CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Glenn Greenwald outlines the conscious spreading of lies to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and thus add another plank in the pattern of lies which the Bush/Cheney administration used to justify their “war of choice”

Posted by DXer on June 2, 2009

Glenn Greenwald wrote on (8/4/08)  Glenn Greenwald

  • Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent — indispensably aided by ABC News — to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
  • ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since — as ABC variously claimed — bentonite “is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program” and “only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons.”
  • ABC News’ claim — which they said came at first from “three well-placed but separate sources,” followed by “four well-placed and separate sources” — was completely false from the beginning.
  • That means that ABC News’ “four well-placed and separate sources” fed them information that was completely false — false information that created a very significant link in the public mind between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein.
  • It’s extremely possible — one could say highly likely — that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them.
  • What we know for certain — as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax — is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims.
  • Seven years later, as I’ve amply documented, those ABC News reports linking Saddam and anthrax penetrated very deeply — by design — into our public discourse and into the public consciousness.
  • The Weekly Standard published a much lengthier and more dogmatic article in April, 2002 again pushing the ABC “bentonite” claims and arguing: “There is purely circumstantial though highly suggestive evidence that might seem to link Iraq with last fall’s anthrax terrorism.”
  • The American Enterprise Institute’s Laurie Mylroie (who had an AEI article linking Saddam to 9/11 ready for publication at the AEI on September 13) expressly claimed in November 2001 that “there is also tremendous evidence that subsequent anthrax attacks are connected to Iraq” and based that accusation almost exclusively on the report from ABC and Ross (“Mylroie: Evidence Shows Saddam Is Behind Anthrax Attacks”).
  • And then, when President Bush named Iraq as a member of the “Axis of Evil” in his January 2002 State of the Union speech — just two months after ABC’s report, when the anthrax attacks were still very vividly on the minds of Americans — he specifically touted this claim: The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.
  • Bush’s invocation of Iraq was the only reference in the State of the Union address to the unsolved anthrax attacks. And the Iraq-anthrax connection was explicitly made by the President at a time when, as we now know, he was already eagerly planning an attack on Iraq.
  • There can’t be any question that this extremely flamboyant though totally false linkage between Iraq and the anthrax attacks — accomplished primarily by the false bentonite reports from ABC News and Brian Ross — played a very significant role in how Americans perceived of the Islamic threat generally and Iraq specifically.
  • As but one very illustrative example, The Washington Post‘s columnist, Richard Cohen, supported the invasion of Iraq, came to regret that support, and then explained what led him to do so, in a 2004 Post column entitled “Our Forgotten Panic”: I’m not sure if panic is quite the right word, but it is close enough. Anthrax played a role in my decision to support the Bush administration’s desire to take out Saddam Hussein. I linked him to anthrax, which I linked to Sept. 11.
  • Cohen — in a March 18, 2008 Slate article in which he explains why he wrongfully supported the attack on Iraq — disclosed this: Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore — at least it’s never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw’s office at NBC. . . . There was ample reason to be afraid.
  • … The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.
  • For this and other reasons, the anthrax letters appeared linked to the awful events of Sept. 11. It all seemed one and the same.
  • Cohen’s mental process that led him to link anthrax to Iraq and then to support an attack on Iraq, warped as it is, was extremely common.
  • Having heard ABC News in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack flamboyantly and repeatedly link Saddam to the anthrax attacks, followed by George Bush’s making the same linkage (albeit more subtly) in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech, much of the public had implanted into their minds that Saddam Hussein was not just evil, but a severe threat to the U.S., likely the primary culprit behind the anthrax attacks. All along, though, the anthrax came from a U.S. Government/Army research lab.
  • Critically, ABC News never retracted its story (they merely noted, as they had done from the start, that the White House denied the reports). And thus, the linkage between Saddam and the anthrax attacks — every bit as false as the linkage between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks — persisted.
  • … the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government — from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.
  • Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade.
  • ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and — as importantly — to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks.
  • And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They’re allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.
  • They’re not protecting “sources.” The people who fed them the bentonite story aren’t “sources.” They’re fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood.
  • But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far. 
  • See  about Richard Cohen’s admission that he was told before the anthrax attacks happened by a “high government official” to take cipro. Atrios writes: “now that we know that the US gov’t believes that anthrax came from the inside, shouldn’t Cohen be a wee bit curious about what this warning was based on?”
  • Wouldn’t the most basic journalistic instincts lead them now — in light of the claims by our Government that the attacks came from a Government scientist — to wonder why and how their Government sources were warning about an anthrax attack?
  • Then again, the most basic journalistic instincts would have led ABC News to reveal who concocted and fed them the false “Saddam/anthrax” reports in the first place, and yet we still are forced to guess at those questions because ABC News continues to cover up the identity of the perpetrators. 
  • … it is not possible to overstate the importance of anthrax in putting the country into the state of fear that led to the attack on Iraq and so many of the other abuses of the Bush era.
  • There are few news stories more significant, if there are any, than unveiling who the culprits were behind this deliberate propaganda.

 read the entire post at …


CASE CLOSEDOne of the crucial questions raised in my just-published novel CASE CLOSED is why the FBI failed to solve the anthrax case.

My premise in the novel is that the FBI was told not to solve the case.

Who would have the power to divert an FBI investigation into a major terrorist attack which killed 5 people and threw our country into a panic? Why would anyone high in the government want to keep the FBI investigation OFF THE TRACK?

One reason might be the Bush/Cheney obsession with invading Iraq, and thus the need to keep the anthrax investigation open and to keep Saddam Hussein as a potential culprit … even though the FBI seems to have known at the time that any link between Saddam and the anthrax attacks was pure fantasy.

These questions form an important part of my fictional account in which the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) re-investigates the FBI’s anthrax investigation.

Do I believe that CASE CLOSED presents what actually happened in the anthrax attacks and subsequent FBI investigation? Of course not. It’s a novel!

But … many early readers, including a well placed source in the Intelligence Commnity, have told me that my story is, unfortunately, all too plausible.

* purchase CASE CLOSED (paperback)

* see CASE CLOSED VIDEO on YouTube

One Response to “* Glenn Greenwald outlines the conscious spreading of lies to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and thus add another plank in the pattern of lies which the Bush/Cheney administration used to justify their “war of choice””

  1. DXer said

    Bloomberg reports:

    “Former Vice President Dick Cheney disavowed intelligence he once cited to suggest that then-Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda to stage the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Cheney said today that information by the Central Intelligence Agency of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda on Sept. 11 ‘turned out not to be true.’ Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    ‘I thought it was strong at the time and I still feel so today,’ Cheney said at a National Press Club lunch in Washington. ‘There was a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up.’ …

    On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, ‘I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.’ ”

    The Bloomberg article continues:

    “Several months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney said it was ‘pretty well” confirmed that Mohamed Atta, one of the leaders of the attack, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in April 2000, according to a Washington Post account. [Editor’s note: At the meeting, there was a sensational claim that a witness saw a hand-off of a vial]. Cheney later said the meeting’s existence couldn’t be proven, the Post said.”

    Let’s review the history of how the claim of Ata, Prague and the alleged Iraq connection was debunked.

    According to some reports encouraged by Vice-President Cheney’s aide “Scooter” Libby Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi case handler and obtained the anthrax from Iraq then. The reported transfer of a vial of anthrax, however, was totally unproven. The origin of the story seems to have been based simply on speculation of what might have occurred (at a meeting never established to have occurred). For his part, al-Ani denies meeting with Atta. In a statement submitted for the record to the Armed Services Committee and released in July 2004, the CIA concluded that there was an “absence of any credible evidence” that a meeting occurred in 2001 between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague. A declassified portions of classified June 21, 2002 CIA report, “Iraq and al-Qa’ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship” states: “Reporting is contradictory on hijacker’s Mohammad Atta’s alleged trip to Prague and meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer, and we have not verified his travels. A declassified portion of “CTC Iraqi Support for Terrorism” dated January 29, 2003 similarly concludes “the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility.”

    In contrast to what most of the senior Czech officials have said, the Prague Post quoted the director general of the Czech foreign intelligence service UZSI (Office of Foreign Relations and Information), Frantisek Bublan, denying the much-touted meeting. He also then may (or perhaps not) have been joined by the Czech President. But never let it be said the White House has been consistent on the issue either. Apparently the report was based on a waiter’s recollection of customers several months earlier. Even the Czech intelligence officials who supported the report only cited a 70 percent probability that it was Atta. The bottom-line was that Al Qaeda did not necessarily need Iraq to commit this crime. It was more prudent to limit the conclusion to Al Qaeda’s involvement through infiltration of US and UK biodefense absent additional evidence. Even if there was a meeting, maybe it related just to taking action against Radio Free Europe.

    Some hawks advising the Administration, both in the government and in private business (to include Richard Perle and James Woolsey), argued that there was powerful evidence showing Iraq is giving biological and chemical weapons and training to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld, whose comments of course could not be taken lightly, described the evidence as “bulletproof.” CIA intelligence assessments such as the declassified portions of classified June 21, 2002 CIA report, “Iraq and al-Qa’ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship” noted the involvement of Iraqi nationals in al-Qa’ida CBRN efforts, but concluded “we cannot determine, which, if any, of these Iraqi national Baghdad directed.” There were, indeed, some reports by defectors concerning Al Qaeda’s coordination with Saddam on biological and chemical weapons but those reports all depended on the reliability and detail of those reports by defectors. We now knew, for example, that the son of a Chalabi aide made up info about mobile biolabs. Similarly, someone else forged documents relating to uranium. Shouldn’t there be criminal prosecutions? A truth commission (perhaps with grants of immunity) as urged by Leahy? Classified CIA and DIA reported to the White House expressly questioned and doubted the reliability of what senior Al Qaeda Al-Liby was saying under the Administration’s enhanced interrogation” — who Secretary of State Powell would later expressly rely upon in his speech before the UN in which he held up a vial of anthrax.

    The briefs made by President Bush and Tony Blair lacked a “smoking gun” in this regard. The information released by Powell similarly contained no “smoking gun” on the question of an Iraq/ Al Qaeda connection. It seems to have turned out that there was merely a tolerance of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam by the Iraqi regime. The nature of any cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq has remained an open (at least disputed) question though criticism of the Administration’s distortion of intelligence has grown sharply and then was reflected by voters’ choice at the ballot box. As in the game Monopoly, sometimes practical alliances can be formed for tactical purposes against a common enemy. A detailed argument relating to the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda could always be found online in the trillion dollar complaint against Iraq filed by the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler in connection with 9/11. There also was a lengthy Spring 2003 article by PhD microbiologist Dany Shoham who had been with the Israeli military intelligence and now is at an Israeli university.

    As United States District Judge Harold Baer noted, and as Director Tenet has acknowledged, some of the early high-level contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq related to a non-aggression pact. Judge Baer, upon the default of all the opposing parties and their failure to defend the lawsuit brought by the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, found that CIA Director Woolsey and Laurie Mylroie had not presented any facts supporting their position, but that a jury could find in their favor by crediting their opinion. He described the evidence relied upon as consisting of layers of hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

    Mylroie’s theory, however, required that Khalid Mohammed was an Iraqi intelligence agent — along with his nephew Ramzi Yousef. She even posited that Murad, a participant in the Bojinka operation, was necessarily an Iraqi agent. If her argument had been correct, however, it was odd, then, that Murad did not disclose the fact in “tactical interrogation” (i.e., torture) by Philippine authorities and that his statement to US officials recounted the names and location and details of his many family members. It was odder still that KSM did not disclose the fact in his months of interrogation. WTC 1993 plotter Ramzi Yousef also failed to admit the fact — even in the course of extensive operations by the FBI involving a mafiosa defendant who had a nearby cell. In June 2004, yet another nephew of KSM was captured. No clear evidence emerged even after Iraq was invaded.

    When a mid-level of aide of Jordanian poison expert Zarqawi captured in Iraq was a member of Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad, that sort of development pointed to Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq — not a connection with the regime.

    Dr. Richard Spertzel, the former UN inspector in Iraq, for years argued that the product here was well within Iraq’s capability. UNSCOM determined that the Iraqi weapons program produced dried anthrax as well as the more primitive wet form. Dr. Spertzel argued: “Iraq certainly knows how to produce 100 percent pure spores. That is a technique that they developed .. which is capable of giving them the kind of concentrations that we are seeing in the Daschle letter.”

    Given that at the time we knew where Saddam lived, and he was a survivalist, he would have wanted to maintain deniability in the event he had assisted in the anthrax mailing. A terrorist state sponsor would have wanted to use a strain that was not associated with it. Thus, Iraq as a source of the Ames was entirely possible and needed to be explored as a hypothesis. It’s just that it was not indicated by any of the evidence. Two top Iraqi scientists, codenamed Charlie and Alpha, helped the coalition to learn more about Iraq’s anthrax program according to Dr. David Kay, head of the Iraq survey group in charge of the hunt for WMD, said. He has said that the Iraqis had made surprising innovations in the milling and drying processes needed to weaponize anthrax. But no forensic or documentary evidence ever pointed to Iraq, rather than Al Qaeda’s planned infiltration of US and UK biodefense as behind the anthrax mailings.

    In February 2003, in a much anticipated presentation about Iraq and its weapons, Secretary of State Colin Powell reported that a senior al Qaeda operative in custody has said that a terrorist operative was sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring biological and chemical weapons. He was sent after Bin Laden determined that Al Qaeda labs were not sophisticated enough. In a document found on his computer, Zawahiri had indicated that experts would have to be recruited, particularly using universities as a cover, because using unsophisticated talent had not proved successful. Accordingly, based on what Ayman had written, the FBI should be giving priority to connections with researchers at universities and NGOs. That document was obtained by a WSJ reporter upon buying Zawahiri’s old computer from a used computer dealer after his own computer broke. It had been looted by someone who jumped over the wall after bombing. Vice President Cheney was briefed on related papers relating to Zawahiri’s plan to use anthrax against US targets in mid-December 2001 upon a CIA analyst’s discovery of the documents shipped from Afghanistan. So as of mid-December 2001, Vice-President Cheney knew that Al Qaeda was planning to use universities and charities to develop the expertise needed to aerosolize anthrax for use against US targets. He further separately knew from the February 2001 PDB from the CIA to President Bush that Al Qaeda’s motivation was the rendering and mistreatment of senior Egyptian detainees. Unfortunately, he had already arranged for his lawyers to give him the greenlight to torture those detainees.

    There’s every reason to think Zawahiri succeeded in recruiting the necessary expertise — just no compelling reason to think he obtained the expertise from Iraq. The papers found at headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s feared secret police, show that an entourage from Al Qaeda group was sent to the Iraqi capital in March 1998 from Sudan. The talks are thought to have ended badly for Iraq. According to some reports, Bin Laden rejected the suggestion of an alliance — preferring to pursue his own concept of jihad. According to other information, it was Saddam who wanted to distance himself from Al Qaeda. He reportedly never responded to an Al Qaeda request that it be allowed to establish training camps. He viewed Al Qaeda as a threat to his regime.

    Ramadan, former Iraqi Vice-President who hosted Ayman in Baghdad in 1998, was arrested by Kurdish forces. Saddam, of course, was also captured. And so there came to be quite a lot of information available about the Al Qaeda-Iraq contacts so as to clarify outstanding issues.

    Some have pointed to reports that a leader, the late Abu Musab Zarqawi, thought to be involved in the planned ricin attacks, was a clear link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Zarqawi reportedly was at the safe house in Afghanistan where traces of ricin and other poisons were found. According to an article that appeared in the conservative National Review, Iraq’s embassy in Islamabad hosted some Iraqi biochemical scientists, who trained Zarqawi and his lab technicians under the cover of the Taliban embassy. No further details, however, ever emerged or were corroborated and the speculation arose that Al-LIbi had merely misled US interrogators after his capture in December 2001. He recanted his claims in 2004.

    There were reports of an Al Qaeda facility in northern Iraq where there was testing of chemical and biological weapons (such as ricin) on barnyard animals and a human. The area, however, was in an area not controlled by Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda had sent four of its senior leaders, including Abu Yasir (Taha), the former head of the Egyptian Islamic Group, to northern Iraq. Taha, 51, with a degree in commerce from Assiut University, served a five-year sentence for terrorist activities. Following his release, he left the country and settled in Afghanistan. He is credited with planning the massacre of tourists in Luxor in 1997.

    Taha and his colleagues formed a fighting group of 600 men — known as Ansar al-Islam — out of an amalgamation of existing groups. ABCNEWS reported that there is evidence the terrorists tested ricin in water, as a powder and as an aerosol. (Some experts dispute that ricin can effectively be used as an aerosol or water contaminant.) The militants used it to kill donkeys and chickens, and at one point, allegedly exposed a man to the toxin in an Iraqi market and followed him home and watched him die several days later. In a television interview in January 2006, Michael Scheuer said he was 100% sure that in 2002, Ansar al-Islam was also experimenting with anthrax.

    The senior Al Qaeda leader (and successor to the blind sheik) Abu Yasir, (Taha) before being extradited to Egypt, had lived in a suburb of the capital of Iran. Under the Administration’s logic, does that mean there was also state sponsorship by Iran?

    The “bomb Iraq” crowd relied on only wisps of hearsay evidence and glimmers of ambiguous facts. In other contexts, the evidence was fabricated (such as related to the purchase of enriched uranium from Niger or the mobile bio labs). No hijacker was shown to have trained at Salman Pak, alleged to be a terrorist training facility (where a 747 was located), rather than a counterterrorist training facility.

    On the other hand, while Bin Laden declared Saddam’s party apostate and infidel, he urged that there was a religious duty to cooperate with a secular ruler if it furthers jihad. The Iraqi intelligence chief Hijazi, who according to the Iraqi National Congress allegedly once met with Osama in Afghanistan. In August 2003, former Iraqi Vice-President Ramadan, who met Zawahiri in 1998, was also captured. Saddam seemed to enjoy the debate with interrogators and at trial was defiant towards the court.

    Polls (and perhaps the regime change that occurred in the United States upon the Presidential election also) show that most Americans think that the invasion of Iraq has led to an increase in the likelihood of terrorism rather than a decrease. Like his recent OpEd in the Washington Post, Richard Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, presented powerful support for the view, from an insider’s perspective. He was not merely “in the loop” — he as much as anyone was or at least always should have been the loop had they heeded his urgent requests for a meeting of the Principals. The same applies to the threatened use of biological weapons.

    A lawsuit by former FBI counterterrorism official, John O’Neill, filed in August 2003 alleged connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq, based in part on statements by Iraqi defectors, information from Iraq and al-Qaeda prisoners, and documents uncovered in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Complaint alleged that Iraqi intelligence provided al-Qaeda with training in document forgery and chemical and biological weapons in a series of contacts that spiked in 1996, and again after 1998. The Complaint, In re Estate of John P. O’Neill, Sr. et al. v. Republic of Iraq et al, D.D.C. 8/20/03 ^ alleges that -Zawahiri met with Iraqi intelligence in 1992 and 1998, and that contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda increased in 1998, when Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. According to a report by the Department of Defense to the Senate Intelligence committee, in the early 1990s, the main intermediary between Al Qaeda and Iraq was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the Al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front.

    But relying on the far more reliable evidence provided by Ayman Zawahiri’s computer, we see that Zawahiri wrote EIJ/AQ military commander a memo in the Spring of 1999 saying that they only got the idea for biological weapons when US officials kept telling them how easy it was. More importantly, in his correspondence with a Pakistan scientist named Rauf Ahmad, we see that his longstanding efforts to recruit specialists to develop anthrax as a weapon were just bearing fruit. The Defense Intelligence Agency gave me his correspondence and yet, notwithstanding that he is a very approachable fellow and has resumed his former life, reporters have not succeeded in interviewing him. I once uploaded the resume he gave me — with notably omitted his work for Ayman. He stopped email contact with me when I prematurely mentioned that I had copies of his correspondence with Zawahiri.

    A memo by Undersecretary of Defense Feith was even more dramatic. Not credited by the CIA or Richard Clarke, the memo did not represent an analysis of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, as much as a laundry list of possible data points, many of which were not confirmed.

    The 9/11 Commission, in contrast, concluded that Atta did not visit Prague in April 2001. On April 4, 2001, there is a picture of him at a Virginia ATM. On April 6, 9, and 10, 2001, there were calls made to his cell phone from within Florida to Florida. Then on April 11, 2001 he is known to have been in Florida. Moreover, “Newsweek has also learned that Czech investigators and U.S. intelligence have now obtained corroborated evidence which they believe shows that the Iraqi spy who allegedly met Atta was away from Prague on that day.”

    When seeking to resolve such issues, people need to put politics aside and pull together to get conclusive objective proof, one way or the other. Like authors Coen and Nadler said in their recent book, “This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It is not even an American issue. It is a global issue.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: