Powered by TypePad

« Cherrypicking The Intelligence | Main | Smooth Sailing With The Captain »

November 07, 2005



gosh! Kerry and Hillary get "intelligence analyses" that conclude that Iraq has WMDs, and then base their conclusions on those analyses! And Russert plays "gotcha" games, implying that the people who were on the receiving end should be blamed for the creation of the product itself.

TM, at some point you might explain to your readers that shortly after 9-11, Bush literally shut down all oversight of the intelligence community by restricting Congressional access to the full range of intelligence to only eight legislators. In other words, the people who do the actual work required for oversight -- the congressional staffs -- were denied access to the means to do their jobs.


FOXNews did the same thing to Chuck Schumer, only, then it was Chuckie himself that they showed a clip of.... LOL.

Man, I think these Democrats are going to start wishing they never ventured down this path...


I just wrote to my State Senator Schumer to ask him why the Democrat Party is attempting to destroy America and that for the first time in my 44 years of living I actually joined a political party that is NOT HIS OWN!

I will never forgive the Democrats for demoralizing and demonizing the goodwill of the American people. Ever.


TM, at some point you might explain to your readers that shortly after 9-11, Bush literally shut down all oversight of the intelligence community by restricting Congressional access to the full range of intelligence to only eight legislators.

Fascinating. There certainly ought to be plenty of cites of Senators hedging their war vote by explaining that they could neither do their job in evaluating the intell, nor rely on their Senate colleagues to do if for them.

Maybe I missed that caveat it in Kerry's speech, and I am surprised it never came up during the campaign.

Put another way, maybe it is the job of the Dems to make the case regarding their ignorance and incompetence, after which, I will be delighted to evaluate it.

Although I suppose a post explaining that Kerry was a credulous, bloviating blowhard who had no idea what he was saying when he rambled on about Saddam would not be totally out of character.

Appalled Moderate


If I am a Democrat, my answer is that I acted based on the intelligence given to me by the Bush admin, and demand that there be an investigation of all the contrary intellignece that the administration held back. And, frankly, the lack of WMDs in Iraq puts the burden of proof on Bush to demonstrate that they weren't gaming the intelligence in some fashion.

The problem is with this whole debate is that arguing about available intelligence doesn't have much to do with what we have to do in Iraq now.


Of course it doesn't, AM, but they dealt the hand and we have to see how it plays out, no? I'm perfectly willing to go back over everybody's claims--after all, the Bushies can't do any worse on this count but they can drag some others down with them.

And in order to stick the claim that the Bushies gamed the intel Congress got, you're going to need a link or something that explains exactly how this worked. If you look at the Senate report that claim looks real weak, but if you have some proof, let's hear it.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Susan raises a good point. We all remember the outraged statements from Dems; 'How dare you question my patriotism!'.

Well, just exactly what are they doing with all this faux concern about 'manipulated' intelligence, but trying for partisan political advantage. It's certainly not doing national security any favors.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'FOXNews did the same thing to Chuck Schumer, only, then it was Chuckie himself that they showed a clip of.... LOL.'

And the irony was particularly piquant when Schumer claimed he only wanted to find out what went wrong with the intelligence so things could be corrected. Because that's what Scooter Libby was doing when he heard about a former ambassador was going around Washington claiming he'd debunked the claims of Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. Yet Schumer, a few minutes earlier, had been criticizing Libby, Addington and Hannah for even discussing that among themselves.


Although I suppose a post explaining that Kerry was a credulous, bloviating blowhard who had no idea what he was saying when he rambled on about Saddam would not be totally out of character.

Tim, back in 2002 it was only us "loony leftists" -- the people who "wanted to destroy America" -- that were "crazy" enough to assert that a President of the United States would risk the lives of American troops under false pretenses.

"Patriotic" americans would never think to question a President under the circumstances we found ourselves in. (Hell, even though I knew that Bush was grossly exaggerating Iraq's WMD capabilities and the threat that Iraq represented, and was lying about ties between Iraq and bin Laden, I still assumed that there was SOME solid basis for Bush's absolute certainty that Iraq had WMDs.)

Yup, Kerry was "credulous" and "gullible" -- just like the vast majority of the American people who couldn't conceive that the Bush administration would be as craven as us 'loony leftists' claimed at the time.

Of course, the issue isn't Kerry's credulousness. Its the fact that Bush exploited the panic and fear caused by 9-11, and America's need for leadership in a crisis, to get us into a war for which there was no rational basis.

But keep trying to change the subject, Maguire. Of course, the problem wasn't Bush's lies, it was the Democrats fault for not catching those lies. Of course, the problem isn't that Lewis Libby is lying, its that Joe Wilson isn't perfect.

Gary Maxwell


Internal consistency and frankly logic, should not be used in the same sentence with national Democrat. Craven? Maybe.

Gary Maxwell

Has the whole left of the aisle forgotten that the CIA was run by George Tenant Clinton appointee and Democrat? I am stunned that they can even get this **** out of their mouth.

Appalled Moderate


The Democrats will say that it is hard to conceive that a President would simply lie about national security issues. But now we have someone in the administration who is before the dock, being charges with having lied about national security issues.

Personally, I think the "I was deceived" howlings is Demo politicians reconnecting with their base, and getting themselves ready to back a pullout. But, if the GOP wants to pull the rug out from that maeuver, isn't it time for them to demonstrate that there was no deception on the WMD intelligence?



It was particularly poignant for Mr. Schumer to claim outrage over 'media reports' that Libby, Addington and Hannah were guilty of something. I wanted Chris Wallace to ask him should we then believe the 'media reports' that claim he put his 2 campaign staffers up to stealing credit information. Didn't happen, but I sure wanted to see his expression when hit with 'media reports' that say he is guilty of something.


P. Luk,

How about neither Bush nor Kerry (or democrats) lied? How about, based on the intelligence, the decision was made that it was better to be safe than sorry? How about beating a president in the head over an August 2001 PDB that said AQ was going to do something (what, is anyone's guess, hijack a plane and hold them for ransom till the blind sheik is released?...that would have been my guess from the PDB that democrats have used to show Bush knew about 9/11 and DID NOTHING.)? You think the president wasn't also getting those same type of PDBs in reference to Iraq, a country we were actively at war with? That was shooting at our planes? With the 'butcher of Baghdad', the 'madman of Iraq'? The argument would be going in the other direction had Bush not acted against Saddam..."Clinton knew it, why didn't Bush?" If the debate were being held honestly, not politically, you would agree that post-9/11, Bush had to deal with Saddam differently than he would have pre-9/11. As Bill Clinton said, over and over until the poll numbers started going down and he started positioning his wife for president in '08.


But, if the GOP wants to pull the rug out from that maeuver, isn't it time for them to demonstrate that there was no deception on the WMD intelligence?

Well, yes, but... it's pretty apparent that mistakes were made, and that the dramatic estimates that supported the case for war on the basis of current WMDs were wrong.

A point, made ocassionally, was that the case against Saddam involved more than his then-current capabilities - it also involved his military *potential*, his aspirations, the unlikelihood that we could maintain sanctions forever, the desirability of regime change for other reasons, yadda, yadda.

If Dems want to pretend that it was about disarming himn in response to an imminent threat (well, they did pretend exactly that), well, that was not the point.

Just to go back in time, here is lefty Mark Kleiman, noting the forgeries but marching ahead to war.


John Kerry didn't even attend the intelligence hearings, as widely reported during the campaign. He did, he said, attend those that weren't 'of record', even though there is no record of it. He can't now claim he was lied to. He didn't think it was even important enough to attend hearings. I will submit to you he felt that way because he had 'heard it all before'. While his party was in power and was saying it, day after day...


If Dems want to pretend that it was about disarming himn in response to an imminent threat (well, they did pretend exactly that), well, that was not the point.

Actually that was the point. Their point.

And, what exactly will happen to the Dems when it is revealed that they knew there would be no WMDs found, because they knew during the Clinton administration that the intelligence was hyped back then. The Dems made it seem like Bush was responding to an 'imminent' threat on purpose so he would be damned when, voila!, no stockpiles were discovered.

They knew it all along.

But they still felt Saddam was a threat. Take him out. But blame bush for it.

Let's look at the intelligence we used from pre-2001 as well.

Appalled Moderate


I can prove that no WMDs were found.

I can prove Bush said there were no WMDs.

I can prove that Demos now say they were misled.

I can prove there is a discontinuity between what was asserted and the reality.

I can infer, reasonably, that there was a problem with the intelligence the Democrats were given.

I can infer, based on indictments, that Republicans do not always tell the truth on national security issues.

Do I make the leap that the administration lied to Congress on the intellignece with respect the war? I don't know -- I don't know what the administration gave to Congress. But is lying a reasonable working hypothesis that I might utilize as a voter, a protester, or as a pain in the tush commenter? I don't think it's an unreasonable inference.

Now if Bush would make some effort to prove the reverse, I might change my position. But, at this point, given the facts on the ground, there's a rebuttable presumption that Bush's people didn't tell the Congress the truth on the full intellignece in the run up to war. Frankly, what Kerry did or didn't do does not matter. If the Demos nominate him again, they deserve to lose.

What Bush's administration did or didn't do is the issue. At least on this point.


The reason that Saddam remains one of the suspects in the 2001 anthrax attack is that it was certainly within his capabilities to do it. Even if he had nothing to do with it (and the selection of targets is the strongest evidence that he didn't), we still believe that he had the capability to have done it.

Last time I checked, anthrax was a WMD. Thus, the intelligence still says that Saddam had WMD capability.

cathy :-)

Gary Maxwell


I am starting to doubt your claim as a moderate. You say :
"I can prove that no WMDs were found"

How? What about 500 pounds of yellowcake at Tuwitha? How about 1.8 tons of partially processed uranium as well? What about cetrifuge parts found buried in the rose garden of a nuclear scientist? I could go on and on but what is the point?

The WMD could be in the sand, could be in Syria or the Bekaa Valley. If not he could have reconstituted them quickly by any reasoned analysis.



Your 20/20 hindsight is working. If only you could figure out how to make it work looking forward instead of backward.

You still haven't dealt with the issue of what was Bush supposed to do, post-9/11? Ignore the potential threat Saddam posed?

Without Bush pushing for war, the inspectors would not have been allowed to re-enter. It was the consensus of the world that Saddam only did anything when pushed to do it. Once that army was poised to invade, Bush had really no other option, since Saddam was still playing his games. Did he? Didn't he? Only those with 20/20 hindsight knew for sure.



"Now if Bush would make some effort to prove the reverse"

Like when did he stop beating Laura?

If you weren't paying attention to what the Clinton administration was saying about Saddam, you deserve to be 'duped' by Bush.



You're about to be hit over the head with the old 'Clinton didn't invade' argument. I hope you're ready. :)

Gary Maxwell

Oh and as a correction I typed 500 pounds. I meant 500 TONS of yellowcake. Perhaps it was part of the Oil for Food program and Saddam was going to feed his starving people cake. But since there is not many uses for uranium I guess that not that likely is it.


How about neither Bush nor Kerry (or democrats) lied? How about, based on the intelligence, the decision was made that it was better to be safe than sorry?

The phrase "based on the intelligence" is the key.

"What we knew" changed between October 2002 (when congress authorized bush to go to war as a last resort, in "better to be safe than sorry" mode) and March 2003, when we went to war.

An enormous amount of information relative to Iraq and its claimed WMD capabilities was acquired in the interim -- and virtually all of it discredit the claims made by the administration. "Better to be safe than sorry" also means not taking unnecessary risks --- and by March 2003 it was obvious that there was no imminent threat that made the risk of an invasion of Iraq necessary.

To me, the most damning thing about Bush is that us "loony leftists" were right about him, and that the "moderate Democrats" who trusted Bush were wrong. In a time of national crisis, its not only natural but necessary to trust the President, and its only "fringe" types like myself who went around warning people that Bush could not be trusted.


AM "I can infer, based on indictments, that Republicans do not always tell the truth on national security issues"

Breathtaking leap of logic. So what can we deduce from the Democratic party rallying around Bill Clinton post impeachment? Democrats sometimes support lying in court?


P. Luk,

All the while ignoring evidence that says Bush did not lie or minipulate intelligence. You see what you want to see.


Every post on this thread speaks to one unavoidable conclusion : We NEED the open Senate inquiry, Phase II: HOW intelligence was USED in the run up to war, that was promised and never delivered uponby our ONE PARTY government.

I am beginning to think the rightwing in America, maybe coddled into intellectual weakness by years of unaccountability, has become a society of silly dilletantes. They would rather cackle about Kennedy or Kerry than address the realities we face. Yes, Clinton was aware of the threat posed by Saddam - which is why he destroyed his WMD stockpile in 1998. (Little factoid that rightwingers consistently ignore.) So we have Dems on record speaking of the threat posed by Saddam.

How does this then transpose to 2003 when Saddam had been disarmed, when all evidence from ground inspecters proved he had been disarmed, when we had the entire international community behind us and could have exerted many types of pressures on him to resign (and be exiled)?

What was the intelligence the Senate saw? Did the Dems abdicate their responsibilities or were they fed cherry pickings? This was a RUSH TO WAR, however you analyze it. Our government was so hot on this war they didn't even use the available time to plan adequately and prudently for the peace.

The American people have a right to the truth about this matter, in order to make future electoral decisions. I already understand that rightwingers are OK with a form of "democracy" where elitists decide for us, in secret, why they will send our sons and daughters to war. Now I'd like to know, do they also support keeping these secrets indefinitely from the voters? In other words, how do they justify exporting democracy abroad through its active perversion at home?

Gary Maxwell

No we need the Senate to focus on making our future better. Now if you want to tell me the gutting of the Intelligence Srvices of Human intell was a mistake and we need to get that capability back I would listen carefully to what you had to say. But the pretzel twist to try to explain votes for, is funny except that its having on effect on the morale of the people and therefore the war which is no laughing matter. Take a look at France and see what a different policy may get ya.

Appalled Moderate

Most of you responding to me miss the point.

Demos are now about to march back to a withdraw now position. They are going to do it based on an argument that "we were lied to in 2002-3". P luk gives you chapter and verse on how this can be done.

Most of you responding to me use an "honest mistake" argument or a "we just haven't found them yet" argument. This first argument needs evidence, and the second one requires actually recovering some WMDs. Really, all I am saying is that I am not going to presume the President told the the truth in 2002-3 about WMDs until someone in that administration actually demonstrates they did.

So trot out the evidence, guys, if it exists on the internet. Was there difference between what Bush was being told, and what the Bushies were telling Congress? And how do you know without a formal investigation?


If we have a political system where the government can create a false pretext for war, then shut down inquiry into that false pretext, we have a lovely little dictatorship in the making.

If that's the kind of America the Pubs want, they should be open about it. Just as they should have been open about Iraq - they should have just said what they meant: "The goverment of the United States doesn't have to justify its actions either to the world or to its own people. We make our own rules and our own reality and we are always right."

Gary Maxwell

Read this by a liberal. It may give you all the analysis you need to know about this craven attempt to play pin the tail on the President



All the while ignoring evidence that says Bush did not lie or minipulate intelligence. You see what you want to see.

my apologies Sue. I keep forgetting to include the theory that Bush was just a sock-puppet who repeated whatever talking points were put in front of him, and was incapable of insisting that he be given solid intelligence sufficient to justify risking the lives of Americans in an invasion and occupation of Iraq.



Nothing will be good enough. You will keep moving the bar, wanting to prove Bush lied. At what point will you be convinced that Bush didn't lie? After 1 more investigation? 2 more? You do know that Phase II of the SSIC was rejected by democrats because the quotes were not attributed don't you? Why would they care if the quote was their own quote or not? Or a democrat? You decide.


P. Luk,

You mean like the solid evidence that the Soviet Union was about to collapse? Or that NK was not reconstituting its nuclear program? Or that bin Laden was about to strike? You should ask yourself why Bush would tend to look at the worst case scenario rather than the wait and see what happens scenario. I bet you think Iran is about to have nuclear weapons, don't you?


You do know that Phase II of the SSIC was rejected by democrats because the quotes were not attributed don't you?

No, we don't know this. Please provide a source.



You may not be aware that the fact that Iraq had 500 tons of yellowcake was well known to the WH and the CIA long before the war. Tenet mentioned this as a reason to remove references to the Nger yellowcake from Bush's 10/02 speech.

The CIA also pointed out that Iraq already had its own supply, 500 tons, of the "yellowcake" uranium ore it was accused of seeking.

Additionally, the uranium at Tuwitha was under IAEA seal when the war started.

The International Atomic Energy Agency kept Iraq's uranium under seal in storage facilities for more than a decade before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, but the storerooms were looted when Baghdad fell several weeks later.

1.8 tons of partially processed uranium as well

This material was also under IAEA seal .

Gary Maxwell

IAEA seal! Well how silly of me. The Norks did not break those seals and the Iraninas did not either did they. Ok good enough for me.

Are you seriously telling that your answer is Hans Blix and the Oil for Food prgram?


Roberts says the committee's work on evaluating nearly 500 statements - from both Republican and Democratic officials - is done and that he tried to present the results to members at a May 17 meeting. He blames Democrats who didn't want to proceed because they objected to Roberts' removing the identity of speakers. Roberts says it was an attempt to remove partisan bias.



Roberts says????

That's IT? That's the proof that a meaningful report has been created that fully explains how intelligence was or was not manipulated?

Uh, sorry, Syl. I trust Roberts about as much as I trust Curveball. Let's have some REAL proof.


AM, it's pretty obvious you haven't read the Senate report on Iraq intelligence or spent two minutes thinking about the NIE and how it's produced. These things actually exist, and speak quite strongly against your addled scenarios.

The White House does not produce the NIE. It's available to both the White House and Congress. There is exactly no evidence anybody in the WH pressured anybody to sex up the NIE or any other intel.

I just can't see how your delusions could possibly be reality. To make your case you're going to have to show some really new information here or one has to conclude you're grasping at straws.

Gary Maxwell


Dont try to have reasoned discourse with the guy. He will tell you that the historically relatively free of partisanship Intelligence Committee which has equal membership from both parties is hopelessly biased. He said you had no proof and when you easily and quickly produce he says it aint good enough. Why Pat Roberts in a Republican. Save your breathe and keep your blood pressure down. This guy is a Ward Churchill Mama Sheehan suckup.


How cute, Jay Dee. A senator says something that is easily debunked by his colleagues, and wasn't, and you want further proof. Find it yourself or ignore it.


This guy is a Ward Churchill Mama Sheehan suckup.

Hey, Gary, don't tell me. Your hero is Joe McCarthy right? Like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. They get paid to be idiots, what's your excuse?

Sorry, in the real world, the say so of a rabidly partisan politician like Roberts, who is 100% liplocked to the Cheney butt, does not constitute PROOF. In Freeperland, yes. No where else.


A senator says something that is easily debunked by his colleagues, and wasn't,

I'll take calling a special secret session to demand the report be made public as debunking of Roberts' usual propaganda nonsense. Why didn't the whiny weasel Frist make this claim that day when he was babbling on tv in front of all those microphones?

Appalled Moderate


If it's true, Bush can tell us that. He can say "I had the NIE, and so did you, and I didn't have anything else. There was nothing in my daily briefings on Iraq that we did not make available to you." Then, in closed session, this can be proved.

To my knowledge, he has not done that.

As for the Roberts quote, I really wish AP would teach its reporters to write better. If I understand the article correctly, the Dems don't want to have a report based on unattributed sources. I think imposing a standard on a congressional report equivalent to what media critics wanted imposed on newsweek in the days of the "Koran in the Toilet" story isn't such a bad thing.


I think imposing a standard on a congressional report equivalent to what media critics wanted imposed on newsweek in the days of the "Koran in the Toilet" story isn't such a bad thing.

Ah, but that's the thing. We have a very vocal group in this country right now that demand accountability from news magazines but not from our government. How can that be justified, even to oneself?

And AM is entirely right. If Bush & co have nothing to hide here, why in hell are they so silent on the matter? My impression of this admin right now is of broken men cowering from their moment of accountability, with the most broken man of all being that shell of a man who so enjoyed boasting of himself as the War President. Not so much fun anymore, apparently.

Wilson's a liar

This CIA leaks like a sieve and is actively trying to embarrass Bush and Cheney every chance they get. So why hasn't anyone at CIA come forward with this great evidence that the White House manufactured intelligence and told the CIA to lie in its own briefings to Congress? Wouldn't that be the biggest leak of all, and the best CYA of all for agency that is under so much fire for incompetence? So how come it hasn't happened?

Why don't liberals ever want to talk about these inconvenient facts as well: when Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998 -- three years before 9/11 -- he declared that the U.S. had ALREADY killed 4 million Iraqis, including a million children, through the sanctions. He used this to justify his pursuit of nukes and other WMD, in order to kill 4 million Americans and a million American children. This is still official al Qaeda doctrine as vengeance. Why did Osama care so much about Iraqi children? Where was he most likely to get his hands on nuclear materials or other WMD? Afghanistan? Where would he and his al Qaeda pals have most likely gone after the U.S. ran them out of Afghanistan, had the U.S. not toppled Saddam? Do you really think Osama would not today be living in a palace right next to Saddam's, both of them thumbing their noses at the U.S.? Is this what you wish would have happened?

And if you are George W. Bush after 9/11, don't you take Osama seriously when he says he is going to kill 4 million Americans? Or do you just laugh it off and continue the sanctions on Iraq, and wait for bin Laden's next statement saying it is now 5 million Americans?



According to the Constitution which branch of government has the final word on national security?

Gary Maxwell

100% liplocked = suckup

So I accused you of the same thing that you are accusing of Roberts. And you say its because he is rabidly partisan. It takes one to know you pal. So by your logic we should totally ignor anything you post. Not a bad idea BTW.

Appalled Moderate


And your point is? Mine is that I can no longer believe the President gave all relevent info to Congress when it came to vote the President authority to take the troops to Iraq.


the question at bar is not whether the war is justified, but whether the President fudged the intelligence to get it. Your question relating to that question is reasonable. Again, I'm allowing for the possibility that the President did not fudge the intelligence, but that's not my operating presumption.

Gary Maxwell

See the article in the American thinker today? It explores the topic of Joe Wilson (willing?) pawn of the French govt.

cut and paste in your browser:



No Gary, I'm saying that in 1992 the IAEA put that uranium under it's seal and it was all still there in 2003 when the war began.

The point is these materials were not found WMD as you said upthread.



I seem to hear an echo. But there are accents in the voices.

Oh, yes! It's the Brits!

Something about sexed up intel.


Wonder if that's the same as 'fudged up'?

How did that inquiry turn out in Britain?


I have absolutely no problem with the president, post-9/11, taking the worst case scenario route. The intelligence community has not proven to be exactly the most reliable source. Especially not as good as those with 20/20 hindsight.

The Unbeliever

JayDee, Frist didn't mention it because he's a not-so-great Senate leader. Nothing new there, he's consistently been a sub par leader during his tenure as the Senate GOP gets kicked around by the lightweights on the other side of the aisle. What you saw as he stood in front of the mics was garden variety incompetence (since a large part of his job has to do with public image and PR).

I say incompetence instead of poor performance, because for some reason Frist decided to adopt the Dems' losing tactics: when they were threatened with the nuclear option over the filibuster earlier this year, the Dems refused to enter into an actual debate on the subject and instead started decrying a potential violation of "years of Senate tradition" and procedure. Frist evidently decided to take the same tack, and spent critical air time lecturing on how the Dems broke Senate protocol--which they did--instead of pounding them on the issues that people actually care about and can relate to.

As for your decision to "take calling a special secret session to demand the report be made public as debunking of Roberts' usual propaganda nonsense", well, the rest of take that special secret session to be what it was: a publicity stunt by an obstructionist minority. So on the one hand, we have a cheap political stunt; on the other, we have a concrete, easily falsifiable claim by Roberts which has not been debunked.


It is truly amazing that the "master of misunderestimation" following his personal "strategery" has been able to dup the dems on both sides of a dem flip-flop.

First, on the Iraqi war resolution, he go them to see exactly what he wanted the to see, even when it was actually there on paper .. from the CIA.

On the backside, he got them to repudiate their their well chosen position for .. nothing. I haven't been able to find a real new charge that has any meat to it. I mean .. Skooter lied and .. the dems got stupid. Better yet, the dems now love the CIA .. the same guys who gave them the reports that were wrong.

It is obvious that the Dems had put the ranch of the indictments by Fitzgerald. When he said this was not about the Iraq war, sails sagged and tires went flat all over DC. But worse, the ranch was lost and so went the sanity of the Dem leadership.

For all the bluster this weekend about the "secret session" (they probably really talked about a pay raise), the Dems have nothing to back up any charge, except that Skooter lied to the grand jury over nothing to do with Iraq, but this is what got us into war. Hello .. Earth to Democratic (lack of) Leadership.

You can fool the people some of the time, but apparently you can fool the Democratic leadership ad nauseam. Currently the Democratic base is all fired up, but only the Karl Rove has the marshmallows.


I meant to say "they probably should have really talked about a pay raise".


The experts for making the case of WMDs in Iraq were the Democrats in the 1990s. Heck, they sold me. So many statements recorded for all time.

Now Bush said there were other reasons. He said it would be better to tend to them BEFORE they became a serious problem. Plus, a little problem with them paying out all those checks to kill someone's kid on a bus. Plus, they happened to be taking potshots at our pilots and updating their radar. But if you are looking for the best, butter smooth, most professional presentation of the case of WMDs in Iraq........you need to go to the Democrats. Much more convincing.


I hope you are ready. This blog is going to play a major role in the Libby trial. As the WSJ story today said, Miller, Cooper and Russert will be the most important witnesses, and they will be probed for their ability to get a story right and to remember details.

Guess where the defense will get its material to impeach their credibility? From the awesome fact-checking and cross-checking resources of the blogosphere.


I hope you are ready. This blog is going to play a major role in the Libby trial. As the WSJ story today said, Miller, Cooper and Russert will be the most important witnesses, and they will be probed for their ability to get a story right and to remember details.

the most important witness won't be a journaiists...it will be Lewis Libby testifying in front of a grand jury.

Fitzgerald doesn't have to put Russert on the stand, because regardless of what Russert says, Libby is lying about that conversation. His story started out as "The first time I heard about Wilson's wife was from Tim Russert." When confronted with evidence that Cheney had told him about Wilson's wife a month earlier, Libby changed his testimony to "I had forgotten the Cheney conversation, and when Russert told me about Wilson's wife, it was like I was hearing it for the first time."

The "as if for the first time" stuff is obviously a lie, because not only was Libby told about Wilson's wife on numerous other occasions, he acted upon that information.

Fitzgerald will probably establish that "as if for the first time" was a lie, then bring out Russert, Cooper, and Miller to execute the coup de grace, with Russert saying "I didn't tell him that", Cooper saying "Lbby's claim that he was passing on info he had heard from reporters is false. He never mentioned reporters", and Miller confirming that her notes have Libby mentioning Wilson's wife weeks before his conversation with Russert.

The only hope that Libby has at this point is that Bushco will do everything in its power to prevent certain testimony based on national security grounds (he wants a jury trial, because that makes it easier to get testimony excluded on national security grounds), and that the reporters won't testify because of "First Amendment issues."


If you think Bushco is so evil, wouldn't it just be easier to tamper with the jury?? I mean, it's the govt, they could probably find something to entice you, either positively or negatively, right?? That's if you subscribe to the "power mad Bush" theory. Why wouldn't they stoop to jury tampering if they're guilty of the other things some have accused them of??


Let's just follow the logic of the gotcha game. Bush misled us into war he said there were WMD when there weren't. But if the WMD did not exist, then there was no basis for world sanctions against Iraq. The only reason for sanctions was the belief that Iraq possessed WMD.

And if there were no WMD how could we possibly have continued an oil-for -food program that was starving Iraqiis.

Would Barbara Boxer agree to UN removal of all sanctions against Iraq. I wonder what her holocaust survivor constitutents would think if they knew that Saddam's missles were once again aimed and unchecked on Tel Aviv.

Or would Barbara Boxer and others like her support continued sanctions against Iraq even though every other country on the security council would be against such a US position in the absence of WMD.

Further, can you imagine the muslim outcry if we knew that Iraq had no WMD yet we continued world-wide sanctions against their fellow muslims in Iraq?

It would seem to me that everytime the Dems bring up the misled card they better be prepared to defend a foreign policy that would have left Saddam in power and unchecked.

If the lack of WMD makes the war illegal, then the lack of WMD made the continued existence of sanctions against Iraq also illegal.

So, let's just imagine that we did not go to war and the IAEA certified that Iraq had no WMD, can the dems really believe that after 9/11, sanctions against Iraq should have been lifted and Saddam left in power because our intelligence was wrong?

It's easy to say Iraq was a bad decision based on misrep of evidence, it is only so easy because saddam is no longer in power and we have boots on the ground in that country.

But of equal import is that wrong, bad, deceitful information also kept saddam in check under sanctions. Are the dems saying we would have been better of with saddam unchecked and in power, today?


Why wouldn't they stoop to jury tampering if they're guilty of the other things some have accused them of??

probably because bribing a juror doesn't take that long, and filing motions and appeals and counter-motions is far more lucrative for the lawyers involved.


But of equal import is that wrong, bad, deceitful information also kept saddam in check under sanctions. Are the dems saying we would have been better of with saddam unchecked and in power, today?

actually, given the way things are turning out in Iraq, "Saddam unchecked and in power today" would probably be an improvement...

Heck, if we played our cards right, Saddam could be an ally in the war against radical Islamic fundamentalism. I'm sure that he'd be happy to host one of our secret tortu... um... interrogation facilities. If we were really nice, we could talk him into hiring a subsidiary of Halliburton or The Carlyle Group to run the facility under a subcontract.

See! Everybody (important to Bush) could STILL win.


How does Hillary Clinton run for president if the Dems are going to take the WMDs were a lie route?

She obviously can't jump on the bandwagon that intelligence reports about Saddam's stockpile, dangers and intentions were manipulated by those at the highest levels of government. How does she handle this?


How does Hillary Clinton run for president if the Dems are going to take the WMDs were a lie route?

Hillary is going nowhere in the Dem primaries. The activist wing nearly despises her at this point --- she hasn't reached Lieberman depth, but she's well on her way.



Well now that you mention it...we did try to engage Saddam as an islamo-fascist ally...it netted us a dictator and bought us the invasion of Kuwait, ...compared to the torture endured by roomfuls of one -armed Iraqii prisoners under Saddam, I believe a majority of Iraqiis (Kurds and Shia, at least) prefer our forms of interrogation and form of government as evidenced by the fact that they continue to line up with us to serve to set up their country..

And finally, would it not BE a wonderful thing if Iraqii companies COUld be subsidiaries and Iraqiis could actually work whether for Hallliburton or Microsoft, instead of being frightened of suicide bombers blowing up their homes.

I hope for a day when Microsoft and Halliburton can have subsidiaries in Iraq. Under Saddam and his next generation Uday and Qusay there was no likely possibility of this. With a new government, at least there is hope.

What would your policy choice have been in March '03, continue to starve Iraqiis,leave Saddam in place and keep "lying" about the intelligence? We tried the "let's partner up with Saddam" policy in the '80s and '90s with no success to Iraqiis or us, what were your alternatives in March '03?


p.l., how can 'As if' be a lie? It's in the subjunctive. Surely Fitz knows that.


Jaz: Dems are counting on the electorate being as ashamed as they are over their craveness in the face of Saddam.


Somerby has an interesting take on how 'good and scared' the bulk of the American people were pre-war, in his howling about the Kennedy/Russert set piece. Many presently anti-war people feared Saddam and now believe themselves fooled, thus, they are angry. Some of them, the thinking ones; some just parrot.

Conversely, there are some who weren't convinced by Powell's hint of 'there are things we can't tell you', and who believed that sanctions, inspections, and no-fly zones had worked. Some even believed that the oil for food business was a boon rather than a boondoggle. Duelfer and Rossett have dispossessed those of that delusion, and Saddam gone and no longer a bogeyman is something to be proud of.


That should be "in his baying about the Kennedy/Russert howler".


"Fitzgerald doesn't have to put Russert on the stand, because regardless of what Russert says, Libby is lying about that conversation."

What an amazing statement. Libby's testimony has been analyzed and re-analyzed on these threads, so I won't go over the same territory. It should be said, however, that Libby's recollections were refreshed by his own notes - notes that he turned over to the prosecutor.

What is unexplainable to me is the fact that Russert, a major player in this bizarre affair, continues to report on the matter from his lofty position at NBC.
As far as Kennedy is concerned, does anyone outside of Massachusetts really listen to or believe anything that he has to say about anything?



"actually, given the way things are turning out in Iraq, "Saddam unchecked and in power today" would probably be an improvement..."

Purple fingers are an improvement over Saddam no matter how much you want to deny that.

And he still would have WMDs as far as we would know. There's no way the inspectors could actually prove he didn't unless Saddam came clean with either how he destroyed them or where he hid them.

The only way that we could know Saddam didn't have WMDs was by invading and deposing him.

Saddam wasn't a rational actor so we cannot depend on him to do/not do what we would do in his place.


Maybe a little slip, there, too. Things are going badly in Iraq for those supporting the insurgency. For those who'd rather see Saddam in charge than Bush triumphant, purple fingers are a paradigm popper.

Syl, it just can't be. Why, then, I'd be wrong. Naw, anything but that, including loud, public, delusion.

Why does it seem to be impossible for the situation in Iraq to be honestly reported? The MSM is making a mockery of literacy.


[url][/url] [url=]gay son and father sex[/url] <a href=>gay son and father sex</a> [url][/url] [url=]free gay dad son sex stories[/url] <a href=>free gay dad son sex stories</a> [url][/url] [url=]teenage boy pissing gay[/url] <a href=>teenage boy pissing gay</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay slave doctor[/url] <a href=>gay slave doctor</a> [url][/url] [url=]young gay handjob video[/url] <a href=>young gay handjob video</a> [url][/url] [url=]free gay men sexincest pics[/url] <a href=>free gay men sexincest pics</a> [url][/url] [url=]dad and son gay sex stories[/url] <a href=>dad and son gay sex stories</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay boy teen bondage[/url] <a href=>gay boy teen bondage</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay pissing teens[/url] <a href=>gay pissing teens</a> [url][/url] [url=]bondage avi gay[/url] <a href=>bondage avi gay</a>


[url][/url] [url=]play cherry master free[/url] <a href=>play cherry master free</a> [url][/url] [url=]multi play video poker online casino[/url] <a href=>multi play video poker online casino</a> [url][/url] [url=]free strip blackjack online[/url] <a href=>free strip blackjack online</a> [url][/url] [url=]cheat at online poker blog poker[/url] <a href=>cheat at online poker blog poker</a> [url][/url] [url=]lesbians crap[/url] <a href=>lesbians crap</a> [url][/url] [url=]online player poker review site[/url] <a href=>online player poker review site</a> [url][/url] [url=]black jack certification[/url] <a href=>black jack certification</a> [url][/url] [url=]beating cherry master[/url] <a href=>beating cherry master</a> [url][/url] [url=]black jack cola[/url] <a href=>black jack cola</a> [url][/url] [url=]hacking cherry master[/url] <a href=>hacking cherry master</a>


[url][/url] [url=]gay teen boys nude in europe[/url] <a href=>gay teen boys nude in europe</a> [url][/url] [url=]teenage boy pissing gay[/url] <a href=>teenage boy pissing gay</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay teen male models[/url] <a href=>gay teen male models</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay boy teen bondage[/url] <a href=>gay boy teen bondage</a> [url][/url] [url=]playdad thumbnails free xxx gay[/url] <a href=>playdad thumbnails free xxx gay</a> [url][/url] [url=]teenage pissing gay[/url] <a href=>teenage pissing gay</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay teen male models[/url] <a href=>gay teen male models</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay amature webcams free[/url] <a href=>gay amature webcams free</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay photographer looking for models young men[/url] <a href=>gay photographer looking for models young men</a> [url][/url] [url=]gay father and son forced sex[/url] <a href=>gay father and son forced sex</a>


[url][/url] [url=]gamble blackjack online[/url] <a href=>gamble blackjack online</a> [url][/url] [url=]roulette play odds best[/url] <a href=>roulette play odds best</a> [url][/url] [url=]blackjack online gambling[/url] <a href=>blackjack online gambling</a> [url][/url] [url=]dc dogg crap training[/url] <a href=>dc dogg crap training</a> [url][/url] [url=]sample code requirements for building a online poker site[/url] <a href=>sample code requirements for building a online poker site</a> [url][/url] [url=]online poker scams cheating[/url] <a href=>online poker scams cheating</a> [url][/url] [url=]eat crap shit sex[/url] <a href=>eat crap shit sex</a> [url][/url] [url=]where can i buy poker chips in chicago[/url] <a href=>where can i buy poker chips in chicago</a> [url][/url] [url=]poker poker casino algarve online casino casinoalgarve[/url] <a href=>poker poker casino algarve online casino casinoalgarve</a> [url][/url] [url=]online poker addicts[/url] <a href=>online poker addicts</a>


http://uk.geocities.com/free742free/hot-naked-gay-teen-boy.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/free742free/hot-naked-gay-teen-boy.htm]hot naked gay teen boy[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/free742free/hot-naked-gay-teen-boy.htm>hot naked gay teen boy</a> http://uk.geocities.com/male115sex/boy-gay-board-young.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/male115sex/boy-gay-board-young.htm]boy gay board young[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/male115sex/boy-gay-board-young.htm>boy gay board young</a> http://uk.geocities.com/adult753naked/gay-teen-boy-masterbation.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/adult753naked/gay-teen-boy-masterbation.htm]gay teen boy masterbation[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/adult753naked/gay-teen-boy-masterbation.htm>gay teen boy masterbation</a> http://hometown.aol.com/boys62010sex/sexiest-gay-young-african-boys.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/boys62010sex/sexiest-gay-young-african-boys.htm]sexiest gay young african boys[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/boys62010sex/sexiest-gay-young-african-boys.htm>sexiest gay young african boys</a> http://ca.geocities.com/free946sex/gay-teen-skater-porn.htm [url=http://ca.geocities.com/free946sex/gay-teen-skater-porn.htm]gay teen skater porn[/url] <a href=http://ca.geocities.com/free946sex/gay-teen-skater-porn.htm>gay teen skater porn</a> http://uk.geocities.com/nude928gay/gay-teens-playing-with-boys.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/nude928gay/gay-teens-playing-with-boys.htm]gay teens playing with boys[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/nude928gay/gay-teens-playing-with-boys.htm>gay teens playing with boys</a> http://uk.geocities.com/of444married/young-male-gays.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/of444married/young-male-gays.htm]young male gays[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/of444married/young-male-gays.htm>young male gays</a> http://uk.geocities.com/of444married/gay-teen-eating-cum.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/of444married/gay-teen-eating-cum.htm]gay teen eating cum[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/of444married/gay-teen-eating-cum.htm>gay teen eating cum</a> http://uk.geocities.com/nude928gay/gay-teen-cum-eat.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/nude928gay/gay-teen-cum-eat.htm]gay teen cum eat[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/nude928gay/gay-teen-cum-eat.htm>gay teen cum eat</a> http://uk.geocities.com/porn468acts/stories-about-male-gay-teen-sex.htm [url=http://uk.geocities.com/porn468acts/stories-about-male-gay-teen-sex.htm]stories about male gay teen sex[/url] <a href=http://uk.geocities.com/porn468acts/stories-about-male-gay-teen-sex.htm>stories about male gay teen sex</a>


http://hometown.aol.com/ass467626girls/small-guys-fucking-fat-girls.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/ass467626girls/small-guys-fucking-fat-girls.htm]small guys fucking fat girls[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/ass467626girls/small-guys-fucking-fat-girls.htm>small guys fucking fat girls</a> http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/girl-pissing-on-guy.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/girl-pissing-on-guy.htm]girl pissing on guy[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/girl-pissing-on-guy.htm>girl pissing on guy</a> http://hometown.aol.com/young564830sweet/free-adult-stories-pissing.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/young564830sweet/free-adult-stories-pissing.htm]free adult stories pissing[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/young564830sweet/free-adult-stories-pissing.htm>free adult stories pissing</a> http://hometown.aol.com/girls326658prett/jennifer-lopez-exclusive-naked-pictures.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/girls326658prett/jennifer-lopez-exclusive-naked-pictures.htm]jennifer lopez exclusive naked pictures[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/girls326658prett/jennifer-lopez-exclusive-naked-pictures.htm>jennifer lopez exclusive naked pictures</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teen804043couple/free-naked-hairy-celebs.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teen804043couple/free-naked-hairy-celebs.htm]free naked hairy celebs[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teen804043couple/free-naked-hairy-celebs.htm>free naked hairy celebs</a> http://hometown.aol.com/woman991476girls/asian-shower-lesbians.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/woman991476girls/asian-shower-lesbians.htm]asian shower lesbians[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/woman991476girls/asian-shower-lesbians.htm>asian shower lesbians</a> http://hometown.aol.com/anal99587sexy/free-gallery-mature-sex.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/anal99587sexy/free-gallery-mature-sex.htm]free gallery mature sex[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/anal99587sexy/free-gallery-mature-sex.htm>free gallery mature sex</a> http://hometown.aol.com/young564830sweet/girls-pissing-on-a-guys.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/young564830sweet/girls-pissing-on-a-guys.htm]girls pissing on a guys[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/young564830sweet/girls-pissing-on-a-guys.htm>girls pissing on a guys</a> http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/piss-pee-pissing-peeing-photo-free.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/piss-pee-pissing-peeing-photo-free.htm]piss pee pissing peeing photo free[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/piss-pee-pissing-peeing-photo-free.htm>piss pee pissing peeing photo free</a> http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/old-lady-pissing.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/old-lady-pissing.htm]old lady pissing[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/sex781387horny/old-lady-pissing.htm>old lady pissing</a>


http://hometown.aol.com/pills119519drug/buy-ionamin.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/pills119519drug/buy-ionamin.htm]buy ionamin[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/pills119519drug/buy-ionamin.htm>buy ionamin</a> http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/what-are-the-side-effects-of-lexapro-withdrawal.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/what-are-the-side-effects-of-lexapro-withdrawal.htm]what are the side effects of lexapro withdrawal[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/what-are-the-side-effects-of-lexapro-withdrawal.htm>what are the side effects of lexapro withdrawal</a> http://hometown.aol.com/viagra14887losin/side-effects-of-toprolxl-and-zocor.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/viagra14887losin/side-effects-of-toprolxl-and-zocor.htm]side effects of toprolxl and zocor[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/viagra14887losin/side-effects-of-toprolxl-and-zocor.htm>side effects of toprolxl and zocor</a> http://hometown.aol.com/viagra14887losin/zocor-side-effects-com.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/viagra14887losin/zocor-side-effects-com.htm]zocor side effects com[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/viagra14887losin/zocor-side-effects-com.htm>zocor side effects com</a> http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine78795/glucophage-and-fertility.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine78795/glucophage-and-fertility.htm]glucophage and fertility[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine78795/glucophage-and-fertility.htm>glucophage and fertility</a> http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine90529/effexor-xr-vomiting.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine90529/effexor-xr-vomiting.htm]effexor xr vomiting[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine90529/effexor-xr-vomiting.htm>effexor xr vomiting</a> http://hometown.aol.com/losingweight3095/prescription-drug-information-augusta-maine.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/losingweight3095/prescription-drug-information-augusta-maine.htm]prescription drug information augusta maine[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/losingweight3095/prescription-drug-information-augusta-maine.htm>prescription drug information augusta maine</a> http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/lexapro-withdrawal-lighthead.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/lexapro-withdrawal-lighthead.htm]lexapro withdrawal lighthead[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/lexapro-withdrawal-lighthead.htm>lexapro withdrawal lighthead</a> http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine90529/effexor-xr-orgasm-side-effects.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine90529/effexor-xr-orgasm-side-effects.htm]effexor xr orgasm side effects[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/phentermine90529/effexor-xr-orgasm-side-effects.htm>effexor xr orgasm side effects</a> http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/lexapro-pill-description.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/lexapro-pill-description.htm]lexapro pill description[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/cheap538324trama/lexapro-pill-description.htm>lexapro pill description</a>


http://hometown.aol.com/teeny979516227/transsexuals-cum.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny979516227/transsexuals-cum.htm]transsexuals cum[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny979516227/transsexuals-cum.htm>transsexuals cum</a> http://hometown.aol.com/anal59377169/mature-fat-naked-women.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/anal59377169/mature-fat-naked-women.htm]mature fat naked women[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/anal59377169/mature-fat-naked-women.htm>mature fat naked women</a> http://hometown.aol.com/anal59377169/naked-mature-women.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/anal59377169/naked-mature-women.htm]naked mature women[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/anal59377169/naked-mature-women.htm>naked mature women</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teeny96025263/asian-chick-massive-dick.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny96025263/asian-chick-massive-dick.htm]asian chick massive dick[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny96025263/asian-chick-massive-dick.htm>asian chick massive dick</a> http://hometown.aol.com/girls652195375/famous-girls-sucking-dick.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/girls652195375/famous-girls-sucking-dick.htm]famous girls sucking dick[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/girls652195375/famous-girls-sucking-dick.htm>famous girls sucking dick</a> http://hometown.aol.com/woman50204112/transsexuals-wank.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/woman50204112/transsexuals-wank.htm]transsexuals wank[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/woman50204112/transsexuals-wank.htm>transsexuals wank</a> http://hometown.aol.com/woman50204112/japan-transsexuals.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/woman50204112/japan-transsexuals.htm]japan transsexuals[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/woman50204112/japan-transsexuals.htm>japan transsexuals</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teen373375785/free-clips-of-lesbians-have-sex.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teen373375785/free-clips-of-lesbians-have-sex.htm]free clips of lesbians have sex[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teen373375785/free-clips-of-lesbians-have-sex.htm>free clips of lesbians have sex</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teen467800864/black-mature-sex-free.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teen467800864/black-mature-sex-free.htm]black mature sex free[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teen467800864/black-mature-sex-free.htm>black mature sex free</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teeny87173691/naked-asian-school-teachers.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny87173691/naked-asian-school-teachers.htm]naked asian school teachers[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny87173691/naked-asian-school-teachers.htm>naked asian school teachers</a>


http://hometown.aol.com/anal28468119/video-clips-of-ebony-porn.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/anal28468119/video-clips-of-ebony-porn.htm]video clips of ebony porn[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/anal28468119/video-clips-of-ebony-porn.htm>video clips of ebony porn</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teeny386170745/free-hairy-pussy-brunett-gallerys.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny386170745/free-hairy-pussy-brunett-gallerys.htm]free hairy pussy brunett gallerys[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny386170745/free-hairy-pussy-brunett-gallerys.htm>free hairy pussy brunett gallerys</a> http://hometown.aol.com/sweet73105027/tiny-dick-girls.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/sweet73105027/tiny-dick-girls.htm]tiny dick girls[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/sweet73105027/tiny-dick-girls.htm>tiny dick girls</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teeny09490603/massive-dick-art.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny09490603/massive-dick-art.htm]massive dick art[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny09490603/massive-dick-art.htm>massive dick art</a> http://hometown.aol.com/anal28468119/ebony-female-porn-stars.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/anal28468119/ebony-female-porn-stars.htm]ebony female porn stars[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/anal28468119/ebony-female-porn-stars.htm>ebony female porn stars</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teeny27543036/granny-hairy-sex.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny27543036/granny-hairy-sex.htm]granny hairy sex[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny27543036/granny-hairy-sex.htm>granny hairy sex</a> http://hometown.aol.com/couple02528339/dree-ebony-porn.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/couple02528339/dree-ebony-porn.htm]dree ebony porn[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/couple02528339/dree-ebony-porn.htm>dree ebony porn</a> http://hometown.aol.com/teeny27543036/big-thick-hairy-dick.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny27543036/big-thick-hairy-dick.htm]big thick hairy dick[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny27543036/big-thick-hairy-dick.htm>big thick hairy dick</a> http://hometown.aol.com/horny532225936/big-dick-hairy-shemales.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/horny532225936/big-dick-hairy-shemales.htm]big dick hairy shemales[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/horny532225936/big-dick-hairy-shemales.htm>big dick hairy shemales</a> http://hometown.aol.com/couple02528339/ebony-porn-star-jordan-mcknight.htm [url=http://hometown.aol.com/couple02528339/ebony-porn-star-jordan-mcknight.htm]ebony porn star jordan mcknight[/url] <a href=http://hometown.aol.com/couple02528339/ebony-porn-star-jordan-mcknight.htm>ebony porn star jordan mcknight</a>



The comments to this entry are closed.