Sibel Edmonds & John Cole Blow the Covers Off


Scott Horton interviews FBI Whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds and John Cole. This 50" interview covers a lot of ground in greater depth than previous interviews- and it still just scratches the surface. Corruption involving the US, Israel, Turkey and Pakistan and other nations; treason, espionage, trafficking in nuclear secrets and weapons technology, bribery, blackmail, use of terrorists to fight proxy wars. Investigations into these matters have been consistently shut down, and have been kept out of the media.

The recent coverage of Sibel Edmonds' allegations by The American Conservative and Military.com (which also managed to get on the record 'non-denial denials' from Richard Perle and Doug Feith) is a significant step forward- as is this interview published by AntiWar.com. But where are the major media?

Source:

FBI Whistleblower Names Names

http://original.antiwar.com/scott/2009/11/01/fbi-whistleblower-names-names/

Interview recorded Oct. 23, 2009. Listen to the interview.

Scott Horton: For Antiwar.com and KAOS Radio 95.9 in Austin, Texas, I'm Scott Horton, and this is Antiwar Radio.

I'm happy to welcome to the show Sibel Edmonds and John M. Cole. Of course, I've talked with Sibel, the former FBI translator-turned whistleblower, numerous times on this show and various other shows of mine over the years, and this will be the first time we have John Cole joining her.

Her old Antiwar.com archives are there at Antiwar.com/Edmonds. Her own Web sites are JustACitizen.com and 123RealChange.BlogSpot.com. At BradBlog.com you can find her sworn deposition in a recent civil case from August of 2009, and at The American Conservative magazine, which is AmConMag.com, you can find the interview by former CIA officer and Antiwar.com regular, Philip Giraldi, called "Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?"

And John M. Cole is a former FBI agent and whistleblower. He's the author of While America Sleeps: An FBI Whistleblower's Story. And so I'd like to welcome you both to the show.

Am Con Mag Interview - Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?


Sibel Edmonds has been interviewed by former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi for The American Conservative magazine. Edmonds was twice gagged under the State Secrets Act by John Ashcroft, and called 'credible' by Sens. Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, as well as DOJ IG Glenn Fine. She alleges members of Congress, top Defense and State Dept officials, and RAND employees have colluded with Turkish, Israeli, Pakistani and Saudi agents. Crimes, many of which amount to treason, include espionage, blackmail, bribery, trading political favors, laundering money, trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets and weapons technology. Edmonds also says there were pre-9/11 discussions with Turkish officials on invading and dividing up Iraq, and that the CIA was aiding and abetting 'bin Ladens' and Mujahideen (now called Al Qaeda) right up to 9/11.

Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general's report called Edmonds's allegations "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI." Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. "60 Minutes" launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds's revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft's Justice Department confirmed Edmonds's veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."

But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, "If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it."

Bush Admin Knew By 2003 That Another 9/11 Was Unlikely


The Bush Administration continually hyped the 'Al Qaeda/Bin Laden' boogeyman spectre of another 9/11, even while their own CIA, which was torturing prisoners, possibly IN ORDER TO extract false confessions/false info on plots, was putting together SEIB's with titles such as "Terrorism Complexities Make Repeating September 11 Difficult"

Tom Ridge definitely needs to be questioned about this, and there should be opportunities as he just came out with a book, in which he's said bogus terror alerts were issued, likely for political reasons.

Newly Found Document Indicates Bush Administration Knew Repeat of 9/11 Unlikely by 2003 
The title of a 2003 Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB) item indicates that by late 2003 the CIA had concluded it would be hard for al-Qaeda to pull off another 9/11. The item was entitled "Terrorism Complexities Make Repeating September 11 Difficult" and was circulated to top policy officials on December 16, 2003.
The precise circulation of SEIBs varied from administration to administration, but they were usually seen by officials such as the secretary of state, attorney general, vice president and others of similar rank. SEIB items are often used as presidential daily brief items, so it is likely that President George Bush also saw the information in mid-December 2003.
The title of the SEIB item was found in a 9/11 Commission document at the National Archives by History Commons contributor Erik Larson, who uploaded it to the 9/11 Document Archive at Scribd. The document is 83 pages of notes by a staffer apparently brainstorming ideas for the final report. The SEIB item title can be found on page 27 of the notes.
The notes do not further specify the content of the SEIB item, or what the "complexities" were exactly.

Disclosure: I am the 'Erik Larson' that scanned the document at the National Archives- the author of the linked article, Kevin Fenton, has been reviewing the records and blogging about them at HCGroups.Wordpress.com

9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' Testimony Under Oath Now Available On Video


Sibel Edmonds Deposition: Deep Corruption Beneath the Surface


Aug 8, 2009, Sibel Edmonds gave a sworn deposition in which she testified to her knowledge of treasonous crimes and corruption involving current and former members of Congress and State and Defense Dept. officials. Given the nature of the deposition, the lines of questioning focused on Turkish espionage and services obtained through bribery and blackmail by Turkish officials and proxies. However, Edmonds has previously disclosed that the corruption involving U.S. officials also includes money laundering, trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets, U.S. support for Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, and obstruction of FBI investigations related to 9/11, before and after the attacks; she said these things came up "briefly" during the deposition. Edmonds learned of these things from wiretaps she listened to while working as a translator for the FBI in 2001-2002.

Video shot by me of Q&A sessions outside the deposition - Sibel Edmonds, Stephen Michael Kohn of NWC, Bruce Fein of TALDF and TACA (formerly w/ ATAA) and David Krikorian, at Edmonds' Aug 8, 2009 deposition

Video coverage from VelvetRevolution.us and BradBlog.com

Edmonds' Aug 8 testimony was subpoenaed by David Krikorian (Democratic 2010 Congressional candidate- OH) to support his defense against a lawsuit brought by Jean Schmidt, R-OH. Krikorian had circulated a flier in his 2008 campaign in which he alleged that Schmidt had accepted "blood money" from Turkish interests in exchange for opposing a Congressional resolution acknowledging the Turkish genocide of Armenians in World War I. The deposition took place in Washington, DC at the headquarters of the National Whistleblower Center

After the deposition, Edmonds took questions, and spoke in general terms about the deposition subjects (video, 13:25):

Larson- "Were you able to talk about any of the stuff that you've said about 9/11 in the past- did any of that come up?"

Edmonds- "We talked very briefly on Central Asia angle and 9/11 and the Mujahideen and Al Qaeda...and the role played by certain Turkish entities, so we talked briefly about that, yes, but mainly on the corruption U.S. persons, even in relation to those activities...it came up briefly."

Larson- "How about the stuff about nuclear trafficking, drug smuggling, arms trafficking?"

Edmonds- "Yes, it came up- not in detail- Mr. Grossman's name came up and Brewster-Jennings- I believe this is gonna be for the first time under Oath, on the record, people getting answer on Brewster-Jennings and the real story- not the crap that they got from the media."

It seems that while a great deal of new information came out in this deposition that will justify criminal investigations and widespread media coverage, Edmonds was witness to a great deal more that remains to be disclosed and properly investigated.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft had invoked the State Secrets privilege in 2002 to quash Sibel Edmonds' lawsuit against the DOJ for suppression of her Right to speak freely about the crimes and corruption she had witnessed. He invoked the State Secrets privilege again in 2004 to prevent her from testifying in a case brought by family members of 9/11 victims, classified her date of birth and also retroactively classified letters from Sens. Grassley and Leahy that had been public for nearly 2 years (this was later overturned, when POGO, who had published the letters, sued the DOJ). The DOJ attempted to dissuade Edmonds testifying this time as well, but did not re-invoke the State Secrets privilege and did not appear at the deposition.

No so-called "mainstream" print or broadcast media showed up to cover the deposition. Too bad for them, as Edmonds' allegations reportedly include a juicy sex scandal involving a current Democratic Congresswoman- exactly the kind of thing the mainstream media loves to cover in depth ad nauseum. Given that these allegations intersect with allegations of treasonous activities by high-level figures in the Democrat and Republican establishment, it seems unlikely the corporate media will report on this, even when the video and transcript are made public.

One mainstream media outlet did acknowledge that the deposition would be happening:

Ex-FBI Translator Tests Justice Dept. Again - CQPolitics.com

Several U.S. and Armenian independent media stayed until the press conference following the deposition, and will be covering further developments:

The event was reported on in advance and live blogged by Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com; Friedman interviewed participants by cell phone with the help of on-site associates, who also took video and photos.

8/8/09: LIVE BLOG: Deposition of Sibel Edmonds Completed, DoJ a 'No Show,' Bombshells Under Oath

8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE: FBI Attempts to Block Edmonds Testimony in OH Election Case

8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: DoJ Pressures Ohio Election Commission to Block Edmonds Testimony

8/5/09: Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order

Drawn to the event by Krikorian's campaign-related battles with Schmidt and Edmonds' reports of Turkish efforts to prevent U.S. acknowledgement of Turkey's genocide of Armenians, but also interested in the extent of corruption were Horizon Armenian TV, The Armenian Reporter and Armenian Public TV.

Andrew Krieg covered the event for HuffingtonPost.com:

Gagged Former FBI Translator Claims U.S. Rep Bribe Evidence

In response to my (and Brad Friedman's) questions (video, 16:10) about when the entire video and transcript of the deposition would be made public, David Krikorian said his first priority was defending himself against Schmidt's lawsuit, and that he needed to confer with his legal and political teams about the timing. He also stated, "I think that the information that was provided in this testimony is something that every American Citizen should be aware of.... What I heard in that deposition room is fairly troubling information.... I don't see any reason to not make it public."

As David Krikorian said, quoted by Brad Friedman:

"From my opinion, if I'm some of the current members of Congress, I'd be very very worried about the information that's going to come out of this. There are current members of Congress that she has implicated in bribery, espionage. It's not good. It's crazy, it's absolutely crazy. For people in power situations in the United States, who know about this information, if they don't take action against it, in my opinion, it's negligence."

Regardless of whether the Obama Administration or the Democrat-controlled Congress want to investigate evidence of treason by Democrats and Republicans, and regardless of whether the corporate "news" media are inclined to report on any of this, public opinion and action organized through word of mouth and the web have the power to compel public servants to follow the law, as well as turn this into a story the corporate media can't ignore. 

Questions for Miles Kara on NORAD (and Other) Exercises by Erik Larson


Original: 911Reports.com

June 2009, 9/11 Commission Team 8 staff member Miles Kara launched a blog- 9/11 Revisited- and has been taking questions from the public, as well posting articles expanding on the 9/11 Commission's work. In this open letter to Miles Kara I pose a set of questions that have been raised in various forms since 9/11, and since the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. In addition, there are new questions based on 9/11 Commission records released to the National Archives, January 2009. Hopefully, Miles Kara will fill in the details.

------

Greetings Miles Kara, and welcome to the blogosphere! 

As the History Commons contributor 'paxvector' who's been scanning and uploading NARA's 9/11 Commission records to Scribd.com/HistoryCommons (including many of yours), your public expression of gratitude for the project is appreciated. 

I am very interested in your blog, 9/11 Revisited, and that you're responding to questions from the public. With your knowledge from having served on the Commission's staff as a member of Team 8, you may be able to settle some of the unanswered questions and speculation regarding 9/11. 

I've compiled a list of questions and posted this as an open letter to you at my blog, 911Reports.comQuestions for Miles Kara on NORAD (and Other) Exercises. Your responses are up to you, of course, but as a courtesy to readers please include the questions with your responses, or provide a link to the questions and number your answers to correspond. 

Thanks for your time- I look forward to your response, and any additional information you may provide. 

Erik Larson 


1. What were the name(s) and scenario(s) of the hijack exercise(s) that NORAD conducted or planned to conduct on September 11, 2001?        

         At least one hijack exercise is documented by the NEADS tapes, and was reported on by Michael Bronner for Vanity Fair in 2006. Bronner provides some details of the exercise, and quotes Major Kevin Nasypany, who helped design the exercise:        

          "When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. 


2. Why was the hijack exercise (or exercises) scheduled for September 11, 2001 not included in your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table? 


3. Why was the hijack exercise (or exercises) not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, or made into a subject at the Commission hearings?        


4. Why does the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 1 endnote 116 restrict itself to a description of Vigilant Guardian on September 11, 2001 as having "postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union", without mentioning other exercise scenarios, and in particular omitting hijack exercises? (458n116) 

         Endnote 116 is the reference for the following conversation, which is also featured in the Vanity Fair article, and in your article 9/11: Training, Exercises and War Games

         NEADS: "Is this real world or exercise?" 

         FAA: "No, this is not an exercise, not a test." (20) 

         As quoted by Bronner (see 1. above), Nasypany indicated the questions he and many other military personnel had about "real world or exercise" were due to the hijack exercise coinciding with the 9/11 real world events- not a Soviet Bomber attack exercise, as implied by endnote 116. 

         Your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table lists 9 versions of Vigilant Guardian from 9/6/01 to 9/10/01, all of which involved a hijack scenario. 


5a. What was total number of military exercises involving aircraft that took place on September 11, 2001? 

5b. What were the names and scenarios of these exercises? (Other than the hijack exercise(s) you name and describe in response to question 1. above)


6a. Which exercises involved the use of computer-simulated aircraft aka "injects" (or "inputs") on 9/11, and how many injects were being used? 

6b. Which radar screens were the injects on, and what time were they cleared? 

6c. Why was the use of injects in NORAD exercises on September 11 not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report


7. On your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table, you highlighted certain text in Red, Yellow and Bold; what was your reason for doing this? 


8. You say in your article 9/11: Training, Exercises and War Games, "The [NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary] was prepared to list what we knew about exercises before we traveled to NORAD Headquarters." 

         How was this information used in the interviews? 


9. What is the reason Ken Merchant stated "that [NORAD hijack exercises] were always resolved peacefully, that is, NORAD did not project shooting down a hijacked aircraft."? (3) 

         Your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary" table lists at least 3 exercises which included a shoot-down scenario; Vigilant Guardian 10/26/98 and 9/6/01, and Amazon Condor 10/21/99. 

         Ken Merchant's MFR states: 

         "Mr. Merchant is the joint exercise design manager for NORAD, and has been with NORAD J3 (or J38) for 17 years." 


10. In a comment on your 9/11: Training, Exercises and War Games article, you said, "there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three". Please cite sources for information on this exercise (or provide links). 

10a. What was the name, scenario and purpose of this DOJ exercise? 

10b. Why was this DOJ exercise not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report


11a. Why was the 2001 Global Guardian exercise rescheduled from October to the week of September 11? 

11b. What are the names of those responsible for rescheduling Global Guardian? 

11c. Why was Global Guardian not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report


12. What are the names and roles of those who were in charge of coordinating the military, intelligence, law enforcement and emergency management exercises scheduled for September 11, 2001? 


13. The 9/11 Commission Report says, "Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists' use of aircraft as weapons." (17) 

13a. What information was this threat-identification based on; what NORAD documents describe this threat, what do they say, and are Bin Laden and/or Al Qaeda mentioned in any of them? 

13b. What did the Commission learn about this threat-identification from interviews? 


14. Why does the 9/11 Commission Report say, "Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States--and using them as guided missiles--was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."? (17) 

         In this unclassified Amalgam Virgo 01-02 exercise scenario (also described in your NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary table), a suicide pilot took off from Clearwater, Florida with a plan to crash into SEADS- in order to disrupt NORAD's ability to intercept drug-smuggling flights.        

         In addition to other 'planes as missiles' plots, Commissioner Ben-Veniste noted at the May 23, 2003 hearing, "September 12th, 1994, a Cessna 150L crashed into the South Lawn of the White House, barely missing the building, and killing the pilot.  Similarly, in December of 1994, an Algerian armed Islamic group of terrorists hijacked an Air France flight in Algiers and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower.  In October of 1996, the intelligence community obtained information regarding an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and crash it into Tel Aviv." 

         General McKinley responded, "It's obvious by your categorization that those events all took place and that NORAD had that information." 

         And the 9/11 Commission Report noted that, "in February 1974, a man named Samuel Byck attempted to commandeer a plane at Baltimore Washington International Airport with the intention of forcing the pilots to fly into Washington and crash into the White House to kill the president." (561n21) 


15. Why was Osama Bin Laden's picture used on the cover of the Amalgam Virgo 01 exercise proposal


16. DOD Document Request No. 4, Item 20 requested "The final briefing and intelligence scenario for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) exercise scheduled on 9/11 concerning a plane crash into NRO headquarters." This DOD Document Index (emailed by Dan Levin) says it was delivered 7/15/03.        


17a. What was the full NRO exercise scenario- and did it involve an accidental plane crash, or an intentional one? 

17b. In what ways, if any, was this NRO exercise connected with the other exercises happening on 9/11? 

17c. Why was this NRO exercise not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report?

NORAD Exercises - Hijack Summary


A 9/11 Commission record released to the National Archives summarizes 28 NORAD exercise scenarios in the 3 years prior to 9/11 which involved hijacking. Many involved intercept/shadowing by fighter jets, at least 2 involved planes crashing into cities/buildings, & at least 3 involved shoot-downs, including a version of Vigilant Guardian in Oct 98.

Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York

The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11 attacks that included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document recently found in the US National Archives. In one of the scenarios, implemented on September 9, terrorists hijacked a London to New York flight, planning to blow it up with explosives over New York.

Digg it:http://digg.com/politics/NORAD_Exercises_Hijack_Summary

Zelikow, NORAD False Testimony & 9/11 Commission Records


3 recent articles by Kevin Fenton:

The first 2 are based on a memo and an email chain in the 9/11 Commission records at the National Archives regarding the false statements made by NORAD officials to the 9/11 Commission, and the Commission's response.  

The 3rd article is based on a comment posted by 'Philip Zelikow', apparently the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, on the 'Zelikow Caught in a Whopper' article:

May 21 - Zelikow Failed to Mention Possible Criminal Referral of False Statements by NORAD and FAA in Memo to 9/11 Commission Heads 

A document recently discovered in the National Archives shows that, in a memo to the 9/11 Commission's chairman and vice-chairman on false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials about the failure of US air defenses, the commission's Executive Director Philip Zelikow failed to mention the possibility of a criminal referral. This supports allegations that Zelikow "buried" the option of a criminal referral by the commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation.

 

May 22 - Zelikow Caught in a Whopper; Made False Statements to Author about Criminal Referral for NORAD, FAA

Documents recently found in the National Archives cast doubt on the integrity of the 9/11 Commission's Executive Director Philip Zelikow. In an e-mail exchange with author Philip Shenon, Zelikow claimed that he first learned of a dispute on the commission over the investigation of false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials after it had been "percolating for a while" and was not involved in the initial stages of the argument. However, an e-mail chain (scroll down) found in the Archives by History Commons contributor paxvector shows that Zelikow had been involved in the issue from very near the beginning.

 

May 24 - Zelikow Weighs In; Says Reply to Question about Sitting on Memo was Actually about Something Else 

Following my post a couple of days ago about 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow and a false statement he made to author Philip Shenon about his lack of knowledge about a dispute on the commission, a person representing himself to be Zelikow has posted a comment on the blog. The comment says that I misinterpreted his statement to Shenon and that it was about events different to the ones I thought it was. Unsurprisingly, I don't buy it. I gave Zelikow's words their natural meaning in the context, interpreting them as a direct reply to the question Shenon had just asked. Zelikow, however, gets full marks for novelty of approach.

 

HistoryCommons.org Profile: Philip Zelikow

Those 9/11 Commission Minders Again


Kevin Fenton blogs on a memo detailing additional strange behavior of Commission 'minders' on a trip to Canada; again, the minders are acting as particpants, answering questions for witnesses, taking verbatim notes. Memo also notes that a minder had an opportunity to "poison the well" with a witness, as she had dinner with the witness the night before. 

New details have emerged about minders who sat in on 9/11 Commission interviews during a fact-finding trip to Canada. Commission heads Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton mentioned the minders generally in interviews during the panel's lifetime, but a memo recently found in the National Archives and blogged here a couple of weeks ago showed how prevalent they were.

Another document, again found by History Commons contributor paxvector, provides more details of how the minders worked during a trip to Canada. The commission, which eventually recommended taking part of the CIA director's responsibilities away and giving them to a Director of National Intelligence, was considering changes to the intelligence community and sent a team to Canada to examine how its intelligence services were organised and report back.

The three-page memo, entitled "Canada Trip Lessons Learned" and apparently drafted by staffer Gordon Lederman in the autumn of 2003, highlights how the minders behaved.

Original here: http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/those-911-commission-minders-again/

Newly Released Memo: Government 'Minders' at 9/11 Commission Interviews 'Intimidated' Witnesses


Article by Kevin Fenton at HCGroups.wordpress.com (I'm paxvector at historycommons.org):

A recently released 9/11 Commission memo highlights the role of government "minders" who accompanied witnesses interviewed by the commission. It was added to the National Archives' files at the start of the year and discovered there by History Commons contributor paxvector.
The memo, entitled "Executive Branch Minders' Intimidation of Witnesses," complains that:

      • Minders "answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;"
      • Minders acted as "monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses' verbatim responses." The staff thought this "conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;" and
      • Minders "positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions."


Transparency

user-pic

Following: 0
Followers: 1

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address