You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / Sex, Espionage, Bail, and Oh Yeah: War Crimes

Sex, Espionage, Bail, and Oh Yeah: War Crimes

By davidswanson - Posted on 14 December 2010

If the U.S. press corpse ever lets up on the let's-lynch-the-whistleblower angle, here are some leads it could start looking into on the what's-this-all-about angle (via The Guardian):

The British government promised to protect US interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war.

• The president of Yemen secretly offered US forces unrestricted access to his territory to conduct unilateral strikes against al-Qaida terrorist targets [and anyone nearby].

Saudi Arabia put pressure on the US to attack Iran. Other Arab allies also secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.

• Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

The Obama administration and Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, are determined to reject talks with Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, and have consistently worked to split his movement, according to US diplomatic cables. Karzai has sometimes publicly floated the idea of dialogue with Omar and other top Taliban, but the cables show his private position is the opposite.

• Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups and the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

• The US and China worked together to prevent European nations from reaching an agreement at last year's climate summit in Copenhagen.

• Conservative party politicians promised before the election that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power.

• US officials urged British banking regulators to take stronger action against Iranian Banks with suspected links to [fictional?] missile programmes.

• A subsidiary of the US private security firm Xe (then known as Blackwater) flouted German arms export law. It transported German helicopters to Afghanistan via Britain and Turkey without a permit because it was taking too long to get the German export papers.

• In 2007, the American ambassador in Egypt dares to call the government a dictatorship and foresees problems with President Hosni Mubarak's son, Gamal, succeeding his father as head of state. The Egyptian army profoundly dislikes Gamal, someone "who hasn't even finished his military service". The cables reveal a possibility of a coup d'etat should the president die without having established his succession.

• Ann Pickard, Shell's VP for sub-Saharan Africa, claimed in Oct 2009 that the oil giant had infiltrated all the main ministries of the Nigerian government.

• Iraqi government officials see Saudi Arabia, not Iran, as the biggest threat to their state.

• Revelations that US officials put pressure on Germany not to arrest Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in the 2003 kidnapping of a German citizen mistakenly identified as a terrorist.

• In 2007, the German government made it clear to US officials that they were not interested in following through with the arrest warrants issued for 13 CIA operatives involved in the 2003 abduction of Khaled el-Masri, a Lebanese-born German. In public, Angela Merkel's office continued to call for an investigation.

• The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer paid investigators to unearth corruption links to Nigeria's attorney general in an attempt to persuade him to stop his legal action against a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis.

• In a March 2009 meeting in Chile, vice-president Joseph Biden scolded Spanish PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero for suddenly withdrawing troops from Kosovo without informing the US. The cables also show Hillary Clinton expressing her dissatisfaction to Spanish foreign minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos about this decision. Zapatero defended the Spanish position but conceded his government should have informed the Americans first.

British and US officials colluded to manoeuvre around a proposed ban on cluster bombs, allowing the US to keep the munitions on British territory, regardless of whether a treaty forbidding their use was implemented. Parliament was kept in the dark about the secret agreement, approved by then-foreign secretary David Miliband.

• Since 2004, dozens of American embassy cables from Madrid, Rabat and Paris show the Spanish Socialist government had been secretly supporting Morocco in talks to regain control of the Western Sahara. PM Zapatero suggested the creation of an autonomous region along the lines of Catalonia in Spain. President Bouteflika of Algeria condemned the unexpected Spanish stance and the 20% price rise in gas exported to Spain was widely seen as a retaliation. The cables also showed that Spanish diplomats criticised President Chirac of France for being more pro-Moroccan than the Moroccans.

• A British businessman is identified as the key middleman in the Kazakhstan oil bribes scandal. Robert Kissin allegedly handled a $4m secret payment to help the American oil company, Baker Hughes, win a $219m contract from Kazakh state oil chiefs.

• Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were aware of IRA plans to carry out the biggest bank robbery in its history while negotiating with Bertie Ahern to save the Northern Ireland peace process.

MI5 are willing to hand over files relating to one of the most high profile murders of the Northern Ireland Troubles. Lawyer Pat Finucane was killed by loyalist gunmen working with members of the British security forces.

• Two British civil servants, Dr Richard Freer and Judith Gough, contradicted Gordon Brown's statement on reduction of the Trident fleet in conversations with US embassy officials in London.

• According to a US embassy cable form August 2008, the great majority of the Spanish military leadership have a profound dislike of Prime Minister Zapatero. Many have become "fans" of the US after spending time there, although they remained proud to be Spanish.

Libya threatened UK with "dire reprisals" if the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, died in a Scottish prison.

• The former Spanish foreign minister complained to the US ambassador about the contemptuous way President George Bush was treating Spain: "Spain is the eighth world power and we are treated like a country which does not matter."

• The US privately lobbied to block an Iranian scientist's appointment to a key position on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

• Senior Obama administration officials say many millions of dollars are flowing largely unimpeded to extremist groups worldwide and they have received little help in stopping this from allies in the Middle East.

• Qatar is using the al-Jazeera news channel as a bargaining chip in foreign policy negotiations by adapting its coverage to suit other foreign leaders.

• Rolls-Royce lost a lucrative contract to supply helicopter engines to the Spanish military because of a personal intervention by Spain's prime minister, José Luis Zapatero, following vigorous lobbying from US diplomats, according to a secret cable from the US embassy in Madrid.

• Hillary Clinton, talking to Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, referred to China as "your banker", illustrating America's deep anxiety over China's growing economic power and hold on US finances.

• A potential "environmental disaster" was kept secret by the US last year when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.

• The Foreign Office has privately admitted to a plan to declare Diego Garcia, from which thousands of people were expelled from their homeland to make way for a large US military base, the world's largest marine protection zone, ending any chance of them being repatriated.

The US military has been charging its allies a 15% handling fee on hundreds of millions of dollars being raised internationally to build up the Afghan army. Germany has threatened to cancel contributions, raising concerns that money is going to the US treasury.

• One of the biggest objectives at the US embassy in Madrid over the past seven years has been trying to get the criminal case dropped against three US soldiers accused of the killing of a Spanish television cameraman in Baghdad.

Firstly, and as I've posted once or twice before, all of the cables are evidently authentic, that is, really
diplomatic cables sent by US embassies; BUT, this doesn't mean that they tell the truth. Those bearing any importance at all can consist of fabrications and misinterpretations, but can also be based on rumors and dvery incomplete truths.

Many people treat the cables as if they tell "Gospel Truth" and this is the [wrong] approach to the cables. Of those bearing what appears to be important information, plenty require very careful analysis and geopolitical knowledge.

HOWEVER, cables that do tell the truth on important subjects have been distorted by the "news" media, like the New York Times, f.e. The NYT evidently loves to distort what important cables related to Iran and its nuclear program actually say. Some articles linke further below will illustrate this.

People should [not] rely on interpretations and comments by the Guardian, UK, New York Times, et cetera. The following two articles provide a important general analysis and information useful for reading the cables and writing about them, but also useful in even more general terms.

"Who is Behind Wikileaks?"
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dec. 13, 2010

The following is a lengthy essay and while I think it could've been shorter, it has a lot of substance. Part of it is basically as I stated at the start of this post.

"Wikileaks and the Worldwide Information War
Power, Propaganda, and the Global Political Awakening

by Andrew Gavin Marshall, Dec. 6, 2010

Cable : "Saudi Arabia put pressure on the US to attack Iran. Other Arab allies also secretly agitated for military action against Tehran."

Is that really true and if it is, then how much of the full truth does the cable provide? Is there any covering up by omission(s)? If there are discernable or obvious falsehoods, then are these in what the cables actually say, or in what the NYT, et cetera, wrote about the related cables?

"Hawks Claim Vindication over WikiLeaks Cables
Docs Detail Hawks' Hostility Toward Iran

by Jason Ditz, Nov. 29, 2010

In a bizarre example of self-justification, a number of anti-Iran hawks are citing the WikiLeaks cables are vindication for their hostility toward Iran, purely on the basis of the documents repeating their own hostility toward the nation.

Somehow, the fact that the documents rehashed the long-standing Israeli calls to attack Iran made Israeli officials feel vindicated in those calls, and the fact that the Saudi King was making similar calls (linked) (for largely a different reason) may be interesting, but provides no proof that the threats were any wiser.

In fact, other documents on the Saudi government’s position suggest that, far from actually being concerned about Iran as a prospective nuclear power, the Saudis were more concerned that the US occupation of Iraq had turned the nation over to Shi’ite control (linked) and given the Shi’ite Iranians newfound power in the region. The Saudi King’s calls for attack seem to have been a pretty cynical attempt to strengthen the Sunni position in the region.

And though a number of the documents center around Iran’s nuclear program, none of them ever touches on or even implies the existence of any evidence that the program is military in nature. Indeed, their answer to public questions about the allegation by Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was to warn his aides that he’d better stop asking such uncomfortable questions. (linked)

In the end it seems far from vindicating the hawks, the cables just name them, and far from making a good case for a war against Iran, they reveal US hostility over the idea that such a war might not be universally supported.

"Mideast Peace Key to Countering Iran, Arabs Told US Diplomats"
by Jim Lobe and Ali Gharib, Dec. 9, 2010

Gleeful Israeli leaders and their neoconservative supporters here have spent much of the past week insisting that the State Department cables published by WikiLeaks prove that Sunni Arab leaders in the Middle East are far more preoccupied with the threat posed by an ascendant and possibly nuclear Iran than with a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But a closer look at the relevant cables shows a far more consistent message to Washington coming from its Arab allies: that curbing Iran and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are inextricably linked and that the most effective way of achieving the former is make tangible progress on the latter.

Indeed endorsements of "linkage" — the notion, accepted at the highest levels of the U.S. military, that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will help promote U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East — emerges as a recurring theme in previously confidential discussions with Arab leaders and U.S. diplomats on how best to counter Iran’s growing regional power and deter Tehran’s nuclear program.

That’s not the message, of course, that Israel and its backers have been touting since the first batch of 220 documents was released Nov. 29 by WikiLeaks.

Indeed, none other than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately seized on purported anti-Iranian comments by the Arab leaders quoted prominently in the New York Times as vindication of Israel’s position.


That message was immediately echoed by neoconservative backers of Netanyahu’s Likud Party here for much of the past week.


While that line has since been repeated continuously by neoconservative bloggers, columnists, and publications, they find little echo in the cables themselves.

"[T]he key to containing Iran revolves around progress in the Israel/Palestine issue," Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan told visiting U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during a Jul. 15, 2009 meeting, according to one cable dated five days later.


Five months later, in a Dec. 9, 2009 meeting with Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, bin Zayed returned to that theme. ...

A May 27, 2008 cable describes a conversation between Rep. Jeff Fortenberry with Gamal Mubarak, son and heir apparent of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Asked by the congressman how best to counter Iran’s nuclear program, Mubarak replied, "Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, are the ‘heavyweights’ that can counter Iran."

The cable goes on to describe Mubarak as "advocat[ing] movement on the Israeli/Palestinian track to remove a prime issue that Iran can use as a pretext."


Jordan’s government also depicted the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian conflict as a key factor in the expansion of Iran’s regional influence, according to the Apr. 2, 2009 cable.


During a Feb. 14, 2010 meeting with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Qatar Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani suggested that Israel’s efforts to rally U.S. and Arab support for a more confrontational policy toward Iran was really related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. "[T]he Israelis," he is reported as telling his guest, are "…using Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons as a diversion from settling matters with the Palestinians."

Three days later, according to a cable sent Feb. 22, 2010, UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nayan warned another Congressional delegation led by Nita Lowey, a strong Israel supporter in the House of Representatives, against a military attack on Iran. ...


"Cables Belie Gulf States’ Backing for Strikes on Iran"
by Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe, Dec. 7, 2010

The dominant theme that emerged in U.S. media coverage of the first round of WikiLeaks diplomatic cables last week was that Arab regimes in the Gulf – led by Saudi Arabia – shared Israel’s view that Iran’s nuclear program had to be stopped by military force, if necessary.


The notion that these leaders, like Israel, favor a military solution to Iran’s nuclear program has become widely accepted by the news media in the past week. ...

But a careful reading of all the diplomatic cables reporting the views of Saudi and other Gulf Arab regimes on Iran shows that the Times‘ account seriously distorted the content – and in the case of the Saudis, ignored the context – of the cables released by WikiLeaks.


In fact, the cables show that most Gulf Arab regimes – including Saudi Arabia itself – have been seriously concerned about the consequences of a strike against Iran for their own security, in sharp contrast to Israel’s open advocacy of such a strike. They also show the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait expressing that concern with greater urgency in the past two years than previously.

Those facts were completely ignored, however, in the Times‘ account.

The Abdullah Quote

The most widely cited quote in support of the Times‘ thesis since the story’s publication one week ago has been Abdullah’s appeals to “cut off the head of the snake,” referring to Iran. The story asserted that the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, had recalled the king’s “frequent exhortations to the U.S. to attack Iran” during an April 2008 meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, the incoming chief of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

The implication was that al-Jubeir had made that statement during the Petraeus-Abdullah meeting. But the reporting cable makes clear that the Saudi ambassador made the remark two days later, in a conversation with the U.S. deputy chief of mission in Riyadh, Michael Gfoeller.

In his meeting with Petraeus, in fact, Abdullah had not spoken about Iran’s nuclear program but focused instead on the importance of “resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq,” according to the cable.

The cable actually draws a contrast between al-Jubeir’s remarks and those made by Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and director general of intelligence Prince Muqrin during Petraeus’s visit. “On the other hand,” it states after citing al-Jubeir’s position, the foreign minister “called instead for much more severe U.S. and international sanctions on Iran, including a travel ban and further restrictions on bank lending.” Prince Muqrin “echoed these views,” according to the cable.

The foreign minister would only say that “the use of military pressure against Iran should not be ruled out,” the cable said.

That statement mirrored precisely the official position of the George W. Bush administration at the time.

Even if Abdullah had in fact offered explicit support for a military attack against Iran in the meeting with Petraeus, however, that would not be a reliable indicator of Saudi policy toward the issue, according to Chas Freeman, a veteran diplomat who served as Washington’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992 and maintains contact with top Saudi officials.

Freeman told IPS that such a statement would “fit a pattern of communication with the United States of ingratiating themselves with their protector.” (my emphasis)

Significantly, in that respect, the Abdullah-Petraeus meeting came three months after President Bush had visited Riyadh seeking support for a more confrontational stance against Iran; five weeks after Petraeus’s predecessor at CENTCOM, Adm. William Fallon, had been fired in part for public statements that there would be no war against Iran; and less than a month after Vice President Dick Cheney had reportedly sought support for military action during his own visit to the kingdom.

Thomas Lippman, former Washington Post Middle East bureau chief and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, who has written a book on Saudi-U.S. relations, also said that the Abdullah quote would have been in line with the usual Saudi pattern of “telling the Americans what they wanted to hear.”

“They wanted to be assured that they would be under the protection of the U.S.,” Lippman told IPS.

In fact, the cables covering the period since President Barack Obama took office suggest that Saudi views have given even greater emphasis to political and economic strategies in dealing with Iran than was the case in 2008.


UAE Worries About a “Preemptive Strike”


Despite bin Zayed’s bluster, the U.S. diplomat wrote in the Feb. 7, 2007, cable, the UAE “is clearly nervous about any U.S. actions that could upset their much larger and militarily superior neighbor.”

Indeed, two years later, the crown prince told visiting U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke that a “military solution would only delay [Iran's nuclear] program, not derail it” and that “war with Iran would only harm the UAE.” He also said he was “deeply concerned” over a possible Israeli military strike which, he added, “would have little impact on Iran’s capabilities,” according to an April 5, 2009, cable.

He repeated his concerns about an Israeli attack to other high-ranking U.S. visitors three months later. ...


Most recently, a Feb. 22, 2010, cable has the UAE’s foreign minister, Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, warning a visiting delegation headed by Rep. Nita Lowey, a strong supporter of Israel in Congress, that any “crisis or confrontation in the region [over Iran's nuclear program] would create oil supply problems worldwide.”


“Iran Has Not Bothered Us”

While confirming growing Arab fears about Iran’s regional clout and nuclear ambitions, the cables suggest that other Gulf Arab leaders – with the possible exception of Bahrain’s King Hamad, the only regional leader with a majority Shia population – have little or no appetite for military action against Iran.


A Feb. 2, 2010, cable makes it clear that the sultan of Oman, who has given the U.S. access to three military bases on its territory, is determined to maintain balance between Washington and Tehran. The cable reported that Muscat had twice rejected official U.S. offers to include it in a collective missile defense system aimed at Iran in 2009.

As for Bahrain, the Gulf’s only Shia-majority sheikhdom and host of the U.S. 5th Fleet, the Times quoted a November 2009 cable in which King Hamad al-Khalifa declares that Iran’s nuclear “program must be stopped” and warns that “[t]he danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”

No other cable from Manama elaborates, however, on what means the U.S. or other countries should use to halt the program.

(Inter Press Service)

Saudi Arabia, the largest financial backer of Islamic militants?

Cable: "Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups and the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton."

"Clinton: Saudis World’s Largest Terror Funders
WikiLeaks Cables Bring Renewed Attention to Saudi Terror Funding

by Jason Ditz, Dec. 5, 2010

A new flurry of WikiLeaks cables may prove embarrassing to Saudi Arabia, as the documents show US allegations that the nation is the “world’s largest source” for funding to al-Qaeda, (linked) the Taliban, and other Sunni terror groups.

The new documents include a December 2009 memo signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging diplomats to press Saudi Arabia on the funding efforts, despite other documents praising the Saudi government as a “key partner” is stopping such funding. (linked)

US officials have expressed concerns about Saudi funding for terror in the past, but the cables provide a more frank assessment of what the US sees as the major problems, primarily the Saudi government’s reluctance to crack down on religious charities. (linked)

Other dispatches point to other regional countries, from the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to Kuwait as serious problems, (linked) but it seems none are as serious a source of funds as Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government has yet to comment on the cables.

"US: Saudi Donors ‘Chief Financiers’ of al-Qaeda
Cable Sees US Influence Over Saudi Govt as 'Durable'

by Jason Ditz, Nov. 29, 2010

The documents released by WikiLeaks detail a complex US relationship with Saudi Arabia, with officials simultaneously railing against private Saudi donors as the “chief financiers” (linked) of al-Qaeda and other terror groups while praising the Saudi government as a key partner in stopping such funding.

One of the documents, a classified file from February coming ahead of Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Saudi kingdom, (linked) portrays US sway over the Saudi government as “durable” and says the US and Saudi agendas for the region are largely the same (right down to hostility toward Iran).

The portrayal of US faith in Saudi Arabia as one of its more cherished partners may well prove troubling, both as the Saudi King presses the US to attack Iran (linked) and as he uses his influential position to warn the US against other regional leaders he has lost faith in, notably Pakistani President Zardari.

The documents may also provide further insight into the atmosphere in which the Obama Administration agreed to sell the Saudi government $60 billion in weapons, the largest arms sale in the history of the world. (linked) This seems to be designed chiefly to bolster Saudi influence in the region, and secure them as an avatar of America’s own agenda.

People should never read about such cables without making sure to view videos with Michael Springman, sometimes spelled Springmann and sometimes referred to as Mike, as well as Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer who formerly was a member of Able Danger, which had for sole mandate to track al-Qaeda communications, movements, et cetera, worldwide and which discovered either three or four cells in the US, but which was incredibly required to shut down in 2001 prior to 9/11 obviously because the Bush administration didn't want interference from this US Army intelligence group. Lt. Col. Shaffer has said that if Able Danger had not been shut down, which is something he fought to prevent, then the team would've been able to prevent the 9/11 attacks. That's similar to the story of two former FBI agents or officers who I believe were fired, or else they quit because of being obstructed in their anti-terrorism work, and who then became whistleblowers.

Mike Springman was an officer at the US consulate in Saudi Arabia, in Jeddah, I believe, and he has similarly blown the whistle about Washington facilitating the entry of Saudis who could not legitimately be granted travel visas. Washington ordered him to stop his legitimate decisions and grant the visas. These were Saudis the State Department either listed as terrorists or people associated with terrorism or terrorist groups, perhaps Al Qaeda. Viewing the videos with him speaking will tell you what he said. It's been a while since I listened to them.

I wish that I remembered the names of the two FBI officers or agents, but don't. They had been tracking some suspected foreign terrorists in the US prior to 9/11 and they were ordered to stop doing this; if I recall the story correctly. There are surely videos with them speaking, but I don't recall their names, so can't be more helpful.

All of these three accounts are strongly related to Washington bitching about Saudi Arabia being the biggest financier for terrorists or terrorist groups. Yet, there's more. Sibel Edmonds is another person, whistleblower, with strongly relevant accounts. She finally was ungagged I believe last year, or the year before, and gave a testimony under oath in Ohio in either July or August of the same year. One thing she says and which others back is that Washington was in relation with Al Qaeda and the Taliban right up to 9/11.

Washington, the US, is the strongest facilitator and employer of terrorists and terrorist groups in the world. It's the greatest terrorist power there is; and I don't mean great in a good sense.

The diplomatic cable(s) the above articles by Jason Ditz are about would clearly be very omissive.

Cable: "Libya threatened UK with "dire reprisals" if the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, died in a Scottish prison."

Do a Google of for articles about the Lockerbie bombing and learn that the Libyan who was accused, as well as the Libyan government, have always been [innocent] and Libya only agreed to provide a lot of money as compensation to families of victims of Pan Am 103 in order to avoid sanctions, or other strong-arm actions, by the US and, I guess anyway, UK. Libya did not provide this compensation money due to admitting guilt, though western media would report that it was for that reason.

Articles at GR by by Ludwig De Braeckeleer are definitely to be recommended, but he has two and they're of 2007, so while they're definitely recommended, I also recommend Googling GR for articles by other authors, especially more recent articles. Add 2010 for search term, f.e. Then try for 2009 articles.

Learn the real story and then it'll be easily understandable that the Libyan leadership could definitely be angry about the possibility of the falsely accused and wrongly convicted Libyan be allowed to die in prison because of the bombing of Pan Am 103. It'll then be highly appreciable anger.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.