1 of 2
1
The Speech that Senator Kerry Never Made
Posted: 02 April 2005 06:09 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

The Speech that Kerry Never Made
A Play in One Act

Scene:
The last of the 2004 Presidential Debates. Following a lackluster debate characterized by both candidates carefully tiptoeing on various benign issues in the hope of swaying the few remaining swing votes, President Bush makes his closing remarks which follow closely the tone of the entire debate.  Senator Kerry then proceeds to make his closing remarks.

Action:
Senator Kerry:  President Bush, your mark in history will be as the worst President of the United States. Never before has a president sent forth American armed forces and engaged in a war based on false information.

President Bush (interrupting): Duh, whut

Senator Kerry:  You told us that the Iraqis had WMDs and that they were a threat to the peace of the world as well as our own security.  But there were none. Then you told us that there were Iraqi links to Al Quida. There were none.

President Bush (interrupting): Duh, now lookie here, you had access to the same intelligence information that I did.

Senator Kerry:  Mr. President, the President of the United States has the ultimate responsibility to absolutely verify the authenticity of intelligence information when war is at stake. This in not something that you can be permitted to be wrong about when it means that you will take the greatest nation in the world to war. You no longer deserve the confidence of the American people or to be their president.

Curtain

[Playwrights notes – Aside from all the discussions about swift boats, religion, demographics, economics etc., this one speech would have won the election for Kerry. But he never had the guts to make it and therefore is not and does not deserve to be, President of the United States.]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2005 06:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  128
Joined  2005-02-23

It almost seems as if Kerry was, in effect, shooting himself in the foot during those debates—as if perhaps he’d lost his ambition to rule over the insane population of this country, but couldn’t quite summon up the guts to go public with such a message. He stayed in the race, but only on paper, it seemed to me.

Dave

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2005 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Wotansson, I agree, but for a different reason. If Kerry would have say those things, Bush would have won the election by an even bigger margin. Bush already has a mandate by having the most votes by a president in an election ever. But, it would have been sweeter if the 3 or 4 counties in the USA that voted for Kerry, or was it 2??..., would have switched and voted for Bush. ha ha.

You see, the libs/Dems never figured out that they were digging their own graves for about 2 years. For two years against all logic, whichever side Bush took on an issue, the dems would fight it, even it it was a sound position. Further, not only would they fight it, but their speech would be peppered with insults and intrigue, the likes of which we have never seen in this country. You don’t know how many times in the offices and water coolers that I graced, I would overhear even the most committed dems saying things like, “can you believe what they are saying now….I’ve just about had it, this is ridicules…”

And so it was that dems began streaming across the aisle to the republican side. Included member of my own family, co-workers, friends, and beyond.

So the dems dug themselves into a hole by being hateful beyond all logic. Kerry would have just dug it deeper by giving that speech.

Might I add, I think Bush has been a marvelous President. History will be very kind to him as one who did not what it took to be popular with the masses, but made the most difficult decisions to perserve peace in the world.

Might I also add, history will not be kind to the countries (or foes) of the Iraq war, who sat on the sidelines for years while a modern day Stalin ruled over his people. They did nothing to stop him but give empty threats and promises via a toothless, corrupt UN. Then when every intelligence agency in the world said that Iraq had WMD’s, they fought the US tooth and nail in going in and taking out the modern day Stalin.

In the end result, it was a valient deed to remove the modern day Stalin and free the heroic Iraqi people. Yet, against all logic, some still speak with scorn at Bush and the US, as if what they did was a bad thing. Well, I would say, shame on them. But I won’t, all of us will have to stand before God and give an account of our actions.

What will they say then?

p.s. Thank you Kerry for choosing both sides of every position. It made it much easier for Bush to win this thing, and allow us to stack the Supreme Court, and some other things, like pass laws making it difficult to get an abortion, and other good moral laws. Thanks a bunch John. If you’re ever sitting by the fireplace alone one night, sipping a cognac, feet by the fire, contemplating how you could ever become a true Pres contender again, here is my sound advice. Choose your views, stand on them, and falter not when the chips are down. Let the people decide on those merits. And if you still fail, you can hold your head and feel like John Wayne. Cuz, you darn tooting did your way and you did it while being true to yourself.

(Clinton was the only one brilliant enough to dance around issues, appeasing {while not really pleasing} both sides.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2005 11:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

Dave said:

It almost seems as if Kerry was, in effect, shooting himself in the foot during those debates—as if perhaps he’d lost his ambition to rule over the insane population of this country, but couldn’t quite summon up the guts to go public with such a message. He stayed in the race, but only on paper, it seemed to me.

Good points. He did seem to lose what steam he had as time went on. Such a speech, to be effective, would have required that the voters confront and accept the truth of the war that most already knew.  The risk of a backlash from the voters going into denial would have been high, but then he had little to lose and would have at least gained lots of respect.

Stay Well

Wot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2005-02-28

I’d like to believe that had Kerry made such a speech, the electorate may have been swayed. But I don’t.  Bush took us to war, whether it was the right or wrong thing to do is something only history will validate.  (OK it was wrong, can’t help but let my opinion show).

We’ve never had a presidential candidate lose reelection during a time of conflict, or so I’m told.  Bush had only to show up at the debates.  No matter what amount of idiotic attempts he made to communicate, it all came down to us being at war, he was a war president, and the vast uneducated, god-fearing electorate didn’t want to switch horses during battle.  The dems are frequently criticized for not having put forth a good enough candidate.  Swift Boater lies aside, too many people simply voted for Bush because they thought only he could finish the mess we started in Iraq.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 03:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Champ’s favorite question seems to be:  “Where are the bones.”  My favorite question is “Where are kerry’s service records.”  That is the question I would like to have seen asked during the debates.

Strange as it may seem, I dont think it would have made any difference if kerry had asked that question.  I think most voters had already come to that conclusion themselves, and didnt think it was important.  I know that is true in my case.

Keep repeating the phrase “swift boat lies” and it will become common knowledge.  The facts say otherwise, whether you like it or not.  Arguing these points with the left is no different than arguing evolution with the right, and just as frustrating.  Perhaps you should check out a couple of news sources other than commondreams.

The truly amazing thing about the two bush victories is that he won in spite of having most of the media against him.  I was watching in 2000 when all three networks called florida for gore at 8:10 eastern time.  50 minutes BEFORE the polls closed in the heavily republican panhandle.  That conservativly cost bush 30,000 votes.  All three networks forgot about florida time zones?  I think not!

In 2004 we had the last-minuite CBS blatent attempt to manage the election.  I think that that may have provided the bush margin of victory, by the way. 

With a stronger canditate, I think the election would have not even been close.  I know it is hard to look inside, but as far as the dems are concerned, that is where the problem is, and the pattern looks like it is repeating for 2008.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

CDarrow, shame on you for that. Really now. The masses that comprise the right wing are populated with numerous educated electorate (despite the fact 80% of collegiate professors are far left wing, and try to brain wash the students).

hampsteadpete, you said: “The truly amazing thing about the two bush victories is that he won in spite of having most of the media against him. I was watching in 2000 when all three networks called florida for gore at 8:10 eastern time. 50 minutes BEFORE the polls closed in the heavily republican panhandle. That conservativly cost bush 30,000 votes. All three networks forgot about florida time zones? I think not!”

Well, I couldn’t agree more. The media at large, was in collusion with the dems. Several times over the two year period that I mentioned, when the media broke a “supposedly” huge story that would bring down Bush, the dems would be breaking the story at the same time! ha ha Or, further investigation would show sources for the story were from hard line libs with an agenda.

Also, don’t forget the many times 60 Minutes tried to create a new watergate for Bush. Must have been at least 10 times where they promised…“THE BIG ONE”... But it never actually hurt Bush. After the first 5, it became obvious to America that 60 Minutes had sold out, and had not political integrity anymore.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

Until now, I have chosen to ignore CDarrow’s repeated besmirching of the patriotic Swift Veterans and POWs for Truth.

http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php 

It was their unflinching courage, honesty and determination to tell the truth in the face of viscous and relentless attacks from the Kerry campaign and the main stream press that surely saved this country from electing the traitor “Hanoi John” F’n Kerry as President of the United States in 2004.  They deserve the undying gratitude of every American citizen!

I really do not want to re-fight the last election. However, I can no longer ignore CDarrow’s cavalier and uninformed misstatements about the Swift Boat Vets.  Whatever you think or say about George W. Bush, you will not be allowed to trash the Swift Vets without challenge from me.

[quote author=“CDarrow”] Swift Boater lies aside, .......

Here is another of his misguided quotes from the Schiavo thread……

[quote author=“CDarrow”][quote author=“hampsteadpete”]

Sorry CD, but as I said in an earlier post on another subject, the Swifties were NOT wrong, kerry was a traitor to his country, his uniform, and the men he served with.  He should be in Levenworth, not the Senate!

OK pete, if you said it, it must be true.  Silly of me to question your absolute authority on this matter. 

You are obviously delusional, a neocon, or possibly both?  The Swift Boat stories have been revealed to be falsehoods time and time again, financed by Bush’s oily friends.  No one, NO ONE who served with Kerry on his boat makes any of the negative claims about him.  Kerry served, proudly, but he had the guts to speak out against the atrocities he saw there after returning.

Obviously, CDarrow has never read the Swift Vet’s book “Unfit for Command”  (http://www.regnery.com/regnery/040809_unfit.html) or he would not be demonstrating his ignorance so blatantly and openly.

First of all, almost EVERYONE (over 250) who served with Kerry on the Swift Boats in Viet Nam (except for a handful of his politically motivated “Band of Brothers”) stands firmly behind every allegation in the book.  Of the 23 peer OICs who served with Kerry as fellow Swift Boat commanders, only 3 support him. 

The Swift Vets have signed sworn affidavits and repeatedly challenged Kerry to refute any of their allegations.  They have a standing offer to immediately revise the book if any of the facts contained therein are shown to be false……..so far, NO FACTUAL RESPONSE has been forthcoming from Kerry nor has he released his military records which might shed some light on the subjects covered in the book.

Kerry repeatedly stating that the book contains “lies” that have been “refuted” does not refute these facts!  To this day, Kerry has not personally answered even one of the allegations.  However, he has quietly backed away from a number of his previous claims (e.g. Christmas in Cambodia, attrocities, Etc.)

Second, some of the most devastating accusations come from Steve Gardner who served as the 50 caliber machine gun gunner on Kerry’s boat for nearly his entire four month tour of duty in Viet Nam and who repeatedly observed him in action “up close and personal”.

If CDarrow had read the book, he would know that Kerry was not only a traitor but a coward as well!  He repeatedly “lost it” in combat situations and frequently panicked under the stress.  For example, on January 20, 1969, he ordered his crew to fire on an unarmed family sampan killing an innocent child.  He repeatedly turned his boat and ran away from enemy fire leaving his sister boats to face the enemy alone and would only return to the scene after the threat had been dealt with by his comrades.

If CDarrow had read the book, he would know that Kerry repeatedly filed after action reports that falsified, grossly exaggerated and inflated his personal combat role and “heroic” feats.

If CDarrow had read the book, he would know that at least two of Kerry’s Purple Hearts were the result of questionable self-inflicted wounds and were so minor that he was initially denied award of the PHs.

If CDarrow had read the book he would know that the real reason that Kerry only spent (an unprecedented) four months in combat was that his entire chain of command and his peer boat commanders did not want to be anywhere near him in combat due to his extreme unreliability and unpredictability in stressful situations.  They simply could not depend upon him and wanted him gone for their own safety!  As a result, they went back and awarded the questionable PH’s and then exercised the three-PH loophole to get rid of him.

However, none of these (un-refuted) allegations are, in and of themselves, reasons to disqualify Kerry from the Presidency.  Many people have been frightened in combat and may have done things in the stress of the moment that they would later regret.  Few of us know how we would react in similar circumstances.

Rather, it was Kerry’s well documented traitorous actions after leaving combat that make him unfit to be President……EVER! 

• He accused his previous comrades in arms (the Swift Boat sailors) of committing war crimes with no evidence that they ever occurred and which he has subsequently denied seeing.
• He made public statements admitting to personally committing war crimes that he has since denied.
• All of these false statements were used against the POWs being held in North Vietnam at the time and placed them under threat to be executed as war criminals.
• He consulted and collaborated with the North Vietnamese enemy while serving as an officer in the US Navy!  As a result, he is honored by the Vietnamese Communists as a “hero” who helped them to win the war with the US.

It is almost certain that, as a direct result of these traitorous actions, Kerry was given a “less-than-honorable” discharge from the Navy (This most likely kept him from being accepted at Harvard).  It is likely, that the “less-than-honorable” discharge was quietly changed administratively during the Carter administration.  However, unless and until Kerry releases his military records, we will not know this for sure……that is probably why he refuses to release them.

The stupidity and arrogance of Kerry and the Democrats to make his “war hero” credentials the central theme of his Presidential campaign was unbelievable and grossly repugnant to almost all of us who have ever served in the military.

I agree with Pete, Kerry should be in Leavenworth not the Senate or, more importantly, the Presidency!

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Swift Boat Vets were patriots. I am not so sure about Kerry, on the other hand. I think way back when he implicated the Army as committing atrocities, that was the day he put the nail in the coffin for his presidential hopes. What he did was offensive even now.

Then again, a simple apology (along with, I was young and dumb) might have worked to his favor. But since it never came, the stain remained.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

Bush vs. Kerry ad nauseum only obscures the real issue.

Neither Bush nor Kerry were particularly good choices!

Let’s be brutally honest about something:  People get elected to office by getting votes.  The problems facing America will require painful solutions, but nobody championing those solutions will get votes.  In essence, our political system has evolved into a very perverse game of chicken.

So, our national debate centers around gay marriage and abortion, but ignores the issues of peak oil, unsustainable production, and mounting environmental issues (and no, I am not talking about melting ice caps, even if we leave them out, there are more than enough environmental problems to be very worried about).  Where any of these issues are addressed, the treatment is cursory and infantile.

Unless and until we address the fundamental flaws in our selection of leaders and our inability to take responsibility for our actions, the political debate of Democrat vs. Republican is like playing musical chairs on the Titantic.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

Sheesh! It’s becoming impossible to believe the level of discourse in this forum! We’re really gonna debate whether the Swift Boat vets were lying about Kerry? You guys can’t analyze when a smear is a smear, or what caused it?

Obviously, feelings still run very high about the Vietnam war. A large part of the reason why is the shameful way the returning veterans were treated. They have very serious reasons for their resentment of Kerry, and the Kerry campaign completely underestimated this resentment. I have some personal stories about how badly they were treated which I’m not going to post here. At least partly because of Kerry’s report to Congress, the country, the public itself, turned against the returning veterans and they were treated very badly on very personal levels. Of course feelings still run high.

The main thing we MUST do is make certain that those now fighting in Iraq receive proper treatment when they return home. That doesn’t seem very likely, since the government itself isn’t doing a very good job of taking care of them. We need to keep a careful eye on whether those who still need medical care, for example, are actually getting it, preferably without months of suffering before they do. The reports of them having to scavenge for pieces of metal to reinforce their vehicles, of their families having to send them supplies to keep them safe, are disgusting. The Iraq war is not exactly popular with the public, either, but it’s hardly the fault of those sent to fight in it. Please lets be careful that they, too, aren’t cynically turned into scapegoats.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Neither Bush nor Kerry were particularly good choices!

Is that ever a true statement!  Looking back at the last 40 years or so, I think we were better off when the major party nominees were products of the “smoke-filled back rooms” rather then the primped, primed, and packaged products of the primary system.

I am not the first to say that the positions necessary to be nominated by either party are not the same as those necessary in the general election.  Under the old system, parties chose the best candidate to win the election, and the choosers were professional pols, not right or left-wing fringies.

Take the example of the hatchet job the right did on John McCain in South Carolina.  In an open convention that year, McCain, not bush gets the nomination, and probably goes on to win.  Instead the party gets a narrow victory over a candidate (gore) who is an empty suit (like bush) and should have been easily beaten. 

Both parties pander to their fringes, to the detriment of the country.  I have not been involved at all on the dem side, but the same things happen there, as well.  kerry was a dumb choice, there were better men available.  Joe Lieberman, for one, I voted for him when I lived in CT, in his first senate run, and would have voted to put him in the white house in a heartbeat.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable with a return to the old system of choosing candidates, mainly because money would not have as much to do with it, and there would be less chance for skullduggary,on both sides. 

Pete

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 April 2005 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

Well, frankly if I were Kerry, I dont think I would have wanted to inherit that war.

Maybe he learned from Nixon.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  754
Joined  2005-01-03

[quote author=“MJ”]Sheesh! It’s becoming impossible to believe the level of discourse in this forum! We’re really gonna debate whether the Swift Boat vets were lying about Kerry? You guys can’t analyze when a smear is a smear, or what caused it?

MJ, thank you for pointing out the disgraceful smear campaign that the Democrats and Kerry mounted against the patriotic Swift Vets in a desperate attempt to divert attention from their candidate’s fatal flaws.  Obviously, you have been able to correctly “analyze when a smear is a smear and what caused it”.

Although they attempted to paint the Swift Vets as partisan liars and part of a vast right-wing Republican conspiracy orchestrated by the evil puppet-master Carl Rove, astute people such as yourself immediately saw through this attempted smear campaign and rejected it for the vicious propaganda that it was. The Dems cleverly employed anonymous sources and leaks, guilt by association, whispered innuendo, and other well-known political smear propaganda techniques in a failed attempt to destroy the Swift Boat Vets credibility with the public.  It clearly did not work!

In stark contrast, the Swift Boat Vets, refused to play by the well established rules of the political smear.  The Swifties stood up, proudly stated their names, addresses,  political affiliations, etc., signed affidavits attesting to the events that they had witnessed, volunteered to be interviewed on-the-record by any journalist willing to take the time, volunteered to take lie detector tests, testify under oath, etc., etc.

When you openly and publicly tell the truth and are willing to put your life on hold and your career in jeopardy in order to defend it, you are not engaging in a “smear” campaign, you are exercising your right to free speech…….In the Swifties case, a right that they had personally earned by putting their lives on the line in service to their country in time of war! 

The Swifties were a group of ordinary citizens who came from a wide range of backgrounds and political preferences.  They were men in their late 50’s to early 70’s who, for the most part, had never been very politically active and were living ordinary quite lives in their respective communities. 

They had only one thing in common……..they had served with John Kerry in Viet Nam and were absolutely horrified at the prospect that the man that they knew to be a traitor and a coward could become the US President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

They could not stand by and let that happen without telling their fellow citizens what they knew to be the truth!

These men are true patriots and deserve our honor, respect and sincere thanks for everything that they have done for their country………especially for helping to defeat John F’n Kerry!

[quote author=“MJ”]The main thing we MUST do is make certain that those now fighting in Iraq receive proper treatment when they return home. ………The Iraq war is not exactly popular with the public, either, but it’s hardly the fault of those sent to fight in it. Please lets be careful that they, too, aren’t cynically turned into scapegoats.

I could not agree more!

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful…..Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman (3 BC - 65 AD)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

I didn’t say that I believe what the Swift Boat vets said about Kerry being a coward. I don’t believe that for a minute. I said that I understood why they did what they did. That’s quite another matter. If we’re ever going to get away from the comic book style of logic and morality that’s been thrust upon us by the Bushies, we’ve got to start being able to deal with distinctions and subtleties again. I’m sure we were all able to do that before 9/11. The main outcome of 9/11 is that it has fried our collective brains.

That’s why I’m warning about mistreating the Iraq veterans when they return. I consider the Iraq war another hideous blunder and at this moment I have absolutely no idea why we got into it. Please don’t repeat all the usual pap about don’t I think the evil Saddam should have been overthrown. Sure, but why was that any of that our business? Don’t I think that Iraq should be a democracy? Only if they want it to, and frankly, I’d like to have some of that democracy stuff here, too. I’m afraid that the Iraq war is turning out to be the same kind of war as the Vietnam war; a war which can’t be won without killing everybody because it’s impossible to tell who the enemy is. Even so, no matter how long this particular brand of idiocy lasts, none of it, not one bit of it, is the fault of those WE have sent to fight there. No matter how unpopular, expensive, etc. this war becomes, we must not take it out on them the way the Vietnam war was taken out on the Vietnam veterans.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2005 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

MJ:

I agree with you inasmuch as I am not keen on the Iraq war, but I do feel strongly that we need to do right by our troops.

I often cannot stand Michael Moore, but in this one specific regard, I think that his comments on our armed forces in F9/11 were on the mark (paraphrased):  We have a deal with those who volunteer for the military.  They agree to put themselves in harms way, get wounded, and if need be, to die for us.  We agree to ask this of them only when it is absolutely, truly essential.

The deplorable way that troops are being treated when they come home from Iraq is intolerable.  There is no excuse for not providing them with adequate health care, job and housing programs, child care, and the myriad of other things which would allow for a successful transition.  The thing which boggles my mind is that this mistreatment (by the government no less) does not even seem to make sense from a hawkish perspective.  Clearly the powers that be enjoy funneling public money into private companies when they see a chance to do it.  Also, it is clear that maintaining a robust military is probably important to ongoing plans.  So why not kill two birds with one stone and take care of the troops (thus making people view the military in a more positive light) and have a perfect excuse for funneling billions more tax dollars into companies like Haliburton that could easily win contracts to provide these services?

Anyway, the bottom line, as I see it, is to politically support all reasonable bi-partisan measures to provide relief to the troops, and to politically oppose the use of our troops for dubious rogue military actions.  Furthermore, take time out to let our boys know that you care deeply about them, and respect them for what they are willing to risk, regardless of your opinion of the war.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed