Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

August 26, 2003

BBC BASHING UPDATE....Instapundit happily quotes the Guardian today, which suggests that today's testimony in the Hutton inquiry shows that BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan was full of shit:

The claim that Iraq could deploy "chemical and biological munitions" within 45 minutes was made in a classified email issued by a member of the joint intelligence committee (JIC) - but with both sender and recipient blacked out for security reasons.

....That revelation, presented on day nine of the inquiry by Sir John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, appears to blow out of the water the original suggestion by BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan that the claim was made up.

Now think what you will about Gilligan and the BBC, but this is just plain wrong. Here's what Gilligan said on BBC radio on May 29:

The information which I'm told was dubious did come from the information agencies, but they were unhappy about it because they didn't think it should have been in there. They thought it was not corroborated sufficiently and they actually thought it was wrong. They thought the informant concerned had got it wrong.

And here's what he said in his Mail on Sunday column a couple of days later:

I asked [David Kelly] how this transformation happened. The answer was a single word, 'Campbell.'

What? Campbell made it up? 'No, it was real information. But it was included against our wishes because it wasn't reliable.'

How much clearer can things be? Gilligan never suggested the claim was "made up," and he specifically acknowledged that it came from British intelligence. And despite the fact that Scarlett is swearing up and down that nobody — nobody! — raised any objections to the material in the dossier, we already know that's not true. The Hutton inquiry found out on its very first day that two senior intelligence officers had grave doubts about some of the material in the dossier. What's more, the 45-minute claim was single sourced, it was added at the last minute, and it turned out to be completely wrong.

Crikey.

Posted by Kevin Drum at August 26, 2003 10:59 AM | TrackBack


Comments

I have come to the realization that the Right just makes shit up to piss off the Left, because the Left is trying to be honest and the Right is full of it. That is why there is cottage industry of books about the Right and their lies. Can there be a decent, truthful Right?

Posted by: Bill Nazzaro at August 26, 2003 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Just checking, Kevin . . .

Do you see any irony at all in the fact that Gilligan relied on a single source to make an accusation that turned out to be wrong?

Also, here's the relevant paragraphs from Gilligan's Globe and Mail piece:

"The classic [embellishment]," he said was the statement that WMD were ready for use in 45 minutes. One source said that it took 45 minutes to launch a missile and that was misinterpreted to mean that WMD could be deployed in 45 minutes."

Contrast those with the actual e-mail:

The email stated that "forward deployed storage sites of chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes"

Gilligan wrote that there was never a source for the 45 minute claim, but that, because of Campbell, someone "sexed up" a claim that it takes 45 minutes to launch a rocket into a claim that WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. It seems to me that he was dead wrong, at a minimum.

Posted by: J Mann at August 26, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, like you, i've been waiting for the completion of the Hutton inquiry to draw any conclusions, so i'm not yet sufficiently familiar with the facts on the ground to know whether j mann is right or wrong.

but i am completely familiar with the facts on the ground as they related to professor instanitwit: he is dishonest, thinskinned, and a complete waste of precious time.

Even debunking the good prof is hardly worth the effort, since he just keeps doing it again and again and again....

Posted by: howard at August 26, 2003 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

J Mann-
Better check your reading comprehension because the accusation was correct in its substance. The words "could be" were originally changed to "may be" and at the last minute changed to "are". There is, of course, a rather significant difference between "may be" and "are" when one is discussing potential annihilation by WMD in 45 minutes or less. This substantiates claims of transformation made by Kelly and Gilligan,and this transformation was traced back to Campbell's office and Tony Blair. If you believe otherwise, you are not processing all the information available i.e. you would rather believe what you want than see what is before you.

Posted by: bigring55t at August 26, 2003 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, if only ABC (or at least CNN) was more like the BBC.

Posted by: Bragan at August 26, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

::sigh::
If only I were a more careful typist.

Posted by: Bragan at August 26, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

J Mann: oh yes, there's irony aplenty in this story. Does it matter if something is actually true (uranium, WMD missiles)? Or does it only matter that you have good reason to believe it to be true?

I don't know if Kelly was right, of course, since the actual intelligence evidence hasn't been produced (and never will, I'm sure). But the stuff you're quoting doesn't make the case one way or the other. It simply indicates that someone believed the 45-minute story. That someone might very well be the person who made the misinterpretation that Kelly was talking about.

One thing we do know, however: the claim *was* single sourced and it was added at the last minute. Everybody agrees with that.

Posted by: Kevin Drum at August 26, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Congratulations, you've proven for the umpteenth time that Glenn Reynolds is a hack. Frankly, anyone who still finds Reynolds credible is so far off in to reality denial mode that they are impervious to fact and logic.

Posted by: Hackmaster2000 at August 26, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I don't have a problem with your statement as long as you make the following addition: Does it matter if something is actually true (uranium, WMD missiles, Gilligan's accusations against Campbell and 10 Downing)? Or does it only matter that you have good reason to believe it to be true?

It's that last bit that cranks the irony up to 11.

Posted by: J Mann at August 26, 2003 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin's been very evenhanded in his coverage of htis issue and highly critical of Gilligan, and somewhat critical of the BBC.

I think those of us on the left are quite willing to see that there were some problems with Gilligan's reporting and behavior, but they seem rather dwarfed in scope and consequence by the behavior of the blair government.

Posted by: Atrios at August 26, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Let's not forget, everyone, sexed-up or not, the claim was wrong. Entirely, completely, wrong. The Anglo-American allies have found neither chemical or biological agents, or chemical munitions. Blair's intelligence services are, like Blair, like the White House, either malignant or incompetent. Neither prospect is comforting. Whenever Condi Rice insists to Russert that the Administration had good reason to act on an imminent Iraqi threat, the follow-up is, "Do you now wonder why you were so hideously mistaken, given that there has been no postwar discovery of the slightest chemical or biological danger?"

Let's not miss this elephant in the room, okay?

Posted by: Brian C.B. at August 26, 2003 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

The point is 150 thousand American troops have been in Iraq since March 20, we have captured most of the "deck of cards," but we have found no WMDs. Story after story of WMDs proved wrong.

Tony Blair's Government either had the worst intelligence possible, as did we, or the British and American poeple were not told the truth about why we had to go to war on March 20.

Well, there are now tragically some 320 American and British soldier fatalities since March 20. For what? What the hell were we fighting for?

Posted by: Ari at August 26, 2003 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

"Let's not forget, everyone, sexed-up or not, the claim was wrong. Entirely, completely, wrong."

Perfectly stated!

Posted by: Jenn at August 26, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Funny how thinly the wingnuts are willing to slice the baloney when no one's getting a blowjob...

Posted by: dave at August 26, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, I know I need to quit, but it seems to me that there's a spider-fly problem.

1) Whether Gilligan lied (or irresponsibly used information it should have known was unreliable) about Blair's government is an independent question. If # 1 did happen, it was bad, regardless of:

2) Whether the Blair administration lied (or irresponsibly used information it should have known was unreliable) about whether Saddam had WMD ready for imminent use. If # 2 did happen, it was also bad, worse than # 1, regardless of:

3) Whether Saddam was a monster and the Iraqi people will be better off as a result of the war. If # 3 is true, then Saddam was bad as well, worse than #2.

This is what I mean by irony - we're all trapped in a loop, where Gilligan's statements, even if knowingly false, are justified by Blair's other statements, but those themselves are justified by Saddam's other bad acts.

Maybe it would be simpler to judge Gilligan, Blair, and Saddam each on their own.

Posted by: J Mann at August 26, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Another difference is that Gilligan made clear in his story that is was "a source within..." stating his info was from a single source. The Blair Administration merely stated it as if it were fact -- shedding no light on its crediblity by alerting people that it was from a single source. That's a damn big difference if you ask me.

However, I doubt that will change your mind. It's clear that ideology trumps logic....even with the Hutton enquiry's reams of primary source documents available on the web.

Posted by: kija at August 26, 2003 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the thing: in the 6.07am trailer to the report, Gilligan was a bit loose in his choice of words, implying in an unscripted one-minute piece that the claim was 'wrong' rather than 'questionable'. He clarified that in all his subsequent reports, which amounted on that day alone to around a dozen head-to-heads. His editors also immediately criticised his 'loose use of language and lack of judgment in some of his phraseology.'

So, InstaMuppet is blowing that claim out of proportion, while the Graun is engaging in slightly Gilliganesque misrepresentation of the main Today report.

What makes Reynolds look like a fool, though, is that while the quotation is technically correct -- that is, Gilligan's first one-minute piece was sloppy -- InstaHack takes 'original' to mean the entire piece of reporting, rather than an unscripted head-to-head broadcast in the early hours of the morning. Which is utterly factually inaccurate.

Reynolds is a hack. He's also not a reader.

Posted by: nick sweeney at August 26, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

With a name like Gilligan, can it be? One man is an Island?

Posted by: California Carol at August 26, 2003 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, J Mann. Bad reporting is bad reporting. My point is that the question of bad reporting is obcuring a much more troubling one: why was British and American intelligence so horribly wrong? Don't forget, George W. Bush has made preventive war national policy. That suggests that a whole round of states are newly-eligible for eradication based on sorry fact-gathering, or listening closely to discredited sources. When Scarlett says of the 45-minute munitions deployment claim, "it was based on a credible source," shouldn't one respond, "That's self-evidently untrue, isn't it?" The inquiries are not mutually exclusive, but I think that one is going on without the other, to the detriment of the world order.

Posted by: Brian C.B. at August 26, 2003 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Do you see any irony at all in the fact that Gilligan relied on a single source to make an accusation that turned out to be wrong?

No, the irony is that the Blair government's lies would have never been investigated to this extent had Campbell tried to jujitsu Gilligan's story into a BBC witchhunt. Otherwise, it would have rolled off the duck's back like everything else in this tragicomedy.

Perhaps we need a bit more "single-sourced" personal fingerpointing on this side of the pond. If that's what it takes to get the ball rolling, maybe we need more personal on this side of the pond.

Posted by: Sven at August 26, 2003 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

What matters is that news report after report shows Americans and British were lied to about WMDs as a reason for going to war. Remember, Tony Blair used a doctoral dissertation that a California student published on the internet as part of the rationale for declaring WMDs at the ready in Iraq. If this is intelligence, we are in big big trouble.

Tony Blair is a disgrace.

Posted by: Jenn at August 26, 2003 01:09 PM | PERMALINK

On a semi-related topic, I just received a response from Dr Justin Lewis re that study purporting to show that the BBC had no anti-war bias. As the material he kindly sent me hasn't yet been published I won't be excerpting any of it, but it does seem to be quite compelling.

Back to the topic, I've found the Independent's coverage of the Hutton inquiry to be the best around, but YMMV.

Posted by: Anarch at August 26, 2003 01:19 PM | PERMALINK

Brian and Sven - I absolutely agree. I think the British inquiry is great, and is a credible example of how the US might be able to do a similar inquiry without compromising security or creating a partisan witchhunt.

It's worthwhile to point out, of course, that it's possible to be wrong without being negligent or criminal. I think the jury is still out on whether the 45 minute claim should have been included or not,* but I look forward to a closer inquiry on the question.

* (Put another way, suppose the "single source" turned out to be right, and the Brits didn't report it, and the war didn't happen, and Saddam did give WMD to Al Quaida? Back in 91, we found out that we severely *underestimated* the imminence of the risk Saddam presented. I'm not saying that means we should shoot first and ask questions later, but I am saying that we should have a serious discussion of how to make decisions based on intelligence info, and we should have that discussion without prejudging it.)

Posted by: J Mann at August 26, 2003 01:39 PM | PERMALINK

j mann, i hadn't really intended to pursue this further because i think you've been making some generally sensible points, but since you bring up the '91 scenario, for the record: what we discovered was that saddam's production facilities were further along than we had imagined. While nothing to sneeze at, the production facilities didn't mean much without uranium, which, of course, is why the bush administration went to such great lengths to portray "uranium shopping."

P.S. Or, to put it another way, you and i and 3 MIT grad students could build a nuclear bomb (and you and i would be the ones getting pizza and taking out the trash) - if we had the uranium. Production facilities are the easier of the two things necessary for a nuclear bomb to acquire (which is why the recent reports about iran and weapons grade materials are far more frightening than anything that was surfaced about iraq).

Posted by: howard at August 26, 2003 02:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Back in 91, we found out that we severely *underestimated* the imminence of the risk Saddam presented."

Realistically, if Saddam had invaded Syria instead of Kuwait in 1991, we wouldn't have cared a bit. We probably would have supported him, like we did when he attacked Iran.

The imminence of risk you speak of really applies only to the prospect of his invading a rich, neighboring oil-producing state with tight connections to the US president.

Posted by: Jon H at August 26, 2003 02:23 PM | PERMALINK

It seems the Guardian has now changed their story from stating that "the claim was known to be made up" to "the claim was known to be wrong." Either that or Glenn Reynolds quoted it incorrectly.

Anyway, what's most interesting to me is how the Gilligan reporting is an example of how the press works in general. Newspapers and TV news are filled with errors every day, some big and some small. It really would be hard for it to be otherwise, given deadline pressure, lack of resources, etc.

However, reporters are welcome to make gigantic, catastrophic errors -- eg, Judith Miller's reporting on Iraq over the past year for the NY Times -- as long as they're erroneously saying things the government likes. However, if reporters like Gilligan make comparatively tiny errors while saying things the government DOESN'T like, it's a huge scandal and proves the media is liberal, anti-war, etc. -- even when the gist of the story is correct.

This is a large part of why hack reporters thrive, and good ones are driven out of the business.

Posted by: Jon at August 26, 2003 03:10 PM | PERMALINK

The Guardian is of course Britain's leading upscale left-wing paper. I'm not blaming Instacretin for citing it, even if their claim is false. And this is a huge false claim: it's the center of the BBC-Blair war. I just read the Guardian article, and it's got other thin claims about key gov't players being justified (Campbell, Scarlett). The Guardian has biased hawks that I know: not these authors. Unique among major world papers, says Palast, The Guardian is funded by a trust whose purpose is to publish The Guardian. So it's got no Black or Murdoch to enforce a line. My feeling: I've been following the Guardian's recent flood of articles on the Hutton Inquiry, and they now seem schizophrenic. You sense a real urge to cover the wagons and protect the UK's longest-serving Labour PM in history. I think we might do the same for Clinton. A few things have troubled me, but this (speficic falsehood, not slant) is the worst. We can email them, but I'd hope they're getting many from UK readers.
J Mann, your contrast of Gilligan and the email seems apt to me, but irrelevant to the BBC, since it's in the Mail (G & M is Canadian). Gilligan is toast.
Jon, your note that The Guardian is now *doctoring* their false claim is even worse. They must have had furious emails about their lie by now. It is completely outrageous and appalling.

Posted by: John Isbell at August 26, 2003 03:51 PM | PERMALINK

The main point in all this is of course, that they didn't have any recent intelligence (or, more specifically, recent intelligence on the existance of weapons, they had plenty of recent intelligence about no proof of weapons).

So they extrapolated, embellished, "sexed-up".

The Guardian story referenced above misses the point (to put it nicely) because it mentions something the government defended itself against which it was never accused of: Having made up the 45min claim.

That's a line of defense right out of the bowels of the No10 press office, from Campbell and his assorted PR hacks:

Loudly reject something you were never accused of (although sufficiently easy to be confused with the real claim of Gilligan), then cry "we've been vindicated!", when it turns out not to be true (who would have thought).

Check out the Guardian talkboard thread on the topic, and the official site for the Hutton inquiry.

Posted by: Felix Deutsch at August 26, 2003 04:05 PM | PERMALINK

Great blogging Kevin. That really cuts to the heart of this whole overblown debate.

Robert Fisk writes a touching article about this here.

Vive la resistance!

Posted by: Dom at August 26, 2003 04:18 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I just sent them an overlong letter, including this post and thread. I said "I'm sure you'll agree" a lot. They can't just be going around lying like that.
Upthread, that should be circle the wagons or cover their asses, from me.
Felix, I think you're on to something. If there's a lot of UK noise to that effect, it's just conceivable that the Guardian authors blew it innocently. But I doubt it.

Posted by: John Isbell at August 26, 2003 04:19 PM | PERMALINK

It seems the Guardian has now changed their story from stating that "the claim was known to be made up" to "the claim was known to be wrong." Either that or Glenn Reynolds quoted it incorrectly.

Anyway, what's most interesting to me is how the Gilligan reporting is an example of how the press works in general. Newspapers and TV news are filled with errors every day, some big and some small. It really would be hard for it to be otherwise, given deadline pressure, lack of resources, etc.

However, reporters are welcome to make gigantic, catastrophic errors -- eg, Judith Miller's reporting on Iraq over the past year for the NY Times -- as long as they're erroneously saying things the government likes. However, if reporters like Gilligan make comparatively tiny errors while saying things the government DOESN'T like, it's a huge scandal and proves the media is liberal, anti-war, etc. -- even when the gist of the story is correct.

This is a large part of why hack reporters thrive, and good ones are driven out of the business.

Posted by: Jon at August 26, 2003 04:34 PM | PERMALINK

You have some sort of inferiority complex with Instapundit. You must post something from there once a week: "Look what THEY said!!!! I'm telling Mom!!!!"

How about some original posting - we already know you disagree with any blog that is the area starting at the center onwards towards the right.

Posted by: whatever at August 26, 2003 04:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Whatever", Reynolds is still the single most read political blogger by far -- and when he makes major howlers (which he does with disturbing regularity), there's every reason to mention the fact.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at August 26, 2003 06:01 PM | PERMALINK

posted by ari: ...we have found no WMDs. Story after story of WMDs proved wrong... there are now tragically some 320 American and British soldier fatalities since March 20. For what? What the hell were we fighting for?

(please also remember lots of iraqis died as well, some soldiers, some conscripts, some simply innocent civilians)

A friend mailed me this 19th century quote today.

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, 1880

Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent not only says the same thing but unequivocally proves it with detailed research over a century later. The major press bodies of the world are tied into the general thrust of neo-liberal capitalism (free trade), which is not a surprise when the 'reality' of n-lc is to benefit the minority of individuals who control the majority of ownership of production around the world. Although it is impossible for them to stop the boat being rocked, there is no way the global elite will allow the boat to be tipped over.

Jean Baudrillard has suggested that the modern media saturated society we live in is constructed of 'simulations', which are basically constructed realities that have no basis in anything actually real. That what we are presented with, not only in the media but also in our everyday social interactions, are constructed illusions.

The Matrix follows his philosophical musings to create the Construct (as simulation) and Sion (as the alternative reality concealed behind the simulation). and as all good sci-fi should, reflects the social from which it is born. we live in a society of simulation, of realities concealed behind illusionary alternative realities that are created to hide the agendas of the ruling elite.

there have been no wmd found in iraq. they were the reason we went to war. or rather they were the constructed simulation used as the excuse to go to war, and to conceal the truth, the reality. the reality is that the owners of production want a global free trade system that they can control and manipulate in order to further their simple agenda of control through the accumulation of political power and economic wealth. iraq was an easy target because saddam was an evil tyrant. all they needed was a justifiable simulation to get the majority of the humanitarian west on their side, then they'd be off, thank you very much. no one wants to die from terrorist activities. saddam is a nut and by believing he could kill us in 45 minutes (or 45 days even) will sway people into accepting something has to be done.

now saddam is gone western companies are slicing up the new market (or were doing so before the war had even 'started') and the west is attempting to slip democratic capitalism into a muslim enclave.

whether gilligan lied or blair lied or campbell lied is ultimately irrelevant. it is another veil being pulled over the real point, which is that the war was illegal and unjustified. that the reasons for its implementation were scaremongering at best and blatant lies at worst, and the whole debate about language use and semantics in the bbc/blair showdown is simply another ruse by the ruling elite to deflect attention from what is going on. the ruling elite, using america as their front, are attempting to reshape the world to fit in with their neo-liberal agenda, and will attempt to do so no matter what the cost, rather than actually giving a shit about what people really want.

talk to muslims from the middle east. the koran tells them capitalism and democracy is wrong. these people believe their words of god. they do not want it (capitalism and democracy). they may not have wanted saddam, but i bet they don't want america inc. either.

So ari, that is what ‘we’ were fighting for. All those people died in ‘our’ name so a few rich power hungry bastards could have a little bit more. Lynch Gilligan. Vilify the BBC. Do whatever it takes to stop the world asking the most important question. When are Bush and Blair going on trial for murder (theirs) and manslaughter (ours)?

Posted by: jules at August 26, 2003 08:14 PM | PERMALINK

I just read the Guardian's latest raft of articles on the Hutton Inquiry (for the 27th). They don't repeat their false claim anywhere, just that Scarlett made it. Here's their archives for "blows out of the water":

"Origin of 45-min claim revealed
Matthew Tempest and Chris Tryhorn
August 26 2003 [1 p.m.]
The origin of the disputed 45-minute claim on Iraqi weapons came from a secret intelligence report dated August 30, the Hutton inquiry heard today.

Posted by: John Isbell at August 26, 2003 08:21 PM | PERMALINK

online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos

Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 11:50 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 01:17 PM | PERMALINK

1687 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: blackjack at August 23, 2004 03:58 PM | PERMALINK

491 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: blackjack at August 23, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINK

8070 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 24, 2004 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

1027 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 06:44 AM | PERMALINK

3226 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 06:09 AM | PERMALINK

6335 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 09:29 PM | PERMALINK

8700 Look at http://oncas.tramadol-web.com/

its the hizzy for online casino action any where!

Posted by: online casino at August 27, 2004 08:02 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter