A question on Obama’s decision process on Afghanistan

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 3:16 PM Share

No matter what you think President Obama should decide on Afghanistan, what do you think of his decision-making process? He appeared to make a decision in March, and then indicated five months later that he hadn't, and then engaged in a very public discussion that appears to pit the White House against U.S. generals. I don't know anyone who is comfortable with how he has handled this. Do you?

Photo via Flickr user The Official Whitehouse Photostream

EXPLORE:AFGHANISTAN, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

(40)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

RPM

3:43 PM ET

October 15, 2009

The great wartime leaders...

of this nation, with whom Obama has often been compared, (such as Lincoln and FDR) were 'deciders.'

Lincoln closely supervised the entire broad strategy of the Civil War with the assistance of a couple of clerks. This nonsense about a "Team of Rivals" is only cited by people who did not carefully read DKG's book. Lincoln educated himself on military affairs, learned from his early mistakes, kept his own counsel, and made decisions without significant input from any staff.

FDR pitted his advisors and executive department heads against one another with conflicting guidance and goals. The only people he seemed to really listen to and trust were Harry Hopkins and George Marshall.

Now, the world is a much more complex place than it was in 1863 or 1943. But do you think either of these leaders would be taking Obama's approach to this question?

ADMIRAL

5:21 PM ET

October 15, 2009

What about Leahy?

"The only people he seemed to really listen to and trust were Harry Hopkins and George Marshall."

Fleet Admiral William Leahy was FDR's closest and most trusted advisor on military affairs from 1942 on.

CHARLIEFORD

5:53 PM ET

October 15, 2009

No, I don't . . .

. . . and if the Taliban were bombing Pearl Harbor while occupying nearly all of Europe, or if they'd taken over eleven states in the southeastern US, I bet Obama wouldn't be taking Obama's approach either.

I know we're to refrain from being abusive and all that, but don't you think such comparisons lean, at least a little, toward just plain stupid territory? (Note, please, I'm not at all calling you stupid. I just think the comparison is so in-apt I don't know another way to put it.)

And Mr. Ricks, also sorry, but how can we separate the "decision-making process" from the problem the decision is about? Aren't the two pretty intimately connected? You said a few days ago you preferred dithering over panic. Both of those are loaded words, as any writer well knows. What if we called it caution vs. recklessness? Humility vs. self-confidence? Paralysis vs. decisiveness? We could go on all day. All loaded, all arguable.

I just finished re-reading for the third time a packet of photocopies I gave to my students to read over their fall break. It includes selections from L. D. James's UNFORTUNATE SONS: A TRUE STORY OF YOUNG MEN AND WAR, John Nagl's review of HERE, BULLET by Brian Turner, Gordon Goldstein's excerpt from LESSONS IN DISASTER published at FP on 10/6/09, Thier's "The Eight Years' War" at Af-Pak Channel 10/7/09, Lynch's "AfPak Debate Day" also here, and Dexter Filkins' account of Wijdan al-Khuzai from THE FOREVER WAR. As I finished I was, as usual, tearing up.

All I could think of was this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKWydA69o9E

RPM

12:12 AM ET

October 16, 2009

yes I do

"... don't you think such comparisons lean, at least a little, toward just plain stupid territory?"

Exactly my point. Which was why I cringed at the comparisons of then-candidate Obama to past presidents during the campaign. The run on copies of 'Team of Rivals" was hilarious.

My point was simple and had two elements:

1. Comparisons to past presidents, good and bad, are and always have been, a nice parlor game and that is about it.

2. Great leaders are 'deciders.' They listen and gather facts, but do not engage in a committee approach to the process.

My biggest concern in this process is pace. A three hour meeting yesterday and another scheduled for 'next week?' WTF? You are right in saying that Japanese bombers are not circling the harbor... but young marines and soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan right now. They need to understand that their commander in chief is either behind them as they implement the policy he already announced, or is planning to bring them home. They will be happy with either outcome. The sooner, the better.

PAUL81

4:30 AM ET

October 16, 2009

Yes -- and they did

These are the kind of arguments that drive historians nuts. If you knew anything about the way Lincoln worked, you would know that he was very methodical, and often slow to make important decisions. In fact, his hesitancy infuriated the media of the day and his cabinet. Also, he didn't just delegate authority to his generals, rubber stamping their strategy, which is what so many are now calling on Obama to do now. So I view Obama's decision making process thus far to be very Lincoln-esque. We'll see what the actual decision is. I don't view Obama as someone who is subservient to any of his advisers or someone that "dithers." He is smart and has a big ego -- views himself as the smartest guy in the room that can process all the different angles and come up with a solution. I don't see how that's any different from any other leader worth anything.

Another thing: Let's look at the actual history here. FACT: President Obama immediately reviewed the strategy in March and increased troop levels to match that strategy, then installed a commander to carry out that strategy. There is nothing wrong with reviewing the situation six months later when the commander comes back with a new request and assessment, and after a significant event such as the elections. That should be standard operating procedure. To pretend as though the decision has been stalled since March, despite a substantial increase in resources, a change in strategy, a change in command -- and a restructuring of NATO command (Gen. Rodriguez) -- is a myth that the advocates of another troop increase have created. An increase might be the right policy, but there is no problem with carefully analyzing all options and keeping the American public informed before deciding on that policy.

MDREW

6:06 AM ET

October 16, 2009

SOP

Exactly. We would hope!

RAIZER

2:58 PM ET

October 16, 2009

lincoln was not happy with

lincoln was not happy with his general that had a case of the slows, and didn't delegate anything to him. In fact he spent hours trying to coax george into fighting and was so frustrated that nothing was happening. Once he found his man, a man who was not afraid of the abattoir, lincoln was content to let him do what was necessary

A2G

4:06 PM ET

October 15, 2009

I think like most

I think like most politicians, he is finding it much easier to of been a candidate where you can propose solutions and policies with very little accountability than it is now to actually be the leader having to take responsibility in making a decision. I don’t think he has provided the decisive leadership needed nor am I comfortable in thinking that he will based on how he and his team have managed this or other policy matters so far. I am seeing more of the Carter type of presidential model rather than that of a Lincoln or Roosevelt.

RPM

4:15 PM ET

October 15, 2009

Or...

a senator - where you endlessly debate and then have no direct responsibility for outcomes.

WATSON

4:06 PM ET

October 15, 2009

Stay the course?

The disastrous Afghan presidential election in August '09 was a valid, and one might say compelling, reason to re-evaluate the counterinsurgency strategy.

PIBE04

6:13 PM ET

October 15, 2009

military decision making process

I hope he is using the full-up military decision making process. It is a great tool and forces one to check all of their facts and assumptions before even going into the course of action analysis.

I also like Don Bacon's idea of opening up ideas to others such as UN, Congress, people, etc. This portion would be like the wargaming portion of the decision-making process.

I guess if the final decision is good, I am Ok with it. Maybe we could have an idea of when that will be, what the timeline is? The only part I don;t like is that although it seems cautious and thoughtful, is there no timeline to complete the decision?

ADMIRAL

6:20 PM ET

October 15, 2009

Stand Tall President Obama

President Obama has to deal with a disloyal military high command that does not tell him the truth and is plotting against him every single day. Why should he trust the generals? They have lied and continue to lie to the American people at every turn for the last eight years and beyond.

Being African American does not help him as well with the generals, especially amoungst the West Point Klan. One can only imagine the unspeakable names they use for the President and his family in private. They want to do to him what they did to President Kennedy.

Stand tall Mr. President, the American people support you.

RPM

12:02 AM ET

October 16, 2009

What?

"President Obama has to deal with a disloyal military high command that does not tell him the truth and is plotting against him every single day."

There really is no way to respond to such a statement. Those of us who understand the military know that it is just plain wrong, horribly wrong. And those who do not understand the military, do not understand the military.

NORWEGIAN SHOOTER

7:14 PM ET

October 15, 2009

I have no problem at all with the process

I would expect those favoring escalation are the ones with problems. Do you talk to anyone opposed to escalation?

Petraeus, likely through his neo-con review team, is the one who made this into a public debate between the generals and the President. My biggest problem is the Three Bears options laid out from the first leak. Goldilock's "just right" option of 40,000 more soldiers has made it incredibly difficult for any other choice to be made. (PS Peter Baker had the audacity to suggest Joe Biden has controlled the debate - by comparing him to Cheney! WTF!)

I am very happy that the President has had 5 meetings in 5 weeks on this very important question. And yes, the Afghan election by itself is reason enough to change course.

You never did answer my question about the Iraq surge. You suggested that Bush took 5 weeks to decide what to do. I recall him dithering for months and months. Can you provide some support for your quick time line?

JPWREL

7:24 PM ET

October 15, 2009

As much as I respect Tom’s

As much as I respect Tom’s take on the larger issues the point he raises today about Obama’s decision-making process for me at least is a non-issue. Different Presidents are comfortable with different approaches and the process likely has little impact upon the quality of the decision.

FDR had the most unique and in fact decisive decision-making process, which allowed for great competition among the military and civil leadership but invariably he knew what he planned to do regardless of their exhortations. He in fact proved to be a vastly superior global strategist than did any of his generals including Marshall.

Jack Kennedy thoroughly distrusted the advice of his military high command and had little respect for their intelligence or political motives. But he was highly consultative with his hand picked assortment of staff, Robert Kennedy and McNamara. It worked well with the Cuban missile crisis and not so well with Vietnam.

Regarding the war in Vietnam LBJ sought advice from every corner, ignored most of it, which did not conform to his preconceived notions, and consequently he lost the war. Nixon pretty much knew what he was going to do in most situations and did not need much more than some petting by Kissinger.

TYRTAIOS

10:45 PM ET

October 15, 2009

JFK and the military

Actually JFK respected and found a favorite in Commandant of the Marine Corps General David Shoup. Unfortunately, in those days the CMC was not a sitting member of the JCS and sat in as protocol and courtesy, but his voice was heard.

JPWREL

11:08 PM ET

October 15, 2009

Your right, Gen. Shoup was

Your right, Gen. Shoup was respect by JFK as was Matt Ridgeway. Generally, Kennedy seems to have had little regard for the brains of the JCS and the brass in general. I remember his remark about them after the Cuban crisis, “ . . . had we listened to them we would all be dead by now . . .”

PAUL G

7:56 PM ET

October 15, 2009

I'm not troubled

When I voted for Obama nearly a year ago, I did it not because I was a Democrat but because he seemed to be the smartest guy, and the one less likely to decide things reflexively or be stampeded into making a quick, and possibly incorrect decision. I fully support him taking whatever time he believes he needs to take in making — and selling — this decision.

Yes, a policy was adopted last March but Gen. McChrystal’s report, which presumably was meant to implement that policy, came in with a certain amount of sticker shock. Additionally, the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to have evolved substantially even if we ignore the disastrous Afghan election. These kinds of adverse changes would prompt a serious policy review in any well-run enterprise. Further, one of the proposals on the table is to send 40,000 young Americans to fight, perhaps to die, but almost certainly to be transformed in some way by the experience. Under these circumstances, I would hope that our Commander-in-Chief would take his obligation to the American people seriously enough to consider all the facts and all the possible effects before making a decision.

I’m not connected in Washington. I don’t know who has been consulted, but I’ve learned that Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Gen. Petraeus, Adm. Mullen and Gen. McChrystal have all been involved either in person or via teleconferencing. Likewise, over the past few days I’ve read that Obama is starting to reach out to a few people on the Hill. It looks to me like he’s making the right moves.

I also don’t understand the urgency that I sense in Mr. Ricks and some others. Is taking a few weeks to consider what to do actually going to make a measurable difference in the implementation of whatever decision is announced? Aren’t we coming up on Winter in Afghanistan? And won’t the weather make it impossible to really build up our troop strength during the next few months in any event? What practical advantage have we lost over the last few weeks by thinking rather than reacting?

JJH722

8:31 PM ET

October 15, 2009

I'd rather he not be

I'd rather he not be impetuous with other people's lives. It's been about 5 weeks out of 8 years. Calm down.

JJH722

8:41 PM ET

October 15, 2009

Wow. Financial Times reports

Wow. Financial Times reports that Obama has approved McChrystal's recommendation. That'll make some waves.

MDREW

9:00 PM ET

October 15, 2009

A CNAS View?

It seems like everyone at CNAS thought he made a decision that was entirely to embrace COIN, and that view predominated in a lot of places in Washington, except the White House.

The rest of the country I think saw the initial escalation as a stop-gap measure, and primarily heard the goal of fighting Al Qaeda in the speech. On the questions of further escalation, counterinsurgency (commonly conceived of as nation-building), and U.S. attemots to control the population and politics of Afghanistan, I think the Washington-CNAS crowd is grossly out of step with the rest of the country, who welcome and suport careful deliberation about how to go forward. The period of January-March was a harried, heady time, and I think most people want us to be sure about what we are doing going forward. Too much consideration seems not a concern for them.

When he arrives at a fully-considered decision, though, I agree that further questioning of first principles will adversely impact confidence in the effort, and should be avoided. He needs to take up the mantle of war president firmly once this decision is finalized.

CHARLIEFORD

9:34 PM ET

October 15, 2009

I like your points, MDrew, . . .

. . . up to here: "When he arrives at a fully-considered decision, though, I agree that further questioning of first principles will adversely impact confidence in the effort, and should be avoided. He needs to take up the mantle of war president firmly once this decision is finalized."

So are yousaying he should do like LBJ did, ignore George Ball, dismiss McNamara when he went wobbly, and in general have no time for any future "nervous-nellies"?

If not, can you explain a little what this "mantle of war president" is?

MDREW

1:00 AM ET

October 16, 2009

Publicly,

I should have said. If he is going to pursue an escalated military campaign, he needs to end public ambivalence about the effort after that decision is made, at least for an interval, and focus on rallying public support and assuring the Americans he sends there he is fully behind their mission and will not waver. Otherwise he should begin the process of withdrawal. My point is that the assessment process we have just seen was necessary on the merits, but also to avoid seeming to rush into escalation, in order to give the public confidence in his judgment. So I disagree with Tom that there has been a serious problem with the process in terms of public perception (I can't judge what's been going on internally). But after this period, if he chooses to redouble our military effort, then thereafter he needs to become something of a cheerleader for the effort he has initiated.

Believe me, Charlieford, I am the last person that in general wants the president to appear always and only in the commander-in-chief incarnation, because of the warping effect that has on our domestic politics. But when it is appropriate -- especially when the president has campaigned on winning this war, has inherited not started it, and its resolution (whatever strategy he selects) is of direct consequence for our security, as I believe it is, it is his duty to use the trappings of his office to marshall public support for the effort, and to project steady leadership behind a well-considered strategy. But those imperatives are still subordinate to his duty to assure himself he has selected the right strategy, which I believe he was not assured of after the March process.

If your view is that strategic assessment should continue throughout, however, I respect that argument. I believe once there is finality about the path forward, though, the administration should labor to keep such continued assessment private.

CHARLIEFORD

1:43 AM ET

October 16, 2009

OK, I see . . .

. . . what you're saying. But I can't say I'm convinced.

What I mean is this. Obviously, there are continuities and discontinuities in history, and figuring out, without the benefit of hindsight, where one is in that matrix is an impossible task.

That said, events, or moments, cast shadows, as it were. The 60s in general, and Vietnam in particular, cast lengthened shadows.

Just as it was hard to believe youth could re-make the world just by emancipating themselves from all the squares' hang-ups after Altamont (et al), so it was hard to believe, for awhile, that America could re-make (even a corner of) the world, after Vietnam.

I think we're in one of those shadows now: the shadow cast by the Bush administration's "selling" of Iraq. Americans have had enough of "terror alerts," and "decisiveness," and "swagger," and demonizing of those who "hate America," and promises of "demnocratizing the Middle East," and assurances of enemies being in their "last throes," etc., etc.

We don't trust certainty anymore. We don't trust utopianism. We don't believe it will be quick and painless. We're no longer naive, or innocent.

We were, or some were--enough to surprise me--in 2002-2005, just as we had been in 1964-65. So I suppose we will be again, when the memories of these wars have died with we who've lived through them.

Ecclesiastes has some things to say about that.

But for the time being, when it comes to the belligerent rituals of our civil religion, we're unbelievers.

One of my responses to reading Kilcullen's ACCIDENTAL GUERRILLA was to say, all very nice, sounds good, but will this wash in the streets? Isn't it all too Enlightenement, when America wants a revival?

Right now, we're in no mood to throng to the altar. And that's part of Obama's problem. He could put on all the trappings of the war presidency he wants. Consumer confidence is down. No one will buy it.

Can we have a cold, rational, analytic, sensitive-to-irony, prepared-for-tragedy, disenchanted, war?

Bush I doubt had ever heard of Reinhold Niebuhr. Obama says he loves him.

There's the rub.

MDREW

3:49 AM ET

October 16, 2009

These are all things

I hope the president has considered, and if he prioritized them the right way, I think he would come to a decision different from the one I believe we are about to hear from him. (In other words, though I am very ambivalent and glad i don't have to make this call, I think I am with you on the merits.) But once all that has been taken into account, he can't just give the decision and then look away. He has to be in there making it work, and that requires getting out of the analytical mode he's been in during the fall. He needs to become an advocate for the policy, and for that, he needs to be seen to be finished with the deliberating. On that I take Tom's point (even though I'm pretty much with you on the merits of the decision); I just think that a final review of the strategy was certainly merited, both substantively and in terms of public perception. Tom thinks March should have been it. (The VFW agrees with Tom; says Obama is endangering troops and enabling attacks with his deliberation. I guess I leave to the readers to decide if that is a reasonable operational assessment.)

JPWREL

11:16 PM ET

October 15, 2009

Obama will make a political

Obama will make a political decision not a military one. Thus reminding everyone that politics is the ultimate purpose of all war.

RISEN

12:32 AM ET

October 16, 2009

A broad generalization of a

A broad generalization of a post that doesn't have much basis in reality. Ricks is basically saying he doesn't like how President Obama is deliberating. To which one can only answer....wtf?

MIKEDC

2:37 AM ET

October 16, 2009

The President is

The President is deliberating?

PAUL81

4:47 AM ET

October 16, 2009

As for the supposed "public" way it's being handled

As for the supposed "public" way it's being handled -- Marc Lynch touches on this -- that's on the military. The two events that really stirred up the "washington inside baseball" crap that has been the misguided focus of the debate the last month are the leaked assessment and Gen. McChrystal's remarks in London and on 60 Minutes. At worst (and I hope this is not the case) this was the military's attempt to pressure the President through public opinion because the only institution that has more respect than the President is the military.

Who likes the process? I think Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton both said they like how President Obama is handling the situation. Can't please everyone, though.

PAUL81

4:50 AM ET

October 16, 2009

Also, have you talked to Mr. Exum?

Because he seems to think it's being handled correctly (see post on Oct. 14). I am pretty sure you know him.

HOTARUSTAR16

5:16 AM ET

October 16, 2009

Could no decision be better than a decision?

Barack Obama is in a very difficult position, and no matter what decision he makes, there will be people going against that decision. In my opinion, it is better for the president to tread carefully and consider all aspects of the situation rather than hastily making the decision. Have you read Asia Chronicle News? The site offers some good news analyses and commentaries on the situation in Afghanistan. Worth a read I think. www.asiachroniclenews.com

A2G

2:02 PM ET

October 16, 2009

Decisions, decisions, decisions

There are no easy decisions and none that will make everyone happy. Waiting won't make them any easier. So yes the President is in a difficult position, but this what he chose to do and promised to do when campaigning as a candidate, to make the tough decision, and now as the Commander and Chief needs to do that. It is time to make a decision as to where we are going. Be decisive and forgo trying to make everyone happy.

MDREW

2:36 PM ET

October 16, 2009

One thing I would add

Far from being concerned about criticism of process such as Mr. Ricks', I believe it is increasingly clear that the administration is emphasizing this deliberative approach for public consumption. This is new in the FT:

'Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said yesterday: "I don't want to peg a certain date, except to reiterate what the president said, a decision . . . would be made in the coming weeks."'

If they wanted to, they could certainly be much more specific than that. This is plainly deliberate, and is I believe based in a critical reading of the U.S. public's view of the effort -- roughly, I believe they discern a willingness to support this effort over the long hall so long as they are not felt they are railroaded into it on bad assumptions. Support for the war is on a knife's edge, and proceeding like this is plainly a conscious decision of their part.

ALEX_LERMAN

5:15 PM ET

October 16, 2009

W. Never Had a second of doubt

Personally, I find Obama's reflective posture, and willingness to look back and re-think, refreshing.

To put it another way - a leader who didn't re-consider after Karzai's fraud would be negligent.

SALOMANDER

1:19 AM ET

October 17, 2009

The Undecider

"Ricks is basically saying he doesn't like how President Obama is deliberating."

No. Ricks is saying that Obama is not being decisive when decisiveness is called for.

For some reason, like many smart and experienced journalists, Ricks is finding it very hard to come to terms with the fact that Obama is indecisive. Indecisiveness is not always a flaw but it is in situations where the CIC has to make the call, as Obama does here.

He's had six or seven meetings with the full war cabinet to decide whether he's going to carry out the policy "decided" on in March. At that time a consensus was reached and Obama signed off on it and then he made a speech and gave some interviews and furrowed his brow the way he does to indicate "serious thought". Tom Ricks was wowed!

Obama, though, did not know he had made a decision, in the sense that he had ruled out some paths and settled on one. You see? McChrystal and Petraeus and Mullen thought he had. They acted accordingly. Obama though did not realize that there would be consequences from his "decision" other than applause and fawning from journalists over how decisive he is.

The fact is, he has no idea what to do now and is waiting for his War Cabinet to come to a consensus somewhere in the middle so he can sign off on it and then make a speech on how hard it is to make decisions.

Unfortunately positions have been staked out by Biden, Gates, Clinton, McChrystal etc that make a consensus such as was reached in March impossible. The stakes are very high and decisiveness is called for. Too bad we have the Undecider in the White House.

"Personally, I find Obama's reflective posture, and willingness to look back and re-think, refreshing.

To put it another way - a leader who didn't re-consider after Karzai's fraud would be negligent."

Uh-huh. There aren't any do-overs in war. You don't get to say (as Obama wants to) hey - when I signed off on the McChrystal strategy I didn't mean I actually supported it!

You can change your mind -- as bush did with the surge. There's a price to be paid for that that Bush was willing to pay and that Obama has no intention of paying.

As for Karzai -- any leader who didn't know Karzai has always been corrupt would have to be really dumb. And yes, I think Obama is that dumb. And no, I didn't vote for him.

I'm kinda surprised at some stuff on this blog. I mean...Shoup? SHOUP??
Everybody knows KRULAK should have been Commandant during vietnam. But then, Krulak understood counterinsurgency, he wanted to mine Haiphong harbor. LBJ never called him back after he told the President that.

CHARLIEFORD

1:41 AM ET

October 17, 2009

Dying to know. . .

... what this would be: "You can change your mind -- as bush did with the surge. There's a price to be paid for that that Bush was willing to pay ..."

SALOMANDER

10:06 PM ET

October 17, 2009

Yeah, I should have said a.

Yeah, I should have said
a. Krulak was counterinsurgency advisor to McNamar
AND
b He told Johnson to mine Haiphong harbor.

I'll spell things out more carefully for you in furure so you can keep up.

The price Bush paid is that to change your mind you have to admit you were wrong, then you get called the worst President in history by Tom Ricks.

CHARLIEFORD

11:49 PM ET

October 17, 2009

On the contrary . . .

. . . nothing would have sealed Bush's reputation as a tragically failed president than to stick with the strategy he'd been pursuing. Not just failed. Delusional.

The decision to surge, as complicated as the results have been, was the right one and history will have to reckon with that when it tries to dismiss him as James Buchanan 2.0.

And there's no way Bush is the worst president in history.

That's ridiculous.

That honor clearly goes to Davis.

BANAT2.NET

11:39 PM ET

October 17, 2009

Dating on girls Movies

Dating on girls
Movies Mobile
New Movies 2010
Movies Youth
Movies Romo

Kingdom
Girls
New
Movies 2010 >Movies
Mobile
Dating on
girls

Funny
movies

Action
Movies
New Movies
2010

Movies Mobile
Dating on girls
Indian
movies
2010
Funny movies
Movies Youth
Action Movies
Foreign films
2011

A series of sex
films
Movies
New Movies 2010
A series of sex
films
Series
foreign
Music

Action Movies
Horror
movies
Action
Movies
Run movies
Movies exciting
Games
Foreign
foreign music

Movies Mobile

Comedy movies
Kingdom Girls
Series foreign
Action
Movies
Movies
Romo

Kingdom Girls
Movies Mobile
Series foreign

Music
Action Movies
Games
Horror movies
Foreign combat games
Indian movies

Sex movies

New Movies 2010

Run movies
Games
Comedy movies
A series of
sex films
New Movies 2010
Series
foreign
Movies Mobile
Run movies
A series of sex films
Action Movies

Movies exciting
Comedy
movies
Games girls Run
movies
Movies
A
series of sex films
Movies ?
Music ?
Sex movies ?
Indian movies ?
Foreign foreign music ?
New Movies 2010 ?
Games ?
A series of sex films

Movies Mobile
Action
Movies
Action Movies Movies for
adults only Foreign combat
games
Kingdom Girls Foreign
films
Sex movies

Movies Mobile

MICK

6:21 AM ET

October 28, 2009

Obama

Obama is a Usurper to Presidency. He is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born. Even if he was born in the White House, he is not a Natural Born Citizen. He must be Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents.