PDA

View Full Version : Letter to Devil Dogs from Kevin Sites



snipowsky
11-22-04, 07:50 AM
Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1

Sunday, November 21, 2004


http://www.kevinsites.net/images/11212004/th_Crumble.jpg

To Devil Dogs of the 3.1:

Since the shooting in the Mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a 'gotcha' reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.

This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read the dispatches on this website is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.

But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.

It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.

Here it goes.

http://www.kevinsites.net/images/11212004/th_M-16.jpg

It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.

Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where ten insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday may have been re-occupied overnight.

I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. (For their own privacy and protection I will not name or identify in any way, any of those I was traveling with during this incident.)

Many of the structures are empty of people -- but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.

While the Marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.


I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.

At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease-fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.

We hear gunshots from what seems to be coming from inside the mosque. A Marine from my squad yells, "Are there Marines in here?"

When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.

The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"

One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five.

"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?

"Roger that, sir, " the same Marine responds.

"Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside.

Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds. The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.

"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.

I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.

While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.

Then I hear him say this about one of the men:

"He's ****ing faking he's dead -- he's faking he's ****ing dead."

Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.

However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.

Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.

"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.

I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.

But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.

For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.

At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.

The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.

He says, "Yesterday I was shot... please... yesterday I was shot over there -- and talked to all of you on camera -- I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information." (This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.)

In the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque?

It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller -- who interviewed the Marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by Navy Corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed.

The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first.

Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday.

It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.
Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat -- those Marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.


http://www.kevinsites.net/images/11212004/th_nail-cleaner.jpg

During the course of these events, there was plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The Marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.

I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one Marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.

No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a solider or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.

In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.

I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does.

But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the dark perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances -- it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt. Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.

Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down. I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.

We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation -- providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.

For those who don't practice journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all -- especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behavior or character of an organization as a whole.

snipowsky
11-22-04, 07:51 AM
The answer is not an easy one.

In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both -- though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting. For example, acts of selfless heroism are likely to be as unique to a group as the darker deeds. But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective - will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonizing struggle -- the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.

I knew NBC would be responsible with the footage. But there were complications. We were part of a video "pool" in Falluja, and that obligated us to share all of our footage with other networks. I had no idea how our other "pool" partners might use the footage. I considered not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting had. It felt wrong. Hiding this wouldn't make it go away. There were other people in that room. What happened in that mosque would eventually come out. I would be faced with the fact that I had betrayed truth as well as a life supposedly spent in pursuit of it.

When NBC aired the story 48-hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that Marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible. Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.

The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.

There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation –by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse…villains.

I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:

"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."

I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

I pray for your soon and safe return.
Kevin 1:37 PM

http://www.kevinsites.net/

snipowsky
11-22-04, 08:34 AM
I just emailed this to Kevin Sites at kevin@kevinsites.net.

Dear Mr.Sites,

This insurgent that was gunned down by the Marine was a murderous thug. If given the chance he'd have killed not only one Marine or soldier, but 100 or more Marines or soldiers. Right or wrong, he did the right thing by exterminating him. I'd have killed every insurgent up in that mosque.

You should have used your first instinct to destroy that tape. Now you are enemy number one among all my brother and sister Marines! If I was you I wouldn't come back to America, and if you do I'm sure you'll have to watch your back for the rest of your life. In my eyes you are no better then John Kerry or Hanoi Jane, which most of us Veterans hate. People like you shouldn't be allowed to live in this great country called America.

Truly yours,

Just one US Marine

Here is his personal email address Marines! Feel free to tell him your opinion too.

His email: kevin@kevinsites.net

hrscowboy
11-22-04, 09:42 AM
yehawwwwwwwww brother sic him devil dog cause i am gonna get some too...

jinelson
11-22-04, 09:56 AM
Right On Brother Get Some

braeden
11-22-04, 11:20 AM
looks like we'll have to go a-spamming the internet with mr patriotic's email addy.......damn I'd like to get my hands on him....or maybe have replaced that insurgent with him.....

LivinSoFree
11-22-04, 12:04 PM
While I still stand behind that Marine in the mosque, I question why there is such an outcry behind showing that footage. Maybe what this country needs is an adult dose of reality... that this is what war looks like up close and personal. To add to that, the man had a journalistic responisibility to report the news as it happened. Like it or not, what happened in that mosque, is news. We as Marines have a duty, as do the journalists over there reporting on what we do. The ability to show the truth to the American People is what separates us from places where all you get is Al-Jazeera's propaganda feed 24 by 7. Personally, I find it unconscionable that the Media is banned from showing some of the more graphic things that occur in that sandbox. Maybe a reality gut check would change the tune of some of the more extremist anti-military protesters... when they realize that it's a human being on both ends of that weapon. Warriors yes, humans as well. To often the military as a whole is painted as a faceless machine that performs actions but never feels any repercussions or emotions about it... it's about time the American People got a wakeup call.

It's great to put "Power of Pride" and "Proud to be an American" bumper stickets on your gas-guzzling SUV that uses 4 times as much raw petroleum as a normal size car for what 90 percent of the time amounts to no real purpose, but what if all those people had to pick up a rifle and go to war? Or send their sons to war? Sure, some of them have, but maybe not enough. I'm not wishing anyone ill, but I think that much of America has become too long convinced that war is something that happens on TV in a place far away from them, and will never come home to roost.

Again, I stand behind that Marine in the mosque 110 percent, he did his job to protect him and his Marines. I also support the broadcast of the tape. Of course there's going to be controversy about it... rarely do things of importance pass without dissent... but in the bigger picture, that tape may do more good than first glance would suggest.

USMC-FO
11-22-04, 12:28 PM
Ok folks at the risk of inciting all sort of feedback animosity from you all I have to suggest I have been reading all this feedback with a lot of interest and have one thing to suggest: Read closely what Sites has written and said--as I heard him say right after the incident--and he WAS NOT critical of this young Marine he was pretty supportive given what had happened. I am at a loss to understand what is so difficult for some of you to read his comments and understanding his point of view? It ain't that comlplicated.

Frankly Sip you need to take a huge breath and relax and let the folks at the Corps work through all this. I am fairly confident that this will all resolve to the advantage of the Marine. Your personal predudice and hates come through loud and clear often and loudly....but very concerning and way over the top.

snipowsky
11-22-04, 12:52 PM
Yes I am predjudice towards RAGHEADS and yes I'd kill as many of them as possible given the chance.

My only point is this... If he really wanted to "help" our cause over there in Iraq and not do anymore harm like the Abu Ghraib scandal did. He would have destroyed that tape. I would have if I was him. **** doing the "morally" right thing.

The morally right thing would be to whipe these murderous, child killing, innocent beheading, IED planting, suicide bombing cowardly terrorists off the face of this planet!

So yeah I am way over the top when it comes to my brothers being killed daily and people crying foul play here in America and abroad for someone that shouldn't be alive anyways period.

Who's side are you on Marine?

hrscowboy
11-22-04, 01:50 PM
Bottom line this reporter stated in his statement that he should have not given the tape to anyone and distroyed it but instead he decided go run with the tape anyway. I ask each and everyone of you WHOS SIDE IS THIS MAN ON. The bottom line is this man could make a name for himself as a reporter and go down in history. And thats whats hes done. If he has had his life threatened then so be it I have no sympathy for the SOB and for you Marines that have not fought in the heat of battle where in the hell do you get off thinking that One of own needs to go down for something that he was taught to do. Buttom line is war is hell but combat is Mother F*****R. Just because you have earned the title of Marine does not give you the right to question a Combat Marines Actions. The Only Marines that have the right to question the action of a Combat Veteran is another Combat Veteran. As far as Kevin Sites is concerned best thing he could do is resign and leave Iraq pronto cause you can bet that one of ours is going to be watching him real close to send this traitor home in a body bag...

braeden
11-22-04, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by hrscowboy
As far as Kevin Sites is concerned best thing he could do is resign and leave Iraq pronto cause you can bet that one of ours is going to be watching him real close to send this traitor home in a body bag...

agreed. he is a good candidate to get fragged.

yellowwing
11-22-04, 02:11 PM
Everyone in that room was a volunteer, and everyone of them did their job. <br />
<br />
I don't think Sites is a gloryhound. I read his open letter twice, and saw no arrogance. <br />
<br />
I think that the Marine will...

hrscowboy
11-22-04, 03:37 PM
Yellowwing my brother what do you mean hes not a gloryhound he had the opportunity to walk away and destroy the film and he didnt instead he figured he had a number 1 scoop and went with it and because he went with it hes feelin the brunk of combat vets and mothers all over the United states that have lost sons and daughters to wars. This man has made his own destiny we didnt do it he did. If you cant stand the heat dont get in the fryin pan.... thats what i have to say to Mr. Sites..

Toby M
11-22-04, 03:49 PM
A fact most of us have missed is that Mr. Sites is a journalist. An expert at weaving his words and making them sound "acceptable"! He is using his craft as he has been trained, to blot the morality of his actions. We can only speculate as to what the future will bring for him but I suspect he will not find many welcome mats in his future-under any circumstance!

yellowwing
11-22-04, 04:11 PM
..I considered not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting had. It felt wrong. Hiding this wouldn't make it go away. There were other people in that room. What happened in that mosque would eventually come out. I would be faced with the fact that I had betrayed truth as well as a life supposedly spent in pursuit of it.


I still think he was doing his job the best he could under difficult circumstances.

Who set the policy to allow embedded reporters? They made that decision and set the rules. They could have set the rules of screening and editing what the reporters file.

But they didn't. Who and why?

yellowwing
11-22-04, 04:26 PM
Okay, I found it. Officially the Pentagon set the policy...

Embedded Media Policy Comes Under Fire
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
November 18, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/november/1118_embedded_media_policy.shtml)
The fatal shooting of an injured terrorist by a United States Marine in Fallujah last week that was caught on videotape has brought the Pentagon policy of journalists embedded with troops into question. Footage shot by Kevin Sites, a cameraman for NBC, that suggested wrongdoing in the death of the enemy fighter has instigated a military investigation and outrage in the Muslim world.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told Talon News on Wednesday that he was unaware of reconsideration of the policy and that any such decision would be made by the Department of Defense. He dismissed criticism of the policy some believe might have a detrimental effect on troop morale and undermine public support for the war.

McClellan said, "I think generally speaking, journalists understand the importance of what is going on, and they are careful about the way they proceed in reporting the news when there are ongoing operations."

He added, "I can't speak to every specific incident, but the military worked very carefully with the media in carrying out this policy of including reporters in some of those operations that they carry out."

The press secretary reiterated the administration's concern that Al Jazeera's coverage often served to incite anti-American sentiment. But Talon News pointed out that MSNBC had been broadcasting the controversial footage four times an hour for the last two days.

McClellan declined to answer questions as to whether he thought the shooting was justified since the matter is still under investigation.

Members of Congress expressed concern about the impact of placing journalists with the troops. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee, appearing before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, defended the policy.

He said, "In my personal opinion, embedded reporters have actually worked very well. They inform the American public about what these great young Americans are doing over there, and a large, large majority are doing ... a tremendous job."

The White House Press Secretary and the Commandant are defending embedded reporters

MillRatUSMC
11-22-04, 05:31 PM
JOURNALISM AS A HIGH PROFESSION IN SPITE OF ITSELF
By William Lee Miller

Lawyers and doctors have a formal and explicit obligation to Law or Medicine that transcends their own immediate material interests. So do the members of the classic professions which have, in varying mixtures, a more centrally communal purpose than those independent professions: the armed services, the civil service, the diplomatic corps, the university, the church. These professions, like the independent professions, all have some means of explicit self-definition, of exclusion and inclusion, by which that larger obligation is expressed. But there is no such profession-defining hurdle, or formally stated larger moral obligation, controlling journalism. There are no ordination vows. There is no oath of public service. Although the journalist appeals to the Constitution--that is, the First Amendment--more perhaps than any other professional, he takes no formal oath to uphold it. There is no bar exam, no license, no tenure apparatus, no teacher's certificate, no barrier set up either by the state or by the profession itself. Indeed, the faintest hint that there might be such an institution-defining barrier to entry would cause First Amendment fits in an American journalist. Hired by a newspaper, a magazine, a radio station, one is a member of the press without further examination of any kind. In Lou Cannon's fine book, Reporting, he mentions an ability to write quickly, and a general interest in public affairs, as the only requirements for a journalist. He presents a picture of Ben Bradlee making a decision about hiring on the basis of a "hunch." One would not want to be operated on by a neurosurgeon hired in the same way as are journalists.

Just as there is no entrance requirement for the profession, so there is no decisive institutional reprimand. How does one disbar a journalist? A doctor can have his license to practice revoked; a Roy Cohn may be disbarred; the Bishops may defrock priests. A Janet Cooke who gets caught is fired and shamed, but not many desks away, two Metro reporters who cut many corners are heroes (and millionaires). There is no institutional procedure by which she (or they) can be appraised, reprimanded, maybe even put out of the profession--or, indeed, defended and exonerated.

There is also no body of knowledge that every member is required to master: no formal body of doctrine, no sacred text or formidable shelf of Church Fathers, nor any Book of Common Prayer; no roomful of law books. There is no way that a journalist can attain his vocational objective, as a few able people once did in another field--by "reading law." There is nothing to read. There is no formally tested skill.

From all of the above, we see that Ben Sites, is held to no moral or ethical...all he writes now is for the viewers or readers.
One I thought that the first law of Journlism was to write the "truth", some have died because they wrote the truth.
Yet recent reporting or showing of videos, pictures by the media.
Lead one to ask where are the ethics or moral of a reporter.
"Money talks and BS walks"
Yet we're being handed a line BS as to the why.
It would have better if nothing was said.
It's a done deal and the Marine Corps stands to suffer.
I await the results of the Article 32 investigation.
Petitions, letter to our Senators and Representives will hold no bearing on that Article 32 investigation, it's now in the hands of legal experts and lawyers.
So all Ben Sites say has no mean now...
IMHO

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

kentmitchell
11-22-04, 05:52 PM
Ricardo,

I just retired after 35 years as a journalist--well, a sportswriter IS a journalist--and I can't agree with you more. You nailed it.
I'm glad I'm out.
Anyone asks what I do these days, I say I'm unemployed.

greensideout
11-22-04, 07:16 PM
Actually, it appears to me that Mr. Sites somehow belives that his work as a reporter is greater or more important then the work of the Marine he filmed. Should he trash the film or the Marine? It was his choice and he alone made it.

Mr. Sites, the Marine's choice was not wrong but your's was!

Sparrowhawk
11-22-04, 07:39 PM
and will not at this time, respond to this idiots letter!


http://marines.bizland.com/KEVINS1.jpg

hrscowboy
11-22-04, 09:13 PM
Trust me cook i tried but it finally got the best of me....

snipowsky
11-22-04, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by hrscowboy
Trust me cook i tried but it finally got the best of me....

I second that!

enviro
11-22-04, 10:50 PM
I really don't blame Sites for his film. I think it was a bad idea to embed reporters. Hindsight, though. At first I thought it was a great idea.

This goes back to Abu Gharib. These nasty and murderous fiends desrve far worse than we will ever be able to give them - however, it should be a matter of it getting done, not how it gets done.

If it were up to me, all reporters would be removed and we would roll through every town in Iraq savagely killing all those who do not bow before us. Destroy them into a complete submission. I envision thousands of poles driven into the ground with an insurgent's head fixed atop of it.

After we leave. then the world can see what's left. When we are asked what we did, we reply f*ck you.

Honestly, what are they going to do? Take away our birthdays?

HardJedi
11-22-04, 10:54 PM
well, glad I got a chance to read this letter from Mr. Sites. Still he should have never aired that tape. the public, as I have said before, does NOT need to know weverything that is happening. Hell, take a look around you. For the last 30 years most of America has had it's head in the sand. why stop now?

snipowsky
11-22-04, 11:45 PM
Sgt. Enviro I request permission to be a member of your squad. I like your ideas. I'll even walk your point! lol

GET SOME!