

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:52 AM | Reply

That being said, 2% on 40B a month is $800M, so that is nothing to sneeze at by any measure.

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 12:54 AM | Reply

"since the Fed also indirectly underwrites Govt. Securities they had no fees."

$650 million
fortune.com

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 12:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another interesting fact about the success of QE is that it is the ultimate hedge against the Chinese dumping their approx. $4T in US Forex into the market. Through QE, the Fed can buy that debt back while keeping rates low, which would be really bad for China if it was trying to harm the dollar. QE would have the effect of crashing the RMB if China did that.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 01:00 AM | Reply

#44

That is a pittance compared to the amount of bonds purchased. From your own link:

"The economists, Zhaogang Song and Haoziang Zhu, conclude that, while that is a lot of money, it was probably a good deal for the Fed. Since QE has started, the Fed has bought $3.7 trillion in U.S. Treasury and mortgage bonds. The $653 million that the banks collected amounts to a commission of just under 0.02%, or 0.02 cents for every $100 in bonds that the Fed bought."

To a $17T/year economy, that money, collected over the past 9 years, is less than a rounding error. That being said, that could fund a lot of housing for the homeless or buy a lot of schoolbooks, but a 0.02 handling cost is extremely small given the size of the transactions.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 01:08 AM | Reply

"That is a pittance compared to the amount of bonds purchased"

But not zero.

"To a $17T/year economy, that money, collected over the past 9 years, is less than a rounding error."

Remind me not to let you do my books!

The mantra I was raised on is Watch the pennies, and the dollars will watch themselves.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-29 01:12 AM | Reply

#47

Lol, that is good advice, I ran my own business for 17 years and lived by that motto.

#48 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 01:22 AM | Reply

I wish that every commission that I had to pay was 0.02%, that is for sure.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 01:23 AM | Reply

I wish that every commission that I had to pay was 0.02%, that is for sure.

#50 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 01:24 AM | Reply

sorry about the double post

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 01:29 AM | Reply

Have we spread freedom and democracy yet?

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-29 03:29 AM | Reply

... that isn't what we are talking about. However, that just adds more to the pot once they get taxed, and the new tax law will tax that $$

#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

The thread is about the cost of war, post 9/11 ... so it is what we're talking about.

#53 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-11-29 06:23 AM | Reply

This goes back way further than 9/11. The costs being quantified were in the defense budget up to ww2, and broken out for obfuscation after.

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-29 06:54 AM | Reply

RightofCenter,

Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders forced a PARTIAL AUDIT of the Federal Reserve after 2008. It revealed that at least $16.7 trillion in liquidity was provided to Banks that had engaged in securities and mortgage fraud and were left holding their own bag of toxic assets. The actual cost to taxpayers depends on the sale value of all the toxic assets that the Fed is still holding on their books for almost a decade. Some estimates suggest this loss will be $5.7 trillion, but who really knows tomorrows real estate, bond and stock values, especially if $11 trillion is dumped into the market? But that is not all, oh, no, what followed is quantitative easing (QE), bringing the total known cost to be $22.5 trillion. But, since the audit was partial, we will not know the total cost until a FULL AUDIT is conducted. QE1, 2 &3 were transparent, but the initial Fed bailout was conducted secretly by the Fed, over weekends.

Bush, Obama and everyone in Congress that supported the bailout, constructed another cover story for public consumption, which was a $600 billion bailout program, funded by Congress, of which $300 billion was loaned out and paid back by CEOs acting quickly to put themselves in position to collect more bonuses for their failures. This is the fund that Obama correctly asserts was paid back, but this bailout was a drop in the bucket compared to what the Fed did.

It is pathetic that you could not know these facts after reading just this site for years. Clearly our country is run by people whose behavior is no different than the mafia. You are profoundly delusional.

#55 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-29 07:04 AM | Reply

"QE was extremely controversial (and still is) but it has been credited, in hindsight, for bolstering the very weak recovery during the past 5 years."

Yes it has even though the conservatives cried like babies the whole time while profiting like the fat cats they are the whole time. And why was it necessary to have a "recovery?" Oh yeah, big tax cuts for the rich during wartime flooded the stock market and the real estate market with cash creating the Bush "house of cards" bubble which we told you was going to collapse and when Greenspan raised interest rates a tiny fraction of a percent it did. Today, the Republicans are planning another round of "house of cards" only this time it will be bigger, there will be more foreclosures and hedge funds will own even more of our homes so that we will become a nation of renters. I am wondering where "FDR" for this century is today. We need him/her to take on the rich, let them threaten to leave and we need to tell them "love it or leave it." You can't ever come back.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-29 07:11 AM | Reply

"You can't never come back."

#57 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-29 07:12 AM | Reply

At the time of the bailout the GDP of the United States was $14.5 trillion. The first book on Economics was astutely titled "The Wealth of Nations". What is wealth creation? Answer: Production of anything and everything NEW. Could be gold bullion, steel, corn, refining gas or whiskey, a cell phone, a new car or house, electricity or many other things. It is not flipping houses, insurance or health care payments, rent, pollution control or the cost of running the military or other Government functions. These are all overheads to the cost of conducting business. Alan Greenspan and all the other idiots in charge of our economy never understood this distinction. He thinks the antics of Wall Street contribute equally to the nations wealth as does a factory worker on an assembly line. Our Government thinks these crooked financial wizards deserve a lower tax rate than people who actually contribute to our nations wealth. This is wrong.

#58 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-29 07:21 AM | Reply

It is pathetic that you could not know these facts after reading just this site for years. Clearly our country is run by people whose behavior is no different than the mafia. You are profoundly delusional.

LOL. Unlike you, I don't take Alternet or Paul Krugman's rants as gospel. Reading conspiracy theory crap doesn't "prove" anything, no matter how many times you have posted it over the years. Maybe you should add Tracey Greenstein to your regular reading.

I will happily leave the delusions squarely in your lap.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-29 10:04 AM | Reply

That's why they call them estimates.

#60 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-29 11:43 AM | Reply

#59, RoC,

The audit has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and was available for review on Bernie Sander's website for years, might still be there. Countrywide and WAMU engaged in no doc loans which Wall Street happily consolidated into AAA mortgage securities which promptly failed and could no longer be sold to another sucker. The Fed turned a blind eye to the whole thing and Greenspan swore to Congress there was no bubble. Are you refuting any of the dollar amounts or behaviors I mentioned or just blowing hot air?

Krugman is a company man and part of a problem with the majority of power elites, who rob the 99% on a daily basis. Steve Keen and Michael Hudson have their fingers on the pulse.

#61 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-29 01:29 PM | Reply

As WWII neared its end, U.S. diplomats decided this time there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be based on gold, and creditor-favored rules. By this time the United States held 75% of the world's gold stock. The U.S. dollar became the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold for $35 an ounce.

To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.

Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system drives most Third World countries into unsustainable debt. Its three the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently on post-Soviet Baltics, Greece and the rest of southern Europe.

By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system was becoming untenable. Gold continued flowing to the US, strengthening the dollar until the Korean War. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a balance-of-payments deficit, created entirely by military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.) (Michael Hudson)

Conservatives have always blamed self funded social programs such as social security and medicare for this problem, but its always been caused by unnecessary wars.

#62 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-30 06:06 AM | Reply

"Miss me yet?"
-W

#63 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2017-11-30 11:11 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort