Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

July 16, 2003

THE NUANCES OF GEORGE BUSH....Max Boot writes about the uranium scandal today in the LA Times. We get the usual talking points — intelligence is by nature fragmentary, Clinton bombed an aspirin factory, it was only 16 words, etc. — and then this:

This administration never pretended that it had firm intelligence that Hussein was about to attack the United States.

Don't you just love the oh-so-careful wording here? The implication is that Bush never oversold the case against Iraq at all and certainly never claimed the United States was in any real danger from Saddam Hussein. Unless, of course, you count things like this from the now infamous State of the Union address:

It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

It's undeniable that Bush never flatly claimed that an attack against the United States was only days away, but surely Boot's statement is, um, just a teensy bit disingenuous anyway? Does anyone seriously doubt that George Bush was the cheeleader-in-chief for the notion that that United States and the world were in grave and immediate danger from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction?

Conservatives sure are getting good at Clintonian levels of hyper-legalistic word selection, aren't they? Care to try again, Max?

Posted by Kevin Drum at July 16, 2003 09:29 AM | TrackBack


Comments

Did W and the administration argue we were in immediate danger? Nope. In grave danger? Yup. Did they argue that that grave danger would (not might, not could, but with certainty would), at some unpredictable point in time become immediate? Yup. I don't think I'm nitpicking (though I could be alleged to be doing so), but more accurately describing the case that was laid out. Of course, you still may not find it any more compelling.

Posted by: spc67 at July 16, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin:May I remind you, that even back in the Clinton days, it was the Impeachment crew that started the hyper-legalistic word selection. The twisted definition of "sexual relations" and was vs. is.

The term I'm looking for is "The Big Lie". It's a concept where you accuse somebody else of exactly what you are doing yourself, in order to bring the attention away from you.

Note, all the Righties that come in here and accuse Democrats of "being negative" and "Not having any ideas". That's the best example of all.

Posted by: Glenn at July 16, 2003 09:42 AM | PERMALINK

>>I don't think I'm nitpicking (though I could be alleged to be doing so), but more accurately describing the case that was laid out.

No, I don't think you are accurately describing it - if there wasn't such a sense of *urgency*, then the UN weapons inspectors would have been given the chance to complete their jobs - unless of course, the idea of supporting the UN weapons inspectors route was just a charade anyway. But if you look at the press from around the time that the weapons inspectors were let in, it was generally agreed that it would take up to a year to complete their job. The only legit reason to pull the plug on the inspectors WAS the "urgency" - and that's what broke us from France, Germany, Turkey, Canada, Mexico, etc. I think to now after-the-fact characterize the urgency as really meaning "some unpredictable point in time" as opposed to the more immediate threat that the hawks tried to picture ignores the tone of the arguments being offered throughout the fall and winter.

You ignore that Bush served up such chestnuts as warning of the "growing" fleet of unarmed aircraft lurking offshore, or Bush's false assertions that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon". I don't read "six months away" as "some unpredictable point in time" - do you?

Posted by: Andy at July 16, 2003 09:49 AM | PERMALINK

Max Boot is an idiot and everyone knows it.

Besides, how can you take a guy seriously whose name sounds like a violent attack of nausea?

Posted by: monocle at July 16, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINK

Conservative pundits being intellectually dishonest? Impossible.

Remember, if reality doesn't fit your model, alter your perception of reality.

Posted by: taktile at July 16, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINK

spc67,

The notion that the US was in immediate danger from Iraq is laughable on its face, but you're overlooking one key component of Bush's inexorable march to war: That it needed to happen right then. No more time for inspections, no more time to form a case that might have persuaded the UNSC, none of that. At the very least, there's a disconnect between the notion of a "grave" -- but not immediate -- threat and Bush's insistence that any delay in his was was inconceivable.

But was there even a grave threat? The preponderance of the evidence -- including the Administration's own backtracking -- indicates that there was not. And that the Administration did all it could to imply -- using carefully parsed statements, if you please -- that a grave threat existed.

No one doubts that Iraq would have posed a grave threat had it posessed nuclear capability. No one, to my knowledge, suggested that Iraq be left unhindered while it developed such capability. But the Administration did all it could to imply -- if not state outright -- that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, and would provide same to al Qaeda at the first opportunity. That case, it's becoming abundantly clear, had little other than wishful thinking to back it up.

There were and are honorable reasons to support confronting Saddam's odious regime. Although many were skeptical, others took Bush and crew at their word, and having done so, their support for the war based on that case is undestandable.

But it's time to recognize that whatever one's own reasons for supporting the war, they aren't necessarily those put forward by Bush and Company to sell the war to an unenthusiastic public.

A case that Iraq was a grave, if not imminent, threat may have been compelling, but the emerging picture is that Bush and Company simply didn't have the goods to make even the "grave" case. I hope we can all agree that taking the nation to war -- especially a war objected to by most of the world, a fact that is having repercussions for national security to this day and promises to into the future as well -- under false pretenses is reprehensible.

Exactly which of Bush's prewar asserions regarding Iraq's alleged threat, grave or otherwise, have proven valid? It's time to open your eyes, sir, and hold the President responsible for the manner in which he implemented his policy, even if you havppened to agree with it for your own reasons.

Posted by: Gregory at July 16, 2003 09:55 AM | PERMALINK

Andy,
1. I think the "six months" comment you reference was in specific reference to what we found in 1991, no? Happy to be proven wrong on that one since my memory isn't entirely clear.

2. I think we can square this circle. I will concede that I would have agreed that a period of one year would have fallen within my definition of "unpredictable point in time."

Growing fleet of unarmed aircraft? huh?

Posted by: spc67 at July 16, 2003 09:56 AM | PERMALINK

Max Boot? Isn't he the wacko from the WSJ idiotorial page?

Gawd, who would give him the time of day?

Posted by: raj at July 16, 2003 09:56 AM | PERMALINK

"Does anyone seriously doubt that George Bush was the cheeleader-in-chief for the notion that that United States and the world were in grave and immediate danger from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction?"

Jeez, I thought lefties were supposed to understand that matters are not either black-or-white.

Bush never said that there was an "imminent threat" or that we were in "grave and immediate danger".

But that doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't an important threat that needed to be dealt with.

It is really amazing that you can't understand the difference!

Posted by: Al at July 16, 2003 09:58 AM | PERMALINK

"if there wasn't such a sense of *urgency*, then the UN weapons inspectors would have been given the chance to complete their jobs"

This is another canard perpetrated by the left - that the UN inspectors could have "complete[d] their jobs" if we would have just given them more time.

Everybody understood from the very beginning that the inspectors were NOT going in looking for needles in haystacks - that they were only going to be successful if given full cooperation. After months of non-cooperation, it was clear that they COULDN'T do their jobs - EVER - successfully.

So what was the point of allowing them more time - to allow Saddam more time to prepare for war? To give the left more time to build opposition?

Please. Enough with these canards.

Posted by: Al at July 16, 2003 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

This is the administration who wouldn't let the UNMOVIC group stay until they themselves could decide to declare an impasse and who wouldn't deal with the UN Security Council process -- and as a result the burden on American troops, their families and taxpayers is that much greater. Saddam may well have been a really evil character but where was the threat to this country that justified all this? And not only that, but if the country was sold on Iraq as a threat to justify near-unilateral and urgent military action then it's being very disingenuous to turn around now and try to cast all focus on how terrible Saddam was. If the level of threat was not there the administration could easily have taken the time to work with the UN and the inspectors. Finally, the administration sold everyone on the threat being there. If that was a lie or a serious distortion, then it has to be said that the people and Congress did not well-informed consent to go to war. If the country goes to war without the well-informed consent of the people we no longer have our constitutional democracy. I'd have to think that lying in making a case to take the country to war is an impeachable offense.

Posted by: Richard P. at July 16, 2003 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror.

While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

Parse that!

Posted by: Tim at July 16, 2003 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

The real travesty in Boot's article is that he is comparing the attack on the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan with the war in Iraq.

The Sudan attack: Mistaken intelligence. Done in retaliation/response for al-Qaeda destruction of US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Cost to USG was a couple of cruise missiles. Cost to Sudanese: one factory lost, seven people wounded.

Iraq war: Mistaken, incorrect, and even forged intelligence. War launched preemptively by US, alienating most allies and countries in the world. Cost to USG in first year will be $100 billion. Cost to US military is 250 dead and counting, plus over 1000 wounded. Cost to Iraqis unknown but estimated to be thousands of dead. Infrastructure destroyed by US bombing.

Max -- I think I know why the Democrats and most of the world are screaming more about the Iraq war than they did about the aspirin factory in the Sudan.

Posted by: John at July 16, 2003 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

"Bush never said that there was an "imminent threat" or that we were in "grave and immediate danger".

But that doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't an important threat that needed to be dealt with."

- Truckloads of BS. Which was it? Such a screaming emergency that we had to invade another country halfway around the world on the flimsiest pretext? And do it NOW, far too risky to wait even six months?!@!

- But not, you know, a REALLY grave and VERY immediate kind of THREAT, if you know what I mean.

This is just the shoddiest, crappiest excuse for reasoning. Nothing personal, because it's what we're hearing from the administration too. Tell us one thing, then tell us another, then tell us you never said the first thing...

Let's face it, these guys invaded Iraq because they wanted to, period. And now there we are. Rejoice.

Posted by: Dave L at July 16, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Of course they said the threat was imminent. This was confirmed by Fleischer in a post-war press conference:

Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.

Posted by: Tim Dunlop at July 16, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

And at least a couple republicans publicly interpreted the remarks as a case for the "clear and present danger" of Iraq:

http://allen.senate.gov/PressOffice/3172003.htm

http://usembassy.state.gov/nassau/wwwhiraq.html

Posted by: Tim at July 16, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

>>Please. Enough with these canards.

you mean like the canard about the "exteme left" posting here Al? Please...

Posted by: Andy at July 16, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe its just a "teensy bit disingenuous" to say that the federal congress' commerce power runs to regulate wholly intrastate trade as well.

Indeed, maybe its also a "teensy bit disingenuous" to read penumbras and emanations into the constitution as well.

But since when has this sort of word-play bothered you and all of your rowdy mates?

Posted by: William O. Douglas at July 16, 2003 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for proving my point, Dave L. You lefties seem incapable of understanding anything except in black-or-white terms.

So, again, no - the threat was not "imminent" or "immediate". The threat was significant and gathering, and inspections were clearly not going to eliminate it, since they were not getting full cooperation.

As between the Clinton-esque policy of postponing doing anything significant until later and the policy actually doing something to reduce the threat - I'd choose the later every time.

Posted by: Al at July 16, 2003 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

"After months of non-cooperation, it was clear that they [UN inspectors] COULDN'T do their jobs - EVER - successfully."

Yopu know, this is a strange argument for anyone to be making at this point. After all, the reson the UN inspectors did not find any Iraqi WMD now seems fairly clear. It was Iraqi noncooperation, all right--those darn Iraqis refused to cooperate by having WMD for the inspectors to find.

Posted by: rea at July 16, 2003 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Sixteen words.

Just so you know, we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.

Posted by: Rick at July 16, 2003 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, rea. There wasn't any nuclear plans hidden under the rose bush. And if there were, Saddam would have told the scientist to dig them up, right?

Posted by: Al at July 16, 2003 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

spc67:

"I think the "six months" comment you reference was in specific reference to what we found in 1991, no? Happy to be proven wrong on that one since my memory isn't entirely clear."

Well, you are factually correct. It was indeed in an IAEA report that came out in 1991. The point is, Bush SAID that they were six month away IN 1998. I think it's disingenious to hold it in Bush's favor now and to claim that he was not alarmist, since the underlying facts regarding the alarmist statements he did make did not support these statements and did not in fact support the urgency he claimed. What do we want to talk about, what the facts actually are, or what Bush said the facts were?

Reference follows (from the WashTimes, that well-known left-wing
rag, no less!)

Joseph Curl The Washington Times Friday, 27 September, 2002:

In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: Raven at July 16, 2003 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

>>I think the "six months" comment you reference was in specific reference to what we found in 1991, no? Happy to be proven wrong on that one since my memory isn't entirely clear.

From Bush's remarks during the Camp David summit, 9/9/02: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need. "
White House transcript

Later commentary in the press refers to this report specifically being dated 1998. Bush, however, doesn't date it in his remarks, and refers to this as all the evidence needed - i.e., that it is still "current" evidence.

I still personally believe (and continuously argue), however, that anything associated with the 1998 inspections is irretrievably tainted by the US spying that was going on under international auspices - and that therefore *any* representations of Iraqi weapons or strength at the time are deeply suspect and probably overstated due to the motive of needing to continue access for the inspections/spy mission. However, I reiterate that Bush was using this information as all the current proof the he needed - so he was treating it as "current".

Posted by: Andy at July 16, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

So, again, no - the threat was not "imminent" or "immediate". The threat was significant and gathering, ...

Weasel words. The threat was that Saddam could dominate the Gulf if he became strong enough militarily. That was the justification for war in 1991 and it remained true. His conventional forces were something like one-third the levels of 12 years ago, and were likely to remain about the same with sanctions. The only WMD that could shift the balance of power was nuclear. And the UN inspections in that area were effective. Even if he had been able to obtain uranium, it would have taken him at least 4-5 years to make a nuke clandestinely. The realistic case for war was that in 4-5 years we might be tied up elsewhere and unable to respond. This might be a justification, but we have never started a war with such a conjectural threat, and it is against a straightforward reading of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg charges.

Posted by: Roger Bigod at July 16, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

The key sentences in Tim's extract from the White House press release are:

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Before the war eveyone agreed Iraq had large stocks of chemical and biological weapons and had provided no convincing evidence that they had been destroyed. We also saw how much damage a miniscule amount of Anthrax could do WITHOUT the perpetrator being found. Do you know how much damage a mass mailing of Anthrax would do? Or Aerosol distribution from a small plane or UAV? See:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/14/features-ciotti.php

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=71009

http://www.biohazardnews.net/scen_anthrax.shtml

Is that an imminent danger? If the security of the United States was left to you guys, it would only be an imminent threat after it happened.

"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network."

There is little doubt Saddam harbored terrorists and financed and supported them. His explicit support of suicide bombers is well documented. Could he be trusted not to supply nerve agents to terrorists? And if they were used against Israel, what do you think would happen? Would Israel would sit back and let it's people be gassed? A new Middle East war using WMD would pose a major threat to the US. The economic damage alone would be immense. Would Saddam pursue secret relationship with Al Qaeda to their mutual benefit? Only a Democrat would bet the nation's security against that possibility.

"Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both."

Dead right.

Posted by: Pat D at July 16, 2003 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, rea. There wasn't any nuclear plans hidden under the rose bush. And if there were, Saddam would have told the scientist to dig them up, right?--

Yeah...that stuff that hadn't been used since 1991 could have been a threat within six months of September of last year...right around when we invaded. Funny how it was still buried when we got there, five years after the inspections regime left in 1998.

Posted by: jesse at July 16, 2003 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Question to those who defend the administration, especially those who believe that there was a real threat to this country from Iraq and that it was plainly obvious that by February 2003 the inspections weren't going to accomplish anything and had to be abrupted halted because of the nature of the threat from Iraq, why not let the UNMOVIC group back into Iraq, now that hostilities are [supposedly] over? Surely with their expertise they could help. Surely they could help validate the claims which are so very much in question these days.

Posted by: Richard P. at July 16, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Golly. Even after people start posting stuff from whitehouse.gov, the apologists still are trying to explain the difference to us silly extremists between "immediate" and "imminent" on the one hand, and "significant and gathering" on the other hand.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel after all. Who said that first? Twain?

Posted by: nota bene at July 16, 2003 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

"There is little doubt Saddam harbored terrorists and financed and supported them. His explicit support of suicide bombers is well documented. Could he be trusted not to supply nerve agents to terrorists? And if they were used against Israel, what do you think would happen? Would Israel would sit back and let it's people be gassed? A new Middle East war using WMD would pose a major threat to the US. The economic damage alone would be immense. Would Saddam pursue secret relationship with Al Qaeda to their mutual benefit? Only a Democrat would bet the nation's security against that possibility."

Let's remember that Clinton did order air strikes against Iraq and tried to apprehend bin Laden.

However, the whole problem here is the "just trust us" posture of the current administration. If there's all this evidence of a threat, however you want to call it, then the administration should be able to have that information and data at hand without coercing the intelligence agencies to produce only what will fit into the administration's own hypothesis. They should be able to level with the American people and legitimately gain the American people's well-informed consent to go to war without distortions, misstatements or outright lies. Just as the notion of "pre-emptive war" does not square with the principles of what defines a "just war," the administration's "you'll just have to take our word for it" cannot square with the principles upon which this country was founded.

Posted by: Richard P. at July 16, 2003 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Its amazing how facts can mutate or simply even vanish. I seem to recall that Saddam agreed to re-admit the UN weapon inspectors AFTER the US started its troop build up there, not before. I also seem to recall that Hans Blix and crew stated that the Iraqis weren't fully cooperating, and later that the right wing arch-wingnut Kofi Annan stated that the continuing concentration of US troops was having a beneficial effect because it was putting pressure on the Iraqis to cooperate with the inspections. And then again there is the problem that maintaining the troops in such a concentration made them sitting ducks, and that if the "inspection process" had drug out into the summer then it would have made it difficult to impossible to invade Iraq because of the heat.

But then again, as taktile put it so eloquently in an earlier comment Remember, if reality doesn't fit your model, alter your perception of reality.

Posted by: Ratbane at July 16, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Al wrote,

"As between the Clinton-esque policy of postponing doing anything significant until later and the policy actually doing something to reduce the threat - I'd choose the later every time."

So you must be extremely upset with Bush's do-nothing North Korea policy huh?

Posted by: Double B at July 16, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

"No one, to my knowledge, suggested that Iraq be left unhindered while it developed such capability."

Wrong, in 2001 and 2002 France, Germany and Russia all engaged in negotiations to end sanctions and normalize relations with Iraq. All three countries wanted to end inspections in 2001 and 2002.

Interesting that the very same people who criticize Bush for 'doing nothing' in the much thornier North Korean problem, criticize Bush for actively trying to do something about Iraq. France, Germany, and Russia had decided that the world didn't need to actively thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions anymore.

The 'six months' quote is a reference to the fact that Iraq was six months away from gaining nuclear weapons when it invaded Kuwait (1991), despite assurances from the UN Non-Proliferation regime (including if I recall correctly Hans Blix!) that Iraq was 5-6 years from gaining nuclear weapons. The quoted passage which Tim so helpfully provides makes clear reference that we aren't going to risk being that wrong about Iraqi nukes again.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at July 16, 2003 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Ratbane--do you have a cite for the Annan thing? Not taking issue, just hoping you've got a link.

Double B--touche.

Posted by: nota bene at July 16, 2003 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, don't forget that the Bushies told only half the story about the info they were getting from Hussein Kamal, too.

http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_nitpicker_archive.html#105837000480487684

Posted by: Terry at July 16, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Weasel words indeed. For various reasons, the Admin (and the Brits) were pretty careful to avoid the word imminent (though did not avoid it altogether). Excuse the trolling but see my post His imminence which goes through it in a bit of detail.

Posted by: Tim Dunlop at July 16, 2003 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Sebastian,

Dick Cheney also wanted sanctions lifted on Iraq when he was the head of Halliburton.

Posted by: Terry at July 16, 2003 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Interesting that the very same people who criticize Bush for 'doing nothing' in the much thornier North Korean problem, criticize Bush for actively trying to do something about Iraq. France

oh come on.

Pre-emptive invasion under murky pretenses is not the only alternative to "nothing", is it?

Posted by: ChrisL at July 16, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Pat D,

The people who have been attacking us were anathema to Saddam Hussein. They hated him and he feared them. There was no way he was going to hand over weapons to them. It's ludicrous to suggest they would.

Posted by: Terry at July 16, 2003 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

>>All three countries wanted to end inspections in 2001 and 2002.

What inspections are you talking about? There weren't any inspections in 2002 until November - and the three countries you speak of enthusiastically supported them - or are we talking 2 different kinds of inspections?.

Posted by: Andy at July 16, 2003 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Come on, stop being silly.

No one denies that Saddam was a threat on some level. The point is, when you're a superpower that could in theory do whatever it wants, the question becomes a matter of cost and benefit.

Sure, we could take out North Korea tomorrow if we wanted, but the matter isn't if we are capable of it, the matter is if we are willing to spend the lives, money and responsibility.

We could have won the war in Vietnam, if we really, really wanted. If we had simply annihilated North Vietnam, we could have done that. But the benefit to us would not have justified the lives, money and responsibility of that action.

This administration heard only what it wanted to hear about Iraq, and set to tell the world only what they wanted them to hear. They were wildly overoptimistic about the costs, and wildly overoptimistic about the benefits. The article Kevin linked to the other day documents the level of groupthink and wishful thinking going on in these guys' heads.

If, for example, the Iraqis were revolting and simply needed aid, then the costs of the war would be much, much lower relative to the benefit. I would have supported such a scenario. But the promises were were given about the costs/benefits of this war seemed to be "visions" that never seemed to be based on anything.

And don't even get me started on the dishonesty of equivocating "knowing" Saddam had WMDs between the Vice-President and the average guy. I agree that it seemed plausible -- that's how you and I "knew" Saddam had the weapons. That's not the same as the Vice-President going on TV and saying he has solid proof.

Posted by: taktile at July 16, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Al:Bush never said that there was an "imminent threat" or that we were in "grave and immediate danger".

"But that doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't an important threat that needed to be dealt with.

It is really amazing that you can't understand the difference!
There's so much straw in that strawman, I could replace all the scarecrows from here to Oz.

The question was then, as always, whether pre-emptively invading a country for which there was no public evidence they were preparing or involved in any attacks against the US was a good idea. There were other options for dealing with Iraq and they were working. Doing nothing was never an option.

Please. Enough with these canards.

Very good advice, Al. I suggest you take it to heart the next time you choose to quack up on behalf of Bush's inexcusable lying.

Posted by: tristero at July 16, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry nota bene--

I can't find an original news release about this with a direct quote, but a cursory google search did turn up this, part of which reads:

It is deeply worrying that Dr. Blix has reported that Iraq is not prepared to cooperate sufficiently on the substance of the issues with the inspectors. Regrettably, the regime in Baghdad seems to respond only to the threat of military action. For that threat to be credible, it has to be real and visible. Kofi Annan reinforced this point when he distinguished between pressure and the actual use of force - as he put it, “ there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the pressure has been effective. Without that pressure, I don't think the inspectors would be back in Iraq today.” This thought was also voiced by Hans Blix when he said “ that diplomacy needs to be echoed by force sometimes, and inspections need to be backed by pressure.” The military buildup in the Gulf has to be seen in that context.

If I've screwed up the HTML, the proper link is:
http://www.irelandemb.org/press/225.html

Posted by: Ratbane at July 16, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Fair enough. Assuming for the moment military pressure is required to make inspections meaningful, could airstrikes have accomplished the same thing? The 1998 strikes were apparently pretty damaging. Just wondering.

Posted by: nota bene at July 16, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, kids...

The quotes were provided because they reek of horse poo. It was all a load of crap.

I can't believe some of you are defending that idiotic speech.

Nothing in it has held up to scrutiny. That's the whole point- it was blatant fear-mongering. (and, uh, Ratbane, there's a difference between unprovoked invasion and the pressure of deployed troops. You're argument seems to be: "Only the presence of troops got things moving with the UN, inspections, etc., and since the troops were so close, they would be too vulnerable not to invade." As if the only reason we invaded was because it would have been dangerous to our troops not to... bra-freaking-vo for that line of reasoning)

You people are incredible, absolutely incredible.

Surely, if the majority of Americans think like Al, Pat, Sebastian, Ratbane etc., then we do deserve the government we've got.


Nota- Samuel Johnson.

Posted by: Tim at July 16, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Sebastian--

My bad; my comment referred to CalPundit and the commentators here; it was intended to defend agains the spurious charges that somehow opponents of the war wanted to see a nuclear-armed Saddam. I should have said "no one here yadda yadda yadda.

Point taken on the Russians et al, but so what? As your own post implies, no one involved with US policy seriously suggested that Saddam be left to his own devices, and with the US veto in the UNSC, there was no chance of it happening no matter what France or Russia or whomever wanted.

You also say:

Interesting that the very same people who criticize Bush for 'doing nothing' in the much thornier North Korean problem, criticize Bush for actively trying to do something about Iraq.

You have "doing nothing" in quotes. Pray tell, just what is Bush doing? And has been noted elsewhere, it's fallacious indeed to suggest -- as Bush did, dishonestly, several times -- that not launching an invasion was tantamount to "doing nothing."

Your defense falls short. It's increasingly obvious that Bush policy is not enhancing the US interest with regard to North Korea. It's increasingly obvious that Bush's policy is not enhancing our security in Iraq, either, and also that the justifications for said policy were made up of a combination of wishful thinking and scaremongering.

Our criticism is not that Bush "tried to do something" in Iraq. Our criticism is that Bush waged a war on the flimsiest of pretexts and, it increasingly appears, on bogus, albeit frightening, information, and that the poorly planned aftermath of the war is carrying an unacceptably high cost in American lives and treasure, and, to top it all off, that Bush's actions over the last year or so, including alienating our own allies, which forces us to tie up too many troops in a hazardous occupation practically no one feels motivated to help us with, not to mention angering much of the Arab/Islamic world, is actually hindering the security of the United States.

Moreover, many pointed out before the Iraq mess that North Korea appeared to be a genuine example of the kind of threat Bush tried to portray Iraq as, and that position is appearing increasingly accurate with each passing day; indeed, the situation is getting worse, not better. Is it not so?

Rebut those points if you can, but I for one am sick of Bush's apologists misrepresenting the arguments on both sides. However, it's looking to me like that's the only way they can justify their support.

Posted by: Gregory at July 16, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

"So you must be extremely upset with Bush's do-nothing North Korea policy huh?"

Our options with respect to NK are very different than they were with respect to Iraq. We have the ability to have other countries (such as China)apply significant leverage to NK. This option did not exist with Iraq. We may be able to put economic pressure on NK, which (as Wolfowitz said, as was infamously lied about by the Guardian) we were not able to with respect t Iraq.

There were simply no other good options with respect to Iraq. The only other options were:

1) We could have done nothing and let the matter drop. But that would have allowed Saddam to restart his weapons programs (and it was clear he would - as the plans under the rose bush shows).

2) We could have tried to let the inspections and sanctions continue indefinititely. But France and Germany and Russia would not have allowed it, and it would have been extremely costly for us to leave 200,000 troops on the border waiting. And it would hardly assure us that Saddam would not have WMD.

So Bush chose Option #3 - invasion and liberation. Seems like it has worked out the best of all the possible options.

Posted by: Al at July 16, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Tim--

Thank you for the courteous response. It shall be noted and treasured for all the true value that it has.

And as to your comment that:
Surely, if the majority of Americans think like Al, Pat, Sebastian, Ratbane etc., then we do deserve the government we've got, my only response is that it is truly fortunate that a majority of Americans don't think like you. I shudder to think what kind of government we might have then. I might disagree with many of the predominant positions taken by the commenters here, but for the most part they make points based on reason backed up by facts, not insults ineptly masquerading as thinking.

Posted by: Ratbane at July 16, 2003 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Al,

In case you haven't noticed, it's proving "extrmeely costly" in terms of lives and treasure to have invaded, as well.

Besides which, your analysis falls short in two areas. First of all, with regard to Korea, granted that the US has some disadvantages (including, but not limited to, not having pre-existing air superiority, dealing with a country that, unlike Iraq, actually poses a military threat and arguably does posess nuclear weapons, and that US credibility is at an all-time low thanks to Bush's bellicosity). Yet that does not excuse Bush for failing to achieve anything resembling progress in advancing US security interests. Why are you so quick to excuse him?

Furthermore, your argument seems to presume that Iraq's weapons existed as Bush claimed they did. That argument simply isn't grounded in reality. Need I remind you that whay UN inspectors didn't find Iraq's weapons, our own troops, having the run of the country, haven't either?

Moreover, Bush doesn't simply get to "choose" option number three. As the head of a democratic public, he had to secure support for the war. He was free to have made the case that you did, and taken his chances. However, he did not. Instead, he chose to exaggerate the so-called "threat" Iraq posed, apparently in order to create the impression among the Ameican people that Iraq was close to having The Bomb, when his own intelligence network had no credible evidence at all to support that contention. Carefully parsed deception is still deception.

Once again, I call on you to own up to the fact. Condone it if you will, but let's go on record, shall we?

Posted by: Gregory at July 16, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

We have the ability to have other countries (such as China)apply significant leverage to NK. While that's true to an extent, NK is still insisting on one-on-one talks with the US. They haven't backed off that demand. Bush doesn't want to get dragged into Korea, I think. As for economic pressure, they don't have much of an economy to speak of.

and it was clear he would - as the plans under the rose bush shows). Oh yeah, because they hadn't been sitting there for 12 years. No I don't believe we should have let it go, but the rose bush proves nothing.

We could have tried to let the inspections and sanctions continue indefinititely. Better idea. Still not ideal, but better than pre-emptive invasion. France and Germany could have been brought around on the issue. And we didn't need to have freaking 200,000 troops there.

Posted by: nota bene at July 16, 2003 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Tom Tomorrow points out the Iraq occupation is costing a billion dollars a week. Anybody know how much Afghanistan is costing us? (Remember Afghanistan?)

Posted by: nota bene at July 16, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

nota bene--

Actually, China is about the ONLY country that can wield any influence on NK. Almost all of their energy and a significant amount of their food comes from China. If China cut them off they would collapse rather quickly. The downside to this from China's perspective is that a collapse of the NK regime would entail millions of refugees flooding into China, which is certainly a legitimate concern on their part. One of the main problems with NK is that, yes, even when the food and oil we provided them is taken away, they can still hold on even though it causes untold misery to the average North Korean. The leaders simply don't care.

And just what options do we have there? To "negotiate" is not an option, negotiation is a means to pursue options. I think NK has already shown that it bargains in bad faith. If there is a solution at hand, any agreements we make with NK must include China. They must be put into the position that if they violate any agreements that China too will cut them off. This WILL get their attention.

Posted by: Ratbane at July 16, 2003 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Ratbane--I have to say, your posts are much more thoughtful than, say, Al's.

Everything you said is true, although I remind you that NK has been insisting on direct NK-US talks for at least, what, 12 months? Bush has refused, and that's the impasse in a nutshell. Why Bush is such a big proponent of multilateralism in NK and not anywhere else is anybody's guess.

I get the feeling that if China were to cut off NK, the refugee crisis would happen exactly as you said. In addition, I get the feeling that NK would invade SK, invoking either some sort of "Lebensraum" excuse or coming up with a Bush Doctrine-like assertion (which NK has made noises about). NK, if memory serves, has an enormous standing army. I don't see any reason why the US can't engage NK in one-on-one talks, at least at first, in the interest of normalizing relations. Then, as things improve diplomatically, involve China, then Japan, then SK, probably in that order.

Bush isn't doing anything at all. I don't get it.

Posted by: nota bene at July 16, 2003 01:04 PM | PERMALINK

>>Tom Tomorrow points out the Iraq occupation is costing a billion dollars a week. Anybody know how much Afghanistan is costing us? (Remember Afghanistan?)

Remember Larry Lindsay had to drink the Draino for saying that Iraq would cost us $200 billion.
Looks like he knew what he was talking about.

Posted by: Andy at July 16, 2003 01:17 PM | PERMALINK

Nota bene - you seem to be ignoring the fact the there WERE China-NK-US talks just a couple of months ago. And China HAS put pressure on NK lately. That seems to me to be exactly what we want to have happen.

Posted by: Al at July 16, 2003 01:24 PM | PERMALINK

Nota bene--

As a preface, just let me say that I am not some great fan of GWB. I didn't vote for him, and neither did I vote for Gore. I didn't vote at all.

But as to this, I think GWB's NK strategy is the correct one to take. Sometimes doing nothing IS a strategy. NK is collapsing. Some of the people there are literally starving to death, and this happened even when we were sending them food. The sticking point is that we insist that any agreement made with NK should include, at the very least, China, for the reasons I've mentioned above. What NK doesn't like about this is that it would indeed lock them into a situation where failure to live up to their agreements would result in the economic destruction of their country. And this is exactly why they are resisting multinational negotiations; they know that they could not violate any such treaties which would come from them without suffering a fatal blow. And the fatal blow would not consist of striking, it would be failing to take the action of staunching the wounds of your opponent before he bleeds to death.

Sometimes doing nothing is a strategic option. If there is another one in this situation, other than attacking NK militarily, I really haven't heard of it.

Posted by: Ratbane at July 16, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hey,

No problem-o!

Posted by: Tim at July 16, 2003 01:48 PM | PERMALINK

Al, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the chinese were very clear that they were simply providing the space, that it was the US and North Korea that needed to talk.

North Korea is just about everything that president backbone claimed iraq was: they have a real nuclear weapons program, they really so sell material to anyone who will pony up the cash, and they are run (just as iraq was) by a dictator who could care less about the well-being of the people of his country.

As perhaps you may be noticing (and even if you haven't, people like the military leadership of the US has) we are tied down in iraq, in an expensive long slog that, if all goes well and we are very lucky, will result in a new iraq that is something like turkey.

meanwhile, by refusing to deal with north korea, president backbone gets to feel all good about his moral clarity, and the problem continues.

so, in short, he oversold the iraq problem, and now we are tied down expensively.

he is underselling the north korean problem, and now we have no policy at all.

what, exactly, are you defending?

Posted by: howard at July 16, 2003 03:34 PM | PERMALINK

I should really thank AI for his posts because they make me laugh.

AI, China has not helped, will not help and is not concerned. They are, after all, North Korea’s ally. We cannot put any economic pressure on North Korea; we don’t have any leverage. China hosted talks but they broke down immediately because of Bush’s intransigence. The only reason this isn’t being dealt with is that Bush has his stubborn up.
As for your Iraq options:
The old centrifuge buried for 12 years proves that Saddam was not restarting any program because they had ample opportunity in the past five years. If they didn’t then, they simply weren’t going to do it.
The inspections were not going to be extended indefinitely. Hans Blix said it was a matter of weeks and months, not years. Bush said the threat was too imminent. Time has proven Blix correct and Bush the liar.
We only put 200,000 troops on the border because Bush was already determined to attack. The entire buildup was unnecessary.
Option 3, sneak attack and occupation have proven to be the worst possible option. We are paying $4,000,000,000 a month to have our boys shot plus huge sums being paid to Bush’s political supporters and campaign contributors. With so many troops tied up in Iraq, we are dangerously overextended around the world. This makes up more vulnerable not safer.

Posted by: Mike at July 16, 2003 04:08 PM | PERMALINK

Add me to the chorus of people who are both bemused and amused by the parsing going on by those who supported the war. Most of the public statements made by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair prior to the war were specifically designed to reinforce the claim that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat that had to be dealt with right away. To claim that they did not engage in this campaign is simply ludicrous. Hell, Blair even said that the threat posed by Iraq was "serious and immediate."

It's even funnier, by the way, to have, simultaneously, people claiming that Bush never said that Iraq was an "imminent threat" while others are claiming that Iraq was, in fact, an "imminent threat!"

Posted by: PaulB at July 16, 2003 04:56 PM | PERMALINK

The damning fact in all this is that Bush declared war claiming self-defense against a threat that was explicitly *not* imminent. Take his March 17 ultimatum:

"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over."

Is five years the cutoff? Belize may be a threat in 50-100 years; should we invade now?

I can understand why, after 9/11, they'd want to avoid having to say, "If only we had done X, Y would never have happened." But X need not include invading other countries or infringing on civil liberties. If they do everything up to that line and Y still happens, I can excuse that.

Put another way: if an asteroid vaporizes a major city, I won't blame anyone for failing to invade Outer Space (though I would appreciate a little more attention to this very real concern).

Posted by: Grumpy at July 16, 2003 05:18 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,
The variety in arguments coming from the supporters of the war demonstrates a variety of independent thoughts on a complex and difficult subject, not the lockstep that you imply is necessary for validity. It also demonstrates that those who choose to visit the opposition camp here are not shills for anybody.

Posted by: spc67 at July 16, 2003 08:15 PM | PERMALINK

spc67, I was not implying anything about any sort of lockstep thinking or lack thereof; I was simply noting a fact that amuses me, just like it amuses me when people try to pretend that the Bush administration didn't claim that Saddam was an imminent threat requiring immediate action.

Posted by: PaulB at July 16, 2003 09:15 PM | PERMALINK

Al wrote: "There were simply no other good options with respect to Iraq. The only other options were:
1) We could have done nothing and let the matter drop...
2) We could have tried to let the inspections and sanctions continue indefinititely...
3) Bush chose Option #3 - invasion and liberation..."

How 'bout Option 4: Do what Hans Blix, Kofi Anan and our (now former) allies were PLEADING with us to do and give the inspections just a couple more "months, not years." Did you forget THAT option, Al? Perhaps if we'd've done that, we'd have some substantive military assistance in Iraq right now. Oh well. Who needs those guys? We're gonna be getting the help of 20 Honduran regulars and their specially-trained donkey.

Al-speak: "it would have been extremely costly for us to leave 200,000 troops on the border waiting."

I'd love to hear Al say that to the parents of one of the two hundred GIs killed in Iraq... "Hey, we could'a left your son waiting in a camp in Kuwait. Maybe this war would've proved unnecessary. But, darnit, that would'a been so darned EXPENSIVE!"

Al-speak: "So what was the point of allowing them more time - to allow Saddam more time to prepare for war? To give the left more time to build opposition?"

This must've been a speech of Bush's I missed. "My fellow Americans: why do we invade now? 'Cause if we wait longer, you people might be opposed to it."

And, p.s., that's another spiel I'd love to hear Al deliver to the parents of a dead GI: "Sorry to send your son to his death earlier than necessary, but we couldn't risk that A.N.S.W.E.R. might stage another rally."

Al-speak, redux: "Bush chose invasion and liberation (sic--PM)... Seems like it has worked out the best of all the possible options."

Except that this option "liberated" 5,000 Iraqis of their lives, and "liberated" 200+ GIs of theirs, and spent $100 billion dollars that we don't have, and tied our troops into to a years-long occupation over a people that doesn't want us there, and gave al Qaeda a wet-dream recruiting tool, and torched all our post-9/11 global goodwill, and alienated our allies, and damaged our national credibility, and (according to the CIA) has made anti-American terrorism more likely (not less). Other than that silly stuff, yeah, this option worked out swell.

Posted by: Patrick Meighan at July 16, 2003 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Option no. 4 is exactly what Clinton had suggested as his answer.

OTOH it was Al Gore who had spoken out about the U.S. forces being overextended and the nation not focused on actually fighting terrorism and specifically al-qaeda.

Posted by: Richard P. at July 17, 2003 08:31 AM | PERMALINK

Interesting.

Posted by: term life insurance at October 6, 2003 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent site I have bookmarked your site yet and I will come back soon!

Posted by: poker at February 13, 2004 08:32 AM | PERMALINK

You`re absolutely right, but telling the truth sometimes hurts!

Posted by: spiele at February 18, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

To be or not to be? That`s the question.

Posted by: logos at February 18, 2004 02:00 PM | PERMALINK

What a fantastic idea! You think also about details.

Posted by: handylogos at February 18, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINK

The important thing isn't doing, but knowing how you do it.

Posted by: Yazmir Keith at May 3, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

online casinos

Posted by: doi at May 24, 2004 07:02 AM | PERMALINK


Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

free web cam free live web cam free chat with web cam free sex web cam adult free web cam free nude web cam free girl web cam free web cam site free porn web cam free gay web cam free xxx web cam free teen web cam free web cam chat room free amateur web cam free web cam pic free adult live web cam free adult web cam chat live sex web cam free free personal web cam free live nude web cam free live girl web cam free live web cam chat web cam live free personal cam free view web free web cam picture free sex chat web cam free online web cam cam free viewing web free web cam software free lesbian web cam free web cam community cam free watch web free web cam video free live web cam site free web cam host free sexy web cam free web cam hosting free live web cam porn free naked web cam free web cam of woman free home web cam free live xxx web cam free adult web cam site free nude web cam chat cam free totally web cam free movie web cam chat free teen web free web cam chat site free asian web cam free black web cam voyeur web cam free free streaming web cam free web cam pussy free live teen web cam free web cam show free gay live web cam free private web cam cam free web yahoo web cam free ware cam chatting free web cam free gallery web free teen web cam pic free nude teen web cam free live web cam show free male web cam cam free live web woman cam free now web cam free membership no web cam college free web free live web cam amateur access cam free web cam dating free web free shemale web cam free sex web cam site cam free sample web cam download free web cam free room web cam free no registration web free adult web cam community free gay web cam chat cam chat free girl web cam free girl girl live web free hidden web cam free naked woman web cam free erotic web cam free hardcore web cam cam code display free web cam free mature web free web cam broadcast cam free preview web cam chat free online web free college girl web cam free live lesbian web cam cam free skin web free gay male web cam cam free man web free porn web cam chat cam free service web free nude woman web cam free web cam sex show free sex web cam video free adult sex web cam free online sex web cam free teen sex web cam free gay sex web cam free web cam sex amateur free private web cam sex home web cam sex free free web cam cyber sex free couple sex web cam free lesbian sex web cam free hardcore sex web cam cam free sex watch web free sex web cam pic cam free movie sex web cam free free sex web cam free sex view web free sex web cam sample free black sex web cam free nude web cam pic free amateur nude web cam cam free nude sexy web cam free non nude web free nude web cam site free adult nude web cam free nude man web cam free nude web cam show cam free live nude web woman free nude beach web cam free nude gay web cam free nude web cam at home free nude web cam picture cam free nude preview web cam free nude video web cam free girl hot web free web cam teen girl cam free girl pic web cam free girl online web black cam free girl web cam free girl watch web free adult girl web cam asian cam free girl web cam free girl video web cam free girl picture web cam free girl web young cam cam free free girl web web cam free girl totally web cam free girl show web cam free gallery girl web cam free girl real web cam free free girl web cam free live online web free live streaming web cam cam free live web free home live web cam cam free live secretfriends-com web cam free live totally web free live sexy web cam free live naked web cam cam free live watch web cam free live view web cam cam free free live web web cam feed free live web cam free live private web cam free live naked web woman cam community free live web amsterdam cam free live web cam free host live web free live pussy web cam asian cam free live web hot live free web cam cam free live now web cam female free live web cam free free live web amateur cam free live web xxx animal cam free live web cam free hidden live web cam free live preview web free live voyeur web cam cam ebony free live web cam free live password web cam free live shemale web free xxx web cam chat free web cam video chat cam chat free lesbian web cam chat free private web cam chat free program web cam chat free web cam chat free naked web cam chat free naughty web cam chat free web yahoo cam chat free totally web cam chat free software web cam chat free kid web cam chat free line web free amateur web cam and chat cam chat free free web cam chat college free web cam chat community free web cam chat free msn web best cam chat free web free porn web cam site free teen porn web cam cam com free porn web cam free online porn web free adult porn web cam cam free porn video web cam free porn web xxx free amateur porn web cam free gay porn web cam cam free porn watch web free xxx web cam site cam free teen web xxx free adult xxx web cam free amateur xxx web cam free teen web cam gallery cam free teen video web free gay teen web cam cam free site teen web cam free teen web young free amateur teen web cam free teen web cam picture free amateur web cam site free amateur adult web cam free gay amateur web cam free amateur web cam pic free sex cam free live sex cam free sex cam chat free live sex cam chat free sex video cam free sex spy cam free online sex cam free amateur sex cam free hidden sex cam free teen sex cam free adult sex cam free live sex chat web cam free gay sex cam cam com free live sex web free home sex cam free live teen sex cam free sex voyeur cam free lesbian sex cam free asian sex cam com cam free sex free private sex cam free sex cam site free nude sex cam free live sex video cam free sex cam sample free live web cam sex show adult cam chat free sex web free sex cam show anal cam free live sex sex cam chat free room sex web free live sex cam feed cam free home private sex web cam free movie sex cam free lesbian live sex amsterdam cam free sex cam free sex watch cam free livefeeds sex cam free latina sex free live sex cam show adult cam free live sex free hardcore sex cam amsterdam cam free live sex free couple sex cam free hot sex cam cam free membership no sex free porn sex cam free sex spy cam pic cam free gratis sex cam free live sex site web free streaming sex cam live sex voyeur cam for free girl web cam live web cam girl college girl web cam teen girl web cam hot web cam girl web cam girl pic young web cam girl cam chat girl web web cam girl picture black cam girl web asian girl web cam girl home web cam cam girl web yahoo girl personal web cam real web cam girl cam girl online web school girl web cam cam chat girl live web cam girl high school web web cam girl gallery cam girl video web cam girl hot live web cam girl little web cam college girl live web cam girl in web cam cam girl web cam girl horny web teenage girl web cam cam caught girl web web cam girl archive cam girl naughty web japanese girl web cam girl private web cam cam girl msn web cam girl photo web arab cam girl web cam cute girl web cam fat girl web cam girl indian web cam flashing girl web girl web cam site cam girl stripping web cam girl goth web cam girl watch web cam free girl streamate web cam dorm girl web cam girl girl web cam girl gratis web girl web cam adult cam flexing girl web cam free girl girl web cam girl gone web wild collage girl web cam cam girl korean web cam free girl view web alone cam girl home web cam canadian girl web cam girl russian web cam girl single web top 100 girl web cam teen girl web cam pic cam girl voyeur web cam girl home live web cam girl latina web cam french girl web cam girl secret web action cam girl web australian cam girl web cam girl strip web cam free girl preview web cam free girl horny web cam girl stripping teen web cam girl pic web young cam girl preteen web cam girl talk web cam girl index web cam girl kissing web cam girl local web cam girl teen web young web cam sex live sex web cam web cam sex chat teen sex web cam sex gratis web cam amateur web cam sex gay sex web cam live web cam sex chat adult sex web cam adult cam direct sex web web cam sex chat room video sex web cam sex web cam site home sex web cam web cam sex show cam online sex web live sex show web cam web cam cyber sex asian sex web cam web cam sex pic lesbian web cam sex hot sex web cam couple sex web cam cam college sex web cam sex web yahoo cam hidden sex web amsterdam cam sex web black sex web cam web cam sex com cam membership no sex web live adult sex web cam web cam sex gratuit cam pal pay sex web cam friend secret sex web adult cam chat sex web free sex porn web cam oral sex web cam cam having people sex web cam dating sex web cam live secretefriends sex web xxx sex web cam cam msn sex web nude sex web cam cam sex watch web cam cam free sex web group sex web cam cam sample sex web sex voyeur web cam cam couple live sex web com cam sex web free nude sex web cam
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat

Posted by: Nick at July 26, 2004 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

chgvhg hghjg

Posted by: phentermine at July 27, 2004 05:32 AM | PERMALINK

chgvjh hjgjh

Posted by: phentermine at July 27, 2004 05:55 AM | PERMALINK

Always enjoy reading your blog. Thanks!

Posted by: Elite Micro at August 11, 2004 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

You really think so?

Posted by: storage area network (SAN) at August 18, 2004 08:42 PM | PERMALINK

2524 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 06:53 AM | PERMALINK

1563 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 08:01 AM | PERMALINK

2019 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 05:22 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter