Printer Friendly
July
Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur – Thursday, July 13,
20062, 2006
1. The Same War - National Review
No one should have any lingering doubts about what's going on in the Middle
East. There are different instruments, ranging from Hamas in Gaza to
Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon and on to the multifaceted "insurgency" in
Iraq. But there is a common prime mover, and that is the Iranian mullahcracy.
2. Hezbollah forces Lebanon closer to war - Chicago Tribune
In Wednesday's move across the border to capture two Israeli soldiers,
Hezbollah acted as a state itself, threatening to drag Lebanon into a war.
3. Osama in Genevaland - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
Five years after 9/11, the U.S. is about to give to people who ram commercial
jets into buildings many of the same legal privileges and immunities as the
average GI.
How did we get to this Osama in Genevaland world?
4. Deficit figure jump-starts tax-cut debate - Washington Times
This week's lower deficit figure has been a shot in the arm for tax cutters
in Congress and has reignited the debate over supply-side economics and the
results of President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
5. Democrats Link Fortunes to Rise in Minimum Wage - New York Times
Democrats, seeking to
energize voters over economic issues in much the way that Republicans have
rallied conservatives with efforts to ban same-sex marriage, have begun a
broad campaign to raise the minimum wage.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. The Same War - National Review
By Michael Ledeen
No one should have any lingering doubts about what's going on in the Middle
East. It's war, and it now runs from Gaza into Israel, through Lebanon and
thence to Iraq via Syria. There are different instruments, ranging from
Hamas in Gaza to Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon and on to the multifaceted
"insurgency" in Iraq. But there is a common prime mover, and that is the
Iranian mullahcracy, the revolutionary Islamic fascist state that declared
war on us 27 years ago and has yet to be held accountable.
It is very good news that the White House immediately denounced Iran and
Syria, just as Ambassador Khalilzad had yesterday tagged the terrorist
Siamese twins as sponsors of terrorism in Iraq. For those who doubt the
Iranian hand, remind yourself that Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of
the mullahcracy (with Syria providing some supplies, and free run of the
territory), and then read what Iraq the Model had to say yesterday,
Wednesday:
Hizbollah is Iran's and Syria's partner in feeding instability in Iraq as
there were evidence that this terror group has a role in equipping and
training insurgents in Iraq and Hizbollah had more than once openly showed
support for the "resistance" in Iraq and sponsored the meetings of Baathist
and radical Islamist militants who are responsible for most of the violence
in Iraq.
Notice, please, that he says Iran "sponsored the meetings of Baathist and
radical Islamist militants..." He is talking Sunnis here, the same Sunnis
who, according to CIA deep thinkers and scads of academic experts, cannot
possibly work closely with Shiites like, ahem, the mullahs of Tehran. Iraq
the Model isn't burdened by this wisdom, and so he just reports what he sees
on the ground in his own country.
Notice also that over the weekend there was a "security summit" in Tehran,
involving all of Iraq's neighbors, at which Iran's moonbat President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad made one of his trademark understatements about Israel. "The
existence of this regime will bring nothing but suffering and misery for
people in the region," he mildly commented, and then said that the anger of
the people might soon "lead to a vast explosion that will know no
boundaries."
Sounds to me like he knew something before the rest of us. As well he
should, because Iran has been quite busy in Lebanon of late. The Lebanese
Tourism Ministry's Research Center announced an amazing statistic in early
July: in the first six months of the year, 60,888 Iranian tourists visited
Lebanon. No other Asian country came close (the Philippines ranked second,
with a bit over 12,000). I don't think that there's enough disposable income
in mullahland to cover the expenses of more than ten thousand people a month
headed for the Beirut beaches. Do you think, as I do, that a goodly number
of those "tourists" were up to no good? Maybe some of them were working for
the Revolutionary Guards Corps? Or were Hezbollah operations people? I'll
bet you your favorite farm that one of them was the world's most wanted man,
Imad Mughniyah, the operations chieftain of Hizbollah, the world's most
lethal terrorist organization.
Actually I won't bet; it would be unethical. We know that Mughniyah flew to
Damascus a while back with Ahmadinejad, and went to Lebanon to work with his
buddies.
In this war, there is no meaningful distinction between Iran and Syria, they
work in tandem. It's just that Iran gives the orders and Syria obeys.
There's a lot of fanciful analysis of the recent expansion of the war,
revolving around a general "why?" and a more specific "why now?" Someone
said that Iran was trying to distract world attention from the upcoming U.N.
showdown over the mullahs' atomic program, which seems silly to me. A U.N.
debate serves Iran's interest. It deflects attention from our growing
awareness of Iran's centrality in Iraq, and the urgency of going after the
regimes in Tehran and Damascus. That is where Iran's doom lies, not in the
endless charade about the nukes.
I don't think it is worth our time and energy to try to answer the "why
now?" except to agree with Allahpundit who remarked that there does seem to
be something special about dates numbered "11." The important thing to keep
in mind is that both the Gaza and northern Israel attacks were planned for
quite a while, which means that Iran wanted this war, this way. It isn't
just a target of opportunity or a sudden impulse; it's part of a strategic
decision to expand the war.
Iran has been at war with us all along, because that's what the world's
leading terror state does. The scariest thing about this moment is that the
Iranians have convinced themselves that they are winning, and we are
powerless to reverse the tide. As I reported here several months ago,
Khamenei told his top people late last year that the Americans and Israelis
are both politically paralyzed. Neither can take decisive action against
Iran, neither can sustain prolonged conflict and significant casualties.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader said, the terrorists are all working for Iran,
and we will expand the terror war.
Don't think for a moment that they worry about victims in Gaza or Lebanon.
They are delighted to see Israel fighting on two fronts, because they will
use the pictures from the battlefield to consolidate their hold over the
fascist forces in the region. After a few days of fighting, I would not be
surprised to see some new kind of terrorist attack against Israel, or
against an American facility in the region. An escalation to chemical
weapons, for example, or even the fulfillment of the longstanding Iranian
promise to launch something nuclear at Israel. They meant it when they said
it, don't you know?
The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in
Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting
between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and
Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it.
Last week, President Mikheil Shaakashvili of free Georgia came to Washington
and reminded us-not that it was much noticed - of America's revolutionary
mission. But President Bush heard it. "I just sent over to President Bush
the letter that Georgian freedom fighters sent...seven years ago, and it
never made it to the White House. It was intercepted by KGB and all the
people who wrote it were shot," Mr. Saakashvili said during a visit with the
president in the Oval Office. "I'm sure lots of people out there in Korea
(and he might well have added, Syria and Iran) are writing similar letters
today. And I'm sure that those letters will, eventually, (arrive)...because
that's a part of the freedom agenda that President Bush has and we strongly
believe in."
As do millions of Syrians and Iranians. And you know what? Millions of Arabs
all over the Middle East do too. Give them a chance to fight for their
freedom, as we did with the Georgians. The longer we dither, the more likely
it becomes that we will sadly and unnecessarily find ourselves in a military
confrontation of some sort, with all the terrible consequences that entails.
Faster, please. Your options are narrowing. You cannot escape the mullahs.
You must either defeat them or submit to their terrible vision. There is no
other way.
- Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of
The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom
Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE4MDA3NDUyYjA0ZGY1MzQ4NjM5NjM1MWY4NDVkZGM=
2. Hezbollah forces Lebanon closer to
war - Chicago Tribune
By Megan K. Stack and Rania Abouzeid, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times;
staff writer Megan K. Stack reported from Cairo and special correspondent
Rania Abouzeid from Beirut
Published July 13, 2006
BEIRUT -- Hezbollah has long been described as a "state within a state," a
Shiite mini-government in Lebanon boasting close ties to Iran and Syria, the
country's largest political party and its most potent armed force.
But Wednesday's move across the border to capture two Israeli soldiers went
a step further: Hezbollah acted as the state itself, threatening to drag
Lebanon into a war.
The country's elected government was still in meetings Wednesday, arguing
over what to say in public, when Hezbollah chief Sheik Hassan Nasrallah
stood before television cameras with a threat for the ruling elite.
"Today is a time for solidarity and cooperation, and we can have discussions
later. I warn you against committing any error. This is a national
responsibility," said the Shiite cleric, looking every inch the head of
state.
Any criticism of the capture of the two Israeli soldiers would be tantamount
to colluding with Israel, Nasrallah said.
"To the Lebanese people, both officials and non-officials, nobody should
behave in a way that encourages the enemy to attack Lebanon, and nobody
should say anything that gives cover to attack Lebanon," he said.
Nasrallah framed the raid as a noble strike on behalf of Lebanon and Arab
nationalism. Its goal was to free Lebanese and other Arab prisoners held in
Israel, he said, by forcing Israel into a prisoner swap.
Crossing the border to capture soldiers was a carefully planned move by
Hezbollah, which failed in a similar operation late last year. But the move
was also an audacious departure. Since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon
in 2000, Hezbollah has generally limited its attacks on Israelis to a small
patch of land known as Shebaa Farms, which Hezbollah claims as Lebanese
territory.
In Lebanon, the action solidifies the group's position as independent of
government control at a time when it was under increasing pressure to give
up its arms.
In the broader region, the move lends Hezbollah the credibility of taking up
the cause against Israel at a time when other Arab leaders are standing
silently by.
Despite Nasrallah's call for unity, opinion in Lebanon was quickly divided.
Fireworks, cheers and cries of "God is great!" rang through the streets of
the heavily Shiite southern suburbs of Beirut.
But in the polished eateries of Beirut's downtown, newly rebuilt from the
ruins of civil war, some diners grumbled.
"What's happening now is dragging Lebanon into the unknown. Nobody has the
right to draw Lebanon into such a conflict," former President Amin Gemayel,
a right-wing Christian, complained to the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607130139jul13,1,1654454.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
3. Osama in Genevaland - Wall Street
Journal Op-ed
Terrorists are now getting lawful-combatant legitimacy.
Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:01 a.m.
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 govern the treatment of lawful combatants and
civilians during wartime. But now a new Pentagon memorandum concludes that
Common Article 3 of the Conventions also governs the treatment of unlawful
combatants: pirates, drug mafias and especially terrorists. So, five years
after 9/11, the U.S. is about to give to people who ram commercial jets into
buildings many of the same legal privileges and immunities as the average
GI.
How did we get to this Osama in Genevaland world? Credit belongs to last
week's Hamdan Supreme Court decision, and to Pentagon officials who have
overinterpreted the meaning of that decision. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England signed the memo, and our sources tell us it was issued
without any wide deliberation with, or even particular awareness by, the
White House Counsel's office or the Justice Department. (A White House
spokesman didn't respond to our query.)
Mr. England's memo overturns a 2002 Justice Department memo that ruled
explicitly that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to members of al Qaeda
or the Taliban, a policy change the White House confirmed late on Tuesday.
For an Administration that has fought so hard, and in our view rightly, to
protect its executive powers, this is being heralded as an embarrassing
reversal. It also has the smell of a bureaucratic fiasco, since we can't
recall another situation in which Presidential power was so freely handed
away.
Some in the Bush Administration claim the memo does nothing more than
require the Pentagon to ensure compliance with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and that
troops in the field had to be warned. But Hamdan was a limited and ambiguous
ruling: limited, because it dealt solely with the question of military
commissions that put terrorists on trial; ambiguous, because Justice Anthony
Kennedy's opinion did not fully subscribe to the four-Justice majority's
reasoning.
At a minimum, the Bush Administration should have thought carefully about
Hamdan and interpreted it as narrowly as possible. Instead, Mr. England's
memo interprets the ruling in the broadest way possible, applying the
standards of Common Article 3 to all "DoD orders, policies, directives,
execute orders and doctrine." As a matter of law, every other government
agency, including the CIA, will now have to follow the Pentagon's line.
In practice, this means that a captured terrorist such as September 11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is now protected by Common Article 3.
People often associate the Geneva Conventions with guarantees against
torture, protection for the wounded and the sick, and other "bare minimum"
humanitarian standards. But Common Article 3 goes considerably further,
forbidding, for example, "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular,
humiliating and degrading treatment."
What exactly constitutes personal dignity and outrages upon it? Who knows,
though we bet the ACLU will be more than happy to supply some answers. Our
guess is that the concept can be read so expansively as to forbid the U.S.
from so much as shouting at captured al Qaeda suspects, never mind "waterboarding"
them, as was reportedly done to break KSM. In a war in which actionable
intelligence acquired from captives is crucial to uncovering terrorist plots
and preventing future attacks, it's hard to imagine a greater self-inflicted
setback to counterterror efforts.
The setback is also political, and by that we don't mean partisan. We mean
in the larger sense of the Bush Administration's moral and legal authority
for its anti-terror cause. By identifying terrorists as illegal combatants
and treating them accordingly, the Administration was attempting to remedy
the defects of the pre-September 11 legal architecture for handling
terrorists. The pre-9/11 view divided the world between combatants and
noncombatants, and viewed terrorism as just another crime to be dealt with
through the existing criminal-justice system.
We have learned the hard way that that approach doesn't work. The
criminal-justice system takes too long and is complicated by the
government's need to keep military secrets. Moreover, according such rights
to terrorists who murder women and children gives them moral legitimacy that
will make winning this war that much harder. It elevates terrorists nearly
to the level of GIs who obey formal rules of engagement and who can be, and
as we've seen often are, punished severely for harming innocents.
What the world needs is a new legal framework for distinguishing between
legal and illegal combatants, but instead we are now heading toward the
European model where terrorism is seen as just another fact of life and not
a unique evil or grave threat. In Germany, the High Court earlier this year
released from custody Mounir El Motassedeq, an accomplice of 9/11 ringleader
Mohamed Atta, on a technicality. Germany may be able to afford such legal
exquisiteness; as the main terror target, the U.S. and its citizens cannot.
Already, in the wake of this reversal, the Bush Administration's critics are
talking about the "illegality" of its previous failure to abide by Geneva
rules. We'll predict that it won't be very long until some European
magistrate indicts Donald Rumsfeld or National Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley or some other U.S. official for "war crimes" for this failure. The
Pentagon's new memo won't be much of a defense.
Believe it or not, Congress can still fix this royal mess by following the
Supreme Court's Hamdan order to write a new set of procedures and rules for
handling unlawful combatants. And Congress can and should say that it is
these new rules, not Geneva Common Article 3, that is the controlling law in
America. The Pentagon may have surrendered prematurely to legal generals,
but that doesn't mean the American people want to.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008645
4. Deficit figure jump-starts tax-cut
debate - Washington Times
By Stephen Dinan
Published July 13, 2006
This week's lower deficit figure has been a shot in the arm for tax cutters
in Congress and has reignited the debate over supply-side economics and
whether President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts helped or hurt the federal
budget.
"Supply-side economics are alive and well," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas
Republican and the budget point man for House conservatives, who added that
tax cuts are the only explanation for the declining deficit. "Spending's not
down; spending has increased every single budget. What happened is we're
awash in tax revenue because supply-side economics is alive and well."
On Tuesday, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced a projected
deficit of $296 billion for fiscal year 2006 -- still the fourth highest
ever, but $127 billion lower than predicted in February and, if the
projection materializes, $22 billion less than last year's deficit.
The improvement was credited almost entirely to an 11 percent jump in
federal revenues, far more than predicted just six months ago, which left
tax cutters claiming vindication and calling for Congress to extend the 2001
and 2003 cuts. The OMB even included an entire section in its report to
Congress crediting the tax cuts with solid economic gains and predicting
that making the cuts permanent would further increase the national income by
seven-tenths of a percent.
But Democrats said the tax cuts don't deserve credit for the declining
deficit, and said federal revenue only now is returning to where it was when
Mr. Bush took office.
In a letter yesterday to new Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, New York
Rep. Charles B. Rangel, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means
Committee, challenged the administration to prove the tax cuts' effects,
saying his read of the new figures shows that wage and salary income is $71
billion less than predicted, and that companies now are sitting on cash
rather than investing it.
"Economic growth that favors investment income and bypasses hardworking
Americans relying on a paycheck is a recipe for disaster. Further, we're not
even seeing the corporate investment the Republicans promised, so this
so-called 'good news' rings hollow," Mr. Rangel said. "Since it's clear the
Bush economy isn't benefiting working families, I have to ask: Where's the
money going?"
In reviewing the new figures, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top
Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said it's taken five years for the
government to get back to the same level of revenue as in 2001, when Mr.
Bush made his first tax cut. And Jim Horney, who studies the federal budget
for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said those praising the news
actually are celebrating a projection error.
"It's probably not evidence of what's happening as far as the effect of
revenues on the economy," he said. "It's simply the revenues are very
volatile and it's very difficult to project them."
In a paper on the new numbers, his group said the economic recovery in the
1990s occurred about the same point after a recession, and that came after
the 1993 tax increases under President Clinton.
But Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman who now runs the
conservative Club for Growth, said revenue is performing exactly as
predicted by supply-side economics.
"It's precisely what happened. It happens every time. At some point, the
left ought to recognize a trend here," he said.
He said Republicans could capitalize on the issue in the upcoming elections,
though he said they have made their task harder because voters who are
likely to vote on tax cuts are also those most likely to be angry over the
growth of government spending under a Republican administration and
Republican-controlled Congress.
Meanwhile, Republicans say Democrats should admit that they were wrong to
doubt that Mr. Bush could cut the budget deficit in half by 2009, compared
with where it was in 2004. The president now says he's actually going to
meet his target in 2008, a year early.
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, released quotes from
top Democrats doubting that Mr. Bush ever would reach that goal, including
Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the top Democrat on the House
Budget Committee, saying in 2005 that the budget "is clearly not on that
path, nowhere near it," and from Mr. Conrad in 2004, saying "talk about
cutting the deficit in half is a sham."
"Democrats on Capitol Hill only know how to do two things, and that's shrug
their shoulders with a vacant look when challenged to present their own
ideas and then spew negativity and blame-mongering when Republicans offer
our ideas," said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner. "The fact that
their doomsday predictions about the economy will never be realized just
shows how the Democrats are absolutely, totally devoid of credibility."
But Mr. Conrad said the yearly deficit number is a diversion from the real
threat, which is the increase in federal debt -- the accumulation of years
of deficits.
"All of this happy talk coming out of the administration about the fiscal
circumstance reminds me a little of somebody holding a press conference to
talk about the new lifeboats onboard the Titanic," he said. "Sure, yeah,
there's some good news there, but this ship of state is in big trouble."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060712-114515-7363r.htm
5. Democrats Link Fortunes to Rise in
Minimum Wage - New York Times
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, July 12 - Democrats, seeking to energize voters over economic
issues in much the way that Republicans have rallied conservatives with
efforts to ban same-sex marriage, have begun a broad campaign to raise the
minimum wage and focus attention on income inequality.
The Democratic argument is straightforward: it has been more than eight
years since Congress last raised the minimum wage, to $5.15 an hour, and
inflation has reduced its real value to the lowest level in more than 20
years. At the same time, Democrats say, executive pay has risen to
ever-higher levels and Congress has regularly approved pay raises for
itself.
With midterm elections less than four months away, Democrats have begun
state ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage in more than a half-dozen
states where Republicans are in danger of losing House or Senate seats.
The issue is playing a role in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Arizona -
all states where Republican senators are fighting for survival.
Pressure is so high in Ohio that Senator Mike DeWine broke ranks with fellow
Republicans last month and voted for a Democratic bill that would have
raised the minimum wage to $7.15 an hour. The measure received 52 votes, a
majority, but not the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.
Democratic leaders in Congress are closely coordinating their efforts in
Washington with campaigns in critical races around the country. Democratic
lawmakers say they will try to block what is normally an automatic pay
increase for members of Congress until Republicans agree to raise the
federal minimum wage.
"We are putting some skin in the game," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of
Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
"We're saying that there will be no pay increases for Congress until there's
an increase in the minimum wage. This separates us from Republicans."
Last weekend, Mr. Emanuel held news conferences in five cities across
upstate New York, with Democratic lawmakers and candidates signing pledges
to oppose any increase in Congressional pay until the minimum wage is
raised.
Republican lawmakers have repeatedly defeated increases in the minimum wage
over the past eight years. Business groups, supported by many economists,
have always fought such increases on the argument that setting wages above
normal market levels will cause employers to cut back on hiring the very
low-wage workers an increase would be intended to benefit.
"The minimum wage raises the take-home pay for some people at the expense of
others," said Kevin A. Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise
Institute, a conservative policy group.
"It is wrong to redistribute money from the worse-off workers to other
low-income workers."
For the most part, Republicans have sought to avoid debates about the
minimum wage and focus on the overall strength of the economy. They note
that unemployment is down to 4.6 percent, that the nation has added about
5.4 million jobs in the last three years and that wages have been climbing
this year. Though most economists are dubious about the benefits of a
minimum wage, the evidence of a link between a higher minimum wage and
higher unemployment is mixed.
The unemployment rate among teenagers, a big share of minimum-wage workers,
has remained above 13 percent ever since 2000 even though the minimum wage
has gone down in real terms, after adjusting for inflation. Unemployment
among people 16 to 19 has hovered around 15 percent this year.
Opponents of higher minimum wages contend that prosperity is best generated
by stronger economic growth rather than by mandated wage levels. And while
the minimum wage has lost about 20 percent of its buying power since the
last increase, average hourly wages have done better.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center economic
research group in Washington, "real" average hourly wages, adjusted for
inflation, have edged up to $16.52 in May of this year from $15.58 in 1997.
In general, hourly wages have climbed much more slowly than productivity.
Largely as a result, corporate profits have increased rapidly over the past
several years and account for an unusually big share of the nation's total
gross domestic product.
Senate Democrats, at a news conference here on Wednesday, said the minimum
wage was long overdue for an increase and had lagged far behind prices for
gasoline, health care and college tuition.
"We cannot sit by while minimum-wage workers see the real value of their
wages decline," said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "We need to
do right by hard-working Americans and raise the minimum wage."
Mrs. Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, traveled through
Ohio on Sunday and Monday and talked up the issue as she campaigned for
Representative Sherrod Brown, who is trying to unseat Senator DeWine this
fall. On Monday, she spoke specifically about the minimum wage before a
crowd of community activists.
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, head of the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee, said: "The average American thinks that the minimum wage
ought to be raised, even if they are making more than the minimum wage. Far
more importantly from a political viewpoint, it appeals to certain groups of
people who don't usually turn out to vote."
Democratic strategists systematically looked for issues on which they could
start statewide ballot initiatives that would increase voter turn-out among
groups that were likely to vote Democratic. "Minimum wage was at the top of
the list," Mr. Schumer said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/washington/13wage.html
### |
