The United States is engaged in war with radical Islam that aims to expel Westerners from the Mid-East and re-establish a caliphate modeled after the Ottoman Empire,   with hundreds of millions of people under subjugation.

The presence of the United States in the Mid-East, with ties to Israel and oil interests in Saudi Arabia,  is seen by the militants as a situation that must be reversed, even at the cost of millions of Muslim lives.

Osama bin Laden   and other radical leaders have decreed that Muslims are at war with Americans and are sanctioned to kill American men, women, and children wherever they can be found.

As the war has evolved, Iran   and Syria   are now open sponsors of Al Queda’s   goals.

Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons and has already declared that once this goal is achieved, it will use atomic weapons against Israel and, presumably, the United States — the Great Satan.

Iran, emboldened when it took American diplomats hostage in the 1970s, a blatant act of war that was allowed to pass without reprisal by the weak Carter administration, has its own reasons to believe that the United States is a paper tiger.

A Tragic Misinterpretation of History

The use of atomic weapons against cities of the United States has been the goal of Osama bin Laden since the 1990s. He sees this tactic — in a fatal misinterpretation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — as the decisive move in the final battle that will drive the infidel from Muslim countries.

Osama bin Laden’s tragic misunderstanding of World War II and American history has led to a belief that the atomic destruction of New York City will not result in retaliation, but instead surrender.

To those poorly educated in history, the evidence seems to point to this:

Half of the US population, the press, the universities, and leading politicians seem to be whining cowards, clamoring for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and subordination of American sovereignty to the United Nations.

Under the ‘rule of law’, there seems to be no country against which the US could retaliate in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack, especially if half of the US population would require that prior approval be obtained from the United Nations.

However, like Hitler and Stalin, Osama bin Laden has misinterpreted history.

Targets For Reprisal Will Be Found

The US does have named states as enemies in the War on Terror: Syria, Iran, and North Korea, as well as enemy strongholds in lands of seeming allies, such as tribal areas of Pakistan that aid bin Laden.

Most importantly, no American political party could survive if it were to advocate that the destruction of New York City be left un-avenged.

The ‘Jimmy Carter’ approach would be rejected.

Revenge and total victory would become the slogans of the ‘new left’.

The only acceptable response to such an attack must be nuclear.

Likely targets would include Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and perhaps, even Saudi Arabia.

This would usher in World War III with fatal consequences for hundreds of millions of people. World history will go off on a new and scary tangent.

Following the progress in the War on Terror is essential to understanding capital flows.

A War That Will Not End With a Peace Treaty

This war started largely unnoticed in the 19th century when the extreme Wahabi   sect joined forces with the House of Ibn Saud in Arabia, preaching a radical brand of Islam that ensured the hegemony of the Saudi monarchy.

In the 20th century, the Wahabi movement became far stronger with the help of oil money.

These dangerous teachings have metastasized through madrassas   financed by petrodollars and set up in back alleys and jungles across the Islamic world.

Today, countless Muslims, trained since childhood to hate Americans by mind-numbing, head-bobbing recitations of holy books, are eager to strap bombs to their bellies and kill themselves in order to annihilate even one of the despised infidel.

Although most Muslims do not support radical Wahabism, just as most Christians do not flock to Scientology or the Branch Davidians, followers of this extreme branch of Islam are embedded within governments of moderate Muslim nations, like Indonesia and Pakistan, providing cover to their friends, while officials speak otherwise.

If this were not so, how is it that Pakistan — a nation with the skills to build an atomic bomb — can not locate and arrest bin Laden within their own territory?

How is it that in Indonesia, Abu Bakar Bashir, spirtual head of the Jemaah Islamiah movement, was sentenced to only 30 months and released four months early, after being convicted of conspiracy regarding the attacks in Bali that killed 202 people in October 2002?

The Search For An Atomic Bomb

Since the 1990s, Osama bin Laden has struggled to get control of an atomic bomb that he sees as the final victory weapon, and sooner or later, he or his successors will be successful.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is already advising the population as how to be prepared for a “dirty bomb” — a cheap precursor to the ‘real thing’. However, preparations for a full-scale nuclear attack by terrorists are non-existent.

The weblog Gothamist, on Februrary 23, 2006, published a “Map of the Day”, entitled, “Kiss Your Ass Goodbye”, showing the effects of a nuclear bomb on New York City with various kiloton payloads.

With loose control of the atomic arsenal left over from the Soviet Union, and with the development of atomic weapons in Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, all it takes is money and time before al Queda acquires the atomic weapon it seeks.

Then, unless the American intelligence services can track the weapon in time, New Yorkers may indeed come to understand the nuclear threat — the hard way.

The Role of Money Transfers

It only cost $500,000 to finance the destruction of the twin towers and thousands of American lives on September 11, 2001.

There was no reason to hide the money transferred in this attack because American intelligence services were sleeping, disorganized, and profoundly incapacitated since the days of Jimmy Carter and the Church Committee.

It was oil money and control of the holy cities of Medina and Mecca that gave real power to Wahabi fanatics. Today, wealthy believers in this extreme version of Islam are ready to provide the millions it takes to acquire an atomic weapon and deliver it to New York City.

After nine-eleven, President Bush stated that the United States would block bank accounts associated with terrorists and would require American banks to report suspicious money transfers, as has been done for years in the fight against the drug traffic.

However, for relatively small money transfers, such as those needed for the attack of nine-eleven, the medieval network of hawaladar brokers suffices to evade government scrutiny.

Large scale transfers — the order of magnitude needed to purchase and transport an atomic bomb — can be handled more efficiently with modern banking facilities.

The reason is simple. Small transactions may pass through the banking system unnoticed, but to transfer ten million dollars in ten thousand dollar parcels takes one thousand operations from the same remittent to the same receiver — a volume of activity that reasonably might attract suspicion.

Non-US Banks and SWIFT

After nine-eleven, there were thousands of banks throughout the world, beyond the reach of the Federal Reserve, that would not help American authorities by reporting suspicious transactions.

Many of these banks are in countries that are not friends of the United States and that, in any event, have weak bank supervision that would be ineffective even if the authorities were inclined to cooperate with Americans.

There is no shortage of bankers in the third world who would gladly assist a wealthy Muslim depositor with a money transfer, providing assurances that the transaction could be kept confidential, especially if the transfer were made with a cover story.

There are numerous ways to transfer money from banker to banker, from the ancient hawala and fei ch’ien systems, to Al-Barakat, to modern funds transfers through PayPal, Moneygram, Eurigro, Sterling Draft Service, PaymentWare, Western Union, Travelex, postal money orders, xchangeAGENT, BankServ, ACH payments, Fedwire, CHIPS, CHAPS, BOJNET, and SWIFT, among others.

In modern correspondent banking, the preferred method of communication between banks (an essential in money transfer) is the SWIFT system — a secure electronic network, headquartered in Belgium, that handles encrypted money transfer instructions between banks throughout the world.

The SWIFT system that is used for bank money transfers is like hundreds of other technological wonders that are woven into the fabric of modern life and of which most people are unaware.

Bank Operations Are a Mystery to Many Bankers

I   worked for years in banking in developing countries.

From time to time I heard the SWIFT system mentioned, but my impression is that many bankers have no idea that the system exists or what it is used for. Modern banking is complicated and not every banker grasps the operational details in their back rooms, humming away “under the hood”.

Of course, those working in money transfer, clearings, or settlement would be aware of SWIFT, but many bankers work in loans and credit, leasing, custody, trust and estates, securities marketing, money market funds, credit cards, asset-backed securities, mortgages, or one of many administrative functions and would not necessarily be familiar with SWIFT.

Therefore, it is probable that, prior to May 2006, many bankers across the world were not fully aware of the potential of the SWIFT system to assist American spies in catching Al Queda operatives, anymore than bankers in Indonesia in 1997 were aware of the overhang of un-hedged dollar loans that would quickly bring down the economy, even though this information was published on the Internet in official data of Bank Indonesia.

How the CIA Might Use SWIFT

The Central Intelligence Agency cannot place agents in thousands of banks throughout the world.

Most people would understand that the American government has the power to impose restrictions on US banks or foreign banks in US territories, but that the US would have no jurisdiction over foreign banks in foreign countries — especially in countries that are not friendly to the US.

Therefore, even with the publicized US banking restrictions following nine-eleven, a wealthy sympathizer of Osama bin Laden in Yemen might still think it safe to arrange, say through a trusted uncle in a local Muslim-owned bank, to transfer money to a bank in another Muslim-owned bank in Bulgaria, and from there to a rogue bank in Paraguay, and finally to a bank in Canada.

In each step of the process, dummy names covering seemingly legitimate transactions could disguise the flow of money.

At the end of the line, in Canada, the money could be used to buy a speed boat that would transport an essential part of an atomic weapon across the Great Lakes by night, and from there, by car to New York City, where the bomb would be assembled with other parts arriving by various routes to a rented apartment in midtown Manhattan, awaiting a phone call with the detonation signal that would be — in the thinking of Bin Laden — the decisive blow that would win the war against the kafir.

However, although bankers in Yemen, Bulgaria, and Paraguay might not report transactions to American authorities, money transfers depend upon messages send from one correspondent banker to another.

These messages, whether through hawaladar brokers or modern correspondent banks, must be sent by secure routes.

The authenticity of the source and the details of the transactions must be safe and verifiable by trusted means.

Tapping into the SWIFT network would provide the CIA with the immense advantage of being able to read secret information concerning money transfer between bankers.

Access to the SWIFT system would be of strategic importance to the United States in the war against terror.

For example, if the CIA came across the name of the wealthy Al Qaeda donor in Yemen (in the above example), perhaps from disk drives captured on the battlefield in Iraq, it could use the SWIFT system to secretly track the money transfer from Yemen to Bulgaria, and from Bulgaria to Paraguay, and from Paraguay to Canada.

The CIA would also become aware of the intermediary Al Queda agents along the way and begin to track their movements.

The CIA could then send covert agents into the offices of the Al Queda contact in Canada, put a tracking device on the terrorists speed boat, follow the weapon parts into the United States, and discover the apartment in Manhattan in time to stop a nuclear blast that would take the lives of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of New Yorkers.

Terrorists Need a Way to Gather Intelligence

The anti-American terrorists are not all-powerful.

One of their vulnerabilities is their difficulty in gathering intelligence as to what their Western enemies may be doing to thwart their activities.

Unlike the CIA, the terrorists can not afford staffs of thousands to comb open source information for hints of Uncle Sam’s sources and methods of uncovering their activities. Nor do they have hundreds of spies tracking the US government intelligence activities from within.

Even if someone in Al Queda should come across the CIA’s involvement with SWIFT, the terrorists would still have difficulty communicating this information accurately to their followers across the globe.

In other words, despite the news stories about the failures in intelligence prior to nine-eleven and the dearth of American spies in Islamic countries, the Americans should still have tactical superiority over Al Queda in intelligence gathering.

That is, if the CIA can keep secrets out of the newspapers.

This is only possible if there are no traitors in the CIA and if newspapers are willing to back the United States in the War on Terror.

A Top Secret Program To Protect Americans

After nine-eleven, the CIA and the US Treasury Department set up a clandestine program to track terrorists using SWIFT money transfer data.

This program soon produced tangible results with information leading to the capture of Riduan Isamuddin (Hambali), the killer behind the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002, and to the conviction of Uzair Paracha, a Brooklyn man laundering money for an Al Qaeda operative in Pakistan.

According to Stuart Levey, a US Treasury official, the SWIFT program provide the United States “with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks.”

For five years after nine-eleven, there have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States, although terrorists have been active in Spain, England, Indonesia, Russia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and many other places.

This may be chance, but more likely it is the result of effective intelligence.

How The New York Times Aided Al Qaeda With Secret Intelligence

In the first semester of 2006, bureaucrats in the American intelligence services went to the New York Times and revealed secret information about the SWIFT program that was protecting the United States against terrorists.

Unlike World War II and the early Cold War, the American intelligence services are no longer staffed by patriotic volunteers. Instead, they are packed with bureaucrats enjoying life tenure, more interested in promoting petty private agendas and personal vendettas than in safeguarding the country. [See the book: Prelude to Terror: The Rogue CIA, The Legacy of America’s Private Intelligence Network and the Compromising of American Intelligence.]

The New York Times did not turn over the names of these traitors to the government so that they could be properly prosecuted. Instead, the Times decided to reveal these state secrets, thereby helping the enemies of the United States.

When the government discovered that a leak had occurred, the US Treasury Department and the White House informed the New York Times that the information was top secret and asked the paper not to publish the information since this would seriously damage national security.

Desperate to avoid serious damage to intelligence capability, vital to the defense of the United States, high officials in the intelligence community from both political parties, pleaded, warned, and cajoled the New York Times not to print the story.

Nevertheless, the New York Times published the story with the following headline on June 23, 2006:

“Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror“

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

The responsibility for publishing this story must fall upon the owner of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., since he was aware of the damage that publication would do to the United States and had the power to keep this secret information out of enemy hands, but did not do so.

Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. knew that:

• The program was secret and had been effective in tracking terrorists;

• The circulation of the New York Times and its associated media outlets would ensure that terrorists throughout the world and those financing them, would become aware of the program and would therefore be able to avoid detection;

• Experts in intelligence operations against terrorism, from both political parties, had begged that this secret information not be revealed, since this would seriously damage the interests of the United States.

• Al Qaeda was attempting to acquire an atomic bomb, that it would take money to do this, that a preferred target was New York City, and that government intelligence services were hard pressed to find ways to track terrorists that might attempt to bring a bomb into Manhattan.

• Publication would provide aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.

Nevertheless, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. published the story.

What kind of American was this that would help the enemies of the United States?

A Man More Important Than The President!

The owner of the New York Times, Arthur ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger Jr., has done things that suggest a hatred of the Bush administration and an eagerness to reveal government secrets to America’s enemies, as long as this might harm the President of the United States.

Since the early 1990s, when Arthur Sulzberger Jr. assumed the owner’s mantle at the New York Times — power inherited rather than earned — the newspaper’s reputation has declined.

In 2003, a lead reporter, Jayson Blair, was exposed by another newspaper, as being involved in plagiarism, false reporting, and journalistic fraud.

In October 2005, a New York Times reporter Judith Miller,   already tainted by earlier involvement in a story about anthrax that turned out to be a hoax, became a player in a political attempt to bring down the Bush administration with an accusation that government officials had ‘blown the cover’ of a secret CIA agent, Valerie Plame — a story that, like those of the Jayson Blair affair, proved false.

The Valerie Plame   scandal revealed the hypocrisy behind the New York Times’ interpretation of the first amendment and laws on divulging official secrets. In the Plame case, the Times pretended that information that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA was a deep secret that Bush officials revealed for political purposes, endangering the security of the United States and the lives of secret agents in harms way.

It turned out the Valerie Plame was not an undercover CIA agent working abroad, in danger of discovery, but only a bureaucrat in Washington far removed from peril. Her connection with former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV (her husband) was public knowledge, published in “Who’s Who in America”.

As the press has already noted, her association with the CIA could be deduced by an intelligent reporter from her address at the US Embassy in Athens during the 1990s, when she was supposed to be working for Brewster & Jennings, a CIA front company, as an ‘energy analyst’.

In the SWIFT case — a vital secret in the War on Terror — the New York Times flip-flopped its protect-the-public-at-all-costs view of official secrets evidenced in the Valerie Plame affair, and declared that ‘the public’s right to know’ (regarding which they were, of course, the ultimate arbiter) trumped serious damage to national security interests and the nation’s ability to protect itself from atomic attack.

A humble man, not dominated by political hatred and respectful of the need to protect fellow citizens from terrorist attack, would have agreed to the government’s request to keep the SWIFT information secret.

A ordinary citizen, would be terrified of the potential lethal consequences of aiding the enemy in time of war and defying an appeal from the White House to keep an official secret.

For Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the fourth generation scion of the great New York Times fortune — immunized by a special, personal interpretation of the first amendment and protected by his fellow ‘coupon babies’ of the American liberal press aristocracy — such appeals fell on deaf ears.

One can imagine Arthur Sulzberger Jr. saying to his executive editor, Bill Keller, (to paraphrase Hyman Roth in Godfather II):

Bill, we’re bigger than the President of the United States!

An American Pluto-Aristocrat

Like other liberal media barons who see themselves as being above the law, ‘Pinch’ Salzberger Jr. did not gain his position by merit, but rather, like Carlos II of Spain, by having the right father and mother.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., born to wealth and comfort, was raised like a prince of royal birth, knowing since childhood that one day he would be given control of the powerful newspaper founded and built by his ancestors.

He came of age in the closing years of the War in Vietnam, attending classes at Tufts University in ultra-liberal Boston, ran with the crowds of protesters that admired the anti-American role models of the era — Jane Fonda at her anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi and John Kerry, the ‘Winter Soldier‘,   testifying before the Senate that American military had “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,” of Vietnamese citizens and rampaging across Vietnam “[razing] villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”

Arthur Sulzberger Jr. took part in anti-war demonstrations in Boston and was arrested. After his first arrest, the book, “The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind The New York Times”, tells how his father asked him:

“If a young American soldier comes upon a North Vietnamese soldier, which do you want to see get shot?”

Arthur Sulzberger Jr. replied:

“I would want to see the American get shot. It’s the other guy’s country; we shouldn’t be there.”

To his patriotic father, the owner of the New York Times, “such sentiments bordered on treason” and he exploded in anger at his son.

This was not the last time that accusations of treasonous sentiment were associated with the name of Arthur Sulzberger Jr..

Although ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger drew a low number in the draft lottery, he never served, and instead went on to the Harvard Business School to polish up on moral and ethical relativism.

Years later, in 2006, now in power at the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. had another opportunity to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States by revealing the SWIFT program to al Queda terrorists throughout the world.

He jumped at the chance.

After publication of the secrets by the New York Times, President Bush said,

“For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America” and that disclosure of the program “makes it harder to win this war on terror.”

Today, tens of millions of Americans believe that the greatest enemies of the United States are the handful of wealthy press lords, most of whom came to power by birth rather than merit, and that, having been successful in losing the War in Vietnam, were now intent on losing the War on Terror.

But there is nothing they can do about it.

Why Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Is Not Charged With Treason

To the average American, Article III Section 3 of the US Constitutions seems easy enough to understand:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Congress has passed a law, punishing treason by death:

(United States Code) Section 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

But Arthur Sulzberger Jr., unlike most of us, does not have to worry about being charged with treason because he carries in his back pocket a ‘get out of jail free card’ called the First Amendment.

This is not just any old First Amendment, but the First Amendment As It Applies to the New York Times Backed-Up A By Multi-Million Dollar Fortune.

Now I am sure that if I, a modest blogger, were to reveal an official secret, that the ACLU and the liberal press would not rush to my defense, raising the immense sums it takes to defend oneself against government prosecution.

Even Scooter Libby, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, could not avoid indictment on a trumped-up charge by a zealous liberal prosecutor, egged on by the New York Times, in its hypocritical ‘defense’ of national security in the Valerie Plame affair.

There are several reasons why the government will probably never charge Arthur Sulzberger Jr. with treason:

1. No one has been sentenced to death for treason in the United States for half a century, and certainly no one with the wealth and power of the owner of the New York Times would be in danger.

2. Any attempt to indict the owner of the New York Times for treason would bring together the Democratic Party, the magnates of the liberal media, and the majority of university professors, attacking the administration for trying to ‘destroy the First Amendment‘. This would be a battle that the administration could not win, because the far left controls the American media and the battle would be lost in the court of public opinion before legal proceedings even began.

3. With the American people, the high courts, and the Congress divided almost equally between war and anti-war followers of the Democratic and Republican parties, to charge the owner of the New York Times with treason would only further divide the country, already seriously lacking in unity in time of war.

The Lesson of Carlos II of Spain

Charles II was the last of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured (possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism). His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. He may also have suffered from the bone disease acromegaly. Charles was sadly weak in mind and body, barely able to walk and speak.

When I visited a museum in Vienna, I found rooms full of statues, paintings, and busts of this royal freak, adorned with gold, rubies, and pearls, each line and deformity carefully preserved in precious materials for posterity so that we can today fully imagine each drop of spittle that issued from this noble mouth as it uttered imbecilities.

Carlos II was the ultimate argument against monarchy. The founders of the American Republic understood the lack of wisdom in giving great power to unworthy people merely by reason of birth.

Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution states that, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.”

Since the time of Aristotle, philosophers have debated the concept of aristocracy — essentially the government of the few, those few usually selected by accident of birth.

The founding fathers of the United States were profoundly opposed to the idea of an American aristocracy and government by a few, based on inheritance.

When the First Amendment to the Constitution was proposed, freedom of speech referred to the right of an individual to make political statements, even against those in power.

However, the technology at the time, limited the scope and influence of public utterances of any one person.

Let us imagine, however, that King George of England owned all printing presses and means of distribution of newspapers in every city in the American colonies, and would continue to do so even after the revolution and would pass on these properties and rights to his first born, even if he or she turned out to be an idiot.

Let us further imagine that King George was so inclined to use his vast wealth to hire away the various writers and artists that might be inclined to a journalistic career, so that a poor guy, like Ben Franklin, would find it hard to expand his modest newspaper business.

Under such circumstance, how likely is it that there would be a first amendment to the Constitution, or, if there were, that the amendment would impose limits, rather than liberties on activities of the press.

So when we think of Arthur Sulzberger Jr,, spouting off about ‘freedom of the press’, we should also think of the drooling Carlos II of Spain and the original intent of the first amendment and the opposition of the founding fathers to government by the few and power inherited through aristocracy.

For research on who controls American media see Media Reform Information Center.

Waiting For The Bomb

Unfortunately, the United States has gone off course from the intentions of the founding fathers.

A Second Estate (an Aristocracy) has now merged with the Fourth Estate (the press).

A few wealthy lords of an hereditary Fourth Estate, with no more moral right to rule than Carlos II of Spain, have power over the many, even in time of war and against a President elected by the majority of the people.

These vain, unelected press barons, have invented for themselves an imaginary ‘people’s right to know’, which means, in effect, that they can publish anything they wish, even if this brings harm to the population.

Too many of these media barons, for reasons not easily understood by ordinary citizens, are willing to give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, divulging state secrets, and encouraging sedition in time of war. Not satisfied with having helped to lose the War in Vietnam, these media lords now are working to lose the War on Terror.

The only positive thing about this is that, if the bomb does go off in New York City, some of these media barons may be vaporized along with their innocent neighbors.

Although the smoke of treason can not be put back in the bottle — the SWIFT secret is already revealed — failure to prosecute the owner of the New York Times further weakens the United States in the War on Terror.

In the case of the War in Vietnam, it was possible to quit and go home without endangering the population in the homeland.

In the case of the War on Terror, ceding to the enemy and allowing the liberal media to operate above the laws of national security will only hasten the day when a mushroom cloud rises above Manhattan.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 18th, 2006 at 10:49 am and is filed under Leadership, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

|