Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

September 28, 2003

WHY I HATE BUSH....A PLEA TO CONSERVATIVES....A good night's sleep hasn't made me any less angry about the Valerie Plame bombshell from last night. The more I think about it, the more pissed I get.

But there's a lesson here too: this episode crystallizes the real reason why I dislike George Bush and his administration so intensely. Sure, I dislike his policies, and I don't care much for his phony macho Texas act either, but that's not really it.

The real reason I despise him is the feeling I've had from the beginning that Bush doesn't really believe in anything. Bill Clinton, to be sure, was a smooth talker who was more than willing to say different things to different audiences, but he was also willing to take risks for things he believed in. NAFTA and welfare reform pissed off his base, while healthcare and tax increases were widely unpopular with the country at large. But he pushed them anyway because he believed in them.

Bush doesn't seem to have anything like this. As former Bush advisor John DiIulio said, "What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm." Tax cuts are good for the base. War in Iraq is good for the base. Steel tariffs might help us in West Virginia. But talking about the long term costs of the war isn't good for the base, so it gets soft pedaled. Ditto for Social Security and Medicare reform, which require genuine leadership and hard choices.

I don't like the hard right agenda, but I dislike the hard right temperament even more — and George Bush's Texas is ground zero for the hard right of today. Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered? Fine. He ran drugs while he was governor? Great stuff. We might be able to smear an opponent by publicly unmasking a CIA operative? Let's do it.

Say what you will about Clinton and his disaster of a personal life. And there's no question that he fought to win — quite skillfully and not always fairly. But he didn't do anything like this. In fact, I can't think of an administration since World War II that would have done something like this. It would have given pause even to Nixon's henchmen.

I doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end. But that doesn't matter. This episode exposes the viciousness and amorality at the very heart of the Bush administration, and I hope it opens some conservative eyes about the nature of the administration they support. These guys are not who you think they are and they aren't pursuing their policies for the principled reasons you think they are. After all, if they went to war with Iraq because of a genuine commitment to humanitarian relief and Middle East democracy, don't you think they would have paid a little more attention to postwar planning? What does it tell you that they didn't?

Remember: this is not just some run of the mill political dirty trick. It's perilously close to treason. No truly principled conservative administration would do a thing like this, and the fact that they've been trying to dodge it for two months tells you everything you need to know about them.

There are plenty of honorable conservatives out there who deserve conservative support, but not the ones running this administration. So for God's sake, take a good hard look at these guys and get clear of them while your conscience is still intact. This is going to get ugly.

Posted by Kevin Drum at September 28, 2003 11:12 AM | TrackBack


Comments

Come on Kevin, tell us what you really think!

I am starting to wonder if another republican might challenge Bush if these things keep up.

Posted by: Tom K at September 28, 2003 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you, Kevin. Very well said.

Posted by: Diane at September 28, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

The only principles these guys understand are the ones spelt "principals."

Posted by: Linkmeister at September 28, 2003 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Was that Howard Drum or Kevin Dean?

Whichever, powerful stuff, I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Rick at September 28, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Take a look at the comments in Tacitus' blog regarding this affair. Even the so-called "moderate" conservatives there are bending over backward to pretend that the story isn't what it appears to be. I'm not expecting a huge groundswell of criticism from conservatives on this.

Posted by: PaulB at September 28, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Yep. I disavow Bush to the same degree that the left disavowed Hillary after the FBI files episode.

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

It looks like Dan Drezner was thinking the same thing. Very strong words...

Posted by: neil at September 28, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Condi Rice on "Fox News Sunday":

Asked if the White House was not concerned that top officials might have done such a thing, Rice said she did not recall any discussions about the matter.

"I don't remember any such conversations but I will say this. The Justice Department ... will determine the facts. They will determine what happened. They will determine if anything happened. And they will take appropriate action," Rice said.

Rice also said top administration officials "didn't remember" in the case of the president's State of the Union address in January, in which he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Though the offending phrase had been deleted from an October presidential speech in Cincinnati, Rice said, "Three-plus months later, people didn't remember that George Tenet had asked that it be taken out of the Cincinnati speech, and then it was cleared by the agency. I didn't remember. (Deputy national security adviser) Stephen Hadley didn't remember."

"We are trying to put now in place methods so you don't have to be dependent on people's memories for something like that," she added.

And this is explanantion enough? "I don't recall!!!???" For crying out loud! I cannot believe this kind of runaround excuse for a response will be good enough for anyone, let alone enabler / lackeys at Fox or supporters.

Rice and others have already demonstrated the joke that is their "memories" and accountabilty. If this isn't the major story this week, I'm going to have to assume that this kind of crap from the WH will once again be good enough.

I can barely type right now...

Posted by: A2Matt at September 28, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

I think once we get the current gang out of power, our first priority should be to increase transparency of ALL government processes. The Bush cabal has proven (once again) that a culture of secrecy and dishonesty does not function in the best interests of the American people.

Posted by: Charles V at September 28, 2003 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

There are plenty of honorable conservatives out there who deserve conservative support.

Too many of them, the oh-so-honorable Mr. McCain among them, have lain down with the dogs so often, and so long, that they can scarcely complain about the flea problem now.

I'd like to feel their pain...but it remains to be seen if there is any.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina at September 28, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, Kevin, Kevin. You just don't get it: it's "too complicated." You can't expect Bush defenders to get upset if it's "too complicated." Interesting, isn't it, how people who are obviously unusually smart suddenly and very conveniently find certain things "too complicated." I figure that excuse will last for maybe a week. Then they'll find another one. Don't look for any eye-opening on the part of the diehard Bush defenders. Ain't gonna happen. (And it's all tied into the defense of the Iraq war, of course, but that's a longer story...)

Posted by: Arthur Silber at September 28, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Eloquent appeal, Kevin. I'm not sure though that many on the right or left are going to agree with you that the problem with the Bush admin is that they "don't believe in anything."

I'm used to thinking of these people as ideologues who genuinely believe anyone who opposes them is opposing The Truth, and deserves what in this case she gets. Of course in practice, if the ends justify any and all means, no matter how crooked, you can legitimately argue to the voters that these people have no values at all.

Posted by: Jordan at September 28, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

What's with the silence from the press? Especially NPR. I mean, I'm baffled. I've been listening to NPR news for two decades, and I think there's no doubt they've been drifting rightward for a while -- although I'm not paranoid enough to think they're being taken over by Bushies. It's their news judgment that bothers me. They seem to concentrate more and more on rather innocuous but often insipid middlebrow cultural stuff and avoid any controversial news items altogether. I still can't figure out how they managed not to include Trent Lott's pro-segregation comments on Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign within the Voices in the News segment of Weekend Edition. Now they have managed to totally ignore the Wilson/Plame matter. This morning there was not even an inkling of a mention that the Justice Department is investigating the matter and the Washington Post is reporting that two White House senior officials have essentially committed treason. Right now Fox is doing a better job of covering this mess than NPR. Odd to realize that Murdoch's biased minions are more fair and balanced -- and relevant -- than NPR news.

Ares Akritas

Posted by: Ares Akritas at September 28, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Amen, Brother Kevin!

It's good to see that your proclivity to find the moderate viewpoint still recoils at such an obvious treachery. I know it's hard to come to grips with the fact that sometimes America 'elects' people who are completely at odds with all that makes America good. But that's what we have these days; these guys have no regard for decency.

I keep tuning into Calpundit because you've always been very insightful, even though you're nowhere near as angry about this administration as I thought you should be. Never forget how you felt last night; this is the feeling that has afflicted your less moderate brethren for three years now. And we were right.

Posted by: Matt Davis at September 28, 2003 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you are still on fire. Keep it up, and remember what Krugman said at the end of the introduction to his book about the great revulsion and to keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by: Mitch Schindler at September 28, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

This is well said, but hasn't the evidence been there all along? Wasn't the manipulation of the voter rolls in Florida under Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris prior to the 2000 election just more of the same?

And with the Diebold blackbox voting issue, and potentially a GOP administration at the helm of the electoral process in CA before the 2004 election, isn't it clear we have a massive problem with our presumptions about democracy? You don't have to venture into tin-foil-hat territory to be a little curious about Saxby Chambliss making up a 10% gap in the polls in GA overnight to beat Max Cleland.

Don't forget--your so-called honorable conservatives, such as James Baker, also drank the kool-aid. Recall his "we will do what we have to do to secure the White House" threats in Nov 2000.

Posted by: 537 votes at September 28, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

all these damaging and potentially criminal/treasonous actions the Bush people took ... just for spite! Just for spite!

These people could be diagnosed as psychopaths. We should not have them leading the country, and entrusted with very real and important power.

It's too late for Bush -- he's demonstrated that he just doesn't care. Being "uncurious" is no excuse. Bush must be held responsible, and must go.

Posted by: aReader at September 28, 2003 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Welcome back, Your dreams were your ticket out. Welcome back, To that same old place that you laughed about.

Well, the names have all changed since you hung around, But those dreams have remained and they've turned around.

Who'dve thought they'd lead ya? (Who'dve thought they'd lead ya?) Back here where we need ya? (Back here where we need ya?)

Yeah, we tease him a lot, Cuz we've got him on the spot. Welcome back.

Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back. Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.

Posted by: Dark Avenger at September 28, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

A one word reply, Estrada!

Posted by: Murph at September 28, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

The silence of the press is over. It seems that they took the late Friday revelation of this matter and sat on it for a day, so they could splash with it on Sunday. Oh, boy, is the administration in deep.

Even Fox is in on the hunt - Tony Snow pounded Condi today. And I think Kevin's hit on it - many people thought that the Bushistas meant well. It's clear that they meant well only for their own short-range interests, and to hell with the rest of the country.

Posted by: boloboffin at September 28, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

So how do we get Bush off the GOP ticket? Surely it's not too late for someone who isn't George Bush to oppose the Democratic nominee...

Posted by: Crazy Eddie at September 28, 2003 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Of Course the press is scared and careful with this story....part of the point of the leak was who was willing to do it...

and everybody in DC knows the names

Karl Rove ....and Dick Cheney? Anybody wanna see what Washington looks like if Cheney is accused of a five year felony?

Posted by: bob mcmanus at September 28, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Inciteful, as usual.....But do we really know enough to argue: "I doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end."
Just curious......

Posted by: daruskii at September 28, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it's a ten year felony (and/or $50,000), and there are six of them (one for each reporter notified). Also, you can add conspiracy charges on top of that. (No doubt, one perp made the original call, and said to confirm with the second perp.) No doubt an aggressive prosecution could find a number of additional charges to tack on.

Posted by: Benedict@Large at September 28, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

We've all been saying this for months. (Although perhaps not as well.)

Posted by: englishprofessor at September 28, 2003 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end.

Kevin, you disappoint me when you say stuff like this. You have no basis for this statement. No information that the rest of us don't have. The information is not yet available. How can you come to such a conclusion?

What we can surmise is that it 1) ruined her career, and any further chances of covert assignments; 2) exposed all operations she has been a part of over the years, investigating WMD, and certainly tipping off any interested parties to duck and cover; 3) sent the message that you go along with the manufactured truth or you will be destroyed.

The harm caused by this outage is not known yet. At least to us.

Posted by: freelixir at September 28, 2003 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Otherwise, strong post though. Kevin, you're getting pissed! Alright! Though I'd watch the use of the word "hate". Don't abuse the discourse. You know that some words shouldn't be used.

:)

Posted by: freelixir at September 28, 2003 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I wasn't projecting when I wrote Treason

Posted by: Ann Coulter at September 28, 2003 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Yep. I disavow Bush to the same degree that the left disavowed Hillary after the FBI files episode."-Al
Look over there! Hillary! Hillary!

Posted by: hqplink at September 28, 2003 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

....Bush doesn't really believe in anything. Bill Clinton, to be sure, was a smooth talker who was more than willing to say different things to different audiences, but he was also willing to take risks for things he believed in.

Where I'm from the willingness to "say different things to different audiences" is condensed to "lie."

I think you're having some perception problems here, Kevin. Clinton and Bush are very much cut from the same cloth in their lack of core principles on many things; and if you think Bush is unwilling to take risks for things he believes in, then I guess you haven't been paying attention to, well, this whole Iraq war thing. Heck, pushing through on key components of the agenda regardless of the cost is a hallmark of this administration. Witness tax cuts; witness education reform. As for alienating the base, I know you don't move in conservative circles, but rest assured that plenty of us are plenty alienated over deficit spending, over tariffs, and many other issues; also, I shouldn't need to recount the spleen from more than a few on the religious right over the appointments of gay directors for the Office of National AIDS Policy.

Frankly, I think Clinton and Bush are more similar than not. Which is the pity.

Say what you will about Clinton....But he didn't do anything like this.

Nah, just perjury. Seriously, if someone did purposefully blow Plame's cover, that person should go to jail. If the President knew about it, he should be impeached. But until we know those things for sure -- the first seems likely, but you're making a lot of suppositional leaps on the latter -- I'd say this rhetoric of yours is a little overheated.

In fact, I can't think of an administration since World War II that would have done something like this.

You must be kidding. This is entirely within the moral capacities of certain members of the Kennedy Administration; it would be par for the course for LBJ; and Nixon would not have shrank from it for a moment. I can even think of Reagan personnel who might consider such a thing.

....I hope it opens some conservative eyes about the nature of the administration they support.

Yeah, thanks for the advice. I think I'll wait for the evidence rather than act on the prejudices of die-hard Democrats.

But rest assured, if you're right, I'll be there with you.

Posted by: Tacitus at September 28, 2003 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking as someone from the same trade, I will be interested to see how the Crossfire Combover and his six colleagues respond if and when asked in court to reveal the identity of their sources for this leak.

Posted by: Ron Matthews, the accurate one at September 28, 2003 01:14 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Tacitus, could you maybe try being a little more obtuse and sanctimonious? You weren't coming through as well as I know you can.

Posted by: billmon at September 28, 2003 01:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Billmon's here.

Rachel Corrie screed in 5....4....3....2....

Posted by: Tacitus at September 28, 2003 01:27 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Tacitus,

Actually, saying one thing to one audience and another to another isn't necessarily lying by any stretch of the demagogic imagination. If I talk about libraries to librarians and hog farming to farmers am I "lying?" But again, alas, the real point is that its not Clinton and it will only be perjury if and when the supreme court rules that this sitting president can be deposed for what he knew, when. And given the breaks bush has been given (remember when he advanced, in africa, the notion that we had to go to war because Saddam had kicked out the inspectors?) no doubt even if he cops to having known Rove wanted to hurt Wilson we will be told he 'misspoke' or its "just george being george."
Even my right wing sister in law is refusing to vote for Bush anymore. Wake up and smell the coffee.--aimai

Posted by: aimai at September 28, 2003 01:28 PM | PERMALINK

Well, who does the Smirk remind us of?

can everybody say Warren Harding?

Posted by: DEMolition at September 28, 2003 01:30 PM | PERMALINK

If I talk about libraries to librarians and hog farming to farmers....

Do you really think that's what Kevin meant? I don't.

Posted by: Tacitus at September 28, 2003 01:31 PM | PERMALINK

There are two things that Clinton did which pissed me off, and yes piss me off more than what this Administration is doing and did with Plame: (1) bombing ex-Yugoslavia to Hell without getting Congressional approval, which should have been the impeachable offense; and (2) accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese and looking the other way when military technology was sold to them.

OK on (2) I confess no one talks about it anymore, so almost certainly I have the basic facts wrong (because presumably it would be a pretty big thing if the facts were right, no?). So actually, if someone did follow this story better than I (which probably isn't difficult), it would set my mind at ease to know that Clinton wasn't guilty of what I thought he was guilty of. Providing a link would be helpful !

But still, (1) in my mind stinks. Plame stinks, of course, but (1) stinks even more.

Posted by: Andrew Boucher at September 28, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINK

I just think it's hilarious that someone (Al in this case) would trot out Clinton non-scandals and claim equivalency here. Even Ken "Felonious Blowjob Perjury" Starr couldn't find evidence of wrongdoing in any other action he investigated in the Clinton White House. That includes the Whitewater non-scandal that took place prior to the Presidency.

So please, if you want to accuse Clinton of something, just stick with the oral sex. That's the only one he, or his White House, did that might in the most bizarro of bizarro-worlds be considered equivalent.

Posted by: Evan Allen at September 28, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

Crazy Eddie

If you want to dump Bush, go ahead and Run Connecticut Joe...he's not going anywhere right now...

Posted by: DEMolition at September 28, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

"I doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end. "

Not unless you count putting her in harm's way with possible associates who didn't know what she was up to; the possible loss of her job, and most importantly, serving as Example Number 1 as what happens to people AND their families when they blow the whistle on misdeeds of the Bush administration.

Posted by: tristero at September 28, 2003 01:40 PM | PERMALINK

"In fact, I can't think of an administration since World War II that would have done something like this." -- Kevin Drum

"Yep. I disavow Bush to the same degree that the left disavowed Hillary after the FBI files episode." -- Al

"Look over there! Hillary! Hillary!" -- hgplink

Gee, hgplink, seems to me that KEVIN was the one bringing up prior administrations.

Kevin's post is typical of the psychotic hatred of Bush these days. The evidence for illegal actions by a senior administration official consists of one anonymous person quoted in WaPo. But that's enough for the Bush-haters to go absolutely nuts. Is there any doubt that if the Justice Department ends up saying "no crime" we'll have 68 Kevin Drum posts on the "cover-up"? What's next, Kevin, some story about Bush and drug dealers in Mena?

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 01:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, wow. Great rant. You articulate my feelings exactly.

Posted by: Kat at September 28, 2003 01:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Even Ken "Felonious Blowjob Perjury" Starr couldn't find evidence of wrongdoing in any other action he investigated in the Clinton White House."

And no one has found any evidence of wrongdoing in any action by the White House now either.

The "evidence" so far consists of an anonymous quote in WaPo. Seems to me that the parallel with "filegate" is pretty clear - a lot of sound and fury from the President's haters, signifying nothing.

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 01:50 PM | PERMALINK

That's right, Al. Cling to your desperate little life-raft. Close your eyes and wish real hard and it'll all go away.

Go listen to Rush or something. You won't hear anything that upsets you.

Posted by: Laertes at September 28, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

Great post, Kevin, but I think you're wrong about Bush not believing in anything.

His core agenda is reducing taxes (especially for his wealthy constituency) and reducing government interference in the operation of his constituency's businesses. If the reduction of government revenue leads to the ultimate destruction of large social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare, all the better -- but those would be welcome consequences rather than fundamental goals. His conservative social agenda is also something he believes in, but in this case, I think it is expendable when necessary to achieve his core agenda.

If you don't think Bush has a core agenda, then you would have to think that he pursues politics simply to stay in power -- and I don't believe that. He believes he's on a mission from God to set a few things straight, and will employ any means necessary to complete that mission.

I share your dismay (and, sometimes, horror) in regarding these guys and what they are doing to our country. Sometimes it leads to emotional outburts. But I don't think it does any good to just write them off as political demons without guiding principles. They have an agenda, and recognizing it is the best way to counter them.

Posted by: scottd at September 28, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

So actually, if someone did follow this story better than I (which probably isn't difficult), it would set my mind at ease to know that Clinton wasn't guilty of what I thought he was guilty of.

There was one person. He had years to operate, a budget of over $80,000,000 and a massive team of investigators combing through every detail of everything the Clintons and anyone even remotely attached to the Clintons was ever involved in. Remember Ken Starr? Do you need a link to know what he finally came up with?

Posted by: Thumb at September 28, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

Thumb - Well that would prove my ignorance ! (I didn't think Starr looked at this; I thought it came out after Starr.) So yes, if you have a link about what Starr came up with on this, I would appreciate it.

Posted by: Andrew Boucher at September 28, 2003 01:54 PM | PERMALINK

ScottD is, I think, correct.

Posted by: Tacitus at September 28, 2003 01:54 PM | PERMALINK

Al, hackneyed old lies about the Clintons only work when you're preaching to the converted. The same goes for name calling (psychotic, nutty haters) and speculation about what someone may say in a hypothetical scenario. Come up with some real arguments.

Posted by: hqplink at September 28, 2003 02:08 PM | PERMALINK

Is there any doubt that if the Justice Department ends up saying "no crime" we'll have 68 Kevin Drum posts on the "cover-up"?

Well, now isn't that cute? Here's Al, who still believes that John Ashcroft's Justice Department wouldn't cover this up if they could possibly get away with it... So sweet, isn't it, how naively trusting some people can be?

News flash, Al: the Bush administration has just been put on notice by the CIA that they are not going to be allowed to cover this one up. There's no doubt that Plame's role was deliberately made public, and the WaPo story says that at least six reporters know exactly who did it. Names are going to be named, count on it.

Posted by: Canadian Reader at September 28, 2003 02:23 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, hgplink, did you miss the comments above about the "Bush cabal", the "psychopaths", "Smirk"? About how this is "treason"? Talk about "name calling"...

In any case, it is pretty clear that the Bush Haters are out here, and now, sadly, include Kevin Drum. As for the term "Bush Haters", I don't remember the lefties objecting to the term "Clinton Haters"... Indeed, even the argument in this post by Kevin parallels the old objection of the Clinton Haters that Clinton didn't have any principles except staying in office.

The similarities between Kevin (and his pals posting on this thread) and the old Clinton Haters in, say, the first month of the FBI Files scaldal are REALLY eerie.

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 02:26 PM | PERMALINK

tacitus:
"but you're making a lot of suppositional leaps on the latter -- I'd say this rhetoric of yours is a little overheated."


as atrios would say...."HEH"

one of the things the wingers seem to be clinging to is that this all means nothing because it's from anonymous sources...since when is "senior administration officials" the same thing as anonymous?

how do you read your own comment boards without questioning reality tacitus? the sheer ineptitude of many of your commenters is stunning both in logic and content.

Posted by: sampo at September 28, 2003 02:27 PM | PERMALINK

ScottD: Bush has simply done too many things that don't truly fit a conservative agenda. Don't get me wrong: of course I think Bush is basically a hard right conservative, but I truly doubt that this is because of deep core feelings on his part. I can't prove it, of course, but that's how he strikes me.

Tacitus: Saying different things to different audiences is normal politics. Every politician does it. It might be wrong, but in the world of politics it's a misdemeanor, not a felony.

And I don't expect you to follow my lead, of course, but at this point I strongly suspect that the Post story is correct. As long as you're with me if and when that turns out to be the case, that's fine.

Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 28, 2003 02:30 PM | PERMALINK

Al, 'They do it, too,' is not an argument. I'm beginning to think you have nothing to say.

Posted by: hqplink at September 28, 2003 02:32 PM | PERMALINK

"I doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end. "

Kevin, if you are still reading this thread, this is the GREAT harm that was done to our country.

Plame was a covert case officer. You can bet that foreign intelligence agencies reviewed every posting her husband ever had and then reviewed every contact Plame had that they could document. That means ALL of those operations were compromised and had to be shut down.

But the harm goes further than that. Any foreigner in contact with a CIA covert case officer now has to worry that they will be exposed as some sort of act of petty political vindictiveness. This means our ability to gather intelligence has been harmed. And the damage will last for years. You can bet everyone at the CIA, from the Director to the personnel in the mail room are plenty angry about this. Our national interests have been seriously harmed.

And go read David Erhenstein's posting about anonymous sources, becuase none of this would have happened if our press insisted sources go on the record.

Posted by: Alice Marshall at September 28, 2003 02:47 PM | PERMALINK

I think "too complicated" = "no have talking points"

Posted by: xian at September 28, 2003 03:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin's post is typical of the psychotic hatred of Bush these days. The evidence for illegal actions by a senior administration official consists of one anonymous person quoted in WaPo. But that's enough for the Bush-haters to go absolutely nuts.

well, the CIA certainly thinks there's something worth looking into. are they now "Bush-haters" too?

Posted by: ChrisL at September 28, 2003 03:29 PM | PERMALINK

(2) accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese and looking the other way when military technology was sold to them.

OK on (2) I confess no one talks about it anymore, so almost certainly I have the basic facts wrong

First off - I think the burden is on you to first show that their were in fact the two events and that they were actually causally related to each other. My understanding, at least with the Chinese money, is that they didn't know it was coming from the Chinese government and then it was returned when it was found out. There never was any quid pro quo proven - that is just something from RNC talking points and right wing radio that people like you tend to swallow whole as "fact" - although I do commend the fact that you are willing to admit that you don't have all the facts.
The story with the "intelligence secrets" involves Loral Space Communications (or whatever their formal name is - google on "Loral"). All the supporting documentation used to be on their website - I haven't looked in a few years so I'm not sure if it is there or not. The following is from my memory, so isn't definitive but should provide you enough context to do your own searching.

Basically what happened is that a Loral communications satellite was sold to the Chinese and the satellite failed at launch. The Chinese demanded a full investigation along with all the technical detail on the satellite which hadn't been given to them (against national security policy) and then either intimidated the local Loral people to provide them, or actually physically confiscated the satellite programs with the embargoed information. THAT is the "intelligence secrets" that you claim was "sold" - sort of like claiming that Bush the RNC "gave" the Chinese all the secrets that they managed to take off the Navy spy plane back in Spring 2001 - and funny - I NEVER hear anyone on the right squawk at that - or squawk at the fact that that woman operative in the chinese fundraising scandal was actually a Republican fund raiser - but hey... The only real questionable thing about the Chinese satellite scandal was that permission was given by Anthony Lake to sell an additional satellite (with additional intelligence safeguards) to the Chinese while the investigation of the first one was still taking place. I don't know if you remember what the Clinton administration was like - but they made all sorts of efforts to advance international trade by US companies - something that has definitely taken a back seat during the Bush Administration - so the sale of the second satellite is somehow being portrayed by the partisans as "proof" that the Clintons were in bed with the Chinese while the most likely reason of smoothing international transactions by US corporations is ignored. Regardless, a "quid pro quo" of supposed campaign contributions and the sale of the satellites has never been close to be being shown as having any connection to reality - but like most things advanced by the right during the Clinton Administration, no one really paid attention to the actual facts when it was much more fun to play "GOTCHA!"

Do a google on "Loral" and "China" - and try looking for non-partisan explanations of the episode - especially the part about secrets being "sold" to them - I think you'll find it quite a bill of goods.

Posted by: Andy X at September 28, 2003 03:42 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that all would be solved if journalists were forced to divulge their sources is an absurd one.

Whistleblowing cannot exist in some cases unless sources are protected, look at Watergate. Neither can democracy exist without anonimity, hence the secret ballot.

This story is not about journalists giving up their sources. It is about the White House actively handing out the name of a CIA operative to the press. Hell, the WH had "at least six" goes at different reporters before Novak bit.

Shouldn't those responsible in the White House have admitted it by now?

Posted by: C Lake at September 28, 2003 03:53 PM | PERMALINK

"well, the CIA certainly thinks there's something worth looking into. are they now "Bush-haters" too?"

Typical liberal... can't tell the difference between "worth looking into" and "why I hate Bush".

Is the episode "worth looking into"? Sure.

Is the episode a reason to "hate Bush"? Only if you are willing to believe the word of one anonymous person quoted in WaPo AND put the worst possible spin on it (heck, we don't even know that Plame was a "covert" operative, do we?). But if you are a Bush Hater - something that Kevin now describes himself as - I can see why you do that.

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 04:51 PM | PERMALINK

"heck, we don't even know that Plame was a "covert" operative, do we?"

Actually, we do. That she's a covert op is abundantly clear to anyone who isn't armpit deep in frantic denial.

You're very good at reading between the lines when swallowing preposterous conspiracy theories. How about applying a mere fraction of that skill here?

Posted by: Laertes at September 28, 2003 05:01 PM | PERMALINK

I've actually been saying this for quite a while. At heart, I'm a moderate-pragmatic. I believe that a two-party balance makes the best policy with a minimum of pork.

But for the last 6 months or so, frankly, I'm ignoring the conservative POV. They have nothing to say. Absolutly nothing. There's no difference, no debate. It's just follow-Bush. That's what it's all about.

I will take the conservative movement seriously again, when I see a serious Draft-Anybody But Bush movement.

Until then...

Posted by: Karmakin at September 28, 2003 05:31 PM | PERMALINK

I find your "Plea" condescending. Read my full response here.

Posted by: Mike Van Winkle at September 28, 2003 05:57 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I see you've met my man George Bush. I've known him for a couple of years now. I don't like him much. I guess you were bound to bump into him sooner or later.

Posted by: John Isbell at September 28, 2003 05:58 PM | PERMALINK

I also wish GOP commenters here much happiness with their criminal administration. I guess I would admire them if they go down with the ship, pretty much the way I admire a suicide bomber: i.e., not very much. Vote Bush in 2004! He's the man for America!

Posted by: John Isbell at September 28, 2003 06:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Actually, we do. That she's a covert op is abundantly clear to anyone who isn't armpit deep in frantic denial." -- Laertes

Uh, do you even realize that, under the statute in question, "covert agent" has a specific definition? Read 50 USC 426(4).

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 06:23 PM | PERMALINK

"In friendship false, implacable in hate,
Resolved to ruin or to rule the state."
---John Dryden

This quote may be putting it too strongly, but somehow it seems apt.

Posted by: Lanya at September 28, 2003 06:52 PM | PERMALINK

Moreover, if Plame was a "covert agent", how does anyone explain the following from Novak's original column: "The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him." If she really is a covert agent, why would the CIA disclose its own covert agent?

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 06:59 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Al:a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information.
What's you're point?

Posted by: hqplink at September 28, 2003 07:50 PM | PERMALINK

Al - here's the link to 50 USC 426. You're saying it doesn't apply to Plame ... how?

Posted by: Mithras at September 28, 2003 08:00 PM | PERMALINK

I need to refresh more often.
"The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
This does not indicate any exposition of her covert status. Keep throwing everything you can get. Maybe something will stick.

Posted by: hqplink at September 28, 2003 08:01 PM | PERMALINK

hgplink, you really need to address your insight to the CIA, since they've just concluded their investigation and handed it over to Justice. I can't believe they didn't think of contacting you.

Posted by: John Isbell at September 28, 2003 08:52 PM | PERMALINK

hgplink, you really need to address your insight to the CIA, since they've just concluded their investigation and handed it over to Justice. I can't believe they didn't think of contacting you.

Posted by: John Isbell at September 28, 2003 08:52 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Mithras. If I knew how to post links, I would have done that myself.

Um, hgplink, you're leaving out a pretty significant part of the definition:

"(4) The term ''covert agent'' means - (A) an officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, AND
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; ... (emphasis added)

[the other categories are US citizens who reside outside the US or are involved in counterintelligence, and non-US citizens]

So, assuming Plame resides in the US (her husband sure seems to), in order for her to be a "covert agent" within the meaning of the statute, she would have had to serve outside the US within the last 5 years. Do we have ANY evidence on that, either way? Not that I'm aware of.

This, of course, does not even reach the question of whether the disclosing person knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal [Plame's] intelligence relationship to the United States," as required by 50 USC Section 421.

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 09:12 PM | PERMALINK

"This does not indicate any exposition of her covert status."

Really? Why would the CIA ask Wilson's wife to contact Wilson unless she worked for the CIA?

In any case, if you are going to claim that, then you'd have to acknowledge that the sentence in Novak's article in which Whiote House sources supposedly "outed" Plame didn't "indicate any exposition of her covert status" either? So, is that really the standard? If so, then both the CIA AND the White House would be cleared.

Posted by: Al at September 28, 2003 09:20 PM | PERMALINK

Al, you are misreading the statute. The following 'or' means that the previous need not apply.
Plame's nominal position was sufficient for her referral. One need not say, 'Ask Plame, she's a secret agent.' If her covert position was discussed among people with security clearance, it is not relevant to her public exposure, but do you really need to be told that? Keep trying.

Posted by: hqplink at September 28, 2003 09:59 PM | PERMALINK

No, hgplink, you are misreading the statute. There are three alternate definitions for "covert agent" - which are set forth in clauses (A), (B), and (C) of subsection (4) of 50 USC 426.

I quoted clause (A). You, on the other hand, quoted part of clause (A) and part of clause (B), which is incorrect. If you want to use the definition contained in clause (B), you have to use all of clause (B), which reads as follows:

"(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;"

As is clear, the definition in clause (B) related only to persons who "reside and act outside of the United States". I don't think this applies to Plame.

Posted by: Al at September 29, 2003 08:35 AM | PERMALINK

Wait a second. Let's talk about viciousness and amorality. Bush knocked off Saddam because the neocons favored it, as a policy matter. Clinton--that paragon of virtue--attacked Iraq because Clinton was being impeached.

To use war for domestic political needs is the most vicious and amoral thing imaginable. But--if we accept all that Kevin believes (Saddam posed no threat, Saddam didn't have WMDs and we knew that, there was no good reason to go to war with Iraq)--then we must accept that Clinton's war on Iraq in 1998 was in bad faith (just like the Bush war): amoral and vicious.

That Kevin missed this tells you all that you need to know about him.

Posted by: Thomas at September 29, 2003 09:07 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998? What was that: Gulf War 1.5beta?

What planet are these freepers on anyway?

Posted by: dave at September 29, 2003 09:41 AM | PERMALINK

Dave is showing the ignorance of the lefties... well done! (Hint - google "Operation Desert Fox")

Howard, of course you are correct. But any mention of Clinton will automatically bring out the lefties to belittle you as a "Clinton Hater" - nevermind that the disagreements about the war have literally made the lefties here, including Kevin, "Bush Haters"...

Posted by: Al at September 29, 2003 09:49 AM | PERMALINK

Dave--a pitch-perfect response. You must be the new prototype.

What's that they say? Smarter monkeys please?

Posted by: Thomas at September 29, 2003 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Again, Al, 'or' means exclusive of the former. Its basic English.I grow impatient with your willful ignorance.

Posted by: hqplink at September 29, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Ooooo a scandal! We haven't had a good left wing wacko scandal for at least, what, two weeks? Is this one going to get Bush impeached like the last one? This will help the non-partisan electorate take democrats seriously!

When are we going to try and win an ELECTION for President. You know when you run a candidate who has good ideas and people vote for them because they want that candidate to implement those good ideas.

This administration has been like bizzaro world. But the democratic response to it has been almost as weird. Rather than run on issues that democrats win on, we try to manufacture scandals which blew up on the republicans when they tried it...or the primary candidates get increasingly bizarre trying to get attention.

If someone committed a crime they will get prosecuted. That doesn't mean that Bush will be implicated or this will be the end of the Bush administration. The Bush administration will only end if the democrats can elect a better leader who has better ideas and can capture the majority of the ELECTORAL votes.

So far in the primaries there are 10 candidates and counting, it is like watching a nationally televised democratic euthanasia in very slow motion.

"I can be more shrill and anti-Bush than you!" Sen. Kerry to Gov. Dean

"Oh Yeah, Listen to how stupid MY foreign policy is...I am in favor of attacking Liberia...but not Iraq!" Gov. Dean to Sen. Kerry

"Wait, I'm going to completely eliminate the U.S. military and create the Department of Peace!" Moonbeam Kucinich

"I'm going to tax corporations out of existance so that I can create jobs!" Rev. Sharpton

"I'm going to provide completely free health care to everyone just like the French who are dying in heat waves, that is how liberal I am!" Rep. Gephardt

"What are we attacking Bush for? We need to attack each other to win the primary!" Sen. Leiberman

That is how it looks to anyone who is paying attention.

Posted by: Ratherworried at September 29, 2003 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

hgplink,

I do this for a living, so please try to follow along. You can choose between all of clause (A) OR all of clause (B) OR all of clause (C). You cannot choose part of clause (A) and part of clause (B), as you posted.

Posted by: Al at September 29, 2003 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

If part of a clause is exclusive of another part,then your point is not representative of that clause. As you are an authority on the subject, I must assume your misrepresentation is deliberate and I will not argue principia with you anymore. This thread is getting low on the page, so let's join a higher thread. If you have a last word, I will read it, but forgive me if I do not respond.
By the way, its hQplink.

Posted by: hqplink at September 29, 2003 03:40 PM | PERMALINK

Get a grip Kevin you whining leftist parasite!

Try a few facts first before you let your inate leftist mindset take over hands at the keyboard...

http://www.drudgereport.com/

'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...

Posted by: russ at September 29, 2003 05:41 PM | PERMALINK

What I hate about Bush: that recurring smug look on his face (and Rumsfield as well) like he's just holding back the laughter at how many Americans are buying this; and they way he uses the word 'freedom' so much in his speeches, as if he's reassuring us that really is his main goal.

Try this link russ, if you want facts:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

A quote from that article by Robert Novak:

'Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.'

Posted by: sfbuck at September 29, 2003 07:25 PM | PERMALINK

Funny. . . that was my take on Clinton. I can't say I "hated" him, though. I just thought he was an opportunist who would sell his own mother if the price was right. On the other hand, I think Bush has actual convictions (e.g, the war in Iraq sure wasn't likely to score him political points). The old saying pretty much sums it up: "Where you stand depends on where you sit."

Posted by: Ben at September 29, 2003 07:41 PM | PERMALINK

"....Say what you will about Clinton... But he didn't do anything like this."

Ya, all he did was fire some cruise missles into two countries we weren't at war with, on the day of his impeachment hearing no less.

Posted by: John at September 29, 2003 07:58 PM | PERMALINK

several make the astute point that kevin's assumption that 'this likely didn't cause any harm' was naive. it is. very much so.
first off, the cia would NOT be getting involved at this level if the outcome were 'harmless.' second, check out almartinraw.com, on or around sept. 4, in which he claims the hill buzz is that 70 operatives had to be liquidated worldwide.
now, bear in mind that this woman's schtick was ... WMDs. even if there were no, er, collateral damage in terms of the cia operative staff, there is still the compromise of this major connection for purposes of snooping into WMD purchases and trafficking.
kevin, dearst, i highly recommend that you save naivete for romance and children; politics requires suspicion and cyincism regarding those who govern, and being the citizen of a democratic country DEMANDS it.

Posted by: lll at September 30, 2003 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.blurty.com/talkread.bml?journal=insane&itemid=8323

Posted by: blckleprd at January 27, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

I have found the best online pharmacy for buying

Generic Viagra online
Meltabs
generic Cialis

Posted by: generic Viagra prices at July 14, 2004 08:48 PM | 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 01:56 PM | PERMALINK

6724 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 06:03 PM | PERMALINK

2285 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Posted by: texas holdem online at August 9, 2004 07:57 PM | PERMALINK

1781 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 04:44 PM | PERMALINK

8604 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I was just saying the same thing to my friend last night. Thanks for posting this!

Posted by: Elite Micro at August 11, 2004 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

4711 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

Posted by: buy viagra at August 14, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINK

484 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

6724 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 02:43 PM | PERMALINK

7560 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich
and then again there is always beer

Posted by: Krankenversicherung private at August 17, 2004 08:27 PM | PERMALINK

As always, spot on! Amen brother!

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

7622 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto

Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

6276

http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars
at http://www.diecastdot.com

Posted by: Adult DVDS at August 19, 2004 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree, but respect your opinion.

Posted by: text link ads at August 19, 2004 07:22 PM | PERMALINK

3198 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 24, 2004 04:27 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63