When Is Bush Going To Be Prosecuted For War Crimes?

by Ben Hoffman

We live in a country of laws and nobody is above the law. Or so says our Constitution. So when is Bush and his cronies going to be prosecuted for the crimes he committed while in office?

George W. Bush’s casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded — and would do it again — has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn’t seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting.

Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is “unequivocably torture”, said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years.

“As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War,” Irvine said. “Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life.”

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn’t appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

“Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” Bush told a Grand Rapids audience Wednesday, of the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. “I’d do it again to save lives.”

But, Irvine said: “When he decided to do it the first time, he launched the nation down a disastrous road, and we will continue to pay dearly for the damage his decision has caused.

“We are seen by the rest of the world as having abandoned our commitment to international law. We have forfeited enormous amounts of moral leadership as the world’s sole remaining superpower. And it puts American troops in greater danger — and unnecessary danger.”

James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general in the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps, told HuffPost that the net effect of Bush’s remarks — and former Vice President Cheney’s before him — is “to establish a precedent where it will be permissible to our enemies to use waterboarding on our servicemen in future wars.

“This is not the last war we’re going to fight,” Cullen said. “Americans not yet born are going to be prisoners of war in those conflicts. And our enemies are going to be able to point back to President Bush and Vice President Cheney saying that waterboarding is OK.

“It’s just shocking to me how he can be so flip about something that is so serious,” Cullen said.

“At least now we know where the blame for those soldiers’ deaths squarely belongs. President Bush’s decision broke with a military tradition dating back to General George Washington during the Revolutionary War and the consequences are clear: Al Qaida is stronger and our country is less safe.”

Read more…

Anti-American right-wingers are clamoring about impeaching Obama for offering a job to Sestak. How about we talk about some real crimes where thousands of people died and that compromised the security of our country.

Advertisements

46 Comments to “When Is Bush Going To Be Prosecuted For War Crimes?”

  1. If it saved lives and stopped terrorists then water boarding should be used on EVERY terrorist.
    By the way…. The Constitution protects the citizens of this nation and does not cover foreign combatants, terrorists, or illegal aliens.

    • [If it saved lives and stopped terrorists then water boarding should be used on EVERY terrorist.]

      I agree. So after they’re given a trial and found to be a terrorist, waterboard the hell out of them. But leaving that decision to the President is unconstitutional.

  2. Countries have been using brutal interrogation techniques before Bush, and they’ll keep using them after. We can whine about it all we want to ease our consciences, but in the end the only difference will be how much more underground it goes, and how far removed from the actual treatment the government becomes (we’ll have sub-sub-sub contractors now doing our dirty work).

    Besides, does anyone think we honestly don’t lay a hand on terrorists when they’re being interrogated, and do we really think waterboarding is the worst? Imagine what other treatments get used that we’ll never know about.

    • [Imagine what other treatments get used that we’ll never know about.]

      Some of the stuff that was done at Abu Ghraib is worst than waterboarding. It was also very perverted.

      • War’s a nasty business, and terrorism’s even worse. The enemy knows that, which is why they choose not be soldiers – they get to wage a more brutal war and take advantage of our rules. Sometimes we’ve got to show them that we’re serious, I guess.

        Personally, I’m more for the Sun Tzu approach to prisoners, but then again, I’m not on the front lines so I don’t know what works. If there’s military who specialize in terrorism AND interrogation who say waterboarding doesn’t work, then it should stay banned so that weirdos can’t go out and get their jollies. If they say it works, and it’s necessary, then I say reinstate it, regardless of how inhumane or unfortunate or sad I think it is that we have to do those sorts things to other human beings.

        That movie I mentioned shows some pretty good angles on those issues.

  3. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” So after they’re given a trial and found to be a terrorist, waterboard the hell out of them ”

    You are absolutely wonderful. If I was a lawyer, I could hang you by your own words with out even breaking a sweat.

    Now there is no question that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is guilty. ” the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. ” You are with me ?

    You are agin torturing him, just on Bush’s say so, yet since he is self professed, so even you must think he is a murderer? Now after he is convicted you have no problem torturing him. Bush’s pre conviction waterboarding had the motive of getting life saving information.

    Your post conviction ” torture ” is only meant to punish. Your answer is much worse than Bush’s. Torture clearly is covered under ” Cruel and unusual punishment “.

    • [Bush’s pre conviction waterboarding had the motive of getting life saving information.]

      True, it had the “motive,” but torture only rarely works in getting life saving information, and in this case, it didn’t.

  4. Remember the threat to LAX that was thwarted? Yeah, the main stream media didn’t go into very much depth on that one even after it was said in the State of the Union…but the info that stopped hundreds of people from dying at LAX was said to have been gained by water boarding.
    I’m sorry you dislike American’s and feel that terrorists and enemy combatants deserve our “Rights” but you are 100% wrong. Being an American gives us these Rights and as such a terrorist or suspected terrorist does not have our Rights and mean nothing to me if it procures information that saves American lives.

    • [Remember the threat to LAX that was thwarted? Yeah, the main stream media didn’t go into very much depth on that one even after it was said in the State of the Union]

      Maybe it’s because there was no real threat. But we all had a good laugh over it. And remember the guys in Florida who were going to blow up the Sears Tower, but couldn’t even afford shoes? That was a good one!!! lol! And what about the guy who was going to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch! Whooooo-hooo! That was a close one! Good thing we had Bush protecting us! 🙂

      • So I guess you’d call a guy with a loaded gun pointed at your head “not a threat” if he didn’t pull the trigger, and “Attempted murder” isn’t a crime?

        A guy with a highly unstable container of nitro in his trunk was clearly a threat. The guy wanting to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch was a threat as well. The media downplayed both of those incidents, preferring to focus on the ineptitude of the delivery boys rather than how close they actually came to succeeding. They take the position that we’re safe because they’re stupid, instead of focusing on the more important issue of the terrorist NETWORK that gets them to the point of near disaster.

        Does that in itself justify waterboarding as a policy? I don’t know, but to downplay the threats based solely on the idiotic, expendable stooges tasked with carrying them out is nothing but liberal arrogance, in my opinion.

        As for Cullen’s opinion, could our actions be an excuse to make their actions worse? Sure, but these guys use ANYTHING as an excuse – we seem to forget that and instead assume that they’re compassionate, fair, human beings. These are the same savages that behead innocent civilians for show, and already do worse to our military, and we somehow want to think that will stop just because waterboarding stops. I respect Cullen’s opinion, and agree that we can’t be flippant or ignorant about the issue, but I believe his cause & effect insinuation is wrong – he credits these terrorists with too much humanity.

      • And btw, these guys couldn’t have even been investigated or wiretapped under Clinton. Where’s the fight to repeal the Patriot Act now that Bush is gone?

      • Re: The Sears Tower, Batiste’s plan was admitted to be (thankfully) “more aspirational than operational”, but again – look at everything else surrounding their “incompetence”:
        http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/Miami_Plot.pdf

  5. Ben Hoffman,

    ” True, it had the “motive,” but torture only rarely works in getting life saving information, and in this case, it didn’t. ”

    And,,,,how do you know that? I guess our questioners are morons and do not corroborate information. It amazes me how according to your side, terrorists who are water boarded give out false information, yet “suspects” caught by Obama are falling all over themselves to give true information after being read their rights. I guess it all makes sense to you.

    You still did not address my point. You made a big deal about torture as a technique to get information, then you favor torture as a punishment, which even Bush did not do because if you ever read the Constitution, that IS illegal.

    • “This is not the last war we’re going to fight,” Cullen said. “Americans not yet born are going to be prisoners of war in those conflicts. And our enemies are going to be able to point back to President Bush and Vice President Cheney saying that waterboarding is OK.

      “It’s just shocking to me how he can be so flip about something that is so serious,” Cullen said.

  6. Ben…you are naive…plain and simple.
    Things like the LAX incident have happened and everyone with common sense knows that the successes in the CIA, FBI, and NSA are rarely publicized whereas a failure is seen by all.
    You are obsessed with Bush as your Blog demonstrates and in a very unhealthy way it seems. I hope you seek help for it.

    • [You are obsessed with Bush as your Blog demonstrates and in a very unhealthy way]

      It’s unhealthy for our country to have allowed the abuses to have occurred and to allow them to go unpunished. People like you care more about your party than you do your country, and THAT is unhealthy.

  7. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” “This is not the last war we’re going to fight,” Cullen said. “Americans not yet born are going to be prisoners of war in those conflicts. And our enemies are going to be able to point back to President Bush and Vice President Cheney saying that waterboarding is OK. ”

    This is a wrong headed argument on many levels . I will now attempt to explain why this is false. First you must differentiate between your enemies. The slime that we waterboard already torture and kill any Americans they capture, so it makes no difference at all. Kind of like WW2 Japanese and Korean War North Koreans. They would always mistreat our servicemen because they had no respect for prisoners and did not care how their own people were treated in turn by Americans.

    Now contrast this with WW2 Germany . The Germans certainly mistreated prisoners, but at times they maintained minimal standards for Allied Airforce POWs, if only because of concern for Luftwaffe POWs in British camps.

    In future wars conventional enemies will respect our POWs or they won’t, but it will not be based on whether or not Terrorists were waterboarded. It will be based on how much they care about how we treated their POWs.

    This clear headed history lesson is brought to you as a courtesy.

  8. I care more about the Country and the lives that have been saved from water boarding radical Islamic Terrorist scum.
    You seem to only care about protecting the terrorist who does not even have Rights under our Constitution because they are not US citizens.
    If it were up to you and your Party more innocent people would probably be dead because you and your Party would allow the terrorist to lawyer up and then allow them the same rights that we have.
    They were Terrorists and they are getting what they deserve. As far as I’m concerned there were no abuses.
    It is sick that you feel more compassion for the terrorist than the lives of innocent Americans that are targeted by them.

  9. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” It comes down to what our country stands for. You don’t have a problem with our country torturing prisoners. I do ”

    I don’t have a problem with waterboarding terrorists to save American lives. But, I keep pointing out your not being consistent on water boarding and you ignore me.

    I believe that it was argued by Bush’s people that inflicting discomfort to get information was not torture. Inflicting discomfort strictly for punishment is torture. Bush does not favor water boarding strictly for punishment, which is what you favor. So you are the torturer, not Bush.

  10. Mr. Hoffman,

    Remember this little nugget.

    ” So after they’re given a trial and found to be a terrorist, waterboard the hell out of them. But leaving that decision to the President is unconstitutional. ”

    You know if you caught me in a similar inconsistency I would just admit I screwed up and say I’m sorry and it would be done. You can’t do it, can you ? 🙂

  11. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” How is that inconsistent? ”

    I understand that your objection to waterboarding is how it makes the US appear to foreigners. ” Torture”, I believe you called it, yet you want to “torture” them in Prison after a trial, just to inflict pain for pain’s sake .

    Don’t you think “torturing” convicted terrorists looks even worse to your European friends, than Bush’s intensive questioning of captured terrorists to get life saving information ?

    • [Don’t you think “torturing” convicted terrorists looks even worse to your European friends, than Bush’s intensive questioning of captured terrorists to get life saving information ?]

      So now it’s just “questioning?” And they got no “life saving information” from waterboarding.

      You are indeed a pathological liar. I don’t think I’d have you in my house without keeping a constant eye on you to make sure you didn’t steal anything.

  12. Get a wash cloth.
    Get it soaking wet.
    Lie down and try to breath through it.
    Then try and breath through it with someone else pouring water on your face.

    It is not ‘just waterboarding’ it is torture.

    • Interesting. Does Mr. Hitchens volunteer for a video gang rape, or a jump-in? Why not? It happens daily in US prisons across the country, and I would suspect is just as much in violation of America’s values as waterboarding is, if not more. Where’s his statement about that, or is he, like many people, preferring to side more with terrorists than his own citizens when it comes to this issue?

      Why is waterboarding so much more violently opposed than either of these two activities? Why isn’t the left screaming blue murder over the worse treatment of its own citizens?

      All the “holier than thou’s” and armchair critics seem perfectly fine with saying, “We don’t stand for it, there are laws against it, but we’ll let prison violence happen anyway”, yet look at the fuss we put up over waterboarding.

      When I see waterboarding, the word “torture” doesn’t come to mind first, the words “politics” and “hypocricy” do. Only for those reasons do we seem more concerned over our public image as a country than we do over the safety and well-being of our own citizens.

      Being someone who travels the world as well, I have to say that we need to get over this identity crisis as a country that we are somehow all summed up by a former President and the wars we are involved in.

      • [We don’t stand for it, there are laws against it, but we’ll let prison violence happen anyway”, yet look at the fuss we put up over waterboarding.]

        Agreed, but that doesn’t make waterboarding less contemptible.

  13. V.R. Kaine said:The valuable component of intelligence is the timeliness of it, and I think there are situations where we maybe can’t afford to wait for a civilian trial.

    Torture has a corrosive effect on both the victims and the perpetrators of torture. I suggest reading Alfred McCoy’s book – A Question of Torture, it is most illuminating and well worth the read (or watch).

    I don’t think there is a situation in which torture is justified Vern. At least not in a nation that stands for liberty and human rights.

    Take your worst case scenario, a ticking time bomb and you have in your custody someone who you think know the location. Would you torture them?

    Do you think under the pain you inflict on this person they will tell you the truth? Or will they just say anything to make the pain stop? What if said person would not talk? Would you take his wife into custody as well?

    Would you torture her as well? She might know something. Perhaps maybe your suspect saw his wife being tortured then he would fess up. Innocent lives are at stake, if he can be tortured to save lives then she must also be tortured. The civil legal process (Geneva Convention, UN Declaration of Human Rights, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Magna Carta et cetera) be damned. Maybe after seeing his wife brutalized he would talk, then again maybe not.

    How about their children Vern? If we condone torture and if torture saves lives then do we torture his children in front him in an attempt to make him talk? Would the torture of children be justified to save innocent lives because surely the anguished screams of his children would make daddy break? What if they did not? Then lets torture his parents…

    Torture has serious consequences for liberal democracies that participate in the practice. This article from the Journal of Applied Philosophy explains how corrosive torture actually is to societies.

    War’s a nasty business, and terrorism’s even worse. The enemy knows that, which is why they choose not be soldiers – they get to wage a more brutal war and take advantage of our rules. Sometimes we’ve got to show them that we’re serious, I guess.

    So what separates them from you?

    • [Do you think under the pain you inflict on this person they will tell you the truth? Or will they just say anything to make the pain stop? What if said person would not talk? Would you take his wife into custody as well?]
      Here’s the thing: you and I are not on the front lines, we’re not terrorism experts, and you and I don’t have a clear and visible threat to our lives facing us down every day. Because of that luxury we can’t possibly know what we’d do in those situations – and that’s something we should be thankful of.

      I’ll take your questions as questions and not judgments, but consider the perspective of their judgmental overtone. I choose not to sit on some high moral perch as though I’m holier than though only because I’ve had the privilege of not having to be that person in front of a terrorist who’s potentially holding information that could save the lives of people I care about. I’ve never experienced the pressure or stress of that, so I cannot say what I’d do. And until you’re actually someone in that situation – neither can you.

      I’d suggest watching the movie “Unthinkable” if you haven’t. It explores these ideas pretty well. I don’t know what I’d do if I was standing in front of a terrorist like the one in the movie, and would love to discuss it. You ask if I’d torture children to get the information, i.e. where does it stop? Let me ask you the same question – where does it stop for you? How far would you TRULY go to protect your loved ones? Would you let them, or other children be maimed or killed so as to appease your moral sense of being “civilized and humane”?

      • I’ve never experienced the pressure or stress of that, so I cannot say what I’d do. And until you’re actually someone in that situation – neither can you.

        Thank you for being charitable to my what I was trying get at. It was most definitely not a personal attack or anything along those lines. Just a thought experiment of sorts to see the sort of legal and ethical lines that get crossed when we start allowing people to be tortured.

        I admit that I would not like to be in the situation of torturing someone or not. I would like to think though that I had the strength of character and moral fibre to not inflict pain on a another in hopes of some sort of nebulous result.

        You ask if I’d torture children to get the information, i.e. where does it stop? Let me ask you the same question – where does it stop for you?

        It stops before it starts for me. I would like to say that on a personal level I probably could not torture someone, even if they possibly had information regarding my loved ones that only torture would extract. There is always the chance that the person who is being tortured is innocent, or does not know anything about what is going on and me hurting the person in question would not make things better.

        If I was a policy maker, I would most definitely not make it my state’s policy. Torture has been proven, repeatedly, to not be an effective tool in intelligence gathering.

        I’d suggest watching the movie “Unthinkable” if you haven’t.

        I will put this on my list and see if I can find it. Thanks for the steer. 🙂

      • [It stops before it starts for me. I would like to say that on a personal level I probably could not torture someone, even if they possibly had information regarding my loved ones that only torture would extract.]
        I appreciate that honesty – I’m sure not an easy conclusion to come to.

        [If I was a policy maker, I would most definitely not make it my state’s policy.]
        If enough qualified individuals say that it’s a useless form of intelligence gathering, I think we’re right to not make it policy. I think we have to consider, though, that a conclusion like this perhaps needed to be qualified with experience with a new kind of enemy to be ruled out. It’s not a “nice” correlation, but I think it has parallels to how the Navy dive tables were created (i.e. based on the negative results.)

        [I will put {Unthinkable} on my list and see if I can find it. Thanks for the steer.]
        Not an Oscar-caliber movie, but I believe it is a good “thought experiment” on the issue, with the many characters involved representing the many different viewpoints. Be sure to let me know what you think. 🙂

      • [I will put {Unthinkable} on my list and see if I can find it. Thanks for the steer.]

        It releases on June 15 on DVD.

      • I just saw the movie Vern. It is a virtual kick in the guts. I’m still a little bit in shock from the brutality evoked in the corpus of the film.

        The film explores the questions none of us want to answer. It messes with the utilitarian conception and the deontological conception of morality.

        I never thought I would see a Hollywood movie that would make me think and reflect to the level that Unthinkable did.

        The canvas the film uses illustrates both sides of our argument, and for me reinforces what I stated earlier as my position with regards to torture.

        Civilization lies on a continuum. To torture and kidnap and maim for the interests of the state push us further away from *any* civilized goals we may or may not have. We cannot condone torture and say we protect and cherish human rights. The two notions are antithetical to the point of mutual exclusivity (in my opinion); therefore we *must* choose the rights of human beings.

        That is an important film Vern, thank you for the suggestion.

    • [So what separates them from you?]
      For starters, the men and women in our Armed Forces and intelligence services separate me from them, and I’m THANKFUL and APPRECIATIVE of that.

      Some other separators:
      1) I don’t believe people are automatically guilty and to be condemned from birth based on their ethnicity or religion. Terrorists do.
      2) I believe violence is a LAST resort, terrorists believe it’s the first.
      3) My religion doesn’t override common law which protects individuals regardless of race, sex, or creed. Theirs does.
      4) I don’t live my life embracing a brutality and mentality that hasn’t evolved from the stone age. They do.

      If their actions of violence as a first resort cause us to use violence as a last resort, so be it, because I also believe in survival of the fittest and because we are intellectually and morally superior to them, we will win, and society will evolve. There’s a reason why those clowns are still in the stone age, and it starts with them.

      • For starters, the men and women in our Armed Forces and intelligence services separate me from them, and I’m THANKFUL and APPRECIATIVE of that.

        Yes, but does it make you a better informed citizen? Would it not be a benefit to be aware of the pain caused by certain policy choices made by the government on your behalf. Being insulated from the truth is dangerous not only for foreign policy, but also for the proper functioning of a democratic state.

        1) I don’t believe people are automatically guilty and to be condemned from birth based on their ethnicity or religion. Terrorists do.

        Who defines who the terrorists are? Should we call the UK and the US terrorists for overthrowing Iran’s elected government in 1953 and installing a brutal dictator? I think perhaps lumping certain groups of people together and calling them terrorists might be a bit of a hasty judgment.

        3) My religion doesn’t override common law which protects individuals regardless of race, sex, or creed. Theirs does.

        Your religion would if it could. It is precisely the secular state that has given us laws and rational guidelines to follow, rather than religious edicts, that we are even in a position to debate this.

        4) I don’t live my life embracing a brutality and mentality that hasn’t evolved from the stone age. They do.

        Your 2000 year old magic book is just as atrocious as their musty tomb of fairy tales.

        If their actions of violence as a first resort cause us to use violence as a last resort, so be it, because I also believe in survival of the fittest and because we are intellectually and morally superior to them, we will win, and society will evolve.

        Categorizing all those who use violence as a means of moral clarity is somewhat problematic. The US (as well as Canada) has a long record of committing violent acts against various people who have been declared the enemy.

        When China asserts her dominance on the world stage, would you also stick to the argument of the ‘survival of the fittest’? Because it sounds a lot more like survival of the most well armed, which is quite different than what was said.

        we are intellectually and morally superior to them, we will win, and society will evolve.

        The wisdom saved by Islam planted the seeds of the enlightenment and brought a good deal of humanity out of the Christian sponsored Dark Ages. Because we were able to throw out much of the taint that religion is while the Islamic world retained their own dogmatic stultifying religion is good fortune for us. Should we not feel at least some compunction to help them out?

        There’s a reason why those clowns are still in the stone age, and it starts with them.

        We have a lot to do with keeping them in their place as well. Our standard of living is certainly no shining edifice to justice and morality. There are strongly vested interests that are quite content maintain the status quo and hence the exploitation of the world for our benefit.

      • [Your 2000 year old magic book is just as atrocious as their musty tomb of fairy tales.]
        You’re assuming I’m a Christian. My religion is Capitalism, remember? Haha! 😉

        [Who defines who the terrorists are?]
        It’s always defined by the opposing side. I do see your point, however it neglects the fact that our methods of war actual DO evolve compared to theirs. In the old days we were wiping out entire Indian villages, whereas nowadays we have ROE. Perfect, no, but the fact that they’re there says a lot, in my opinion. We also do our best to separate the innocent people from the terrorists, attempting to build schools, infrastructure, provide medical attention. Has Al Qaeda or the Taliban shown any intent of that? And who forces 5-year olds from their parents to indoctrinate them as suicide bombers? Certainly not us. To me, it’s easy to see who the terrorists are.

        [Should we not feel at least some compunction to help them out?]
        For the answer to that, I turn for one to the work that the US and especially the Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan. For another, I turn to the fact that we have freedom of religion here. Even with just those, I believe we do as much as we can already.

        [There are strongly vested interests that are quite content to maintain the status quo and hence the exploitation of the world for our benefit.]
        Those vested interests are on both sides, and it is something which we all benefit from in the west. Like I’ve said before, if we’re really so against it, then everyone ditch their iPods, cars, clothes, etc. etc. etc.. To me, “Fighting for our Freedom” means our economic freedom as well.

        [When China asserts her dominance on the world stage, would you also stick to the argument of the ‘survival of the fittest’? Because it sounds a lot more like survival of the most well armed, which is quite different than what was said.]
        A great point and great question. My answer is “yes” – I would stick to it, because I believe greatly in the power of the individual human spirit (corny as that sounds). That to me is what “fit” is, more than military might, and there are tons of “David and Goliath” stories both corporately and militarily that support that belief for me.

  14. They should have ripped their fingernails out and smashed their toes with hammers at least. Waterboarding was too good for them. When you’re fighting a war against someone that doesn’t have rules, you can’t restrict your means of defense.

  15. Evening Ben :> The link monster got me again, a comment sits waiting in the queue. When you have time could you fish it out for me? Thanks 🙂

  16. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” You are indeed a pathological liar. I don’t think I’d have you in my house without keeping a constant eye on you to make sure you didn’t steal anything. ”

    Wow, you mean if you keep an eye on me, I can come into your house? Cool! By the way how much stuff do you have ? You can tell me . I won’t tell Obama you’re rich.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: