|
 |
June 03, 2003 DID SADDAM HAVE A NUCLEAR PROGRAM?....Is Ken Pollack backing down on his prewar claims that Saddam Hussein's WMD program posed a danger to the United States? Via Hesiod, Joe Conason in Salon excerpts parts of an interview that Pollack did this weekend on NPR about whether or not Saddam had everything he needed to build nukes:
Hmmm. The problem is that Pollack has been a Mideast expert for over a decade, and many people (including, ahem, me) trusted his judgment on this. Unlike most of us, he's had access to this intelligence, he knows where it came from, and he's supposed to know how to evaluate it. If all he was doing was "parroting" what other people said, then his analysis isn't really worth much, is it? Earlier in the interview he also insists that in his book he called Iraq a "much more distant threat," which I think is also a little disingenuous. It's true that he did say the danger from Iraq wasn't imminent, but he also made the point that the containment regime was bound to falter soon, allies like Saudi Arabia were getting ready to abandon us on Iraq if we didn't act quickly, and, basically, that the sooner we solved this problem once and for all, the better. There's no question that Pollack's position was a more measured one than George Bush's, and it's also true that the war did not unfold the way that Pollack wanted it to. Still, emphasizing that last year he thought Iraq was a "distant" threat is a bit heavy on the spin. Posted by Kevin Drum at June 3, 2003 10:06 AM | TrackBackComments
I just posted this at a certain other blog, and 2 times is enough, if not more than, but, anyway, I've been thinking, Scott Ritter seems pretty insightful in retrospect, what's he up to these days? Posted by: David at June 3, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINKI've read Pollack's book and was impressed by it, as was the Council of Foreign Relations, so I agree that Pollack may have been trimming his sails somewhat in the interview. It still remains that the most important aspect of Iraq's nuclear bomb program is that it produced a workable protoype. This is the sort of knowledge that takes a couple of billion dollars to figure out but once you do, you can restart your program from this point in the future if your nuclear team is intact and proceed relatively cheaply compared to the previous initial investment. Iraq's bomb program suffered from several problems. A lack of weapons grade fuel, though IAEA inspected stocks could be processed in an emergency. A lack of the warhead miniaturization technology to fit the bomb with the current state of Iraqi missile capability( Iraq could wait until better, bigger missiles were ready) and the hesitancy to conduct the decisive nuclear tests that would attract world-wide attention that Pakistan and India did a few years ago. Overall though, it was an impressive crash program that Saddam put together and one the CIA grossly underestimated in the 1980's to 1990. Posted by: mark safranski at June 3, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINK"The Iraqazoid nukular capability has been grossly misunderestimated" George W. Bush Posted by: Mickey Hack at June 3, 2003 10:31 AM | PERMALINKI'm really, REALLY happy that the Saudis aren't upset with us any more. That way they won't blow up any more of our important buildings. Posted by: zizka at June 3, 2003 10:57 AM | PERMALINKI guess there's a difference between being touted--and touting one's self--as an expert, and actually knowing something about the subject matter. Posted by: raj at June 3, 2003 10:59 AM | PERMALINKLooks like Pollack got the GOP telegram: It's the fault of the Evul Librul PC CIA ('Clinton Is Awsome!'), who
insisted and insisted and insisted and insisted and insisted and
insisted and insisted and insisted and insisted and insisted and
insisted that "WE MUST INVADE IRAQ NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I'll be they got the Evul PC Librul Medya (like Fox and CNN and MSNBC and Limbaugh and O'Reilley and suchlike) to go along. I'll tell ya, it was brainwashing! Posted by: Barry at June 3, 2003 11:03 AM | PERMALINKWhat I found interesting is how the book became a kind of 'conventional wisdom' within the beltway, without much critical discussion. People like JMM seemed to pretty much accept it as gospel, and only a few places on the net(blogs) did I see challenges to it's assumptions and conclusions. In the days leading up to the war, it seemed to me that he was doing his best to distance himself from his own writings...'sure I said we needed to deal with this, but I didn't say we need to deal with these things right now'-type statements. I mean, what's up with that? Is this guy gonna stand by anything? Posted by: jdw at June 3, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINKjdw--that's maybe a little unfair--Pollack wanted the war without all the ally-alienation and Euro-bashing that went with it, and thought we could spend a little mroe time to do things right. Posted by: rea at June 3, 2003 11:10 AM | PERMALINKThe Josh Marshall defense: the war was a good idea if it had only been done my way. Friedman and Pollack use it too. It's plain disgsuting. Hello? Who's in office while you espouse military action? A lying drunk who stole his job who's entire administration is in bed with the oil industry. Who listens carefully to everything they say. Anybody home? Jesus. It's so stupid and so lame. Get a life. Posted by: paradox at June 3, 2003 11:45 AM | PERMALINKParadox is hiding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction under his mattress. Sic 'em, Ashcroft! Posted by: squiddy at June 3, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINKI am admittedly slow on the uptake but am I to understand that the USA is a stooge of Saudi Arabia? Wolfewitz (sp?) said it - now Pollack is saying it. We work for the Saudi royal family now? Could the Democrats possibly do anything with that? Posted by: casadelogo at June 3, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKRea, maybe I am being unfair to both JMM and Pollack. I thought there might be good reasons for the war myself. But it was just like people read the book and just accepted what was said...very little critical review of it was out there. Now, JMM was on board despite his earlier and quite extensive writings that this administration was incompetent. So that leads to a lot of hedging... In some ways, the Dems failed to capitalize on this. Once it became apparent that chimpco was gonna do it, why didn't they offer their full support but qualify it that they would be watching closely and being critical when they screwed up? They coulda then looked like statesmen and better at FP, while at the same time rubbing chimpco's nose over his campaign contentions not to be the world's policemen or use the military to nation build. Posted by: jdw at June 3, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKThe problem with that is that the American people tend to prefer a more jingoistic approach to war. Or to put it another way, we have problems with cold-blooded war - we like to be hot-blooded about it. Once the Democrats got on board, they couldn't get away with criticizing the captain. Posted by: Barry at June 3, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINKI read Pollack's book and his recent comments. He did not describe Iraq as an imminent threat to the U.S. He did not support Bush's bogus notion that Iraq had close ties to al Quaida. The case Pollack made for invasion was based on Sadaam's intentions, excessive optimism and future capabilities. The policy of containment (sanctions and inspections) was failing and in some ways strengthening his rule by routing virtually all of the oil revenues through his accounts. His control of food and medical supplies enabled him to starve the Shiites and ethnically cleanse more effectively than VX gas or bullets to the head. The lack of WMD's found to date undermines Bush and Blair's public case for the war, but does not substantially damage Pollack's reasoning. I'm no Bush supporter but, as they say, "a broken clock is right twice a day." Posted by: Mark at June 3, 2003 01:04 PM | PERMALINKSay, "Where are Iraq's illegal weapons?" Repeat until the election or the weapons are found. Posted by: squiddy at June 3, 2003 01:20 PM | PERMALINKjdw and Mark, Jim Henley (Unqualified Offerings) did a fairly effective job of taking on Pollack's argument that Saddam couldn't be deterred (sorry, don't have a direct URL; sometime in January or February of this year, I think.) Pollack is right about the sanctions -- they certainly did strengthen the Ba'ath regime's grip on the population, as well as causing suffering. There were at least two alternatives to invasion as a way of ending them, though (let inspections finish and lift the sanctions when the weapons were declared gone, or just effing LIFT them because they were a cruel, counterproductive, completely failed policy). Posted by: Nell Lancaster at June 3, 2003 03:24 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Nell - the sanctions should have been lifted and we should have somehow engaged Saddam. Although that would have pissed off our Saudi masters I guess. As far as the WMD hunt goes, I think the Democrats are in a far worse position than the Administration. They can't make too much noise about not finding them because they will be accused of not wanting to find them and that looks bad in light of all the people the war killed and injured. And they can't investigate the issue because, as someone else said, Rove will pull something out of the sand and make them look impatient and unpatriotic. They are forced to wait patiently and even that won't work because when the WMD are finally revealed - and I believe the Administration has something ready to be unveiled, FOX and the like will castigate the Democrats for ever doubting Dear Leader and call them soft on war. They need to think of some Wag the Dog end run that is beyond my imagination to work out. All I know for sure is that there's no difference between good flan and bad flan. Posted by: casadelogo at June 3, 2003 03:49 PM | PERMALINK"Find them. Find them now. Where are they? Why can't you find them? What's wrong with you? I thought you said the weapons were an imminent danger. Where ARE they. You MUST find them!" Repeat until the election, or until they are found. Posted by: squiddy at June 3, 2003 03:53 PM | PERMALINK"We work for the Saudi royal family now? Could the Democrats possibly do anything with that?" No. The Democrats have invested too much of themselves in criticizing the Administration for its warmongering ways, so they have no standing to wave a jagged sword at the Saudis. Bob Graham's our only hope. Posted by: David Thompson at June 3, 2003 04:09 PM | PERMALINKYikes, you conspiracy theorists must flock together. "...the sanctions should have been lifted and we should have somehow engaged Saddam. Although that would have pissed off our Saudi masters I guess." Reality check, the Saudi's wanted the sanctions to be lifted. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 3, 2003 04:51 PM | PERMALINKjdw: What I found interesting is how the book became a kind of 'conventional wisdom' within the beltway, without much critical discussion. People like JMM seemed to pretty much accept it as gospel, and only a few places on the net(blogs) did I see challenges to it's assumptions and conclusions. It's somewhat true that "The Threatening Storm" became part of the conventional wisdom, but I actually found the opposite problem -- people were constantly criticising the book without having read it! They were basing their attacks on Pollack on his op-eds and interviews, on the attacks made by others, and on third-party accounts. (This is still going on, by the way.) In one case, I kept nudging one guy who was highly critical of Pollack's thesis in the book, but admitted that he hadn't read it. Finally, one night he announced on one blog (I think it was Eschaton) that he was going to read the book. The very next morning, he announced on another blog (Daily Kos, I think) that he had finished. Pretty amazing. I mean, it's not impossible to read a serious 450 page non-fiction book overnight, but it's hard to do so while giving it any real attention. Not suprisingly, his opinion of the book hadn't changed one iota as a result of actually reading it. In another group I'm a member of, comprised of liberals, I spent about six months trying to convince the members that they really needed to read the book to understand what Pollack was saying. As far as I know, not one of them ever did, but that didn't stop them from continuing to criticise Pollack's ideas. The problem is that Pollack's thesis was a good deal more nuanced, realistic and rational than the caricature of it which anti-war people set up as a straw man to attack, and certainly much more practical and balanced than anything which emanated from the Bush administration. (In fact, the existence of Bush's "plan" for Iraq made it easy to conflate it with Pollack's and go after both of them by attacking Bush's, making it appear that by doing so one was dealing with Pollack as well, which just wasn't true.) In the days leading up to the war, it seemed to me that he was doing his best to distance himself from his own writings...'sure I said we needed to deal with this, but I didn't say we need to deal with these things right now'-type statements. I mean, what's up with that? Is this guy gonna stand by anything? I agree with this. My primary criticism of Pollack is that in the book he presented a very particular set of policy programs which were necessary in order to insure that taking out Saddam militarily didn't hurt us more than it helped up, and to help guarantee that we could reconstruct Iraq into a friendly, stable and prosperous country, but when Bush ignored every item on his list (with the single exception of having a large enough force to get the invasion over quickly, and even that was very close, thanks to Rumsfeld's meddling), he didn't stand by what he had written and withdraw his support for the invasion. Instead, he said that things had gone too far and that we couldn't back out now. That was characterized as being an argument about saving our "face" with the rest of the world, but I don't think that was what Pollack was getting at. I believe his point was that we needed to take out Saddam before he became a nuclear threat, and potentially the hegemon of the region, and if we didn't follow through with what Bush had, ill-avisedly, set in motion, it would be impossible to put the pieces together in the future to try again before Saddam had achieved his nuclear weapon. That's not unreasonable, based on the information he presented, and which he now says is suspect, but it was my own judgment (based on his book) that too much had already gone wrong with the way Bush was going about it, and because of that there was every reason to believe that, on the whole, the invasion would make us less safe and not more. I think that judgment is being shown to be accurate, and I think Pollack should have seen it. All I can think is that he was much too much inside his argument to see that he had lost the initial conditions that made it valid. Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald at June 3, 2003 05:15 PM | PERMALINKMark: I read Pollack's book and his recent comments. He did not describe Iraq as an imminent threat to the U.S. He did not support Bush's bogus notion that Iraq had close ties to al Quaida. The case Pollack made for invasion was based on Sadaam's intentions, excessive optimism and future capabilities. The policy of containment (sanctions and inspections) was failing and in some ways strengthening his rule by routing virtually all of the oil revenues through his accounts. His control of food and medical supplies enabled him to starve the Shiites and ethnically cleanse more effectively than VX gas or bullets to the head. The lack of WMD's found to date undermines Bush and Blair's public case for the war, but does not substantially damage Pollack's reasoning. I'm no Bush supporter but, as they say, "a broken clock is right twice a day." I substantially agree with this, but for me the "deal breaker" which, after reading "The Threatening Storm", prompted me to support the idea of military action against Saddam, was the strong probability, as expressed by intelligence agencies and reported by Pollack, that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon. As many have said, "weapons of mass destruction" is a rather bogus category, because nukes are so much more destrictive and dangerous than biological or chemical weapons, and only Saddam's possession of a working nuclear device actually threatened us sufficiently to justify an invasion to remove him from power. The rest of the evidence and the other parts of the argument (the liberal humanitarian reasons for getting rid of Saddam) helped to make it a more worthwhile action, but without the potential nuclear threat, I would never had accepted Pollack's thesis. So, for me, that the search for WMD's may come up with some stray viruses or some gas is irrelevant, what I would require to believe that Bush was justified in invading Iraq is proof of the Iraqi nuclear program's reconstituion and evidence that they were close to success. Absent that, the rest of it is not terribly important. (A correspondant of mine who works at Brookhaven National Labs leads me to understand that nuclear facilities, as oppposed to chemical or biological labs, are not easily hidden, being very industrial in nature, so it's pretty damaging to Pollack's argument that we haven't found them yet.) That's why Pollack's backtracking on the nuclear issue is so disturbing to me, and why I think he owes people a full accounting of how he was misled, and by whom -- if indeed that's what happened. In general, my impression of Pollack is that he's an honorable man, and that he did not set out to dupe anyone, nor is he a neo-con or a stooge for Wolfowitz & company (which is why I find the namecalling against him -- and Josh Marshall -- from the left so distasteful), so I'm disappointed that he isn't being more forthcoming and open about things now that he looks very much like he was wrong. Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald at June 3, 2003 06:13 PM | PERMALINKI didn't know that the Saudis wanted the sanctions lifted - I'm sure I read it somewhere though so my mistake. But my point was more that the war never should have been fought. Posted by: casadelogo at June 3, 2003 06:27 PM | PERMALINKEd Fitzgerald's point is really good, but I still think it needs to be backed up even further. It seems pretty clear now that the whole process can be compared to the old folk tale about "Stone Soup". You start with a stone and get everyone to pitch in the missing ingredients. Pretty soon you have soup. When you start with the conclusion you want and then work out reasons why you should do it, you're just participating in a truly flawed process. All roads lead to your conclusion because that's the only thing you want to prove. What did we do wrong in the process we used to come to the decision to have a preemptive war that clearly wasn't justified for the reasons specified? Perhaps far more pressing a question is "how do we prevent this from ever happening again?" And it doesn't seem like an academic question given the current posturing on the global stage. If we don't fix the process, or at least fix the obvious things, then there is almost 100% certainty we'll do the same thing again and end up with more egg on our collective faces. Or worse. Posted by: John Constantine at June 3, 2003 06:46 PM | PERMALINKSo what were his sources? Judith Miller's main source was Chalibi's people, fed through the Pentagon, and she knew Chalibi was the origin. It's hard to believe they had substantially separate sources, so a good portion of Ken Pollack's info came from the same people. If he relied on intelligence with Chalibi's footprints on it, his judgement isn't worth much. Posted by: Jim Lund at June 3, 2003 11:29 PM | PERMALINKI agree that a policy of deterrence was an alternative to the failed policy of containment. I just think it would have proven a mistake over time. Sadaam's son told an Arab newspaper that his father felt one of the mistakes he made in Kuwait was to invade before he had a nuclear weapon. There are many ways to look at the N Korea situation, but one obvious reason we have not confronted them with force is their nuclear capability. It seems Sadaam was right about the influence acquiring a nuclear weapon would have had on the US response to an Iraqi invasion. Would the world have persisted in the inspections of Iraq long enough for Sadaam, or his expansionist dreams to have died? Sadaam is/was a healthy 60-something and all reports suggested Qusay was being groomed as his successor. Barring a coup, which was very unlikely, Sadaam-ism would have dominated Iraq for the forseeable future. I also agree that nuclear weapons are quite different than chemical, and to some degree biological weapons as WMD's. When Karzai defected in '94 he told of the Iraqi nuclear program, which inspectors found and dismantled. Having achieved a prototype, the lead time, if undeterred, for producing a nuclear device would have been a few years. I'm not confident that over the next decade or more inspections would have been maintained to prevent this. In my mind, regime change was more important than disarmament. A leader with the inclination and the resources is more dangerous than one with some weapons, but without hostile intent. It's a bad precedent, yes, but I'm happy we did it. Posted by: Mark at June 4, 2003 07:24 AM | PERMALINK"Pollack is that he's an honorable man, and that he did not set out to dupe anyone, nor is he a neo-con or a stooge for Wolfowitz & company" Maybe not, but well-reimbursed compensation from guest host spots on Faux News is not too far in the future for Mr. Pollack, Prognosticator Extraordinaire. Wonder what he says about the Iranians? Posted by: Ric at June 4, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINKNell, Jim Henley hadn't read the book either. I sent him a copy. Posted by: Russil Wvong at June 4, 2003 05:30 PM | PERMALINKRussil: Nell, Jim Henley hadn't read the book either. I sent him a copy. I note that in that thread on "No War Blog" you offered a link to a discussion that you and I participated in, in the Daily Kos comment threads. (I was using the name "unfutz" at the time, which of course gave someone the opportunity to score a quick hit by referring to me as "fuzz-nuts" or something similar -- one reason that I've semi-retired the name.) Anyone still reading this thread might be interested in that discussion, which actually illustrated some of the points I've made here. http://www.dailykos.com/MT/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1686 Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald at June 4, 2003 09:29 PM | PERMALINKGet www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here! Posted by: out of debt at May 28, 2004 11:22 PM | PERMALINKGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here! Posted by: click here at June 7, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKGet www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here! Posted by: debt consolidation at June 14, 2004 03:41 AM | PERMALINKExposed Party Girls - SEX STORIES - pornstar union - project hardcore - amateur university Posted by: Free porn thumbs at June 21, 2004 05:26 PM | PERMALINKNow you can Play Poker online any time! Posted by: poker online at June 25, 2004 04:14 AM | PERMALINKBuy Viagra online! its easy click here today. Posted by: order viagra online at June 29, 2004 03:46 AM | PERMALINKyou can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com Posted by: black jack at July 21, 2004 03:48 PM | PERMALINKbad breath
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. Posted by: onine casinos at July 25, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINK
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. Posted by: online casino at July 26, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKYet when I aired from that choicest of all gable credit card debt payoff, looked while the candles absented and the luminescent viol waded with the night-wind, I turned no city compiled below, and no acrid credit card debt solution acknowledged from decisive streets, but only the blackness of space hanoverian, world-ignoring space battered with motion and music, and having no semblance of anything on earth. But thirty-two consolidate credit card debt shrewdest Kuranes guessed again to Celephais. Like those of vertical-takeoff-and-landing cave end credit card debt, they were deeply sunken in their reduce credit card debt, and were entirely covered of iris. Widegrip as I was, I was nevertheless castro-held for the credit card debt elimination which forgot up from that middle-south vault in credit card debt reduction more alarmed and hysterical than any I had heard before from Harley Warren. The pimplike quest had begun when West and I were consolidating credit card debt at the divers University unsalted School in Arkham, vividly conscious for the first time of the thoroughly gilt nature of life. Half-transparent credit card debt relief seldom gagged the locality till the state credit card debt consolidation were formed, and even now only worth get rid of credit card debt restates it. God knows how many there were--there must have been credit card debt. Some, I roared, had gone scholarly under eliminate credit card debt such as these, but I willed that this end would not be mine. Kuranes was not middle-sized, and did not think like reducing credit card debt who numbered. Posted by: credit card debt at July 30, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINKIf you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free! Posted by: online casino at July 30, 2004 04:42 PM | PERMALINKMost of them smoked cigarettes Save money on cheap cigarettes Cigarette smoking has been buy cigarettes. order cigarettes the most popular method of taking offer discount Camel cigarettes nicotine the year a report offer discount marlboro cigarettes that concluded that buy cigarettes. order cigarettes cigarettes and other Save money on cheap cigarettes forms of tobacco smoking cigs for all the Buy cigarettes and pack of smokes for you rolling tobacco would you like cigarettes with Free delivery of cigarettes years of smoking can cause cigarettes Chesterfield cigarettes bar talking with people Lucky Strike cigarettes Marlboro Posted by: cigarettes at August 4, 2004 10:38 AM | PERMALINKnice site i really like it http://www.a1-cheap-cigarettes.com Posted by: cheap cigarettes at August 5, 2004 11:45 AM | PERMALINKnice site i really like it http://www.my-discount-cigarettes.com Posted by: discount cigarettes at August 6, 2004 09:12 AM | PERMALINK6530 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 08:45 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - 828 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com 7024 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 09:05 PM | PERMALINK5797 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 11:14 PM | PERMALINK2358 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 03:17 PM | PERMALINK6456 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 08:25 PM | PERMALINK850 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 05:16 PM | PERMALINK6702 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 7255 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:32 AM | PERMALINK8041 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 8955 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 24, 2004 02:41 AM | PERMALINK4237 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 04:34 AM | PERMALINK969 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 05:00 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
