Matching Headline To Story To Reality

The Times has a classic headline describing Senate action on Thursday:

"Partisan Lines Solidify as Republicans Thwart Democrats Again on an Iraq Vote"

Oh, those uncooperative Republicans!  Let's read about the solidification of the partisan divide in the Democratic-controlled senate:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — Democrats and Republicans in the Senate continued their circular debate over the Iraq war on Thursday, with the same arguments and the same voting results.

A Democratic proposal that would have immediately changed the mission of American troops, required the withdrawal of all combat forces by the end of June 2008 and then cut off financing for military operations in Iraq received only 28 votes on Thursday, falling far short of the 60 needed to prevent a Republican filibuster.

Joe Biden was in Iowa and not voting, so it appears that 20 Democrats joined 49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman to defeat this.

If twenty Republicans had crossed the line and joined the Democrats on some issue the Times would hail it as a bipartisan triumph.  But here, a 28-20 split amongst the Senate Democrats signals a solidification of a partisan divide.

Here is my suggestion for a more accurate headline -

Bipartisan Coalition Crushes Wistful Withdrawal Plan Offered By Left

I await the day.

MORE:  My day has nearly come, at AFP anyway:

Senate deals new blow to anti-war Democrats

AFP includes an unsurprising detail oddly overlooked by the Times - both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in the losing group of 28.

Comments

[clarice]

It takes real creative talent to write Times headlines,TM.

[Sue]

If twenty Republicans had crossed the line and joined the Democrats

Twenty? If one republican crosses the aisle it is referred to as bi-partisan, even if that one republican is (was) Lincoln Chafee.

[clarice]

Exactamente,Sue--and that guy will be described as "a leading Republican" in that and all future articles.

[Sue]

"a leading Republican"

Or maverick. Paging John McCain...

[Charles Dunaway]

How about this headline?

Republicans Sentence More U.S. Soldiers to Die in Iraq

[PeterUK]

How about,
"Bipartisan Coalition prevents humiliating defeat of the US".

[Jane]

You know given headlines like that, it is understandable why so many on the left are morons.

[Ralph L]

Even a moron (sorry, TM) would see it was dishonest and misleading, if he read the article.
So Clinton voted for defeat. Is she that afraid of Obama?

[Cecil Turner]

How about this headline?

Blaming the Republicans for a vote that garnered only 28 votes is silly. The Democrats barely got a majority of their own members to sign on. A cynic might think they were trying to lose the vote, since winning the vote would give them responsibility for losing the war (and they appear to be averse both to winning and responsibility). Meanwhile, maverick John McCain comes up with another good sound byte:

"We won't choose to lose (this conflict)!"

[RichatUF]

Its off-topic but enjoy Yom Kippur:

gmar hatima tova

[MikeS]

Journalists are engaged in what they call "advocacy journalism." I call it dissembling.

The guy who wrote that headline thought he was doing the right thing. He was expressing 'his truth.' Never mind that 'his truth' conflicts with the facts.

[Jodi]

Lately the NY Times has moved closer and closer to FireDogLake

Like the guy in the cool Chrysler Hemi truck commercials says: "That can't be good."

[clarice]

Shona tova, RUF

[PeterUK]

"Lately the NY Times has moved closer and closer to FireDogLake"

With any luck they will fall in it.

[danking70]

Was the start of the surge delayed when the Dems. were denying funds to the military in the early part of the year?

[Cecil Turner]

Not that I've heard. In any event, the "surge" is a bit of a misnomer, since that predominantly refers to troop strength. The operations in and around Baghdad started in mid-June, after the last of the surge forces were in place. The change in strategy (approach? tactics? . . . not really a strategy in the military sense) happened a bit earlier, as Petraeus began implementing his campaign plan, but if we're talking about the change in operations, that's only the last few months. So really it's necessary to specify which part (troop buildup, strategy shift, clear-and-hold operations) one is discussing, but AFAIK none were affected by funding delays.

[Terrye]

One would think the Democrats would be getting tired of losing. I noticed Bayh did not vote with Clinton. If the Democrats had any sense they would pick a guy like that instead of the losers they got running now.

I was glad to see the Republicans hang together on this. I wish they would do that more often.

[Ralph L]

Our local paper carries the AP story about the recent Senate votes. Its headline: Democrats say GOP now owns Iraq war. It gives the votes tallies, but the last sentence finally admits that 20 Dems voted with most of the Repubs. The paper was right wing and profitable until a few years ago when it changed owners.

[Jane]

I'm okay with owning the Iraq war - as long as the dems agree to stop interfering.

[hit and run]

Well hell, if the media is going to classify 20 dems as repubs anyway can we just get the majority back? I mean, chairmanships on all those committees (senate judiciary especially) would come in handy right about now.

[RichatUF]

Mike S-

I call it dissembling.

You are giving journalists the quality of independent thought-I call it rewriting the press releases they are handed by radical leftist advocates...

What, radical leftists would dissemble????

[Terrye]

I was watching Special Report this evening and the panel talked about the Blackwater security people in Iraq not being under any kind of authority. Is that true? It is seemed rather strange. Some snotty young reporter {whose name I can not recall} was calling them cowboys and saying they treated the Iraqis badly and all kinds of stuff.

I have to admit I wondered about the whole thing. It would seem to me that by now there would have to be a clear idea as to who these people answer to.

Does anyone know anything about this?

[RichatUF]

danking70-

Was the start of the surge delayed when the Dems. were denying funds to the military in the early part of the year?

Doubtful. I really didn't appreciate the affect the Samarra Mosque bombing had on creating the sectarian violence in 2006. Part of the problem is the inability to recognize that the Iranian Persian Shi'ites will kill as many Arab and Kurd Shi'ites as is necessary to achieve their goals-once we figure this out the problems and solutions will become clear.

The other problem is that the military budget is generally set 2 years in advance. This gives operations at the brigade and division level some decent latitude to conduct missions that can be buried in "continuing operations" and "training operations". The problem is that Congress can come and pencil-whip at the margins [like rotation schedules, equipment requirments, et al]. There was a good AT piece a while back that compared the funding similarities of Iraq and Vietnam and my google skills have seemd to have dropped off substantially so I can't dig up the link.

[RichatUF]

Terrye-

Is that true? It is seemed rather strange. Some snotty young reporter {whose name I can not recall} was calling them cowboys and saying they treated the Iraqis badly and all kinds of stuff.

Here are some thoughts about privatization of warfare. Blackwater is only the first, but Executive Outcomes set the standard in Sierra Leone[site of one of Clinton's many failed "peace deals"] and in Croatia [the real reason the Serbs capitulated in that theater]. Blackwater is important, probably too important and too well known, for operations in Iraq [similiar to Dyncorp in Columbia].

They must be successful in achieving goals in the US national interest for the Interior Ministry in Iraq and the "US" State Department to be squwaking about some dead insurgents. A good rule of thumb is when the TNPL begin making noise, the private military contractors are doing the job that ngo's and terrorists have been unable to do [ie they are competition].

[RichatUF]

darn it-

once we figure this out the problems and solutions will become clear...

-once we figure out this problem the solutions will become clear-

[Terrye]

Rich:

I have heard they were very good, but I was also kind of surprised when I heard that no one has any control or authority over them. I just found that hard to believe.

[RichatUF]

Comgression Research Service take

GAO take

DOD take

I can't seem to find the State Departments thinking-which doesn't surprise me because if they hide the rules it is much easier for them to say they have been broken. Political stuff...seems they haven't been liked for a while, expect the usual preening from Congress [while forgetting this, PMC have been around for awhile]

[Sara]

Wasn't it Blackwater guys who got burned and hung from the bridge?

[Sara]

Yes they were.

An excerpt from an old WaPo article:

18 of his close co-workers have now perished on the job, including two whose bodies were hung in Fallujah last March from what is now called Blackwater Bridge and six who were killed when a helicopter they were riding in was shot down outside Baghdad on Thursday.

[cathyf]

I picked out this one:

received only 28 votes on Thursday, falling far short of the 60 needed to prevent a Republican filibuster.

Filibuster? So why would the Republicans filibuster when they and half of the Democrats could simply vote the thing down? The whole point is that a 72-28 vote means that the anti-war folks are far short of the votes for a Democrat filibuster.

Oh, well, I guess they never miss an opportunity to push the "fact" that Republicans are obstructionists.

[Syl]

once we figure out this problem the solutions will become clear

Well, just as in Anbar, I expect the Iraqis will figure it out first. there are murmurs of some shia tribal leaders in the south who are hinting at asking for American help to rid themselves of their own shia extremists.

A shift has occurred in Iraq which is why I feel this enterprise may be a success...it has much more of an Iraqi face now.

[Terrye]

Syl:

It could just be that people will get tired of all this and want to live a normal life. I do not know why that should be shocking to people. Perhaps the fact that the Palestinians seem bound and determined to live like a band of roving highwaymen forever has got some people thinking that all Muslims consider bombs and gunfire to just be normal life.

But I think it is dawning on them that the sooner they get their act together, the sooner they get their country back.

[Terrye]

Sara:

The Blackwater guys might be tough, that is probably what it takes to stay alive in their jobs. That snotty reporter I was talking about was saying they run Iraqis off the road, shoot at them for no reason, act like cowboys, etc. But he is a reporter so I am not really willing to take his word for a lot.

I was just surprised that there was no official authority over them. That just seemed strange.

[Terrye]

Rich:

Thanks.

[Cecil Turner]

I was just surprised that there was no official authority over them.

Not sure where you're getting that, and don't think it's correct. Per the GAO report cited above:

Although private security providers are generally not subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the absence of a formal declaration of war by Congress, the federal government can impose sanctions in response to acts of misconduct. For example, private security providers are subject to prosecution by the Department of Justice under applicable U.S. federal laws, to include the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act,8 the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions of title 18 of the U.S. code,9 and the War Crimes Act.10

The Congressional report makes essentially the same case:

Section 522 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) makes military contractors supporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but until the Department of Defense publishes implementing regulations, it is more likely that contractors who commit crimes in Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply extraterritorially . . .

And both note that some CPA regulations apply (e.g., requiring licenses and authorizing carriage of weapons). The DOD directive is more the old-school version, which gives direction to all DOD contractors (most security firms are not DOD, as I understand it), and authorizes commanders to enforce law of war violations. I suspect the GAO is correct that the wartime authority of the UCMJ is not applicable . . . yet another ramification of Congress's stupid reluctance to declare war when deciding to authorize military force.

[Terrye]

Cecil:

I was not getting at anything, I was repeating what I heard on the news and saying it did not sound right to me. I thought there had to be some kind of oversight, but the report on Fox last night and the panel on Special Report left me with the impression that these people operated without having to answer to anyone. Like I said, I found that strange.

Captains Quarters has a post up about additional problems they may face. Apparently some of their people are facing charges of gun smuggling.

[Terrye]

This is one of the comments at Captains, I admit, I don't know what is going on, but this is what one guy said:

This is an outgrowth of the shift from government run programs to 'outsourcing' programs to contractors. That was started in the 1990's to change the 'tooth to tail' ratio via the DoD A-76 and other processes. When the process started replacing government security at DoD facilities with private security, I knew something was going seriously wrong. It is one thing for janitorial staff, grounds keeping and even infrastructure maintenance to be done by contractors... it is quite another for security of installations to fall to such organizations. Especially in the day and age of terrorism.

If the State Dept. wants a separate organization to do such overseas, they can very well go to Congress and ask it to certify organizations with Letters of Marque and Reprisal so that they may fall under the military purview and command, and yet have separate operations which will not endanger such missions as State requires. That requires such organizations to wear uniforms, insignia and follow a chain of command and be beholden to the UCMJ and Federal contracting laws. Security to chase of muggers is one thing, security to keep you alive in a firefight is something else, again. And contracting for warfighters outside of the Letters language is something this Nation only does in extreme times and is decided by the Executive on such pressing need as will not brook delay, and we are far from that today.

State Dept. cannot have a private army. It is time for us to realize that and require proper authority over such firms and authorization from Congress via those lovely old means of the Letters language. So that law is upheld, not only our law but the law of nations, so those seeing such know them to be officially sanctioned and accountable to the United States.

That comment was left by a guy called ajackson.

Like I said, strange.

[Cecil Turner]

This is an outgrowth of the shift from government run programs to 'outsourcing' programs to contractors.

He's right that there is a trend that direction in the last couple of decades, but absolutely wrong if he's suggesting it's a novel development. Auxiliaries are a well-known tradition (and provided for in the Geneva Conventions) . . . and in fact, early artillerists were mostly civilian. The current state of the law of war is that contractors can't be combatants, but these guys clearly aren't combatants.

Besides, the lines of combatancy are not being blurred by the coalition, but by the insurgents. If they attack civilian targets, that doesn't make their targets combatants if they attempt to defend themselves. That rather silly proposition is at the heart of this debate, and I find it risible.

[Terrye]

Cecil:

I don't feel like I even know enough about it to have an opinion, to tell you the truth. I did however,find the assertion that Blackwater operated without ever having to answer to anyone to be out of bounds. I just thought there had to be more to it.

In fact if they are being investigated by the Feds for gun running it does seem obvious that someone is taking what they do into account.

[Terrye]

Remember the Pinkertons? After the Civil War they did a lot of work in the South and the West. They were called a private army too.

[Cecil Turner]

I did however,find the assertion that Blackwater operated without ever having to answer to anyone to be out of bounds.

It's a fairly common lefty meme, reaching at least as far back as Kos's "screw 'em" comment. The claim is that contractors qualify as "mercenaries" (under GC protocol I article 47), and hence a violation of laws of war. A mercenary is defined as someone who:

• (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
• (b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

The argument is that Blackwater bodyguards, et al, do in fact fight in the armed conflict . . . which again I find risible. And claiming they are violating the GCs is particularly implausible since every insurgent attack on the things Blackwater guards is a violation of the law of war to begin with.

Moreover, the goal of those who propound this argument is the same as the recent Webb amendment: to make it impossible to continue in Iraq by placing unworkable personnel demands on the US. (If we had to replace every contractor with a soldier, it'd be difficult if not impossible.) Just as some of our allies are begrudging peacekeeping forces (even in Afghanistan) in a fairly obvious effort to make it difficult to continue with a policy they don't support.

[Rick Ballard]

I suppose the UN could send in one its crack Rape and Plunder Teams to provide security for US State Department employees. That might be a very fitting response.

[clarice]

OT: (memory lane) one of the best pieces ever written on Rathergate:
http://inbillsworld.blogspot.com/2004/09/road-less-graveled.html

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Oops, he did it again:

One of my pet peeves about political reporting is the fact that some of my journalistic colleagues seem to want to be in another business – namely, theater criticism. Instead of telling us what candidates are actually saying – and whether it’s true or false, sensible or silly – they tell us how it went over, and how they think it affects the horse race.

Which is because politics IS theater. Show business for ugly people. That a guy with an MIT Phd (and a John Bates Clark medal) doesn't get that is pretty amazing.

This political posturing over troops in Iraq being a perfect example of the adage that, in politics, the truth doesn't matter, it's only what people THINK the truth is, that matters.

Another would be this from Mary Mapes:

It has been three years since we aired our much-maligned story on President Bush's National Guard service and reaped a whirlwind of right-wing outrage and talk radio retaliation. That part of the assault on our story was not unexpected. In September 2004, anyone who had the audacity to even ask impertinent questions about the president was certain to be figuratively kicked in the head by the usual suspects.

What was different in our case was the brand new and bruising power of the conservative blogosphere, particularly the extremists among them. They formed a tightly knit community of keyboard assault artists who saw themselves as avenging angels of the right, determined to root out and decimate anything they believed to be disruptive to their worldview.

To them, the fact that the president wimped out on his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War -- and then covered it up -- was no big deal. Our having the temerity to say it on national TV was unforgivable and we had to be destroyed. They organized, with the help of longtime well-connected Republican activists, and began their assault.

Actually, we had done a straightforward, well-substantiated story. We presented former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes in his first ever interview saying that he had pulled strings to get the future president into the National Guard after a Bush family friend requested help in keeping the kid out of Vietnam.

And we showed for the first time a cache of documents allegedly written by Bush's former commander. The documents supported a mountain of other evidence that young Bush had dodged his duty and not been punished. They did not in any way diverge from the information in the sketchy pieces of the president's official record made available by the White House or the National Guard. In fact, to the few people who had gone to the trouble of examining the Bush record, these papers filled in some of the blanks.

We reported that since these documents were copies, not originals, they could not be fully authenticated, at least not in the legal sense. They could not be subjected to tests to determine the age of the paper or the ink. We did get corroboration on the content and support from a couple of longtime document analysts saying they saw nothing indicating that the memos were not real.

Instantly, the far right blogosphere bully boys pronounced themselves experts on document analysis, and began attacking the form and font in the memos. They screamed objections that ultimately proved to have no basis in fact. But they captured the argument. They dominated the discussion by churning out gigabytes of mind-numbing internet dissertations about the typeface in the memos, focusing on the curl at the end of the "a," the dip on the top of the "t," the spacing, the superscript, which typewriters were used in the military in 1972.

It was a deceptive approach, and it worked.

Virtually not a word of truth in that, but if you read a bit in the comments, it doesn't matter.

Though, as Jonah Goldberg notes, they better be careful what they wish for, 'cause they might get it...good and hard:

The beauty of this lawsuit, which has most legal observers laughing so hard that their neck veins look like one-pound sausage casings with five pounds of ground chuck in them, is that if it goes to trial (shortly after unicorns file my taxes), CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus, while Rather will be forced to look even more like a grassy-knoll theorist, climbing back to the top of the laughingstock tree. So I say again: You go, Dan! I’ll bring the popcorn.

[Terrye]

Cecil:

Maybe so, but like I said I got the impression on Fox from people like Fred Barnes that the military could not touch these people.

[clarice]

Read Bledar's post today, Patrick--CBS may pay him something--despite the laughability of the case--rather than further expose themselves to ridicule.
< href=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/rather_when_the_adversary_syst.html>CBS Dunderheads

[clarice]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/rather_when_the_adversary_syst.html>CBS Dunderheads

[Cecil Turner]

Maybe so, but like I said I got the impression on Fox from people like Fred Barnes that the military could not touch these people.

Not sure what point of mine you're disagreeing with. Besides, I think as a practical matter that's close to correct. If it were wartime (declared war), the military would have overall responsibility in the war zone. Since it's not, the DOJ would be the one to bring prosecutions, if warranted, under various US laws.

[cboldt]

The "not have to answer to anyone" phrase is obviously incorrect. These guys have bosses, can be fired, moved around, etc. They answer.

The issue, and it is an old one, is which law reaches them for allegations of criminal conduct? They are, as a matter of law, immune from prosecution under Iraq criminal law; and they are outside of the UCMJ.

The investigation against Blackwater for gun running is being run out of the US, by a federal prosecutor. But I don't think a federal prosecutor will bother to get involved in a security incident that takes place in Iraq. I don't think they should bother either.

It is in that "security incident" sense that the actors don't answer to the law. But they do answer to their bosses (who in turn answer to the client US State Department, etc.), who may or may not ship them out, depending on how much trouble it is to keep them around.

[kim]

A copy can only be authenticated with provenance, it can be shown to be fake by any number of other means; it is not hard to do, and these memos are incontrovertibly fake. At least in 1/05, you were still believing the unconscious thrust of the Thornburgh whitewash, that since they couldn't be proven authentic, then they couldn't be proven fake. You may understand differently today. If only for the sake of this concept, I hope the suit goes forward. There are other benefits, though, of it going forward. Please, let it.
======================================
=============================

[clarice]

Yes, Kim--that is far more accurate.

[Terrye]

Cecil and cbolt:

When I say do not have to answer to anyone I am not saying they can not get fired. I was talking about criminal charges of some kind.

And I am not really disagreeing with you Cecil, I am saying that according to what I heard last night the military can not arrest these men for a crime. The feds are looking into some gun running charge, but the panel was talking about whether or not the security personell could be punished by the military and they said no.

I am saying that I think it is strange that after all this time there seems to be confusion on the subject. If I could find a transcript of the discussion it would make my point plainer.

I just hope it does not turn into a big deal because things seem to be going better in Iraq and I would like to see it continue that way without the Democrats having something else to raise hell about.

[cboldt]

-- after all this time there seems to be confusion on the subject. --

That's just the talking heads practicing their usual half-informed debate and sloppy use of language. The private security force is immune from criminal prosecution under Iraq law (by operation of an international agreement), and they are not covered by the UCMJ. That second part is what "could be punished/arrested by the military" part refers to, I think.

In addition to the criminal aspect, they are also not liable under Iraq civil law.

However, adding to the confusion when bringing up the entire universe of possibilities, anybody CAN be arrested by the military, and some US contractors have been. But even though they can be arrested and detained (and in that sense, punished), they can't be put to a trial under the UCMJ.

The gun running violation under investigation involves arms being exported from the US without an export license. That accusation has nothing to do with an international agreement, even though Blackwater actors are being accused, and is an entirely different kind of case from one that arises from an Iraq security incident.

[cboldt]

-- I would like to see it continue that way without the Democrats having something else to raise hell about. --

The Democrats were raising hell about the immunity deal several years ago. This isn't a "new" issue.

Meehan - June 2004, just to pick one at random.

The CRS recently published a summary of the legal and political issues, as well as the legal framework. RL32419.pdf (about 230 kB)

[Sara]

Terrye: I just heard that two former Blackwater employees are being prosecuted in North Carolina for bad acts while in Iraq.

[cboldt]

I believe the two former Blackwater employees plead guilty in North Carolina (to possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in foreign or interstate commerce), and are cooperating with prosecutors regarding investigation and prosecution of violation of US firearms export laws.

I know of no case where a US citizen has been charged for any action relating to a protective detail security incident in Iraq. That doesn't mean there haven't been any, just that I don't know of any.

[clarice]

cboldt --your 6:11 post makes sense.

[Sara]

Thanks for the clarification cboldt, I wasn't paying that close attention.

[Cecil Turner]

I am saying that according to what I heard last night the military can not arrest these men for a crime.

That's right (or close enough, anyway . . . "punish" would be more precise). But the circumstances where the military punishes civilians are so rare that I'm not sure what it matters. The US government can punish them for war crimes (which would include any of the serious hypothetical violations by the Blackwater types), and the authorities in Iraq can do various things (e.g., pull licensing) for lesser breaches.

It seems to me the idea of the military enforcing the law is a bit of a red herring (though it would be the historical standard in a declared war zone). Similarly, letting the locals try and punish our troops or auxiliaries would let them run our operations. In a more settled situation there would be a status of forces agreement (SOFA) covering it . . . but the bottom line is that we're not going to let them try our folks unless we agree. And that isn't exactly a new concept.

[Terrye]

Cecil:

Hopefully the whole thing can be contained without anyone taking advantage of a bad situation.

I know these people are very good at what they do. I don't doubt that.

[Cecil Turner]

Hopefully the whole thing can be contained without anyone taking advantage of a bad situation.

Seems to me the real question is whether someone taking advantage can be punished. The gripes are generally about whether the Iraqis have control of our contractors (no, nor should they), or the military (no, but that's not really necessary), but ignores the important point: does the US government have adequate control over contractors in Iraq. And I think the answer to that is clearly "yes."

There's a very good analysis here, which covers much of the ground very well. (And though I disagree with some of his conclusions, I did learn something interesting: licensing doesn't apply to the diplomatic contracts, and Blackwater is apparently using that fact to free up some of their operations.) In any event, his bottom line appears to me to be spot-on:

If the Blackwater contractors did do wrong and they end up not being prosecuted, the reason will not be weaknesses in the law, but lack of will.

[dtutyitfoutuo]

肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 食道癌 href="http://www.aizhengw.com/aizheng/zhongliu/291553.htm">直肠癌 结肠癌 乳腺癌 宫颈癌 贲门癌 皮肤癌 胰腺癌 甲状腺癌 前列腺癌 鼻咽癌 脑瘤 卵巢癌 肾癌

丰胸 隆胸 情感故事 整容 职场故防晒霜 如何美白 女性健康 经期饮食产后减肥 坐月子 祛斑 不孕不育医院 怀孕的症状 孕期保健 合理用药 体检中心 保湿面膜 非主流服饰

[wow power leveling]

wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
codeheart article
Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
cheap wow gold

[wow power leveling]

wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
codeheart article
Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
cheap wow gold