The book's dedication could be expanded to include
Baruch Goldstein. Isn't he a criminal? For one, aren't Bonnie and Clyde criminals, and yet they became popular, almost positive characters.
An “Eye For An Eye”
I disagree with Goldstein on technicality, the place. Terrorists do not largely attack synagogues, and he should not shoot in a mosque. An idea behind an eye for an eye is very clear connection between damage and retribution. Had he been shooting in a bus - like the terrorists do - many would find that less objectionable.
Hurrah For Osama!
I love bin Laden! I was
telling the Israelisfor years to start reprisals against Saudi oil facilities to stop financing of Wahhabism and Palestinian terrorists. The only one who listens is Osama. Oil corporations are greedy but cowardly. Few attacks will sent them looking for more stable sources - Russian, Central Asian, and American. Without Saudi money, Islamic clerics worldwide will abandon Wahhabism. That will not extinguish terrorism, but will dry its religious support base. Besides, I believe in vengeance. So, hurrah to Osama! Go on against the Saudis!
Censorship
We launched a petition to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, and what is really odd, the number of news agencies that refuse us coverage because of the violence involved. They have no problem to cover Islamic terrorism or Iraqi insurgency, though. In politically correct societies, media forget that they serve to deliver news, and begin censoring opinions. Done with government censorship, welcome to corporate censorship. Back to the violence, everyone lauds police violently catching violent criminals. Not violence per se is bad, but only initiated violence; we object violence that initiate damages, not violence that mitigates them.
Religion Of Peace?
Some rabbis, mostly Reform, tell us that Judaism is a religion of peace, and we should not introduce violence. My reply is, Read the Tanakh! Moses killed the Egyptian. Hebrews incessantly warred in Sinai, and Joshua exterminated the Canaanites. Prophets urged Jews for the utmost intolerance toward idolaters, and many respected Jewish kings led expansionist wars. Psalmist was much less than loving toward enemies (remember where that hate-no-one-love-your-enemies is from?) Maccabees were everything but nice to Jewish gentilizers, and neither was bar Kochba. Modern Israelis violently swept Arab enemies in every war, and only the pseudo-liberal government prevents the Jews from carving a decent state for themselves.
Judeo-Christianity
What a bizarre notion Judeo-Christianity is! Judaism and Christianity are the different poles, practicality and idealism. Jews do not preach poverty and humility. Judaism and Christianity are incompatible, not parts of the same culture. If anything, Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity is. It is also repugnant to side with people who oppressed and exterminated Jews for millennia against Muslims who were reasonably tolerant to the Jews. Peaceful relations with Christians are perfect, but lumping Jewish heritage together with Christian doctrine is abominable.
“Cooks Can Govern The Country”
Opponents of Revisionist Zionism tout Einstein's condemnation of Zhabotinsky. If Zhabotinsky understood nothing in physics, why assume Einstein understood anything in politics? Menachem Begin and Arik Sharon were great soldiers, but they committed major political mishaps. Lenin exaggerated when remarked that cooks can govern the country. Politics is an art, and requires high and specialized skills.
Divine Intervention
Nazis exterminated European Jews; how can we still claim the divine protection and biblical rights? The Lubavitcher Rebe remarked that he sees divine intervention in Germany, the military superpower, being crashed. Also in being a few months short to develop nuclear bomb. But the German annihilation of Jews reminds of the generation of Egyptian bondage that perished in Sinai steppe. Only free Hebrews were to enter the Promised Land with Joshua. Could not it be the divine intention to keep the shtetl Jews out of Israel? In the last moment, the divine compassion saved the remnant: the accursed Stalin died before realizing the already launched relocation of the remaining Jews to Siberia, exactly the place the Nazis initially fathomed for their bloodless extermination.
Hamas
Hamas' victory benefits Israel. Efficient terrorists will become corrupt, non-delivering politicians. Involving them in political process is the most straight way to discredit them.
Major Terrorist Attack Brewing
Bin Laden's offer of truce concerns me a lot. Earlier, he offered the West to convert, and himself as spiritual guide for that conversion. The symbolism is there, Osama shows that he tried every option to spare the West. It looks like a major terrorist attack is brewing.
So much attention to Rafsanjani's anti-Israeli pronouncements... His is mere rhetoric, common among Muslims. The attention will only provoke him to talk more in the same vein.
As President Barack Obama launches a military effort that promises to dwarf the Bush administration’s Iraqi adventure in scope and intensity, the "progressive" community is rallying around their commander in chief as obediently and reflexively as the neocon-dominated GOP did when we invaded Iraq. As John Stauber points out over at the Center for Media and Democracy Web site, the takeover of the antiwar movement by the Obamaites is nearly complete. He cites MoveOn.org as a prime but not sole example:
"MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama’s policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago. Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his rationale for doing so."
Picking up on this in The Nation, John Nichols avers that several antiwar groups are not toeing the Afghanistan-is-a-war-of-necessity line, including Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and the American Friends Service Committee, yet there is less to this than meets the eye. Naturally, the Friends, being pacifists, are going to oppose the Afghan "surge" and the provocative incursions into Pakistan: no surprise there. Peace Action is not making a whole lot of noise about this, in spite of the issue’s relative importance. They are confining their opposition to an online petition. As for UFPJ, their alleged opposition to Obama’s war is couched in all kinds of contingencies and ambiguous formulations. Their most recent public pronouncement, calling for local actions against the Af-Pak offensive, praises Obama for "good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Really? So far, this "diplomacy" consists of unsuccessfully finagling the Europeans and Canada to increase their "contributions" to the Afghan front – and selling the American people on an escalation of the conflict.
Although energized and given a local presence nationwide by a significant pacifist and youth contingent, UFPJ is organizationally dominated by current and former members of the Communist Party, USA, and allied organizations, and you have to remember that Afghanistan is a bit of a sore spot for them. That’s because the Kremlin preceded us in our folly of attempting to tame the wild warrior tribes of the Hindu Kush and was soundly defeated.
The Soviet Union did its level best in trying to accomplish what a number of liberal think-tanks with ambitious agendas are today busily concerning themselves with solving the problem of constructing a working central government, centered in Kabul, which would improve the lot of the average Afghan, liberate women from their legally and socially subordinate role, eliminate the drug trade, and provide a minimal amount of security outside the confines of Kabul – in short, the very same goals enunciated by the Bush administration and now the Obama administration. The Kremlin failed miserably in achieving its objectives, and there is little reason to believe the Americans will have better luck.
In retrospect, the Soviet decision to invade and create a puppet government propped up by the Red Army was arguably a fatal error, one that delivered the final crushing blow to a system already moribund and brittle enough to break. The domestic consequences inside the Soviet Union – the blowback, if you will – sounded the death knell of the Communist system and revealed the Kremlin’s ramshackle empire in all its military and moral bankruptcy.
What is to prevent the U.S. from courting a similar fate, at a time when our economy is melting down and the domestic crisis makes such grandiose "nation-building" schemes seem like bubble-think at its most hubristic?
That’s where the pro-war progressive think-tanks come in: their role is to forge a new pro-war consensus, one that commits us to a long-range "nation-building" strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are the Center for a New American Security, explicitly set up as home base for the "national security Democrats" who make up the party’s hawkish faction; Brookings; and, last but not least, the Center for American Progress, which was an oasis of skepticism when Team Bush was "liberating" Iraq, and a major critic of the occupation. Now the leadership of CAP is making joint appearances with the neocons over at the newly christened Foreign Policy Initiative and issuing lengthy white papers outlining their Ten Year Plan [.pdf] for the military occupation of Afghanistan.
Not only that, but they are moving to the front lines in a battle against Obama’s antiwar opponents, with the Nichols piece – which merely reported growing opposition to Obama’s war on the Left – eliciting a testy response from CAP honcho Lawrence Korb and one of his apparatchiks. In it, the CAPsters aver, wearily, that none of this is new – the "schism" within the "progressive community" over Afghanistan is "long-standing" – and they remind their audience that the release of CAP’s latest apologia for occupying Afghanistan is hardly precedent-setting. After all, their two previous reports supported precisely the same position, which was taken up by Obama during the 2008 campaign: Iraq was the wrong war, Afghanistan is the "right" war, and the Bush administration diverted vital resources away from the latter to fight the former. Now that Obama is doing what he said he’d do all along – escalating and extending the Long War on the Afghan front – CAP is supporting him. It’s as simple as that.
Still, it’s perhaps perplexing to those who followed the debate over the Iraq war to see CAP in the vanguard of the War Party. Or, as Korb & Co. put it:
"Given our organization’s (and our personal) long-standing assertion that a U.S. military withdrawal from the war in Iraq was and is a necessary precondition for Iraq’s competing parties to find a stable power-sharing equilibrium, perhaps it comes as a surprise to some that we would ‘now’ call for such a renewed U.S. military, economic, and political commitment to the war in Afghanistan."
Well, yes, now that you mention it, this cheerleading for Obama’s war is a bit of a turnaround for CAP and the Washington "progressive" community. Their Stalinesque about-face – which recalls the disciplined hypocrisy of Communist cadre who were just as fervently antiwar in the moments before Hitler invaded Russia as they were pro-war every moment since – requires some explanation. Korb, however, is not very forthcoming. He does little to refute objections to the occupation of Afghanistan, which would seem to reflect the very same critique leveled at Bush’s conquest of Iraq. Yet we get relatively little out of him, except the bland assertion that "Afghanistan is not Iraq." Not convinced yet? Well then, listen to this: "Unlike the war in Iraq, which was always a war of choice, Afghanistan was and still is a war of necessity."
There, that ought to quiet any qualms about embarking on a 10-year or more military occupation and a hideously expensive "nation-building" effort in a country that has defied would-be occupiers for most of its history.
One searches in vain for a reasoned rationale for the Afghan escalation, or even a halfway plausible justification for lurching into Pakistan, either in Korb’s brief and dismissive piece for The Nation or in CAP’s latest [pdf.] 40-plus page defense of the administration’s war plans. The latter is long on sober assessments of how difficult it will be to double-talk the American people into supporting another futile crusade on the Asian landmass, and it has plenty of colorful graphics, including one showing how much they want the U.S. troop presence to increase over the next few years. Yet this "war of necessity" concept is never explained beyond mere reiteration, although there are a few subtle hints. At one point, the CAP document, "Sustainable Security in Afghanistan," declares:
"Al-Qaeda poses a clear and present danger to American interests and its allies throughout the world and must be dealt with by using all the instruments in our national security arsenal in an integrated manner. The terrorist organization’s deep historical roots in Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan place it at the center of an ‘arc of instability’ through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle East that requires a sustained international response."
If al-Qaeda has "deep historical roots" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then they run far deeper in, say, Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. If we go by Korbian logic, that merits a U.S. invasion and decade-long military occupation of the Kingdom.
Is it something in the water in Washington, or is it just the water-cooler in CAP’s D.C. offices?
Yes, by all means, let us examine the "deep historical roots" of al-Qaeda, which originated in what Korb obliquely refers to as "the anti-Soviet campaign." This campaign was conducted by the U.S. government, which armed, aided, and gave open political support to the Afghan "mujahedin," who were feted at the Reagan White House. Supplied with Stinger missiles and other weaponry, which enabled them to drive the Red Army out, al-Qaeda developed as an international jihadist network in the course of this struggle, which later turned on its principal sponsor and enabler. None of this, of course, is mentioned by the authors of the CAP report.
Shorn of sanctimony and partisan rhetoric, what the advocates of Obama’s war are saying is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are Osama bin Laden’s home turf, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks give us the right to militarily occupy the country, in perpetuity if necessary, in order to prevent a repeat.
This argument lacks all proportion and belies the Obamaites’ appeals to "pragmatism" and "realism" as the alleged hallmarks of the new administration. Beneath the unemotional language of faux-expertise – the technical analyses of troop strength and abstruse discussions of counterinsurgency doctrine – a dark undercurrent of primordialism flows through the "progressive" case for a 10-year war in the wilds of Central Asia. The unspoken but painfully obvious motive for Obama’s war is simply satisfying the desire of the American people for revenge.
It is certainly not about preventing another 9/11. The biggest and deadliest terrorist attack in our history was for the most part plotted and carried out here in the U.S., right under the noses of the FBI, the CIA, and all the "anti-terrorist" agencies and initiatives that had been created during the Clinton years. Earlier, it was plotted in Hamburg, Germany, and Malaysia, and the plot advanced further still in a small town in south Florida.
Having concluded that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is for all intents and purposes practically inevitable, the U.S. government during the Bush era decided to take up an offensive strategy, to go after the terrorist leadership in their "safe havens." The Obamaites, likewise disdaining a defensive strategy, have continued this policy, albeit with a simple switch in locations and the application of greater resources. They have furthermore determined – without making public any supporting evidence – that these alleged terrorist sanctuaries are located in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president has even broadly hinted that Osama bin Laden himself is in Pakistan’s tribal area. One presumes we are supposed to take this on faith: after all, the U.S. government would never lie to us, or exaggerate the known facts – would they?
The CAP report is mostly a rehash of liberal interventionist bromides, paeans to multilateralism (which ring particularly hollow in view of Obama’s recent failure to get more than a measly 5,000 European troops out of NATO), and pious pledges to build clinics, schools, and walk little old ladies across crowded streets even as our soulless armies of drones wreak death and devastation.
This use of robots to do our dirty work recalls the bombing of the former Yugoslavia, during which American pilots dropped their deadly payloads from a height of 20,000 feet. Sure, it made for somewhat dicey accuracy, but better Serbian "collateral damage" than American casualties. The same lesson applies to the Af-Pak war: better a lot of dead Pakistanis than a few downed American pilots. The U.S. death toll is already rising rapidly enough, and the shooting down of an American pilot over Pakistani territory would surely draw unwelcome attention on the home front, as well as cause an international incident. We can’t have that.
I am truly at a loss to describe, in suitably pungent terms, the contempt in which I hold the "progressive" wing of the War Party, which is now enjoying its moment in the sun. These people have no principles: it’s all about power at the court of King Obama, and these court policy wonks are good for nothing but apologias for the king’s wars.
They are, however, good for an occasional laugh. I had to guffaw when I read the phrase "arc of instability." This is supposed to be a reason – nay, the reason – for a military and political campaign scheduled to continue for at least the next 10 years. Well, then, let’s take a good look at this "arc," which, we are told, extends "through South and Central Asia and the greater Middle East." From the shores of Lebanon to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, and most places in between, that "arc of instability" defines the geographical extent of U.S. intervention in the region from the end of World War II to the present. If any single factor contributed to the instability permeating this arc, then it is the one constant factor in the equation, which has been the U.S. presence and efforts to dominate the region.
What is Korb’s – and CAP’s – solution to the problem of regional instability? Why, more of the same. This will lead, as it has in the past, to more blowback and an increase in the support and capabilities of the worldwide Islamist insurgency we are pledged to defeat.
IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi spoke at a NATO conference in Brussels on Thursday morning on the subject of terrorism. In an address to his counterparts in foreign armies, Ashkenazi said Israel's goal is to defeat global terrorism and bring stability to the world.
"At this time, our primary goal is to defeat global terror and to bring stability and calm to the citizens of the world,” he said. The task is not simple, he explained: “Our enemies — the terrorists — are becoming more and more sophisticated, and they use every available resource in order to reach their despicable goals.”
Terrorists worldwide have much in common, Ashkenazi said: “Their activities are characterized by threats that know no bounds, attacks on the homefront and a lack of moral inhibitions.” They are also hard to spot, as "the enemy no longer wears a uniform. He's evasive, and harder to reach.”
The battlefield is now ideological and not only physical, he continued. Terrorists are “ready to kill and be killed,” Ashkenazi said. He slammed countries that sponsor terrorism, saying, “These violent states have no morality: they do not respect human rights, international law, or the life of innocents.” He called on “moderate states” to unify in the face of extremism.
Despite the difficulties ahead, there is room for hope, Ashkenazi said: “The fact that all of you are taking part in this meeting today shows that we all understand the importance of unity and that we all have the will to deal together with the threats facing the world.”
As usual, the media and police will not give the public any information regarding race, immigration status, or criminal / mental health background of the perpetrator. The one exception being a Caucasian "Perp".
If it were a White man this would be all over the news with a photograph of the culprit. The delay in getting pertinent information to the public means one of two things:
The crime was committed by a Non-White / Illegal Immigrant.
The authorities are getting their story straight before they present their "Patsy" to further some social engineering / political goal. }
(By KEN RITTER, Associated Press Writer)
As police tried to piece together how a rare, deadly poison ended up in a motel for transients, the 57-year-old man who could hold the key lay unconscious in a hospital.
Adding to the mystery, police said firearms and an "anarchist type textbook" were found in the same room where the ricin was discovered two days later.
Capt. Joseph Lombardo said at a news conference late Friday that the book was tabbed at a spot with information about ricin. Police found the firearms and books on Tuesday after a manager at the Extended Stay America motel called police upon discovering weapons, he said, without elaborating.
After authorities seized the book and weapons, tests for ricin were conducted but came back negative, Lombardo said.
He said a 53-year-old friend or relative of the sick man contacted motel management on Feb. 22 to inform them about pets in the room.
Earlier Friday, police Deputy Chief Kathy Suey said the friend or relative found two vials of ricin on Thursday after going to the motel to retrieve the hospitalized man's belongings. Authorities on Friday confirmed that the vials contained ricin.
It was unclear how long the vials were in the unoccupied motel room, and whether they might have been overlooked when ricin tests were conducted on Tuesday. Lombardo did not address such questions during the brief news conference.
"The only positive tests (were) on the powder in question" in the vials, he said.
Authorities said there was no apparent link to terrorist activity, and no indication of any spread of the deadly substance beyond the vials.
The 57-year-old man was the last to stay in the room, and has been in critical condition since calling an ambulance on Feb. 14 complaining of respiratory distress.
Authorities offered little more about the man's identity: He left pets in the room and was not considered a suspect. A dog was found dead, but the animal had gone at least a week without food or water, Suey said.
"We don't know an awful lot about him," she said. "We don't even know that it was him that was in possession of the ricin." Suey said she could not say how much ricin was in the vials.
Lombardo said precautionary tests were also done in a room at the Excalibur hotel-casino, on the Las Vegas Strip, where the friend or relative had been saying. He said they came back negative.
The only legal use for ricin is cancer research. A pinprick is enough to kill.
Police, National Guard, Homeland Security and FBI officials responded when the substance was found Thursday.
Seven people, including the man who found the ricin, the manager, two other motel employees and three police officers, were decontaminated at the scene and taken to hospitals for examination. None have shown any signs of being affected by ricin, Suey said. All have been released.
Along with the ricin, police found castor beans possibly used to make the substance. Suey said the manufacture of ricin is a crime.
Greg Evans, director of the Institute for Biosecurity at Saint Louis University in Missouri, said the man's respiratory illness suggested he was exposed to a powder fine enough to float in the air.
"If he went to the hospital with difficulty breathing, he actually inhaled it," Evans said. "For some reason, he opened the vial and it must have been aerosolized."
Multiple vials would probably contain enough ricin to sicken many people if it was spread, for example, around a buffet table or sprayed in a closed room.
"If it was aerosolized in a confined space then it certainly could harm dozens of people," he said.
As little as 500 micrograms of ricin, or about the size of the head of a pin, can kill a human, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
In March 2003, a Las Vegas man committed suicide by injecting himself with liquid ricin. He was a retired gaming executive and former chemist.
For the most part, however, the toxin has more of a cloak-and-dagger reputation linked more closely to spies and assassins.
Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.
Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that before the war, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
Saddam told U.S. officials after his capture that he had not cooperated with Osama bin Laden even though he acknowledged that officials in his government had met with the al-Qaida leader, according to FBI summaries cited in the Senate report.
"Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden," Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi leader's top aide, told the FBI.
The report also faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion.
As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."
Democrats contended that the administration continues to use faulty intelligence, including assertions of a link between Saddam's government and the recently killed al-Zarqawi, to justify the war in Iraq.
They also said, in remarks attached to Friday's Senate Intelligence Committee document, that former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers.
Republicans said the document, which compares prewar intelligence with post-invasion findings on Iraq's weapons and on terrorist groups, broke little new ground. And they said Democrats were distorting it for political purposes.
A previous report in 2004 made clear the intelligence agencies' "massive failures," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a member of the committee. "Yet to make a giant leap in logic to claim that the Bush administration intentionally misled the nation or manipulated intelligence is simply not warranted."
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."
A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq.
It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories.
The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians."
According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."
It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."
In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.
The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
"The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee.
Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel, said Tenet told the committee last July that in 2002 he had complied with an administration request "to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said" about the Saddam-terrorist link.
They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.
They said Tenet acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint was "the wrong thing to do."
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the mistakes of prewar intelligence have long been known and "the additional views of the committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years."
The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.
The second phase had been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how far the committee should delve into the question of whether policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he planned to ask for an investigation into the amount of information remaining classified. He said, "I am particularly concerned it appears that information may have been classified to shield individuals from accountability."
He said a 53-year-old friend or relative of the sick man contacted motel management on Feb. 22 to inform them about pets in the room.
Recent Comments