Wake Up America! Bush Playing Right into al Qaeda's Plan

November 02, 2004

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 Posted: 0107 GMT (0907 HKT)
Full Link:

(CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.

Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

Al-Jazeera executives said they decided to post the entire speech because rumors were circulating that the network omitted parts that "had direct threats toward specific states, which was totally untrue."

"We chose the most newsworthy parts of the address and aired them. The rest was used in lower thirds in graphics format," said one official.

U.S. intelligence officials Monday confirmed that the transcript made public Monday by Al-Jazeera was a complete one.

As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.

"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department.

"It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.

"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."

As for President Bush's Iraq policy, Bin Laden said, "the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.

"So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future," bin Laden said.

U.S. government officials said Friday that the tape appeared to be authentic and recently made. It was the first videotaped message from the al Qaeda leader in nearly three years.

Posted by manystrom at November 2, 2004 02:09 AM

Osama talks about bleeding us physically & financially as a strategy. Our cowboy prez has swaggered us into a blunder, or onto a tarbaby. And now we are stuck & bleeding.

Today is election day. Let's pray for more conscious leadership!

Posted by: Brooker at November 2, 2004 01:45 PM

It amazes me how many people who consider themselves educated and "worldly" can look at the first two years of this war and declare failure. Yes, there have been mistakes and bad decisions -- so what? The first years of WWII were filled with troubling events and setbacks, but we peresrvered and eventually prevailed.

OBL claims the war is motivated by corporations and the acquisition of "black gold" in his clumsy, almost comical analysis of U.S. politics. But if that were true, we would already control all of the Mideast oil reserves because in 1991 our forces on theater could have captured and controled them in less than two weeks!

OBL makes a valid point about the asymmetric economics of the war. The million to one ratio of costs must be addressed if we are to succeed against the Muslim fanatics. We have to succeed because the ultimate goal of OBL is an Islamic world government.

Posted by: TJK at November 2, 2004 04:35 PM

I wonder if legendary, award-winning director, Michael Moore, will address this incident:

Let's hear the defense of "tolerance" from all of the appeasers in the EU.

Posted by: TJK at November 2, 2004 04:50 PM

TJK (above) makes an excellent point in his comparison between World War II and the current War on Islamic Terrorism.

In early 1943 (approximately 1 1/4 years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), the U.S Army suffered a costly and embarrassing DEFEAT by the German Army at Kasserine Pass in North Africa.

First, please note that we were fighting the GERMAN military at Kasserine Pass and NOT the JAPANESE military which had attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Just as President Franklin Roosevelt correctly recognized (with his "Germany First" Policy) that we needed to combat both Japan AND her Nazi German ally, President George W. Bush has correctly recognized that we need to combat Al Quaida AND its Iraqi allies, Saddam Hussein, Al Zarqawi (who has been in Iraq since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan), et al (please refer to the Dalfur Report for the details of Saddam's Iraqi Inteligence Service chemical and biological weapons research and production program for the purpose of sale to Islamic Terrorists).

Second, imagine the implications of a decision by Franklin Roosevelt to pull-out of the War in Europe against Nazi Germany because of the defeat at Kasserine Pass: a likely Nazi victory in Europe and a long-lived Nazi regime led by Adolf Hitler as a power in Europe.

Just as Roosevelt was correct to stay the course against Hitler in February, 1943 George Bush is correct to stay the course against the Islamic terrorists in Iraq today.

Posted by: LJG at November 2, 2004 07:44 PM

We will not win this war, unless the american people realize these Islamic Terrorists and the Muslum states that support them will do anything to destroy us. Much like Isreal, Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist! In the same fashion, these Muslum states will do all they can to destroy us using terrorism, limiting oil to our country, detonating nukes in our country etc...
Much of their population lives in poverty. They have nothing to lose by sacraficing themselves for the 21 virgins in heaven. Until we recognize these facts, we will continue to fight amongest each other as the enemy continues to get stronger.

Posted by: RJT at November 2, 2004 10:30 PM


Posted by: Canadian at November 3, 2004 12:03 AM

How can you possibly compare the mess in Iraq to WWII? The current war is not an old style war between two sovereign states. There is no battle to be won and there is no territory that can be taken from the enemy. There is no capital city to destroy. This war is with an enemy that can disappear within a peaceful population and later reappear at will. This is a war where the enemy numbers in the thousands, not the tens of thousands. It is a war where technology has enabled a small group of people to cause massive damage and, through the use of cheap video, terrorize us at very little cost.

As Bin Ladin said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

We WILL go bankrupt fighting this war. If the US is to survive, we will need to adopt a military policy that emphasizes a strong defense, NOT a strong offense. The Europeans have seen this shift from offensive capability to defensive capability. The Israelies also are shifting more resources to defensive capability by building a wall. Why? Because its cheaper and more effective.

Posted by: Goldvibe at November 3, 2004 04:30 AM

21 VIRGINS!!!??they're promising 21 VIRGINS!!??holy crap!!almost sounds worth it!!hehe!!

Posted by: numnuts at November 3, 2004 05:04 AM

"we are continuing this policy of bleeding america into bankruptcy".......ya gotta admit he is one clever sob!!

Posted by: numnuts at November 3, 2004 05:11 AM

There are 1.3 billion Muslims, many of them much poorer than us, and most of them looking at how their co-religionists are treated around the world by the west. As has been said they have, in many cases - especially the ones closest to the middle east, little to live for - - but seemingly something to fight for, there's some powerful motivation there.

So, we can either ignore their plight, and our hand in it, and fight them (losing precious lives and a lot of resources and credability along the way, especially with the non-aligned on this issue), or we can attempt to find the root causes and do something about them.

As for comments about the costs. Well I work with someone who lost a nephew 2 weeks ago in the Striker force and someone else whose 19 old brother is being moved in to Baghdad around about now. We're collecting care package items and sending them over to the platoon.

The cost to these families is immense, I can only imagine the folks that make flip remarks about the success of these types of debacles do not understand the loss, or are hardened through personal sacrifice to the hardship? I certainly hope that people with a strong opinion about the value of this sacrifice have some way to internalize what it really means.

Personally for me I do not see how we are currently helping the Iraqi people. We've killed or facilitated the killing of tens of thousands of them and destroyed what was left of their world, after applying 10 years of sanctions. In the process we've had over 1000 allied troops die and probably 10,000 injured, and what have we to show for it? Former Iraqi oil executives now in power!?

Of course, this has all happened since OUR Secular Dictator Saddam, installed by the west to move Iraq in to the western sphere, as the Shah was supposed to do in Iran, turned rogue on us - - partly because he's probably a nutter and partly because we probably cheated on him.

This plot is thick, stinky and not easy to sort out. But one thing is clear, if you think you know the answers you are wrong! Simplistic clap trap about how the Muslims are all trying to destroy Israel, yahdidada, is so jingoistic and emotive. Folks who follow that ideological path need to learn to follow the money first.

Cheers Rich

Posted by: Rich at November 3, 2004 05:45 AM

Goldvibe proposes facing Islamic radicals with a strategy that emphasizes defense. History teaches that walls, no matter how high or thick, cannot stop a clever and dedicated agressor.

While EU bureaucrats fiddle and posture, the Mullahs of Iran are building crude nuclear weapons. Which wall in France, Spain, or Germany will be breached with one of them in the next ten years?

Posted by: TJK at November 3, 2004 06:26 AM

Russia was bled by the Mujahdeen, but they were fighting a two-front war, keeping their Afghanistan war going AND fending off their imagined impending attack by Reagan. Russia would have mopped up the Afghanis easily if they weren't spending big money to defend against the supposed threat from the US. And with their socialist economy, they could barely keep their own population fed as it was.

Comparing the US now to the Russians then is comparing apples and oranges. So, Osama is not correct in his thinking - like Michael Moore, he overestimates his own importance.

Posted by: happy_republican at November 3, 2004 06:57 AM

I dont think it will be a nuke but a dirty bomb...much easier to make and just as effective though not as scary that would be the next big event of repraiasal.and NY seems the most likely centers there.hell all ya'd have ta do is put it on remote control and ship it in a container.then send someone down to the docks with a push button backup remote if the automatic one fails.could be biological too.this is why W has been so aggressive......his people told him the same thing and he is the type not to set back and wait for it to happen.9-11 taught him that much.

Posted by: numnuts at November 3, 2004 07:12 AM

a happy republican? there's an oxymoron.he to soon forgets the david and goliath example of small defeating the huge.

Posted by: numnuts at November 3, 2004 07:22 AM

I think for most people here there is no doubt that the USA are already bankrupt. It's just a matter of time. So for Bin Laden to claim the bankrupcy as his ... is just very smart and political.

But bankrupcy has roots that go way farther.

THe bankrupcy of the USA was chosen when the dollar was set has the world currency back in 1945.

At the time Keynes favored a world currency, issued by the IMF.
The US owning most gold stocks and accounting for half of the world economy favored the dollar.

It sure was a good thing for the US economy. But starting from there, for the world to grow, and world trade to grow, the dollar monetary base had to grow, the USA had to have a commercial and balance of payment deficit. foreign countries would always lend to the united states, provided they would get always more dollars to support their their trade.

In 1971 fell bretton woods.

In 1980 started the asset economy in the US.
In 1999 the stock part of that asset economy started to fall.
Somewhere in the coming months or years it will be the housing part.

And Bankrupcy is right ahead.

The cost of the iraqi war are only speeding this inevitable bankrupcy.

As for the rest. Yes fanatic muslims are dangerous. So are fanatic jewish people (killed Izhak Rabin), fanatic christians (burned a movie place in France that showed an "incorrect" version of the life of the christ, waged the war in Iraq)... All those who fear and hate are dangerous.

This is why sharing is so important. If you keep the riches for yourself, soon you end up believing (part of it because it's true) seeing the rest of the world as wanting them, so you buy weapons, build walls, leave in a protected closed private area ... You live in fear and fire at the slightest movement. Recipe for a disaster.

Posted by: DF at November 3, 2004 12:30 PM

What me worry? seven & a half TRILLION ain't nothin...LETS BORROW MORE!!!

Who needs a budget, when one can simply...BORROW MORE!!!

Posted by: Alfred E Neuman at November 3, 2004 02:55 PM

Why are you people trying protect America anymore? A majority just voted for an inarticulate buffoon to be their leader. A man who I wouldn't trust with a burnt match is in control of the world's largest "nucular" arsenal.

What more can you say?

Time to jump ship.

Posted by: I am Jack's lack of faith in humanity at November 3, 2004 04:58 PM

If the Muslim jihadists manage to clumsily detonate a nuclear device in, say, Manhattan, the gloves are off.

I guess people have to be reminded that the US has some 15 thousand nuclear bombs. Not that the US government wants to use them, but probably would be if New York gets nuked.

Mecca will be messy.

Then we can say sayonara to life as we know it.

Posted by: Ron at November 5, 2004 12:52 PM

NY has already been sucker punched. Bin Laden specifically mentioned the next target would be inside a red state.

Bad news for us who incidentally live in red states but voted "blue".

But hey, think about how the dolphins feel, squirming and wiggling fruitlessly away as the fighermen haul in the tuna nets. Wait, wait... I'm not one of them!

If you get my analogy...

Posted by: I am Jack's hatred of ignorance at November 5, 2004 02:39 PM

It's one thing to argue the nuances of foreign policy, or to debate social issues, but I'm puzzled when supposedly rational people try to apply logic and reason to the threat posed by Islamic radicals. What "nuance" is there in a life vs. death struggle with sociopathic madmen? OBL must laugh out loud at the appeasers who would have us believe that we are actually at fault, and the terrorists would stop if only we could be more sympathetic to their plight.

President Bush's administration has made some mistakes in the intital battles of this war, and that is to be expected. Unlike the dilettantes of Old Europe, he seems to recognize the nature of the threat and is trying to be proactive. That, in large measure, is why he was reelected. A majority of Americans realize that sitting idly or engaging in meaningless negotiations will not lessen the danger.

The reacquisition of Spain and France is one of OBL's stated long-term goals. I have little hope for France's future as they seem willing to capitulate (look at history) and are heavily influenced by their internal, rapidly growing, Muslim population. Will Moores (carrying a nuke in their back pocket) also bring back Islamic "civilization" to Spain? We can only hope that recent events don't reflect the true passions of the Spanish people.

Posted by: TJK at November 5, 2004 04:41 PM

TJK, were you responding to the origional post? I couldn't tell because what you posted was so general.

What was said by OBL is that they are bleeding us as a strategy, FINANCIALLY. For every dollar they spend, we must spend a million. So far this strategy seems to have succeeded.

The question is, should we note this strategy & include the recognition of it in our own plans, or do we have unlimited resources?...because that is what would be required to take & hold all of the arab lands.

Posted by: MAC at November 5, 2004 05:03 PM

I agree with you MAC, as I posted earlier, we have to address the lopsided ratio OBL was gloating about. The crutial thing, IMO, is to keep WMDs out of their hands. Wars are expensive, but what does it cost to replace a city like LA, NY, or London? If Al Qaeda is able to obtain a nuke, dirty bomb, or sufficient bio agents, they will have a shot at ending Western civilization.

Bush and Blair, and a handful of others were willing to act preemptively to try and keep that from happening. Others criticize the notion of proactive war and seem to feel that outreach and negotiations will work. As if OBL cares what the UN Security Council says.

With the stakes this high, which side of caution would you err on?

Posted by: TJK at November 5, 2004 10:43 PM


You err on the side of caution ALWAYS when it comes to foriegn policy, war and death. You recruit free people to your cause from around the country and the world, you uphold long-standing domestic and international standards of law and JUSTICE. You slowly and carefully plot your move so as to not go "ready, fire, aim" and hit the wrong target, at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Basically TJK, you use the combined intellect of your ruling elite to create a winning strategy that represents the wishes and beliefs of the west and western culture. Then, after receiving a mandate from the people and your allies, you aggressively pursue the right outcome until it is done.

What we are witnessing daily with this current regime is a rush to war in order to profit and to control. There is no concensus here in America and even less around the world.

Pig-headed, arrogant, war-mongering is hardly a well thought through strategy. This regime has been caught lying about everything of any importance, and that is undeniable. In addition they've grossly under-estimated the size of the task and now we're stuck in a lose/lose situation.

There are more innocents dying daily than "insurgents" and the phrase "Iraqi Freedom" has become an oxymoron, like "military intelligence."

Of course TJK, to you there are no "innocents" in the Iraqi population because your line of thinking makes them all enemies who are hellbent on the destruction of the west and our freedoms!? Right?

Finally, you are so mixed up with your commentary. You claim Bush and Blair were willing to stand up and fight against Al Qaida obtaining WMD and using them on the west, BUT WE THEN INVADED IRAQ where no WMD have been found and which did not harbor Al Qaida!

Supposedly Al Qaida was and is in Afghanistan, with most of the members originating in Saudi Arabia!

Iraq was a secular dictatorship sponsored by the west and not loved at all by the Islamic religious fundamentalists because Saddam preached western secularism and was heavily armed and influenced (controlled) by the US, until the Kuwait War. Al Qaida was not welcome in Iraq as they would've destabilized Saddam's old on power - he did not want mullahs in control and suppressed the Shia's in the South while co-opting the Sunni's with power sharing in the north and center, etc.

Your entire perspective completely discounts the historical evidence of who did what, where and when, as well as ignores the basic structure of the middle east as we know it today.

In sum your perspective appears to be yelling: "War, War, War!"

Cheers Rich

Posted by: Rich Lancaster at November 6, 2004 01:13 AM

LJG & TJK & Goldvibe & Rich & DF

Below are also notes to "All" and a link to "Are you effected by the real US deficit: oil?"

It is possible that Roosevelt, Bush, Hitler, Hussein, and bin Laden are all very different. It is possible that they are all very alike. I read posts on this site that refer to the Bush family as profitably linked to the Nazionalist Socialist Third Reich. I haven't read such links myself, but such allegations are possible, too. I could not confirm or deny any of them, of course, not having been particularly involved in events which occured decades before my conception.

I don't personally know any of the above "leaders" any more than you- maybe much less than you know them. I also don't know any of you very well- or any of their followers, except for a few followers of Bush. But how well do I really know them?

As for TJK's comment below, I also do not know. Perhaps you know better than I.

"OBL claims the war is motivated by corporations and the acquisition of "black gold" in his clumsy, almost comical analysis of U.S. politics. But if that were true, we would already control all of the Mideast oil reserves because in 1991 our forces on theater could have captured and controled them in less than two weeks!"

By "our forces," I presume that you refer to the US Armed Forces and covert intelligence agents. By "we," I presume that you refer to "our forces," not you and I personally, and not corporations of which you or I may own shares.
I only wonder this: if "our forces" could have captured and controlled all of the Mideast oil reserves in less than two weeks, which you may favor, why didn't they then and why haven't they yet? By "all of the Mideast oil reserves," I presume you include Arabia, but not Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada, who have far more oil cumulatively than do the U.S. and the Mideastern countries... Islamic, Judeo-Christian or otherwise.

I work for a law office that specializes in bankruptcy. When you say "we WILL go bankrupt," I don't know which "we" you are referring to, but I do wonder this: is it possible that the U.S. has been bankrupt since at least 1933 when it entered something like a perpetual Chapter 13? Is it possible that there are two signatures on the greenbacks in your wallet: one by a Secretary of the Treasury (Department of the Treasury, "United States of America") and another by a Treasurer of the "United States" (The Federal Reserve)? Is it possible that the contract in your wallet is a promissory note which identifies a Bankruptcy Trustee as well as a Trustor or Beneficiary? Perhaps looking at a "dollar" from the 1800s would interest you.

Though, as you can see from my comments directly above, I question much of what you wrote, yet I think we have very similar perspectives. We might even learn something from each other, and I think you would be open to that. Please note the link below and also that I would appreciate your feedback. Same for everyone else. Thanks in advance.

You wrote, "Saddam... turned rogue on us." I would ask what you mean by "us," but you probably know by now that I don't really care what you meant. I care how you feel, but not what you meant. I even care how you feel about me not caring what you meant, but I still don't care about what you meant- only about what we feel.

Anyway, what if "turning rogue" was something he agreed to do as part of a plan - whether or not he was "in on it" - to make the U.S. look like it is "turning rogue" and in need of a "neutral, international BIG BROTHER?" Would the UN Security Council (see EU, see Euro) dare to present itself as the savior of the entire World... Bank? Stay tuned....

I certainly could be wrong, but I wonder if some of "us" are feeling rather scared, rather angry, rather combative with each other even- not just with "them." To continue a theme from TJK, which wall in the US or Middle East will be breeched by bombs- clean, dirty, smart or dumb? Will "Star Wars" space defense systems save us from the satellites and from the rage that have already been launched? Finally, and of questionable relevance, which fuel alternative will make oil renewable?

TJK in particular, which do you think will work best to convince an oil well or fuel tank that it is not empty: war, negotiations, or outreach? War and outreach may refill a fuel tank, but oil wells may be more... fanatical.

Now please don't think that I am trying to be sarcastic. I just do it habitually. Please forgive me. Please, Mr. oil well and Mrs. fuel tank, forgive us all.

George W. Bush
Disobedient Rogue Rebel to the UN Security Council

Yikes- another schizonoid illusion-
I am actually the Self-Proclaimed Greatest Hypocrite of THEM All,

is the link to
Are you effected by the REAL US Deficit: Oil?

Posted by: Jeff at November 6, 2004 08:31 AM

Jeff, if there is a question concerning the strategy/tactics needed in the current war against Al Qaeda, please reflect on this message found pinned to the dead body of Theo van Gogh with a knife:

The document, attached to the body of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, was titled "An Open Letter to [Aayan] Hirsi Ali," referring to a Somali-born member of parliament. She had scripted Mr. van Gogh's latest film, "Submission," which criticized the treatment of women under Islam.
Miss Hirsi Ali, who calls herself an ex-Muslim, has gone into hiding.
"Death, Ms. Hirsi Ali, is the common theme of all that exists. You and the rest of the cosmos cannot escape this truth," the letter said.
"There will come a day when one soul cannot help another soul. A day that goes paired with terrible tortures, ... when the unjust will press horrible screams from their lungs.
"Screams, Ms. Hirsi Ali, that will cause chills to run down a person's back, and make the hairs on their heads stand straight up. People will be drunk with fear, while they are not drunken. Fear will fill the air on the Great Day," the letter said.
"I know definitely that you, Oh America, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Europe, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Netherlands, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Hirsi Ali, will go down," it said.

By all means, let us reach out and "negotiate".

Posted by: TJK at November 6, 2004 05:13 PM

Oops- I forgot the htm at the end of the link:

This is correct:

thanks for your response. Here is my comment.

Perhaps there is no negotiating with terrorists. Perhaps the question is how we interact- you and I- assuming we are not terrorists?

I have never heard of the note you quoted. Further, I do not condemn the fear that we may feel when reading (or writing) such things.

Thank you, and... please consider the possibility that all terrorists, whether trained in the US as CIA agents and so on or elsewhere, are acting within a predictable pattern of human activity. Here is a short story for you.

I sat several yards from a small old man talking about the torture he witnessed and experienced. One of the highlights was that a cattle prod was put into his mouth. All his teeth were dislodged and his tongue was split and his lips were severely burned. His name is Paulden Gyatso, a Tibetan Lama. You can find pictures of this online if you are inclined.

He spoke about compassion for the Chinese soldiers- who knew what fates awaited them if they disobeyed orders. He did not seem to be grieving about the many associates of his who did not survive, but perhaps simply grateful to have enjoyed their poresence at all.

I have never been to Aushwitz or Hiroshima or My Lai. However, I have been to court for what I consider ridiculous trivia- because of reports and allegations made by a former fiance of mine. Just behind me as I have been typing, a mother and her 18 year old son were yelling at each other.

I am not sure that I have any position on what is needed in a war against Al Qaeda or against the UN or against the US or against Paulden Gyatso or against me or my son's mom or the mother of the 18 year old or the 18 year old or you. I am inclined to note a few websites for you: and, referring to Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," which I prefer to call "the Art of Taking Whole." Here is a site on "trust," my own, which I consider humorous:

TJK, I recently read something like "let's make terrorists and war irrelevant." I am an opportunist. If the opportunity and capacity was before me or within me to make terrorism irrelevant, perhaps even in the midst of terrorists, would I embrace it? Would I rid myself of all animosity? Would I do something more intelligent than I knew was possible?

I am willing to risk finding out. I don't think there is really much of a choice- just a recognition or oblivion.

Taking care, fare well,


Posted by: Jeff at November 6, 2004 06:52 PM

Recent Entries
Archives by Date

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64