The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
My initial reaction to the president's speech
Anyhow, I must admit, I was deeply disappointed after my first reading of the speech. Luckily for me (and the president, for what it's worth), on my second reading, I noticed a paragraph I had earlier missed. I think it's the most important part of the entire speech.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
It isn't quite double liberation, but it is the first time the President has given proper weight to the Khomeinist/Ba'athist axis, and he made clear we will take action against their nefarious efforts. I also liked the upcoming provincial elections (maybe that's just my electo-philism coming through), and the reference to every neighbor except Syria and Iran. That will be noticed in Iraq's Sunni communities.
I'm not so sure on the November de facto deadline for the Iraqi government's "plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces." The rest of the political plans for Iraq were pretty good, and clearly designed to send a political message to Iraqi Sunnis - namely, that they have a stake in the new Iraq. In that vital context, I'm willing to swallow de-de-Baathification, although I'm swallowing real hard on that one.
Overall, I saw a clear strategy for battling not only the al Qaedists, but also the Khomeinists and their Syrian proxies, both politically and militarily. Is it everything I wanted? No. Is it enough to bring victory to America and freedom to Iraq, both of which I still consider vital? In my view, yes.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My initial reaction to the president's speech:
My reaction is here
Posted by: Winston | 2007-01-10 8:53:12 PM
This will all be pointless unless, this time, they tell the soldiers it's okay to kill our enemies.
Shoot first ask questions later and forget about military tribunals and civil actions for war crimes etc. War itself is a crime against humanity, so stop worrying about political correctness. That is incompatible with the theater of war. However, it is necessary to rid the world of those who would kill innocents.
Most human progress happened after monsters were killed and decent men prevailed. It's hard to be creative when your ass is being shot off.
For you relativists out there ... Unlike what our former GM Adrien Clarkson did when we first sent off troops to Afghanistan ... you must never, ever tell soldiers to go and be nice. You must tell them to kill the bastards who are trying to kill us.
That is the seemingly forgotten part of war ... to go kill the enemy and keep killing him until he surrenders, or until there is no one left to kill.
Only then can peace prevail.
That is reality.
What really is Bush's plan? Does anyone know for sure?
This whole thing will eventually be brought to a head or tipping point, when Israel finally bomb the shit out of Iran (maybe with nukes) to save their very own existence.
We can only hope that Mr, Bush has factored that point into his big plan.
Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-10 9:05:48 PM
This whole "Iraqi Democracy" thing is a train wreck.
Imagine defeating the Wehrmacht and occupying Germany in 1945, then letting Heinrich Himmler and his Private SS(Odessa Organization) form part of the new 'Democratic' German government.
That is what President Bush and his pals are doing with Muqtada al-Sadr and his Shiite Militia.
What really is Bushes' strategy?
Something severly short of victory.
Building a democracy in a war zone while the war rages on?
FOLLY. STUPIDITY. MORAL TURPITUDE.
How can the enemy be part of the new 'democratic' government while having a private militia and engaging in massacres and acts of terrorism?
There is NO SUBSTITUTE for VICTORY.
hint (you'll recognize victory when the enemy sues for peace)
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-10 10:09:46 PM
For Shiite sake!
Why can't the US let Iran run Iraq for a while?
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-10 10:31:16 PM
When collateral damage is of more concern than your own soldiers stay the hell out of any conflict.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2007-01-10 10:35:50 PM
Have you ever heard a shot fired in anger? No commentary, but I am curious.
Posted by: Zog | 2007-01-10 10:53:42 PM
Set you free,
Are you serious?
If the U.S. wanted to do that they could have given Iran the nod they way they did to Saddam before he invaded Kuwait and just let it happen.
Is there anybody who will cleave to the U.S. in a military alliance for preemptive action if they let Iran have Iraq.
Bush, Blair, Howard, Harper, all will be on the ash heap of political history if the U.S. is not victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is not merely a matter of spin or selling a pig's ear as a silk purse.
You do realize that the Sunnis have nuclear weapons via Pakistan and that Saudi paid for them?
Saudi is not going to let Iran become the preeminent oil producing nation,
get the bomb,
AND settle the Israeli problem?
If they had Iraq, Iran would be just itching to get Saudis oil AND control of Mecca and Medina.
The GWOT is only a tar baby because the pols refuse to treat it like every other war before Korea.
It's time to ditch the 'Flexible/Proportional Response' concept, focus on pure War Aims and GET'ER DONE by fighting a Total War.
Our soldiers must destroy the enemies war making capability first and foremost, we'll pick up the pieces later and show them mercy in an environment where it CANNOT be mistaken for weakness.
Maybe then we can fantasize about people with a 7th century dark ages mentality becoming enlightened and living a lawful existence.
burn the jihad down
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-10 11:18:00 PM
Lookie here y'all ... those wogs in the middle east don't deserve a system as noble as democracy.
A free democratic way of life must be earned.
Ever heard of "freedom is never given ... it must be taken.
Those sand snorters don't even want to bother earning a living never mind a free society. The only thing they value in the "free" society is getting their hands of other people's money for watching TV and teaching their kids to hate us.
I am beginning to think that the Muslims world suffers from even greater self-loathing that our leftists here in the west. They certainly have more reason.
It's way past time to take off the gloves.
I can imagine that our elites who drink tea with the leaders of the middle east peoples, but that is the veneer of civility that they put on to dupe the big egos who pretend to have a handle on world affairs.
Just as most business, government and work places suffer a lack of real management, so it is with our leadership at all levels. The myth of management is that it exits.
We are all in a big crap shoot on this planet and our biggest players can't even mount a decent bluff.
Just ranting on here ... sorry.
Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-11 12:00:01 AM
Oops, I guess I have mixed my metaphors ... that should have read .. we are in a big poker game on this planet ..... etc
Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-11 12:02:24 AM
I think Duke's evasion of your query and his general hollow bluster suggest that the answer is, no, he's never fired a shot in anger. However, you can rest assured that he does expect other people to die so that he might rant on about "leftists" and "sand snorters" when he's had a few.
Posted by: truewest | 2007-01-11 12:26:18 AM
Notwithstanding the President's assurances that his Generals inform him this plan can work, I am undecided. There are two large factors that must change before Iraq can be won decisively. They have both been mentioned by others in this thread.
The first is the Iran/Syria issue. I am not sure that Iran needs to be engaged directly at this time over the Iraq war but the border needs to be sealed. If that is not possible, the USAF needs to cross the border and attack bases operating within Iranian boundaries that are feeding the Iraqi situation. This will clearly cause an escalation and I estimate that even more troops would be needed. I think that if the US should use its military might against Iran, Assad would get the message and leave Iraq (and perhaps even Lebanon) alone. If not, Syria is a small problem compared to Iran.
The second issue is the restraint that US forces have been operating under. Mr. Bush did say that the Rules of Engagement will be changing but I did not notice any details. I estimate we will find out what this means in the near future.
If I were to mention a third issue, it is the one Speller brings up - some of the Iraqi "allies" are, well, at least questionable.
I am sure that history will let us know whether this plan will work or not, but I am undecided at this time because we need more details on Iran and the general ROE.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-11 5:37:46 AM
Zog and Truewest ... you know nothing about what I have done in my life.
Clearly, You are a couple of know-it-all fools.
Try having sex with another person sometime. it may help you grow up a bit.
Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-11 8:59:00 AM
Could it be've been looking at this all wrong.
It's all about Sunni/Shiite. When the tribes have not been kept occupied killing each other over who is the rightful successor to Muhammad for the past 1400 years, they turn the anger that fuels them onto others.
Sunni ‘countries' include Saudi Arabia, Syria.
Shiite include Iran and the majority population of Iraq. Those two countries did not exist before the Treaty of Versailles.
These sandmonkeys do not recognize artificial borders imposed upon them by France, the US and Great Britain nearly 88 years ago.
All they care about is making their own neighbourhood safe from the other major tribe.
They can't figure out that the cycle of violence cannot stop, no matter what the issue was 1400 years ago.
It's always somebody else's fault.
Our problem is that we see the conflict in terms of countries, where in fact that's the cycle of killing, the prison that those people have designed for themselves.
Can we do anything to change something that's ingrained into these immature people's psyche for 144 years? I doubt it.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-11 9:07:12 AM
The President was right a few years ago when he said Iran, Iraq and North Korea were an axis of evil. Imagine if Saddam were still in control, or worse - imagine if his sons took over the reins of Iraq, continuing to work hard to develop WMD (subsequent reports from the UN indicate Saddam smuggled out WMD development resources into Syria before, during and after the Iraq war).
So the plan was to remove the threat of Saddam (and his sons), turn Iraq (and Afstan) into democracies that would be strategic allies instead of terrorist-harboring-and-aiding rogue states, thereby surrounding and putting pressure on Iran to do the same.
This is why Iran is sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq to make the U.S. look bad. They realize this is a proxy war - better to fight in Iraq than Iran. We should realize the same - better to fight in Iraq then here at home.
Even if the whole approach (Iraq and/or Afstan) is completely misguided, at the very least, we've killed and arrested thousands of terrorists who otherwise would likely have been plotting to kill more of us on our own soil.
And no, we don't "create" terrorists by being in Iraq - they hate us regardless just for not being Islamic, not for anything we have or haven't done.
Posted by: Joel | 2007-01-11 9:17:36 AM
"This is why Iran is sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq to make the U.S. look bad."
Yes, Iran is making the U.S. look bad.
"They realize this is a proxy war - better to fight in Iraq than Iran. We should realize the same - better to fight in Iraq then here at home."
We should be fighting them in Iran not Iraq.
We should also be fighting in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
"Even if the whole approach (Iraq and/or Afstan) is completely misguided, at the very least, we've killed and arrested thousands of terrorists who otherwise would likely have been plotting to kill more of us on our own soil."
Yes, the whole approach IS misguided.
Killing them by the thousands isn't good enough and there are only about 400 detainees in Gitmo.
They need to be killed by the tens and hundreds of thousands.
Total War until there is no more threat or potential for a threat.
"And no, we don't "create" terrorists by being in Iraq - they hate us regardless just for not being Islamic, not for anything we have or haven't done."
I totally agree with this.
Islam has got to go.
Quotes Posted by: Joel | 11-Jan-07 9:17:36 AM
Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-11 9:39:17 AM
Thanks for jogging my memory.
An air force general as much admitted that Saddam put all his weapons of mass destruction on planes to be stored in Syria, a geographic area controlled by a fellow Sunni tribesman.
I saw the general being interviewd on TV and when the interviewer asked the general how he knew this, he said “Because the young pilots who flew the cargo to Syria told me.''
So, the Syrian Sunnis have the weapons and the Shiite iranians are providing so-called cross-border help to their fellow tribesmen in Iraq, which has a majority Shiite population.
And people are surprised?
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-11 9:56:58 AM
Speller said it best
"Islam has got to go"
Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-11 10:22:35 AM
When Bush formed the'coallition of the gullible',I must admit I was one of those Canadians saying we must stand by our biggest ally and defeat this threat to world peace.
I was soooo wrong.
Not only did Bush et al start a war their citizens have no stomach to see through to the end,he removed vital resources from the REAL WOT in Afgan so we are unable to do the job properly there either.
From WMD's to linking Saddam to terrorism to bringing democracy to Iraq,his reasons for being in Iraq have changed almost as fast as they were discredited.
Bush's ill-planned moves have done more to erode the west's resolve to defeat the very real threat of terror than the terrorists themselves ever could have dreamed.The msm made sure the job was complete.What a quagmire.
A few more troops in Iraq?That is his solution?What a joke.
BTW,I must also comment on these brain-washed twits strutting around claiming Chretien was a moral hero by keeping us out of this mess.Bullsh*t.
Just as he refused to make a move on SSM until the courts did,he hummed and hawed and avoided any commitment one way or the other to supporting the US.It was not until the UN refused to sanction the invasion that Chretien finally took a position.I suspect if the UN sanctioned this invasion,we would be there right now.Yeah,some great leader.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-11 10:33:02 AM
I fully agree that Islam got to go.
As long as they kept to themselves in their countries, I was willing to leave them alone. Now that they are trying to get nukes, we must deal with them before it's too late. We must not wait that they use nukes against Israel or give them to terrorists who would blow up a city in America.
The only way I could accept Bush's move is if it is a first step to deal with Iran and Syria. Of course, politics is involved. It would be easier if a strong republican leader was elected as US president in 2008. Someone like Ronald Reagan.
The only one I could think of would be Arnold S., governor of California. But he is not a US citizen for long enough. Too bad, we would need a terminator to terminate Islam!
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-11 1:21:45 PM
Some very valid observations here. First it is useless to send whatever number of soldiers into any battle with their hands tied behind their back. This is the main reason the battles are still being waged by the enemies. Second they must seal the borders to stop the on-going entry and retreat of outside terrorists. Once done, the ones caught inside the country, cut off from help and arms, can and should be defeated - again provided the military is allowed to do its job.
Another huge mistake in the beginning was allowing Islam to be included in the new constitution. I fear that as long as that remains the case it is hopeless to expect a free society there.
But a worst mistake would be to allow the Islamists to win, and any retreat however worded will translate into victory for them. Both Russia and Red China are seeking a weakening of the West which motivates them to assist the Islamists.
It has become very similar to the scenario played out in Vietnam with PC prevented the military from doing its job and both Russia (Soviet Union) and Red China doing everything to assist the Vietcong - including sending in large numbers of Chinese soldiers against the Americans.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-11 5:41:56 PM
actually, ebt, you're the troll here. You offer nothing of substance, your ignorance is both deep and wide-ranging and even your abuse is witless. Basically, you're the neighbourhood sociopath, a drooling, barking, threatening joke. It's all very well to ask the doc double the meds, but if you don't take the pills.....
Posted by: truewest | 2007-01-11 7:19:05 PM
ebt (or is that b.e. tyler?), you're a sad, sick little fuck. No doubt you think of yourself as a credit to the conservative movement.
Posted by: truewest | 2007-01-11 8:22:02 PM
Is Bush's War Winding Down or Heating Up?
The Coming Attack on Iran
by Paul Craig Roberts
Most Americans believe that Bush’s Iraqi misadventure is over. The occupation has lost the support of the electorate, the Congress, the generals and the troops. The Democrats are sitting back waiting for Bush to come to terms with reality. They don’t want to be accused of losing the war by forcing Bush out of Iraq. There are no more troops to commit, and when the "surge" fails, Bush will have no recourse but to withdraw. A little longer, everyone figures, and the senseless killing will be over.
Recent news reports indicate that this conclusion could be an even bigger miscalculation than the original invasion.
On January 7 the London Times reported that it has learned from "several Israeli military sources" that "Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons."
The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.
The Times reports that "Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack."
In other news reports Israeli General Oded Tira is quoted as follows: "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."
General Tira gives the Israel Lobby the following tasks: (1) "turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran," (2) exert influence on European countries so that "Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again," and (3) "clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran."
Israel’s part, General Tira says, is to "prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of air bases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran."
British commentators report that "the British media appears to be softening us up for an attack on Iran." Robert Fox writing in The First Post says, "Suddenly the smell of Britons being prepared for an attack on Iran is all pervasive."
On January 7 the Jerusalem Post reported that Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the Israeli newspaper that "Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable" and that "the use of force against Teheran remained an option." The Post notes that "Hoyer is considered close to the Jewish community and many Israeli supporters have hailed his elevation in the House." Hoyer was the Israel Lobby’s first victory over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who preferred Rep. John Murtha for the post. Murtha was the first important Democrat to call for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
On November 20 the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, reported that President Bush said he would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran.
Bush showed that he was in Israel’s pocket when he blocked the world’s attempt to stop Israel’s bombing of Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Many commentators believe that the failure of the neoconservatives’ "cakewalk war" has destroyed their influence. This is a mistaken conclusion. The neoconservatives are long time allies of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party and are part of the Israel Lobby in the US. The Israel Lobby represents the views of only a minority of American Jews but nevertheless essentially owns both political parties and most of the US media. As the neoconservatives are an important part of this powerful lobby, they remain extremely influential.
The Lobby works to increase the neoconservatives’ influence. To appreciate the Lobby’s influence, try to find columnists in the major print media and TV commentators who are not apologists for Israel, who do not favor attacking Iran, and who support withdrawing from Iraq. Recently, Bill "One-Note" Kristol, a rabid propagandist for war against Muslims, was given a column in Time magazine. Why would Time think its readers want to read a war propagandist? Could the reason be that the Israel Lobby arranged for Time to receive lucrative advertising contracts in exchange for a column for Kristol?
Neoconservatives have called for World War IV against Islam. In Commentary magazine Norman Podhoretz called for the cultural genocide of Islamic peoples. The war is already opened on four fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iran.
The Bush administration has used its Ethiopian proxies to overthrow the Somali Muslims who overthrew the warlords who drove the US from Somalia. The US Navy and US intelligence are actively engaged with the Ethiopian troops in efforts to hunt down and capture or kill the Somali Muslims. US Embassy spokesman Robert Kerr in Nairobi said that the US has the right to pursue Somalia’s Islamists as part of the war on terror.
For at least a year the Bush administration has been fomenting and financing terrorist groups within Iran. Seymour Hersh and former CIA officials have exposed the Bush administration’s support of ethnic minority groups within Iran that are on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Last April US Representative Dennis Kucinich wrote a detailed letter to President Bush about US interference in Iran’s internal affairs. He received no reply.
The Israeli/neoconservative plan, of which Bush may be a part or simply be a manipulated element, is to provoke a crisis with Iran in which the US Congress will have to support Israel. Both the Israeli government and the American neoconservatives are fanatical. It is a mistake to believe that either will be guided by reason or any appreciation of the potentially catastrophic consequences of an attack on Iran.
US aircraft carriers sitting off Iran’s coast are sitting ducks for Iran’s Russian missiles. The neoconservatives would welcome another "new Pearl Harbor."
The US media is totally unreliable. It cannot go against Israel, and it will wrap itself in the flag just as it did for the invasion of Iraq. The American public has been deceived (again) and believes that Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear armaments to be used to wipe Israel off the map. The fact that Americans are such saps for propaganda makes effective opposition to the neoconservatives’ plan for WWIV practically impossible.
Large percentages of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Recent polls show that 32% still believe that Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 18% believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attack. WXIA-TV in Atlanta posted viewers comments about Hussein’s execution on its web site. Atlantan Janet Wesselhoft was confident that Saddam Hussein is "the one who started terrorism in this country, he needs to be put to rest."
Even the London Times is in the grip of Israeli propaganda. In its report of Israel’s plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, the Times says that Iranian president "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map.’" It has been shown by a number of credible experts that this quote is a made-up concoction taken completely out of context. Ahmadinejad said no such thing.
In a world ruled by propaganda, lies become truths. The power of the Israel Lobby is so great that it has turned former President Jimmy Carter, probably the most decent man ever to occupy the Oval Office and certainly the president who did the most in behalf of peace in the Middle East, into an anti-semite, an enemy of Israel. The American media, from its "conservative" end to its "liberal" end did its best to turn Carter into a pariah for telling a few truths about Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
If truth be known, there is nothing to stop the Israeli/neoconservative cabal from widening the war in the Middle East.
As I previously reported, the neoconservatives believe that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would force Muslims to realize that they have no recourse but to submit to the Israeli/US will. The use of nuclear weapons is being rationalized as necessary to destroy Iran’s underground facilities, but the real purpose is to terrorize Islam and to bring it to heel.
Until the US finds the courage to acquire a Middle East policy of its own, Americans will continue to reap the evil sowed by the Israel Lobby.
Posted by: Eric | 2007-01-12 4:42:35 AM
How did I do?
"The Israeli/neoconservative plan, of which Bush may be a part or simply be a manipulated element, is to provoke a crisis with Iran in which the US Congress will have to support Israel. Both the Israeli government and the American neoconservatives are fanatical. It is a mistake to believe that either will be guided by reason or any appreciation of the potentially catastrophic consequences of an attack on Iran."
The Islamist/fascist plan, of which the Democrats may be a part or simply be a manipulated element, is to provoke a crisis with America in which China and Russia will have to support Iran. Both the Iranian government and the the new Democratic Leadership are fanatical. It is a mistake to believe that either will be guided by reason or any appreciation of the potentially catastrophic consequences of not participating in an attack on Iran.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-12 6:01:52 AM
The long comment (or ice water dog?) is nothing new. If one will go back in time and read anti jewish propaganda by Goebbels in 1935, he will understand how facism and anti semitism works.
scroll back to 1935.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-12 10:30:21 AM
eric: LOL...honestly, I don't know where to start. Jimmy Carter "the most decent man" ever to occupy the oval office. Maybe that should read, "the most gullible man", or "the man most in the pocketbook of the mid-east muslims"...
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-01-12 6:06:08 PM
And Remi your trick is also the newest and most common one from anyone who blindly supports Israeli foriegn policy. If they attack our view point just brand them anti-semites and compare them to Adolf Hitler to shut them up. Give me a fuckin break.
Posted by: Eric | 2007-01-12 7:29:06 PM
Zog said (to Duke)
"Have you ever heard a shot fired in anger? "
Truewest responded (for Duke)
"I think Duke's evasion of your query and his general hollow bluster suggest that the answer is, no, he's never fired a shot in anger. "
FalseEast (pointed to Mecca, I guess)
"hearing" about a shot fired in anger is quite different from actually "firing" the shot in anger.
Do try to keep it straight.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-13 6:06:26 PM
"How did I do?"
Brilliant! You know your stuff.
Erin/Andrew L on the otherhand will need iodine tablets to help prevent thyroid cancer. Either that or increased dosages of anti-psychotics.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-13 6:12:01 PM
"How did I do?"
Brilliant! You know your stuff.
Erin/Andrew L on the otherhand will need iodine tablets to help prevent thyroid cancer. Either that or increased dosages of anti-psychotics.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-01-13 6:12:02 PM
Thanks. I'll start to work on it on the other thread.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-13 7:37:03 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.