Biden “Tehran’s favorite Senator”

posted at 8:55 am on August 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Michael Rubin warns that the foreign-policy “experience” of Joe Biden consists mainly of getting the big questions wrong, especially on Iran.  Biden has pressed for more than ten years to open relations between Iran’s hardliner regime and the West, especially in trade.  His efforts failed to acknowledge the purposes of the ruling mullahs in Tehran, and Biden helped give them exactly what they needed to pursue nuclear weapons — hard currency:

Eleven years ago, on Aug. 4, 1997, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami proposed a dialogue of civilizations. The world applauded. Biden spearheaded efforts to seize the mantle of engagement. In September 1998, for example, Biden told the Czech foreign minister that cutting radio broadcasts into Iran might better encourage dialogue. Not long after President Bush declared Iran part of an “axis of evil,” Biden headlined a March 13, 2002, dinner at the American Iranian Council, an organization underwritten at the time by a dozen oil companies and dedicated to ending sanctions on Iran. At the gala (at which Biden also endorsed regime change in Iraq), he spoke of the dichotomy between hard-liners and the reformers led by Khatami. In order to encourage reform, he invited “the elected representatives in Iran, to meet with . . . members of the United States Congress.” Biden indicated that it would not be his first meeting with Iranian parliamentarians.

Fast forward a few years. Khatami left office in 2005 without implementing substantial reform. Between 2000 and 2005, in an effort to engage Iran, European Union trade with that country nearly tripled. Yet far from assuming a moderate posture, “the elected representatives in Iran” allocated nearly 70 percent of the hard currency windfall into military and nuclear programs. The November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate affirmed the fruits of such investment when it found that Iran had pursued a nuclear weapons program until 2003. Although Biden’s embrace of engagement coincided with Iran’s nuclear warhead work, he acknowledged no error. He told reporters on Dec. 4 that Bush had “misrepresented” the intelligence in a drive to war and declared the same day, “You cannot trust this president.”

Such poor judgment was not lost on Iranian leaders. Indeed, one of Khatami’s top aides suggested that they came to count on it. At a June 14 panel with Iranian journalists and political advisers, former Khatami spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh explained, “We had one overt policy, which was one of negotiation and confidence building, and a covert policy, which was continuation of activities.” He advised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to soften his defiance, noting that: “During our negotiations and so long as we were not subjected to sanctions, we could import technology. We should have negotiated for so long, and benefited from the atmosphere of negotiations to the extent we could import all the technology needed.”

Barack Obama said early in the race that judgment means more than experience.  He then proved he had neither by promising to meet with leaders of terror-sponsoring states with no preconditions, a position Obama has tried to retract ever since with little success.  Unfortunately, his choice of Joe Biden as running mate proves Obama’s original point that experience without judgment has no value at all, and Biden’s experience hasn’t kept him from the same naïveté that Obama broached in that YouTube debate.

Even the Europeans have dismissed the “engagement” strategy as worse than useless.  It was the EU that objected most strongly to the idea of presidential-level contacts without preconditions, as it undermines the approach they have taken for the last three years.  Ramezanzadeh’s boasting did not fall on deaf ears, and the Europeans do not want to give Iran the means or the technology to speed their nuclear-weapons program to success.

Unfortunately, Biden still hasn’t learned from his own failures on appeasement.  How could he tell the Czechs to stop providing information to the Iranian people?  We have often asked why the US does not have a robust Voice of America operation focused on Iran as we did on eastern Europe during the Cold War, broadcasting warts-and-all truth to people who are oppressed by liars and madmen.  After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the people of the nations oppressed by the Soviet Union — the Czechs among them — told us how effective VOA was in informing and inspiring them to freedom.  Biden’s request of the Czechs is offensive on several levels, and certainly unconstructive in pursuing freedom and democracy as a strategy to deal with the danger of a nuclear Iran.

The foreign-policy experience of Joe Biden looks more and more like self-promotion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

God help us, because if Obama and his key stone cop gaggle manage to get elected nobody else will be able to.

rplat on August 26, 2008 at 8:58 AM

Well, they didn’t like his wife’s leather pants…

ninjapirate on August 26, 2008 at 9:01 AM

Biden is the gift that will keep on giving…

iamsaved on August 26, 2008 at 9:03 AM

This is not the foreign policy experience you’re looking for…

blankminde on August 26, 2008 at 9:03 AM

With Obama being the most shallow and Biden being the most irrational candidates for the White House, this is embarrassing that this is the best the democrats have got. Absolutely pathetic.

volsense on August 26, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Biden is that portion of a horse that passes last.

Akzed on August 26, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Biden was one of the first to support Jimmy Carter’s regime change in Iran, deposing the Shah and installing the current terrorist mullah regime in Iran. Carter’s gift to mankind, with Biden nodding approvingly off to one side. This is particularly eye opening, since the Iranian mullahs believe that blowing up the world will make way for the Mahdi ,,,

That worked out well, didn’t it Slo Joe?

tarpon on August 26, 2008 at 9:07 AM

When will these idiots learn that you can’t negotiate with extremeists whos’ only goal is to kill you?

guitarplayer on August 26, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Note to Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Joe Biden, in fact, to all looney liberals:

One can’t reason with unreasonable people!

tre on August 26, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Biden is that portion of a horse that passes last.

Akzed on August 26, 2008 at 9:05 AM

The tail?

:)

Marine_Bio on August 26, 2008 at 9:11 AM

But..but..but, what’s really important is that Barry is still articulate and clean, and Biden has white teeth. Now that’s what’s important to the left.

poxoma on August 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Tre:

They will not listen to your note because they themselves are the unreasonable people they seek, to turn a phrase.

J.J. Sefton on August 26, 2008 at 9:16 AM

We cannot survive another Carter presidency.

Siekierski on August 26, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Once a liberal decides what the right answer is, he won’t let anything as trivial as reality get in the way of acheiving his goal.

MarkTheGreat on August 26, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Biden was supposed to help Obama reassure Jewish voters about Israel, especially the Jewish voters in south Florida. This won’t help.

Wethal on August 26, 2008 at 9:28 AM

JJ Sefton

I suppose you’re right. As my Mom used to say, “It’s like arguing with a fence post.”

tre on August 26, 2008 at 9:32 AM

One can’t reason with unreasonable people!

Unfortunately Tre, we are not discussing reasonable people…

stu.b.con on August 26, 2008 at 9:35 AM

doesn’t matter the US isn’t going to confront iran, no matter who is elected.

right4life on August 26, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Obama doesn’t want to reason with them. He wants them to feel the love!

mr.blacksheep on August 26, 2008 at 9:44 AM

The foreign-policy experience of Joe Biden looks more and more like self-promotion.

From “I’m sure I’ve got a higher IQ than you” Biden?

Shocking, just shocking.

AZCoyote on August 26, 2008 at 9:44 AM

I just want to hug you Mr. Achmadinijad! Wait! Why are you grabbing me by the hair? And what’s that scimitar doing in your hand? Oh! A free haircut! I get it! Sure go right ahead……speaking of my head, where did my head go?

Vntnrse on August 26, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Not just Tehran.

Libya must be rolling in laughter.

The entire world is laughing at the chosen American dunce selection running for election to become “the most powerful man in the world”–no longer so if Obama is CHOSEN to face down Putin or Ossama or a myriad of other destroyers from China, Korea, South America, and within the USA as Obama and Pelosi represent.

Eerie CHOICE, reminiscent of the temporal doom forced upon ancient Christians. Choose from which gate your death fate emerges.

At least give us a decent warrior, wise by the experience of age all the better in the Oval Office.

If McCain has the brains to choose his finest opponent as his running mate, all the better. Seeing the final hour dawning, everyone get in gear.

Do not allow the democrats to bite off our Constitutional existence as we YET have to preserve. It is FOR your existence at home, AND for your children and their children.

Show up and vote the democrats into the minority. Decapitate Marx in the USA. Feed Marx to the guillotine, his black widow mother.

WE WANT CHANGE–DEFROCK NANCY & HARRY!

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM

I guess in a political party that awards ‘”foreign policy experience” points simply for visiting a foreign country and holding a political rally there, that SloJoe Biden’s “experience” must seem truly precious indeed.

GeneSmith on August 26, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Utopia trumps evil every time. Or is it scimitar cuts paper? I forget…

Mr_Magoo on August 26, 2008 at 10:14 AM

I’ve got a higher IQ than you Blowhard “Biden” will blabber
until Iran submits just to shut him up.

Ted on August 26, 2008 at 10:15 AM

What’s really funny is that the Bush admistration has been in charge for the last 7 years, and haven’t achieved anything with Iran. Unless Joe Biden has some secret powers I am not aware of, his powers are not as significant as the ones that President Bush has. So if you are not happy with Biden’s judgement, I really wonder how you feel about the work of the current administration (with respect to Iran) and why you think McCain will be so much better.

I think it’s time to start having serious talks with the Iranians and the Iranian government.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM

When the current crop of ‘Rats look up to the guy who gave us the Mad Mullahs more than anybody else not named Obama or Clinton, I’m not surprised when they claim that decades-long appeasment (starting with supporting the creation of the Mad Mullahs) is confused with foreign-policy gravitas.

steveegg on August 26, 2008 at 10:25 AM

As HA pointed out the other day, Laden Biden wanted to give Iran a huge cash gift after 9/11 to prove we have no hard feelings.
I’m sure Mr AkMyDumbJihad would’ve been so grateful.

jgapinoy on August 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM

…haven’t achieved anything with Iran

That’s a statement that can neither be proven nor disproven: who knows what would have happened under any other administration or set of policies. Anybody can claim that something is “not working”, but it’s folly to just change to another approach, at random, without any compelling rationale as to why the new policy would work any better. Direct negotiations, without precondition, have been presented as a solution, but so far I’ve seen no argument as to why that might work, other than the weak and highly illogical “what we’re doing now isn’t working”. In fact, the direct-negotiation approach has some wildly (in)famous historical counter-examples (e.g. WWII). I don’t think we can afford to just “try stuff” willy-nilly; the stakes are simply too high, and it’s enormously difficult to undo mistakes.

mr.blacksheep on August 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Germany loves Obama.

Hamas hearts OBama

Iran loves Biden.

Perfect.

drjohn on August 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM

Oh lord, why do I have this sinking feeling that we are about to see a rerun of Khruschev vs. Kennedy?

rockmom on August 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Anybody can claim that something is “not working”

Are you claiming the current approach is working?

In fact, the direct-negotiation approach has some wildly (in)famous historical counter-examples (e.g. WWII). I don’t think we can afford to just “try stuff” willy-nilly; the stakes are simply too high, and it’s enormously difficult to undo mistakes.

mr.blacksheep on August 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM

If you trust your leader (which you wouldn’t if it was Obama, I get that), then I don’t see why you would be scared of direct negociations. Our leader should negociate with America’s best interest at heart. S/he should not agree to a bad deal, even if it is directly negociated.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM

It is a misnomer that longevity equates to a high level of expertise. Peter Principle thy name is Joe.

moxie_neanderthal on August 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Not long after President Bush declared Iran part of an “axis of evil,” Biden headlined a March 13, 2002, dinner at the American Iranian Council, an organization underwritten at the time by a dozen oil companies and dedicated to ending sanctions on Iran.

I’m so confused. I thought big oil ran the Bush White House and the Republican Party, and only the brave Obama Democrats resisted a total petrocracy. Why, it’s almost as if that’s completely wrong!

calbear on August 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Obama’s judgement led him to pick Senator Gilligan as the man who would be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

God help us if Obama wins.

indythinker on August 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Joey B’s foriegn policy “experience” is simply due to the morons in Delaware returning him to the senate for 6 terms. Regardless of how little he knows, he earmarks enough funds to satisfy the constituents at home..

Hoodwinked,
Flim-Flammed,
Bamboozled,
Hohey-Doked

RocketmanBob on August 26, 2008 at 11:11 AM

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM Are you claiming the current approach is working?

My apologies; I think I may not have made my point sufficiently clear. And I’m not sure where you get the impression I’m “scared of direct negoctiations.” Please allow me to try again.

A rational person will not experiment at random (“try” things) without some reason to believe that the new approach is going to produce a measurably better outcome than the old (conducting an argument in the comments section of a blog notwithstanding); especially when the stakes are high and blunders cannot be undone. Even people who are so irrational as to stand at a slot machine feeding in dollars will offer some rationale (however illogical it may be) as to why the next pull of the lever is going to differ from the hundreds of others that preceded.

You will not hear me take issue with the proposition that our President should not agree to a deal that is counter to America’s interests. But I’m afraid I just can’t get to the blind faith part. I want to know precisely why Obama thinks his approach would produce a better outcome, particularly considering a well-known precedent that produced a spectacular failure.

If the strength and charisma of Obama’s personality is such that he can work some magic in the minds of our enemies, why does he not work the same magic in the minds of the 50% (or so) of the electorate (and even his own party!) who doubt his credentials to be President? Is it because those people are obtuse and ill-willed? Well, if you want an example of obtuse and ill-willed, you need only look at Ahmadinejad. Is it because they don’t have America’s best interest at heart? Does Putin? Sorry, without seeing this magic in action, I find it hard to believe that Obama’s saving it up for exclusive use on our enemies.

You can probably see where I’m a little confused. So do you think you might be able to explain, in terms simple enough for me to understand, why I should believe that Obama should negotiate directly on our behalf with despotic dictators?

mr.blacksheep on August 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM

I think it’s time to start having serious talks with the Iranians and the Iranian government.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM

The Europeans have been trying for several years to have these serious discussions.

I’m not surprised that you weren’t aware of them.

MarkTheGreat on August 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM

the Bush admistration has been in charge for the last 7 years, and haven’t achieved anything with Iran…

1. Holding Iran at bay.
2. No additional 9-11 attacks on US soil.

Who’s counting, or NOT as the case may be?

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM

bush hasn’t held iran at bay. they’re working on the bomb, sending roadside bombs to kill our troops in iraq and afghanistan, sending weapons to hamas and hizbullah.

don’t see how bush has held iran at bay at all. he’s tried the ‘obama route’ talk to iran, what a waste of time. they’ve been at war with us since 79, we’re just too stupid, or cowardly, to fight back.

right4life on August 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM

The Shah of Iran really got the iron boot from Jimmy Carter who denied the Shah US hospitalization on his death bed, leaving him to die in Egypt. So much for American-Iranian alliance via US democrats. And as things go, from Carter to Obama, things replicate in more virulent form as generations pass on the DNA via experience and survival.

Though US via UN dialogue forever flows ad nauseum with Iran, yet we hear:

time to start having serious talks with the Iranians and the Iranian government.

Sorry, but the noise from the peanut gallery demanding a direct US/IRAN declaration of war prior to wrapping up Iraqi alliance as a strength from behind seems aligned with the voices chanting that we never belonged in Iraq, throwing Iran into the argument as though the chanting voices wouldn’t say the same thing once we commit to a military response to the Iranian war against the USA evidenced in Iraq.

Talk turned dirt cheap so long ago,
talk is older than the hills and twice as dusty.

like, umm:
“Which way should we bend over, Khomeini?”
“We aims to please, merci beau coup.”

Someone’s been sent to the corner for “time out” so frequently that talking to the wall ’til you’re blue in the face makes all the sense in the world.

Speaking of talking yourself blue in the face, no wonder it’s Obama’s only color. Get used to his required change to please Lord Marx’s Chosen and Ayers’ Anointed One.

The idea of “talking” with Iran is too obtuse for words.

Actions speak louder than words.

Giving Khomeini’s regime ANY opportunity when we wouldn’t lift a Good Samaritan finger to alleviate our ally the Shah’s last days on earth would not make sense, particularly when COMPROMISE is all that diplomacy regards, and why the hell should WE formally compromise ourselves to the damned Islamofascists?

So it seems.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM

The Europeans have been trying for several years to have these serious discussions.

I’m not surprised that you weren’t aware of them.

MarkTheGreat on August 26, 2008 at 11:25 AM

I guess you think Europe is the equal of the US, but I don’t. We are the ones that can make a difference in this situation.

1. Holding Iran at bay.

…while they continue their nuclear ambitions.

2. No additional 9-11 attacks on US soil.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM

2. Wow, that’s a new one. Iran and 9/11. We had already heard the “Iraq 9/11″ talking point from the administration, but this is a new one.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM

right4life

It appears we agree more than not.

per ‘holding Iran at bay’ as regards attacks on US soil.

per Iraq being Iran’s war front, that’s exactly what Bush has been saying all along–better to fight over there than here.

But get real. You need a solid front at your back or you face destruction from an enemy ready to surround you in their back yard on the other side of the earth from ours. We don’t even have Turkey’s willingness to accommodate US military traffic yet. Iraq had better sign on to military alliance treaty with the USA, or more than shit’s gonna hit every global fan.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Giving Khomeini’s regime ANY opportunity when we wouldn’t lift a Good Samaritan finger to alleviate our ally the Shah’s last days on earth would not make sense, particularly when COMPROMISE is all that diplomacy regards, and why the hell should WE formally compromise ourselves to the damned Islamofascists?

So it seems.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Our ally the Shah? The guy that was torturing and imprisoning people? Great ally! (Of course nothing beats the fact we sold arms to Iran in the 80s, well after the Shah was gone.)

Though US via UN dialogue forever flows ad nauseum with Iran, yet we hear:
time to start having serious talks with the Iranians and the Iranian government.

We hear that because we haven’t had serious direct discussions. Discussions via the US is not the same as direct discussions. It’s a bit like negociating with the low level car salesman instead of the real manager.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM

mycowardice

If you are so smug as to think that those who accomplished our 9-11 tragedy had no affiliation whatsoever with the Ayatollah Khomeini, that in their individual entities Islamic fascists have nothing in common and no means of communications and accommodations, no matter then to attempt further communication with you; because beyond what differentiates separate entities is what similitude exists and what alliance does exist whether overt or covert amongst Muslim terrorists.

It’s an opinion based upon decades of experience of professional contact amongst Muslims in America from Iran, Iraq, Libya, and the United Arab Emirates.

Think as you like.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Biden is Jimmy Carter only with a bigger mouth and a smaller brain.

Kini on August 26, 2008 at 12:11 PM

It’s a bit like negociating with the low level car salesman instead of the real manager.

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM

You actually see the Ayatollah puppeteer of Iran directly accommodating any American politician, particularly the POTUS?

Dream on.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Kini

Then we’re double Cartered via Obama/Biden.

smaller brains
bigger mouths

Leaving twice the teeth & appetite,
wave so long to Puerto Rico and Hawaii,
if they gnaw off their own limbs like wolves.

maverick muse on August 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM

There’s absolutely no question that every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain. I watch and read about it every day.

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM

There’s absolutely no question that every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain. I watch and read about it every day.

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM

So could you provide some links?

mr.blacksheep on August 26, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Whose opinion are you interested in?

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Obambi’s rational was exposed during his comments about Russia. Boils down to “if we were only better examples of the fantasy world democrats aspire to’. Did you have to bring up Carter? I am reminded that in my (dumb)youth that I voted for him. Now I have to go get drunk and lay in the ditch a month to get my self respect back.

Da_Hutt on August 26, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Well, I responded to your assertion that “every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain.” I was hoping you might substantiate that claim, so I’m not really interested in opinion, but rather in facts. If opinion is all you have to offer, providing the links may help those of us who like to think for ourselves get to the facts (or lack thereof) behind your assertion.

mr.blacksheep on August 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM

There is absolutely no doubt that Iraq and Kosovo are used as a justification for what Russia does in SO. Note that my position hasn’t changed the least bit.

It’s an unquestionable fact that Georgia started the war by using Grad launchers to bombard the city of Tskhinvali. Russia of course had no option but to respond overwhelmingly. However, they should have stopped at the border and not go any further. What they did beyond a justified response is wrong and puts them in a difficult position.

That being said, I listen to the anti-government Echo of Moscow now. Every opponent to the current policy of Medvedev/Putin concedes that it is impossible to talk with a straight face about the West’s commitment to the territorial integrity. Instead they argue, as I would, that the Russian foreign policy will ultimately hurt Russia regardless what the hypocrites in the US or elsewhere think.

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Well, I responded to your assertion that “every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain.” I was hoping you might substantiate that claim, so I’m not really interested in opinion, but rather in facts. If opinion is all you have to offer, providing the links may help those of us who like to think for ourselves get to the facts (or lack thereof) behind your assertion.

Which propagandist would you like to hear? I am willing to collect links for you. I want to know though that you’re genuinely interested, and will not discard everything I say outright because you don’t know anything anyway, and yet already have a preconceived opinion. One that is perfectly summarized by the picture that Ed had accompanied this thread with.

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Which propagandist would you like to hear? I am willing to collect links for you. I want to know though that you’re genuinely interested, and will not discard everything I say outright because you don’t know anything anyway, and yet already have a preconceived opinion. One that is perfectly summarized by the picture that Ed had accompanied this thread with.

freevillage on August 26, 2008 at 1:25 PM

You asserted that “every Russian nationalist and propagandist prefers McCain”. I would like to see the facts that support that assertion. Was it a survey? Is there an exhaustive accounting of Russion nationalists and propagandists and their preferences in US politicians? How can you be sure that there isn’t one (remember, you said every) nationalist somewhere who does not support McCain?

I suspect it’s going to be impossible to demonstrate that every such person supports McCain, so perhaps you’d like to just provide evidence that it’s a majority.
Again, is this information from a survey? How many people were surveyed? Who conducted the survey? When was it conducted?

Or maybe you mean that every Russian propagandist and nationalist that you listen to has those views? Sort of like the global warming “consensus” among scientists: it’s a consensus as long as you don’t listen to the tens of thousands scientists who don’t agree?

mr.blacksheep on August 26, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Obama is a sleeper cell.

Chakra Hammer on August 26, 2008 at 2:01 PM

jtpcamp,

Tons of Iranians are muslims by force rather than by choice. Regardless of what I think about your argument regarding muslims, I don’t think it applies to Iranians.

How many Iranians (in the US) do you know that still care about being muslim?

mycowardice on August 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Interesting how when Michael Rubin says it, it’s news…we Iranian however have been screaming this for 10 years and NO ONE but NO ONE would listen…it’s as if we’re not worth hearing, listening to or count even. There’s much much more than this story that Rubin does not know and has not written about…but of course it would mean that people would have to lend an ear to us Iranians – God forbid.

Nastaran on August 26, 2008 at 8:53 PM