London and Baghdad
50 people killed by bombs in London last Thursday. 54 killed by bombs in Baghdad, Mosul, and Kirkuk over the weekend. Why do we react so differently? Because the attack in London was the worst attack in since WWII, whereas in Iraq 1500 people have been killed in various kinds of terrorist attacks – meaning random attacks on civilians designed to sow terror and signal opposition to something – since April? But that response makes the question sharper still. Why do we react so differently? Why don’t we react even more strongly to the deaths in Baghdad?
Because the people of Baghdad have a different skin color and language and mode of dress? But they don’t. The victims of the London bombings are as polyglot as their city; the names of the missing are Indian, Arab, Bangladeshi, Asian, African, and Caucasian. They all bleed red.
Because there’s a war on in Iraq? But according to al Qaeda, there’s a war on in London too, and in New York, Madrid, Bali, Nairobi, Casa Blanca and Djakarta. Indeed, according to both al Qaeda and George Bush it’s all the same war.
Because we simply cannot imagine what it would be like to live with weekly, even daily terrorist attacks, in which every time a loved one leaves the house it is possible that he or she might not return? Just as we cannot imagine what it would be to be bombed, to huddle in basements with our children and pray that the smart bombs are smarter than the people who launched them? Yes. We cannot imagine, and because we cannot imagine, we choose to believe that it is somehow different when Iraqis die, so different that we cannot even count and acknowledge their deaths when those deaths come at our hands, or process the awful reality that they live through a London every week.
Or perhaps we can imagine, but we just cannot do anything about it, except to talk about pulling our troops out of Iraq, or saying “I told you so” (which may indeed be right, but is now unhelpful), or wringing our hands at the mess we’ve caused. At the very least, Americans should not keep talking about Iraq as our problem, but start thinking about it as the Iraqis’ problem, in the same way that we now think of daily terrorism as Britain’s problem and Spain’s problem and the problem of major American cities. A small change, perhaps, but in the wake of the London attack we rightly recognize the courage that it takes for Londoners to go about their business and get back on the tube and we listen to the British government and offer every resource we can to help it do what it thinks needs to be done to find these terrorists and prevent another attack. We should similarly be recognizing the courage of Iraqis brave enough to go about their business in Baghdad and listening to the Iraqi government and perhaps the Iraqi people themselves as to what they need to stop the attacks.
No one in this Administration is genuinely capable of thinking this way, at least not now. But for the Democrats, at least, thinking about London and Baghdad should at least help us think about the global threat of terrorism, even if we reject Bush’s GWOT, and design a global response.
We make more of London bombings BECAUSE they are unusual. That doesn't mean our hearts don't go out for the victims & families in Iraq or anywhere for that matter. But I think you're missing the real point. it isn't OUR thoughts that you are pointing to but the MSM's response to stuff.
July 13, 2005 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, There was suicide bombing in Isreal the last few days and it hardly made he news. Precisely because that sort of thing is expected in Israel.
July 13, 2005 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some war people I know say that we're doing the best we can over there, and if those people are killing each other, well then there are fewer of them for us to kill later on.
So it's really our object to have civil war over there. Look at the statements: "The Iraqis will have to beat the insurgency" -- The Shiites will have to slaughter the Sunnis for our benefit. "The Palestinian Authority must confront terror" -- Arafat or Abbas must have a civil war with Hamas/Islamic Jihad for the sake of Israel's security. "Saudi Arabia must stamp out terrorism" -- the Saudis must torture and kill etc. Oh they were doing that already before Sept 11.
July 13, 2005 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is the reaction less when over one million Iraqi civilians are murdered by sanctions 1991-96 which the now much-maligned Oil-for-Food (OFF) program showed were eminently preventable? I think progressives should avoid falling into the 'unclean hands' trap of emphasizing this difference, especially while the pain in all of us is still fresh about the atrocities and crimes against humanity recently in London. But surely over time, a sobering sense of perspective would yield the understanding, not that, like Osama bin Laden argues, the deaths must be avenged by deaths of civilians, including a proportionate number of children, in the West (as is Al Qaeda's doctrine), but that we should surely save an equivalent number of lives through positive action, as a kind of 'positive penance'. And the fundamentalist yahoos should recognize their debt also, not that I am holding my breath.
This should not in any way diminish progressives recognition that, regardless of the presumptively fabulous reasons that those who choose such random acts of destruction have, such terrorism is a threat to the very possibility of civilization and it as well as its perpetrators must be -- and I use this term advisedly -- liquidated. If you say the same for Bush and his power-mad imperialist gang, and others responsible for choosing to slaughter masses of innocents for their own power agenda, hey, I'm not stopping them. But the terrorists aren't attacking imperialism, they are attacking ordinary people and thereby PROMOTING imperialism -- and what's more, they couldn't even care less about the political repercussions of their actions, or indeed, for various admitted and unadmitted reasons, welcome those repercussions.
So I do not reject out of hand those who point to the unclean hands of the West AND to the differential concern about the deaths of "our" innocents and of "theirs". But there is also the human factor -- you shouldn't condescend implicitly by supposing that we in the West should transcend our partisanship in ways we don't expect everyone to. The truth is that we must individually and as activists seek to rise above the morass, if we can, and join hands with those in the Islamic world who also do, and then together oppose the symbiotic twin beasts of imperialism, with it's terror, and the terrorism of the opposing 'entrepreneurs of terror'. I sometimes think that playing devil's advocate is so tempting, that many who indulge in it want to come as close to justifying the perspective of the (or certain kinds of) terrorists as they can, all while carefully covering their asses with reference thereto.
"We may all be lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"
July 13, 2005 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the very least, Americans should not keep talking about Iraq as our problem, but start thinking about it as the Iraqis’ problem, in the same way that we now think of daily terrorism as Britain’s problem and Spain’s problem and the problem of major American cities.
Very well said. Why we seem to hear little or nothing from the Iraqi government about what is happening in their country has always seemed emblematic to me of the failure of the reconstruction effort. The question remains, do the Iraqi's think Iraq is their problem? Are they in any position at all to do so? or are they waiting along with the rest of us for that day that the president likes to enigmatically refer to when we've stayed as long as we need to and not a day longer?
July 13, 2005 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an important issue, and these are important questions. But maybe we can clarify this question:
Why don’t we react even more strongly to the deaths in Baghdad?
Is Slaughter here asking only about the civilians who die as a result of the attacks by the insurgents, or does this question also ask about the civilians who die as a result of US actions?
I don't have time to look it up now, but does anyone out there know by chance how many civilians have died by US hands since the invasion began?
July 13, 2005 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "killed by sanctions" claim is false. Sanctions did not make food or medicine unavailable. The most they did was place restrictions on certain dual-use chemical precursors. But the drugs made from them could still be imported. Any losses of life to food or medicine shortages were only because Saddam's government failed to distribute the food and medicine which were readily available and affordable from oil revenues. So "killed by sanctions" is a propagandistic way of avoiding saying "killed by Saddam."
Or, if you like, that "million people" were killed (presuming they were) by the world's failure to remove Saddam earlier.
The lies and incompetence of the Bush administration are a separate issue from the real need that had existed to remove Saddam's government. The right thing was done, however much the wrong way was employed in doing it.
As for the larger issue of respecting "people going on with their lives": That's what people do, isn't it? Do we have any examples of times and places were people simply stopped, in great numbers, and huddled in the shadows? I don't want to diminish that this is a wonderful thing. But it's commonplace.
July 13, 2005 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to iraqbodycount.org, ivilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq --Min: 22810; Max: 25840
July 13, 2005 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just wrote about this on my blog here at TPM Cafe. When the lack of coverage for bombings in Iraq vs the 24 hour coverage of bombings in Western nations is coupled with the flypaper theory, a form of racism becomes apparent. To say that we are confronting the terrorists in Iraq so that we don't have to face them at home is to say that it's OK for Iraqi civilians to face them but not OK for American (or western) civilians to face them. Maybe it's not really based on race so we can't call it racism, but it is a sort of us and them thing. Maybe it's religion. Or maybe it's just that they are "not us." For most of us imperfect humans, isn't that enough? Also, it could be a NIMBY thing. Iraq isn't our backyard, but London is. Whatever it is, is shows that some human lives are worth more in the press than others. Isn't that why the MSM obsesses over missing white women and children and don't even mention missing black women and children? It's all the same.
July 13, 2005 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
We react differently to attacks in London and Iraq because the former are rare while the latter are commonplace. Following two years of increasingly worse news from Iraq we all probably suffer from compassion fatigue and have exhausted our ability to react distinctly to each atrocity.
That our lack of concern is not racist can be seen by considering our reaction to news of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. According to globalsecurity.org 14 US soldiers have been killed already this month – that is more than one a day. How many people know we are still suffering losses of this magnitude?
July 13, 2005 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we react even more strongly to the deaths in Baghdad?
No disrespect, but who's "we?"
I know I grimace every day I see another report from Iraq.
Let's not say "we." Let's say, oh, I don't know...everyone who voted for Bush, instead.
Seriously. I don't include myself in your "we." I don't include most of the people I read on the left-leaning blogs, either. Go to Daily Kos almost any day and you'll see a front page post on Iraq.
The only people I see treating these deaths differently are the talking heads on Fox, who first thought it would be a great time to invest, and how much the dead in London help "our" cause.
July 13, 2005 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Other estimates go as high as 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm
RE: Why we care more about London than Baghdad.
It didn't look to me like there was a huge outpouring of sympathy for London after the bombs. To the degree that concern was showed it was quickly followed by "can it happen to us?" I read an article once about how when people ask about other people's bad fortune (illness, bankruptcy, etc.) what they really are concerned about is how or if such misfortunes could happen to themselves.
To the degree that the coverage of the London bombings seemed to be more intense or sympathetic than Baghdad bombings, it was mostly motivated by "if it happens in London, it could happen here." But the fact is, it HASN'T happen over here -- again -- yet*, so as long as we're fightin' "them" over there, we won't be fightin' over here.
*Here's a question I'd love to ask some of the GOP tools who say that the fact we haven't been hit again since 9/11 is proof of Bush's effectiveness --
"How long was it between the 1st WTC bombing and 9/11 and how long has it been since 9/11?"
July 13, 2005 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What to me is even worse than the trivializing of the daily deaths of Iraqi citizens is that no one seems to be focusing on the fact that we (US Military) have killed well north of 50,000 Iraqi civilians since the invasion...and some estimates run well north of 100,000 casualties
July 13, 2005 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the MSM coverage of the London bombings was of a greater magnitude than anything about Iraqi civilian deaths. And that reflects our (America’s) sentiments. American history is interweaved with Britain (they are our brothers). But I don’t think you can gloss over the “us and them” attitude that is endemic to our (and most people’s) worldview. People empathize more closely with those most like them. It’s part nationalism, ethnicity, ideology and historical ties. Even our economic/technological status such as being a superpower or third world country plays a part. England is an open democracy and pluralistic, but as a country is Anglo and Christian like America. And England was attacked, regardless of the ethnicity of those killed. Race is bound up in the determiners mentioned above, particularly nationalism (the world is not flat).
It’s true that the ongoing Iraqi war diminishes the daily reports of repeated terrorist attacks and numbs outsiders to their gravity. But should it numb us to the point of dismissing it? Look at the degree and intensity of the response to the London bombings. A terrorist attack in Israel may be less reported because of the frequency, but look at the way it is framed compared to an Israeli attack that kills Palestinian children. Look at the token coverage of Darfur (and corresponding lack of political expenditure). Look at the stories that came out of the tsunami- a supermodel survives, European vacationers killed, kidnapping of orphans, etc. while there is perfunctory coverage of the hundreds of thousands of native inhabitants who were washed away. It's not overt racism but a national and Western bias that's part of our historical survival mode.
<sup> </sup>
July 13, 2005 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
One document entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," dated January 22.1991, is quite straightforward in how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. It explains Iraq's heavy dependence on the importation of specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water. Failing to secure these items (which is nearly impossible to do under the sanctions), the documents adds, will result in a shortage of drinking water and could "lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease" (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
Other DIA documents confirm that the U.S. government was not only aware of the devastation of the sanctions, but was, in fact, monitoring their progress. The first in a lengthy series of documents entitled "Disease Information" is a document whose heading reads "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The documents states, "Increased incidence of disease will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems." The document then itemizes the likely disease outbreaks, noting which in particular will affect children. (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
Also:
In June 1997 a special commission within the United Nations verified that more than 1.2 million people in Iraq, including 750,000 children below the age of five, had died because of the scarcity of food and medicine caused by the economic sanctions that have been in place since Aug. 6, 1990. In 1998, UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, reported that since the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq the mortality rate for children under the age of five has increased by more than 40,000 deaths per year, due primarily to preventable causes such as diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition. In addition, chronic malnutrition among children under five had reached 27.5% by that time. This is even worse when you realize that once a child reaches two or three years of age, chronic malnutrition is difficult to reverse and the damage on the child’s development is likely to be permanent. The report also stated that the mortality rate for children over the age of five had increased by more than 50,000 deaths per year due mainly to causes such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, liver or kidney disease. Under the dual usage clause of the sanctions, any substance or device that has both a civilian and a military use may be kept out of the country. This clause has been maliciously invoked by the US and Great Britain to keep out things like ambulances, detergents, chlorine, and many types of medicine. At the time of this report approximately 250 people were dying every day in Iraq due to the economic sanctions.
July 13, 2005 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we mourn or agonize over Iraq deaths? It's simple. They're foreigners of a different religion and a different color than the white race in power in this country. We've lynched blacks. We've nuked Asians. We commit genocide in unprovoked, undeclared wars in the Middle East. We're theocratic xenophobes that would gladly recreate the crusades were it not so damned time consuming and expensive to eradicate the entire population of several continents. In the same vein why isn't the public in an uproar over this quagmire of a conflict, rooted in lies and deceit? Because as a nation we LIKE war. War is what we do. If we can't find a legitimate one to wage we'll create one. Lacking that we'll sell weaponry to two different sides, then settle into a chair with a beer and watch the slaughter commence. As a nation we don't give a rat's ass about dead Arabs, dead Muslims, dead anybody. Give us your oil, send your cheap textiles and electronics, and don't mess with us or get too damned uppity or we'll shoot your ass dead. That's the United States of America, past, present and future.
July 13, 2005 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whit seems a bit misniformed on the nature of the sanctions and the impact they had on Iraqi society.
Without denying the extreme brutality of the Hussein regime, economic sanctions by definition seek to punish a government by hurting its civilian population. Any support for these types of sanctions does raise a serious moral dilemna that needs to be dealt with directly.
July 13, 2005 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is undoubtedly a racist factor as well; we are white, and they are, well...... This racism underlies our indifference to the casualties our forces inflict on them, and is one of the factors underlying the whole Iraq fiasco-our inability to credit their complexity. capability, and uniqueness as human beings.
July 13, 2005 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we don't make as big a deal over Iraqi deaths here because to do so is to admit a certain amount of complicity. Hearing about Iraqi civilian deaths makes people feel uneasy and vaguely guilty. Actually spending time thinking about them sharpens that guilt into actual discomfort. Far easier to just repeat platitudes like "Why don't they do something about it - it's their country" or "Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet."
July 13, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times reports that a suicide car bomber killed 27 people in Iraq today, 24 of them children. This attrocity joins similar ones of prior days and will be succeeded by others in the days to come. A suicide bomber struck in Israel yesterday, as they have in the past and will again. Jihadists have bombed innocent people in Spain, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many other countries.
The attack in London was horrendous just as were the other terrorist attacks. The real issue is not to critique the degree of grieving we show toward the various bombings, but to find ways to end the terrorist attacks throughout the world.
The memory that most haunts me is that of the bombing of a Sbarro Pizza store in Israel because of a picture I saw of perhaps 10 or more baby carriages lined up outside the bombed out store. Excuse my saying so, but some animal intentionally walked into a pizza restaraunt to try to kill babies and their mothers who had done nothing to them.
We don't need to parse the degree of our outrage and grief over the murders of innocents in London or Israel or Iraq. We need to stop the vicious killers. The war in Iraq is part of that process. It ended a safe haven Saddam had given Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and stopped his financing of them.
Some may want to invoke the niceties of our criminal justice system to find and prosecute the jihadist involved in bombings. I'm sorry. The terrorists in London, Israel, Iraq and elsewhere are not simple criminals going about their individual crimes.
They are fighting a war to destroy our way of life. The sooner we recognize that reality and respond in kind, the better. I don't understand the petty partisan attack on the Administration for not being able to recognize the courage of the Iraqis. They not only recognize that courage, but are providing real support to try end the attacks against the Iraqis.
We all need to recognize the courage of Iraqis, Israelis, Londoners and all of us in facing what are truly outrageous attacks on innocents. We all need to join together in fighting the global war on terror that manifests itself in Iraq, Israel, now London and who knows where tomorrow. These truly are serious times and they require serious people to combat the evil presented by the jihadists.
The time for petty partisan backbiting and second guessing is over. Democrats and Republicans need to join together in the fight against jihadist terrorists.
July 13, 2005 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally Dean Slaughter a post I can wholeheartedly endorse. The San Francisco Chronicle also made the same point with equal eloquence in its lead editorial yesterday - The daily horror of attacks in Iraq
Had they written for publication tommorrow, the editors likely would have mentioned this which only appeared today...
Iraqi civilian casualties Estimated at 128,000
By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.
Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.
'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.
The problem however is that US policy towards Iraq has never been driven by any sensitivity towards the Iraqi people nor by the strategic "facts on the ground". It has from the start been a slogan driven campaign of fear mongering whose acknowledged reality has been American domestic poltics, or more precisely, Bush-driven domestic politics.
I don't think that a majority of the American people are capabable of the degree of empathy and knowledge that you and the Chronicle editors so rightly urge.
I wish I were wrong.
July 13, 2005 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Galloway:
I condemn the act that was committed this morning. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that Islamist extremists, inspired by the al-Qaeda world outlook, are responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against working people on their way to work, without warning, on tubes and buses. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this morning's bloodshed lies with the perpetrators of those acts.
However, it would be crass to do other than what the Secretary of State for Defence in a way invited us to do. We cannot separate the acts from the political backdrop. They did not come out of a clear blue sky, any more than those monstrous mosquitoes that struck the twin towers and other buildings in the United States on 9/11 2001. The Defence Secretary said that we must look at the causal circumstances behind the problems of security and defence in the world. I insist that we do so.
If Members examine our debate tomorrow in the cold light of day they will discover a self-evident truth: many Members of Parliament find it easy to feel empathy with people killed in explosions by razor-sharp red-hot steel and splintering flying glass when they are in London, but they can blank out of their mind entirely the fact that a person killed in exactly the same way in Falluja died exactly the same death. When the US armed forces, their backs guarded, as a result of a decision by our politicians, by our armed forces, systematically reduced Falluja, a city the size of Coventry, brick by brick and killed an unknown number of people—probably the number runs to thousands, if not tens of thousands—not a whisper found its way into the Chamber.
I have grown used to that. I know that for many people in the House and in power in this country the blood of some people is worth more than the blood of others.
July 13, 2005 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sad that I disagree with Steve Duncan above only in degree.
He says:
They're foreigners of a different religion and a different color than the white race in power in this country.
I have heard and felt things that lead me to believe there is a lot of this feeling in the U.S. That tells me we would see and feel a lot more if people weren't so conscious of the PC police.
As a Christian, I largely blame those that can read the gospels, praise the ministry of Jesus, and still approach the world with fear and anger. The message was love people, L-O-V-E, components of which are tolerance and compassion.
July 14, 2005 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi,
This is a good point, and something I've been asking about lately. Do you know where one can find reliable, nonpartisan sources on the numbers of civilians killed by US forces?
July 14, 2005 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in the "heartland of America." From talking to people about what is going on in Iraq, it seems to me that to many Americans, no tears are being shed about the loss of an untold number of Iraqi civillians.
Apparently, the Bush spin machine has done its job rather well, for many people I talk to equate the former regime in Iraq with the attacks of 9/11.
As I worked out one day at my health club, an older gentleman on the treadmill next to mine told me that in his book, "I would say that 100 Iraqis are worth one American life, hell, maybe a thousand of them. Those people don't have the same values that we do."
I had another conversation with a much younger man--younger than myself. This guy said something like this: "I don't have any problem that those towelheads are dying, I mean they killed our people on 9/11." During the course of our conversation this fellow also called these folks by another epitet: "sandn*##ers"
So, at least from my experience--the issue of racism is one reason that the deaths of innocent Iraqis doesn't resonate with many Americans.
It seems to me that for some Americans, the people of Iraq don't count for much.
July 14, 2005 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a friend who says, with his tongue firmly in his cheek, that one of the things he liked best about President Clinton is that he was the first American president in 50 years to bomb white people. Think about it: until Bosnia, everyone we've bombed since WWII has been non-white. And after Bosnia, too.
July 14, 2005 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today, all of Europe shared a moment of silence to remember the victims of last week's attack. It astounds me that the US did not join in this event.
--Dan
July 14, 2005 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
B. Raman is a retired-from-Indian-government intelligence person. One of his articles is here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GG16Df04.html
He makes a claim:
That is, what happened in London is "blowback".
Any comments?
July 16, 2005 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing out how the million deaths under the sanctions regime was not Clinton's fault but Saddam's - having to repeat this argument has become something of a mantra for me, and I worry that there are too many on the left willing to vociferously criticise the sanctions policy (for which I believe there can be some legitimate criticism) but fail to put the real blame on the ultimate problem - the tyrant himself.
July 16, 2005 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
<pre>Mistah Kurtz, he dead.</pre> <pre> A penny for the old guy. </pre> <pre>KURTZ
"The horror. The horror..."
Willard find Kurtz' manuscript where he has written :
"Drop the bomb. Exterminate them all."
Willard leaves the temple while the natives bow down. He drops the
machete and so do the natives. Willards grabs Lance along and
they go to the patrol boat :
RADIO
"PBR Street Gang this is Almighty, over.."
Willard switches off the radio. The journey back home starts...
"The horror. The horror..."</pre>
July 17, 2005 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink