No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found.
'The Jewel of Norfolk,' a fanciful mermaid sculpture located in Norfolk, Virginia.The belief in mermaids may have arisen at the very dawn of our species. Magical female figures first appear in cave paintings in the late Paleolithic (Stone Age) period some 30,000 years ago, when modern humans gained dominion over the land and, presumably, began to sail the seas. Half-human creatures, called chimeras, also abound in mythology — in addition to mermaids, there were wise centaurs, wild satyrs, and frightful minotaurs, to name but a few.
But are mermaids real? No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples? That’s a question best left to historians, philosophers, and anthropologists.
The comprehensive research is said to have included multiple viewings of both Splash and The Little Mermaid. In addition, Patricia Arquette was brought in to contact the late Charlie from Chicken of the Sea; however, Arquette stated, "For real? I thought this was a joke? Guys, I only played a medium on TV. I'm not a psychic."
So walk tall tomorrow when you're around family and friends because the debate is finally settled: Mermaids do not exist.
It was a nailbiter there for a few years. Thank goodness the NOAA has solved the mystery.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
|
Tuesday,
July 3, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the US White House still
has no nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq, the State Dept is asked if
Barack even plans to name a nominee, Iraq is slammed with bombings, Joe
Biden's phone call to Nouri on behalf of ExxonMobil continues to get
attention in Iraq (while the US press continues to ignore it), and more.
Conservative Thomas J. Basile (Washington Times) argues
of Iraq, "The situation is a tragic reminder of just how fragile the
country was when Mr. Obama opted to end any significant involvement in
its future. It also may give Mitt Romney and the Republicans an
opportunity to open an effective foreign policy front against the
administration for leaving Iraq in the lurch and providing an
opportunity for Iran to extend its influence in the region."
Related, who is Peter W. Bodde? Diplopundit noted
in March that he is "a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, is
currently the Assistant Chief of Mission for Assistance Transition in
Iraq and Coordinator for Minority Issues at the U.S. Embassy in
Baghdad." He was in the news over the weekend. Saturday, the Himalayn News Service reported Peter
W. Bodde had been named the new US Ambassador to Nepal. He's set to to
go to Nepal "in late August" and he'll replace Scott H. DeLisi
James Jeffrey is no longer the US Ambassador in Iraq. He stepped down. The laughable Brett McGurk had been the new nominee but he withdrew his nomination. At a time when Iraq is seeing so much violence, the White House still has yet to name a new nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq and they're also transferring out people like Bodde who have experience? Bodde is not going from Iraq to Nepal. Nor should he be expected to. He has every right to downtime. And the point isn't that Bodde shouldn't be Ambassador to Nepal. The point is that the White House is dropping the ball repeatedly.
Dropping
the ball includes the fact that they're now scrambling to name the
third US Ambassador to Iraq since Barack has been sworn in. Bully Boy
Bush nominee Ryan Crocker agreed to stay on while Barack found a
nominee. That was Chris Hill who was confirmed and didn't make four
years, did he? So then Barack nominated James Jeffrey who, like Hill,
didn't even make two years in the post. Clearly, the White House has
done an awful job vetting people to be US Ambassador to Iraq. This is
the most costly diplomatic or 'diplomatic' US mission in the world.
There should not be this kind of turnover rate in the post. There
should have been a steady hand. Instead, this White House has turned US
Ambassador to Iraq into a revolving door post with each nominee having
about the same longevity of one Larry King's wives.
Where is the leadership?
And
that the Republican leadership in the Senate has failed to point this
out is rather surprising. They objected to Chris Hill but confirmed
him. When Jeffrey came before them, I really expected to see the
Ranking Member talk about how 'regretabble' it was that less than two
years after Hill was confirmed, they're again having to weigh a
nomination for US Ambassador to Iraq. Maybe if the Ranking Member were
John McCain and not Richard Lugar, something would have been said.
Since
there's no one running the mission currently, maybe the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee -- regardless of political party -- will start
asking the White House some tough questions? Today at the US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland faced some:
QUESTION: On Iraq.
MS. NULAND: On Iraq? Yeah.
QUESTION:
Yeah. Iraq has seen a great deal of violence in the last few weeks. It
always – the summer, it goes up. My question to you is: Are U.S.
activities or the State Department or the Embassy's activities in
Baghdad have been curtailed as a result of this spike of violence?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, not. But I'm going to refer you to Embassy Baghdad.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Could you also – could you update us on the status of the new ambassador to Baghdad?
MS. NULAND: You mean whether the White House will nominate a new candidate, is that what you're asking?
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: That is definitely a question for the White House, Said.
QUESTION: But surely you can say that they will.
MS. NULAND: Over to the White House for that one.
QUESTION:
Well, are you suggesting the White House is not going to name –
nominate someone to be the new ambassador to the White House – I mean,
to Iraq?
MS. NULAND: I'm suggesting that consideration on all ambassadorial appointments are the White House prerogative.
QUESTION: Well, are you aware that the Administration is not going to nominate someone to take that position?
MS. NULAND: I'm not aware one way or the other.
QUESTION:
Okay. Could you comment on some reports that the relationship between
Maliki and the United States is really quite tense these days?
MS.
NULAND: We continue to have the same kind of dialogue that we've had
all along. We maintain an open channel not only with the prime minister
but with all of the major political figures in Iraq. And we use those
channels to encourage them, among other things, to work well together
and to settle their political differences through constitutional
processes.
QUESTION: And who is leading that channel in Baghdad from the U.S. side?
MS. NULAND: The mission, at the moment, is led by our charge d'affaires who was the previous deputy.
Victoria
Nuland loves/lives to be evasive. The name she wouldn't provide is
Robert Stephen Beecroft. And, Nuland tells us, he was formerly the
deputy! Oh so he must have experience with Iraq, right? No. He's not
even been assigned to Iraq for a year yet. He began his first Iraq
assignment July 14, 2011. He's been Charge d'affaires since June 1st.
And
what position does he hold currently? The number two US official in
Iraq. Since James Jeffrey has abandoned his post -- and that is the
term for it, when Barack Obama was sworn in as US President, Ryan
Crocker agreed to stay on until Barack could find a successor -- and
since this is obviously a very delicate time for Iraq, is it really wise
to take the number two US official out of Iraq at a time when not only
is there no number one US official (that would be a US Ambassador to
Iraq) but the White House hasn't even named a nominee for the post.
If
the White House thinks they can get away without naming one in the lead
up to the US elections, they are mistaken. The GOP will jump all over
that to remind voters of Barack's indeciveness that characterized his
state legislature career and his Senate career and they will draw lines
between that and his mis-steps and failures once becoming president.
While Barack dithers, Iraq is again slammed with bombings today. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes "a series of attacks" in Karbala, Baghdad and Taji. BBC News focuses on a truck bombing in Diwaniya where the death toll has reached "at least 25" with another forty injured. AP notes the truck used in the bombing was a vegetable truck. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains,
"In that attack, some 99 miles (160 kilometers) south of Baghdad, a
suicide bomber parked a truck packed with explosives concealed by
watermelons and began calling shoppers to the truck." Alsumaria reports that the center of city has been closed to all traffic. Yang Lina (Xinhua) reports 75 injured in that bombing. Before morning was over in the US today, RT was reporting the death toll in the Diwaniya bombing has risen to 40.
AFP observes,
"The blast came just hours after near-simultaneous car bombs targeting
Shiite pilgrims on the outskirts of the central shrine city of Karbala
killed four people." Alsumaria notes
of the Karbala bombing that it hit at the popular market where fruits
and vegetables are sold, it left 11 dead and forty-five injured
(according to police sources) and that millions of Shi'ites are expected
to travel through Karbala this week to celebrate the birth of the
12th or Hidden Imam (9th century). Jamal Hashim and Mustafa Sabah (Xinhua) report, "Karbala's
twin bombings came as hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims have
started to march to the holy city to commemorate the birth of Imam
Mahdi, the last of the twelve most revered Shiite's Imams. Authorities
in Karbala expect that the number of pilgrims from Iraqi Shiite cities
and outside the country, who started to arrive to observe the ritual
ahead of its climax date on Thursday and Friday morning in Karbala will
exceed five millions."
Those weren't the only bombings today. Reuters adds, "Earlier
in the day, two roadside bombs targeting Shi'ite pilgrims killed four
people and wounded 21 near the central Iraqi city of Kerbala, hospital
and police sources said" while AP notes,
"In Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded next to a police patrol in the
Sunni-dominated Ghazaliya neighborhood, injuring three policemen and two
civilians, a police officer and a health official said." In addition,
the Telegraph of London reports,
"Another bomb attack in the town of Tuz Khurmatu, north of Baghdad,
killed a policeman and wounded another, an officer and a local doctor
said."
RTT counts at least 50 dead in today's violence. Deutsche Welle points out,
"The bombings were just the latest in a series of such attacks in Iraq
in recent weeks, which have raised fears that the county could be
slipping back into a wider pattern of violence between Sunni and Shiite
Muslims." Sky News notes,
"Security forces appear unable to stop the conflict since US troops
left Iraq last December, after nearly nine years of war."
Tim Arango (New York Times) has a more than solid report on the violence and the survivors but we're going to note this observation he makes:
Antony J. Blinken, the national security adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., wrote in Foreign Affairs recently
that since President Obama took office, "violence in Iraq has declined
and remains at historic lows -- a trend that has continued since the
last U.S. troops departed late last year."
In
fact, though, more Iraqis -- civilians and security force members alike
-- have died from attacks in the first six months of 2012 [2,101] than
in the comparable period of 2011 [1,832], according to United Nations
statistics.
2,101 deaths -- UN figures -- in just the first six months of the year. Where is the security?
Dropping back to the December 21, 2010 snapshot:
Shashank Bengali and Mohammed al-Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) report
point out the Cabinet is missing "the key ministries responsible for
security and military affairs for now, because lawmakers haven't agreed
on who should fill them. There's still no deal, either, on creating a
yet-to-be named strategic council -- a U.S.-backed initiative aimed at
curbing al-Maliki's powers -- which lawmarkers said could be weeks
away." Liz Sly and Aaron Davis (Washington Post) explain,
"Maliki appointed himself acting minister of interior, defense and
national security and said the three powerful positions would be filled
with permanent appointees once suitable candidates have been agreed on."
And
that's still true today. There are no heads to the security
ministries. Nouri's never nominated people for the posts. He likes to
say ___ is "acting" ____. But there's no such thing as "acting" in the
Constitution. If they are vacant, he controls the ministries. (By
contrast, if he nominates someone and Parliament confirms them, only a
vote in Parliament can remove them. We saw this when Nouri spent months
attempting to get Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq removed from
office. (He failed at that removal.) A real minister doesn't have to
do what Nouri says because Nouri can't fire them. A real minister can
run the ministry in a way that he or she feels best benefits the Iraqi
people. By controlling the security ministries, Nouri consoldiates his
own power which is why Iraqiya (rightly) called this a power-grab back
in 2010.
The
2010 elections were held in March of that year. The process to form a
government was supposed to last a few weeks. Instead it lasted over
eight months. Why? Nouri and his State of Law came in second in the
elections which meant he wasn't supposed to get first crack at forming a
Cabinet. That should have gone to first place Iraqiya. But the White
House chose to back Nouri. The Barack Obama White House chose to back a
man already repeatedly caught running secret prisons where people were
tortured, a man who attacked the press from his first days in office in
2006, a man who had a track record of no results (his entire first term,
where he failed to meet the White House established benchmarks for
progress that he had agreed to). They backed this nightmare and that's
why Bush starting the illegal war really doesn't matter at this point.
The
Iraqi people bravely went to the polls and expressed their will. It
wasn't to give Nouri a second term. When the White House chose to
ignore democracy, the will of the people and the votes to back Nouri,
Barack bought into the fate of Iraq. Sherwood Ross (OpEdNews) notes:
Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki's "harassment and persecution of anyone deemed
a threat to himself or his party has dramatically reduced freedom
throughout Iraq," a noted journalist reports.
What's
more, al-Maliki is presiding over a system "rife with corruption and
brutality, in which political leaders use security forces and militias
to repress enemies and intimidate the general population."
So
writes former Los Angeles Times foreign correspondent Ned Parker in the
March/April issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine. His is a rather grim
assessment of life in "The Iraq We Left Behind" or "Welcome to the
World's Next Failed State."
Now Edward R.
Murrow Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Parker writes
that al-Maliki, America's favorite, "will keep striving for absolute
power, using fear, intimidation, and cronyism." And he adds that by
turning a blind eye to Maliki's encroaching authoritarianism, "U.S.
officials allowed Iraq's political culture to disintegrate."
Whereas
some Iraqi officials wonder if the next elections will be free and
fair, Parker writes, "several former U.S. military officers wonder if
the elections will happen at all."
That's who Barack backed. That's who he trashed the election, the votes and any hopes of democracy in Iraq for.
Iraqis
get to vote in two sets of elections -- or are supposed to get to vote
in two sets of elections: Provincial elections and parliamentary
elections. The provincial elections determine the governance of the
provinces. The parliamentary elections determine who sits in Parliament
and are supposed to determine who gets first crack at being prime
minister-designate. Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports
that the Electoral Commission is stating provincial elections will be
postponed until April 2013 and that this is due to both an amendment to a
law being needed and also due to budget concerns. Elections were
supposed to be held January 31, 2013. Budget concerns? Iraq brought in
over six billion in oil revenues last month alone -- and last month was
the worst month for oil revenues in Iraq since February 2011. All Iraqi News reported
yesterday on the lack of an election law and quoted the Independent
High Electoral Commission's Chair Faraj al-Haidari stating that the
elections would not be held on time. Today All Iraqi News reports
that Arshad al-Salehi, Chair of the Turkman Front, met with the UN
Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler and stressed
that all segments of the Iraqi people need to be represented in the
elections.
This does not effect the Kurdistan Regional Government which holds their own provincial election. They are currently working on a law regarding the Christian minority because, as the law reads currently, Christians must vote for other Christians. Three provinces currently make up the KRG -- Duhok, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah. If Article 140 of the Constitution is ever implemented (Nouri was supposed to implement it by the end of 2007, per the Constitution), Kirkuk might also become part of the KRG. Someone wants to visist the KRG. Al Mada reports the National Alliance wants to send a delegation -- with Ibrahim al-Jaafari mentioned as the possible head -- to the KRG. This would be an effort to smooth things over for Nouri. Not a smart effort considering the long standing issues between the Kurds and al-Jaafari. Haitham Jubouri, attorney for State of Law, states that the withdrawal of confidence in Nouri is no longer possible. A lot of people seem to believe Moqtada al-Sadr has changed his position. There's nothing he's said that's changed his position. He appears to be taken the issue of questioning very seriously. And would appear to be presenting himself as impartial and reluctant. That's been his position all along. Is Nouri going to appear before Parliament for questioning? If he follows the Constitution, yes. There's not X number needed for questioning. He has been asked to appear. Whether he does or not, per the Constitution, he has to. If he does, per Moqtada's statements, an opinion will be formed based on Nouri's answers. If the answers are not satisifactory, Moqtada -- with a heavy heart and great reluctantce -- would have his bloc vote for no-confidence if the others got their required votes. As Al Mada reports today, the vote is currently postponed because, among other reasons, Jalal Talabani remains out of the country (that reason comes from the Sadr bloc). Nouri may not appear before Parliament. Alsumaria has Moqtada al-Sadr already attempting to set guidelines for the Reform Commission. Yesterday al-Jaafari announced that the Reform Commission had held two hearings so far. All Iraqi News reports the third meeting was held at al-Jaafari's home last night. There will be a meeting Saturday in Baghdad. What's the Reform Commission? Nouri's attempt to avoid a national conference.
The
national conference. To give Nouri his second term as prime minister
and to end Political Stalemate I (the over eight month period of
gridlock after the elections), the US said, "Hey, Iraqiya, Kurds,
everybody, let's all be adults and end this gridlock. Let's figure out
what you want and we know Nouri wants a second term as prime minister,
so let's draw up a contract outlining what your blocs get in exchange
for that. And don't worry, this is a binding contract and we are
backing you and the contract."
That
was the Erbil Agreement. It allowed Nouri to be named prime
minister-designate in November 2010 and prime minister in December of
2010.
But
that wasn't a gift to Nouri. That was in exchange for his concessions
on certain items. Instead, Nouri trashed the Erbil Agreement, the US
government turned its back on the Kurds (to the point that relations
with the Kurds right now are at an all time low) and on the new Iraqiya
and everyone else.
Part
of the reason that the US has been unable to fix anything, to mediate
successfully, is due to the fact that Barack's White House has ensured
that the US government is not to be trusted by Iraqi politicians.
The
Kurds were told in January of 2011, told by US officials, "Be patient.
Nouri will return to the Erbil Agreement." He didn't. And by the
summer of 2011, with no support coming from DC, the Kurds demanded Nouri
return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr quickly
joined the Kurds in that demand. This is Political Stalemate II.
December 21, 2011, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Iraqi
President Jalal Talabani began calling for a national conference. Nouri
said no. Then he stone walled. Then he finally went along with
Jalal's call for an April 5th start date. But then he called it off
less than 24 hours before the conference.
April
28, 2012, efforts began for a no-confidence vote on Nouri. We could go
through all of that but suffice is to say, Jalal met with US officials
after the petition got the needed number of signatures for a vote of
no-confidence (that number was only needed for a floor vote -- there is
no number requirement for Parliament to call for a vote of
no-confidence). US officials pressured the forever-buckle Jalal and he
refused to pass on the petition. Then he fled Iraq for an 'emergency
procedure' in Germany (knee surgery).
Let's
hope the US got something out of it because they may have leaned on
Jalal for the last time. Not because Jalal will suddenly find a spine
but because Jalal's actions have seriously hurt his standing in the KRG.
Now we're going back to today's US State Dept press breifing.
QUESTION:
Okay. Could you comment on some reports that the relationship between
Maliki and the United States is really quite tense these days?
MS. NULAND:
We continue to have the same kind of dialogue that we've had all along.
We maintain an open channel not only with the prime minister but with
all of the major political figures in Iraq. And we use those channels to
encourage them, among other things, to work well together and to settle
their political differences through constitutional processes.
QUESTION: And who is leading that channel in Baghdad from the U.S. side?
MS. NULAND: The mission, at the moment, is led by our charge d'affaires who was the previous deputy.
What's
so tense these days? ExxonMobil and the KRG signed a contract last
fall. Nouri has repeatedly attempted to kill that contract. As June
drew to an end, he sent a formal letter to the White House demanding
that Barack kill the ExxonMobil contract. Forget that it's the
immensely powerful oil industry and pretend for a moment it was Betty
Crocker and they were planning to send millions of dry cake mixes to
Baghdad. Barack is the President of the United States. There's a lot
of power with that position. But the president of the United States
-- regardless of whom he or she is -- does not control US business,
cannot give orders to US businesses. The United States has no king or
queen.
Now let's return to the fact that it is
ExxonMobil, that it is the oil industry. Many have accused the illegal
war of being all about oil to begin with. Former Fed Chairman Alan
Greenspan briefly admitted to that before rushing to deny what he wrote
when there was pushback. (What he had written in his book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World
was, "Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of
mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned
about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the
functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically
inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely
about oil.") From SourceWatch:
A US president will tell the oil industry what to do?
That would be novel.
More often the oil industry tells the White House what it will do. From yesterday's snapshot:
Meanwhile
remember when Little Saddam (Nouri al-Maliki) forgot he was a puppet
and thought he could demand that the White House get ExxonMobil to drop
their deal with the Kurds? Silly puppet. Administrations dance for oil
corporations. Dar Addustour reports
that US Vice Presidetn Joe Biden phoned Nouri on Thursday to express
the US government's belief that Nouri needs to stop trying to halt that
deal and that Nouri was informed that the F-16s Iraq 'needs' will not be
supplied if Nouri doesn't stop trying to halt he ExxonMobil deal. It's
amazing. Torture cells didn't bother the White House. Killing gay men
and men suspected of being gay didn't bother the White House.
Attacking Iraqi youths didn't bother the White House. But when a
billion dollar ExxonMobil deal was threatened, suddenly the White House
is ready to pull the F-16s.
Today Dar Addustour columnist As Sheikh explores
the issue and finds Nouri in an embarrassing situation having made a
demand and been not only denied his request but informed that if he
keeps attacking ExxonMobil's deal with the KRG, he won't get the F-16s
he's been insisting he needs. The Thursday night call between Biden and
Nouri is noted and As Sheikh says Joe also threatened to deny a number
of visas to Iraqi officials. As Sheikh feels that Iraqis can't grasp
the power of ExxonMobil in the US and how it can sway an
administration. He may be right.
Turning to the US and political prisoner Lynne Stewart. This week's Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey (first airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network) featured an update on Lynne from her husband.
Glen
Ford: Lynne Stewart, the New York-based human rights attorney
sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges related to her defense of a
terrorism sdefendant has lost an appeal in federal court. She's
confined at a medical prison near Fort Worth, Texas. We spoke with
Lynne Stewart's husband and fellow activist Ralphy Poynter.
Ralph
Poynter: When I read the papers, and I read them again, one of the
things that struck me is that they're referring to Lynne as having
disrespect for the law. My reaction to that is, anybody who studied the
history of American law knows it's based in genocide, slavery and the
double standard. And so the only things that we can look to in America
that are positive are those people who disobeyed the law and those
people who fought to right the wrongs, who followed justice rather than
law. I like that better. I am proud of her. I am not saddended -- the
things they said about her give me great pride. We don't have to look
far to see where she was afoul of the law [. . .] supporting immigrant
rights, immigrant children, supporting the Black Movement, And all of
these things oppose the law. So they and those who seek justice are
coming at opposite ends. So I applaud Lynne. She has just had her
operation that she should have had 36 months ago and she was scheduled
to have her operation when the Second Circuit said she must go to jail
immediately because 'she's traveling around the country to law schools
and universities corruption our youth.' So she's just had her
operation. She went to a hospital. She said she had good treatment at
the hospital. But they said it was time to go back. Not according to
medical necessity but according to prison necessity. She was concerned
about going back to a prison that is not hospital clean. But Antoinette
Martinez, an inmate from the Bronx, made sure that the section she went
back to in the prison was as clean as a hospital. And this really
gives me -- Lynne says when she looked and saw it, she came to tears,
that the inmates know who she is and are protecting her. They cleaned.
So here we are. Lynne is fighting for the rights of the people int here
and some of the people inside understand who she is and they're
fighting for her rights the best way they can.
Last night, I filled in for Elaine and wrote about Lynne so you can refer to that for more but we'll note Peter Daniels (WSWS) article:
One of Stewart's lawyers, Herald Price Fahringer, said that an appeal to the full appeals court would be made, and that attorneys might eventually ask for a Supreme Court review. The opinion is a "terrible deterrent for people speaking out in public," Fahringer said. Another attorney for Stewart, Jill R. Shellow, said, "Our intent is to pursue all of the legal remedies available to Lynne to redress her unreasonable sentence… Lynne was not and is not a terrorist. She was a fine and dedicated lawyer. She is almost 73, and under the best of circumstances will not be released from prison until 2018. That's a lifetime, her lifetime." The vindictiveness of the appellate judges compares with the inability and unwillingness of any court up to the Supreme Court to put a halt to the genuinely criminal activities that continue to be carried out at the Guantanamo Bay prison, not to mention the drone attacks and other violations of international law by the Obama administration that provoked the condemnation of former US president Jimmy Carter this past week. |
No comments:
Post a Comment