Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

September 30, 2003

WHO WILL BE THE FIRST TO RAT?....The Nation's David Corn, who was the first to break the Plame story back in July, writes today about yesterday's White House press briefing:

This was a weird situation. Here was McClellan telling the press corps that he and the White House had absolutely no information of their own on the Wilson leak, yet several reporters--including Novak--know exactly who called them to pass on the information on Wilson's wife. These reporters, though, can only reveal the truth by ratting out a confidential source. As of yet, none of them have done so. In fact, several White House reporters with whom I spoke--who were not contacted by the leakers--had only guesses as to which White House aides might have orchestrated the Wilson leak. That is, the identity of the leakers has not yet become out-in-the-open scuttlebutt. But there are journalists--NBC's Andrea Mitchell appears to be one--who can say definitively whether the White House was behind the leak.

Who will be the first?

Posted by Kevin Drum at September 30, 2003 11:17 AM | TrackBack


Comments

Is it really "revealing a source" if the reporter didn't use the information given? At least six reporters were leaked to, only one (Novak) used the info. So can the others blow the whistle without committing the dreaded sin of "ratting out a confidential source?"

Posted by: grytpype at September 30, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

On the grounds listed by grytpype (if that is their real name...) I would imagine that it would indeed be ratting out a source, even if you didn't publish the info. At least, that's the way all the other confidential sources would see it, and that's the whole point, isn't it?

Posted by: Steve-O at September 30, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it unethical to reveal a source who is committing a felony and jeopardizing national security. Doctors are duty bound to break confidentiality if a patient says "I'm going to kill my girlfriend." Why can't a reporter decide that this is a big enough deal to break a custom. What's the ethical principle?

Posted by: Ted at September 30, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I think to make it stick someone's going to have to go on record. I can't imagine a reporter worth his salt is going to rat out a source. Would such a reporter EVER again be the recipient of a tip?
Would such a reporter even remain employed? Can't imagine a credible news organization would allow a reporter to reveal a source. Who knows, maybe a WH house employee will sing once the hearings start, and/or it will be revealed the president tape recorded his conversations.

Posted by: P. B. Almeida at September 30, 2003 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

God I wish one of the reporters would tell us the identity of the 'leaker', because this rampant speculation is getting annoying. This is a self-created mystery. If reporters were reporting we wouldn't be having this problem.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at September 30, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Howard Fineman on last night's Hardball:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/973846.asp

MATTHEWS: Well, the “Washington Post” is a very credible organization in Washington, D.C. Is that the main source that everybody is pegging this to? Their report from a Saturday source, apparently, that the administration or two people in the White House were making these calls to leak this information about Joe Wilson‘s wife, Howard?
       
FINEMAN: Well, it was in the Sunday “Washington Post.” Yes, that‘s the main thing that got this going again. But in my own calling around, I have some people inside the White House telling me the same thing. They‘re making the allegation, not for attribution, that yes, in fact, there were people inside the White House leaking, inside the White House complex. And, you know, these are people that I‘ve talked to before who know what they‘re talking about, usually.
       
And what‘s of interest to me here is that you seem to have a fight going on behind the scenes to see who, if anybody, is going to come forward and admit something. Who‘s going to actually finger somebody else on the record.

Posted by: penalcolony at September 30, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Careful, Kevin. Calpundit is in danger of becoming a single-issue blog.

Posted by: Registered Independent Joel at September 30, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

FYI, TNR has started an online debate between Spencer Ackerman, one of their assistant editors, and Cliff May.

Ackerman's started it, and is pretty critical of May's lame piece in NRO. It'll be interesting to see how it goes.

Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

I find it interesting that with all the talk we've heard about who and what Ms. Plame's husband is and how it affects the story, we haven't heard too much about who and what Ms. Mitchell's husband is.

Surely she has solid enough connections to the Bush administration - given that her husband is one of the hypothetical suspects - that her evidence should be enhanced as much as the east blogosphere seems to think that Ms. Plame's is diminished?

Posted by: julia at September 30, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Do the usual rules about confidential sources apply in a case like this? Where the leak IS the story, and a crime as well?

Posted by: grytpype at September 30, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Careful, Kevin. Calpundit is in danger of becoming a single-issue blog.

So what? It's only been what, 3 days? Setting aside the serious national security implications, this is an interesting, engaging, story. Why shouldn't Kevin cover it to the extent that he wants? That's the point of weblogs. Eventually (I've been weblogging since 1999, I know this), there will be new topics or another all-consuming issue.

But I've seen this kind of reaction before from readers of weblogs and always found it strange. It's not as though there aren't lots of weblogs to read, now. And if Kevin, or whoever, wants to drill down on one particular issue for awhile, what's the harm? If you don't like it, check back in a week or a month.

It's just such an odd criticism.

Posted by: Medley at September 30, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it unethical to reveal a source who is committing a felony and jeopardizing national security.

IMO it wouldn't be unethical in the least to act on information given by a confidential source if the journalist doing so knew lives or national security were on the line, (even if said action meant revealing a source).

But surely we're beyond that now. The cat's out of the bag, so to speak, and at this juncture revealing sources would be largely a matter helping the government to prosecute someone (assuming a law's been broken). I'm not so sure revealing a source would't be an ethics violation in this case. In fact I'd guess it would be such a violation.

Posted by: P. B. Almeida at September 30, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

I suspect the WaPo will have the name within the next few days.

On her show, Diane Rehm asked Dana Priest this morning if she thought this thing had legs. And Priest said, "oh yeah, we're going to ..." then stopped herself. Then she said, "I think this has reached a feeding frenzy." So at the very least, the WaPo is going to do something that Priest doesn't want us to know about yet--but that will keep this thing moving.

Remember, Priest knows who did it--she was told off the record over the weekend. So now she just needs to find a way to get it on the record. And if that many people in the WH are boiling, I think Priest may be close.

Remember, from their story this morning, they've got SIX people working on this. Which means that 1) they've got the legs and collective contacts to put this together, and 2) the editors realize this is going to really be a feather in their not-the-NYT cap, and are committed to getting the story.

Posted by: emptywheel at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Not to worry, folks.

John Ashcroft is on the case!

Posted by: chris at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, please write about cooking more often. That's what your readers are interested in.

Posted by: Atrios at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

I'm rather annoyed by the whole thing, too. Is their job reporting - telling people what is going on - or not? They can't tell us who it the white house has committed a felony, treason really, endangered our whole network of covert WMD operations, behaved dispicably - because it might affect their own careers? Pfui.

Furthermore, it can't be the case that an entity that knows it is about to be involved in a scandal can keep all the well known reporters from reporting on it by leaking to them - can it? Awfully self serving, if so.

Posted by: Emma Anne at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Atrios:

It's a twofer: I *do* smell goose cooking.

Posted by: chris at September 30, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Ted:

It's part of the profession of journalism. Reporters get most of their info from human sources. Preferably, the source will go on the record, meaning you can identify them by name. Often, if the info is juicy, the source cannot allow their name in print without facing nasty repercussions, so the reporter pushes the source for info by negotiation (about how broadly to identify the source). In that case, it becomes a solemn trust not to ever, ever, ever name them. Sometimes, the reporter is forced to tell their editor and/or publisher as well in order to convince them to run the story, but with the same understanding that the identity of the source does not ever go beyond that. It's a very firm code, and if a reporter breaks the unwritten confidentiality agreement, their career is as good as finished since they prove themselves totally untrustworthy.

Moreover, the law Bush Sr. enacted re: the outing of covert CIA identities specifically exempts those broadcasting the leak, and only criminalizes the leaker. Hence the workings of checks and balances. A free press is able to weed out the wrongdoings of the powerful and dastardly.

Posted by: Scott in Montreal at September 30, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Surely she (Andrea Mitchell) has solid enough connections to the Bush administration - given that her husband is one of the hypothetical suspects - that her evidence should be enhanced as much as the east blogosphere seems to think that Ms. Plame's is diminished?

Alan Greenspan is one of the hpothetical suspects? Really?

This is getting weirder by the nanosecond.

Posted by: P. B. Almeida at September 30, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

emptywheel writes: "And Priest said, "oh yeah, we're going to ..." then stopped herself."

I bet she was going to say " ... fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!"

Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Valerie Plame was supposedly an undercover agent. She allegedly used her maiden name (Valerie Plame, rather than Valerie Wilson) while undercover to disguise her identity. Being an undercover agent, she couldn't let anyone know that she was really the wife of an Ambassador -- and therefore clearly connected to the American foreign policy and intelligence establishment. If that were the case, they might not trust her. Right?

Or so the story goes. A little-repeated fact is that if these contacts had Google (or Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, or any other Google-driven site -- and I haven't even checked non-Google ones), they could have found out here, here, here that Plame was the wife of an Ambassador. It is stated in plain English: "Joseph Wilson is married to the former Valerie Plame."

Given how easy it would be to discover that Plame is an ambassador's wife, how much of an additional difference does it make that the world can now find out that she a CIA agent, too?

Posted by: Bo Cowgill at September 30, 2003 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Bow Cowgill writes: "she was really the wife of an Ambassador -- and therefore clearly connected to the American foreign policy and intelligence establishment."

It would be a weaker connection if she married him after he left the diplomatic corps, in 1998.

Barbara Bush is married to a former Ambassador, and former head of the CIA. Doesn't make her a spook.

Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Jon H

LOL

Although have you ever heard Dana Priest? She doesn't strike me as the "fuck him like he's never been fucked before type."

Posted by: emptywheel at September 30, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe one of the reporters will just do the right thing, and be an unidentified source to another reporter's scoop.

On the other hand, it couldn't be from the same news organization, as it would be obvious who leaked. And maybe the competitive instinct in journalism is too great.

Posted by: Andrew Boucher at September 30, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Good Lord, now people at lefty sites are quoting HOward Fineman, usually ridiculed by same lefties for a being a Bush shill. Oh, the irony.

Posted by: greg at September 30, 2003 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

No one in the press will rat unless forced to legally, of by doing it ins such a way as not to be seen as a rat.

I think Tenet's the lynchpin here. Everyone but he has something to lose. And none of it would now be a huge scandal had he not requested an investigation.

If he thinks he's scared Rove enough to leave the CIA alone, this thing could easily subside. If not, this may get ugly.

But in this situation, Tenet is top dog, I suspect.

Posted by: tristero at September 30, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

...tired of the Bo Cowgills and sundry mouthpieces insisting that if she exists, she's not covert...

Posted by: squiddy at September 30, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Often, if the info is juicy, the source cannot allow their name in print without facing nasty repercussions, so the reporter pushes the source for info by negotiation (about how broadly to identify the source). In that case, it becomes a solemn trust not to ever, ever, ever name them. Sometimes, the reporter is forced to tell their editor and/or publisher as well in order to convince them to run the story, but with the same understanding that the identity of the source does not ever go beyond that."

Doesn't that change if the 'source' is 'shopping around' information? The whole charge here is that some administration person was shopping around information--practically throwing it at reporters. He didn't negotiate for secrecy, he was allegedly throwing the information around. There is no solemn trust issue, and the journalists in question are either allowing a non-story to get big, or they are not helping us find the truth about a big story. Journalists get a special pass on a lot of things because they hold a position of trust. They aren't fulfilling that position by their stance on this case.

Posted by: Sebastian Holslcaw at September 30, 2003 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I know.

How about a Secret Military Tribunal? Then the journalists could reveal what they know and nobody would ever know.

Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Good Lord, now people at lefty sites are quoting HOward Fineman, usually ridiculed by same lefties for a being a Bush shill. Oh, the irony.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, they've been quoting Robert Novak a lot, too. In fact, if you think about it real hard, I bet you'll realize that the people to whom the Bush Administration is most likely to leak are not flaming liberals.

Posted by: few at September 30, 2003 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian H., given the Bush administration's propensity to shut out those journalists who have the temerity to not toe the GOP line, it's not surprising that the reporters in question haven't been forthcoming about what they were told about Plame. It also may indicate that the leaker(s) in question were pretty high up in the Bush hierarchy. Maybe even to the V.P. level.

Posted by: David W. at September 30, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

David Corn said he was the first journalist to report the Plame story, on July 16th. However, it's worth noting that John Dean, famous White House attorney and legal columnist for FindLaw, followed up two days later with great outrage and legal analysis [not necessarily in that order] on July 18th.

Dean's column can be found here:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html

Posted by: rktectcdm at September 30, 2003 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

A half-dozen journalists sitting on this information will rapidly find their positions untenable.

Posted by: D. Case at September 30, 2003 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think we're missing a branch of the 'protect your sources' defense.

Reporters need anonymous sources to do their jobs. Many of the really juicy bits of information leaked to the press would not be if the leakers couldn't be confident that they would remain anonymous.

This confidence must be purchased by a pledge never to reveal sources, regardless of the reason. Of course, in some cases such a pledge must be ignored or superceeded by other claims (as when the leaker is giving up information about some future crime they plan to commit) but I don't know if this case qualifies as one of the proper exceptions to the rule.

The fact that the leaking is, in itself, a crime, is certainly not enough, on its own, to argue that the pledge of secrecy must be broken. Consider that both Deep Throat and Daniel Ellesburg were likely breaking the law by their leaks. We wouldn't want a world where people were afraid to leak sensitive government information because the fact that doing so, as a crime, warranted the reporters giving them up.

I don't know quite if this case warrants breaking the pledge. I know I would like to see it done, but that's because I am interested in the ends, not the means. Perhaps the means here would be too damaging. . .

Posted by: epist at September 30, 2003 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Atrios has the story, apparantly they are all saying privately it's Rove. Still not out in the open though.

Posted by: Boronx at September 30, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Dana Priest is pretty.

Sorry.

Posted by: JP at September 30, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding John Dean's legal analysis of Plamegate: Oops...meant to say August 15th, and here's the correct link:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

Posted by: rktectcdm at September 30, 2003 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Keep revving it, Kevin. This issue is worth all the attention you're giving it.

Posted by: kimster at September 30, 2003 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

JP

See what I mean? She's not the "fuck him like he's never been fucked before type." Particularly with someone as, um, unwholesome looking as Karl Rove.

By the way, her book The Mission is quite good. Pretty and good at what she does.

Posted by: emptywheel at September 30, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

I think the journalists might break cover if their source openly and directly denies participation.

Thus the importance of 'non-denial denials' like Scott McClellan's attempts to say that Rove had nothing to do with it without actually saying Rove had denied it.

If Rove was the source, and if he gets up and says "I didn't do it", I think that clears journalists to say "Yes, he did do it".

Precedent being a case where, apparently, Ollie North criticized a leak to a magazine, and the magazine revealed that Ollie North was the source of the leak.

Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

The problem I have with the story as reported is that the story is all about the identity of the leaker. The story is not about breaking into Watergate--incidentally leaked by Deep Throat. The story is that an offical leaked information which put national security in peril. The IDENTITY of this person IS THE STORY. If the story was Ms. Plame used nepotism to get Mr. Wilson an assignment in Niger, the identity of the leaking party isn't the story. When the story is about potentially national security damaging leaks from the administration, the IDENTITY of the person doing the leaking is key to the story.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at September 30, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

"The whole charge here is that some administration person was shopping around information--practically throwing it at reporters. He didn't negotiate for secrecy, he was allegedly throwing the information around."
--Sebastian Holslcaw

Well, if that was the case, the reporter(s) would've gladly quoted them by name. What is most likely is that the source threw them a tease like: "I have something juicy for you on Wilson's wife, but you can't use it on my name."

Reporter: Can I say it comes from a Senior Administration Official?

Source: That couches me too much. I can be a 'source from within the administration'.

Reporter: Okay. What've you got?

Source: (Spills the beans).

It's been a while since I was an active journalist, but it goes something like that. The reporter wouldn't be made privy to the info otherwise, and would get severely blacklisted for divulging the info. Then the reporter and all the others from their outlet would not get any such crumbs for a long, long time from anybody.

Posted by: Scott in Montreal at September 30, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

epist nails it.

I find it inconvenient that the Wilson Six seem to mean it when they give their word, but my convenience doesn't constitute a moral imperative.

This is a question of focus, and a good analogy is the rule that forbids the use of the fruits of an illegal search. If you narrow your field of vision to only the case at hand, obviously it makes sense to use the evidence anyway. Punish the officer who stepped over the line, but don't let the guilty go free just because the most important evidence was gathered illegally. If you widen your focus, however, and look at the long-term results of such a policy you find that it's a disaster.

So instead of asking "Why shouldn't reporters burn their sources in this case?" let's ask "What would we know about this story if reporters routinely burned their sources?" The answer, obviously, is "nothing." One may regard that as a welcome result, depending on one's political sympathies, but I'm going to put forward the radical suggestion that protecting sources leads in the long term to more transparency, even if it's occasionally frustrating in the short term.

This story is too big. It's gonna blow open one way or another. For thirty years every new journalist has dreamed of being the next Bob Woodward. Every reporter in D.C. is hammering on this story. It'll break.

Posted by: Laertes at September 30, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian: "He didn't negotiate for secrecy, he was allegedly throwing the information around. There is no solemn trust issue"

Uh, way to speculate wildly. Weren't you just calling for less speculation? I'm sure you weren't privy to the conversation. Nothing in 'shopping around' precludes 'off the record'. In fact, they're often related.

I like the one reporter being an anonymous source for another reporter angle. Yes, it requires going to another organization, but if you cross media the rivalries aren't strong. Does NBC compete meaningfully with the Washington Post? Nah.

Posted by: sidereal at September 30, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

At first, McClellan called the charge that Rove was involved "ridiculous."

Indeed it was, but not in the way that poor Scott meant.

Posted by: tristero at September 30, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Rove was personally on those calls? This is going to be a Mongolian clusterfuck for the Bush Junta.

The big question: did they think to provide President Junior with plausable deniability or not? A sane operative would take care of that, but these guys are clearly not sane.

Posted by: grytpype at September 30, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian writes: "The story is that an offical leaked information which put national security in peril. The IDENTITY of this person IS THE STORY."

Yes, and just like in the Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen cases, it's up to the press to root out the guilty party.

Oh, wait, that's right. Somehow in those cases the press wasn't required to find the security threat.

Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Careful, Kevin. Calpundit is in danger of becoming a single-issue blog.

Posted by: Wilbur Jones at September 30, 2003 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Man is the missing link between apes and human beings.

Posted by: Lieber Angie at January 25, 2004 06:32 AM | PERMALINK

Only when we have nothing to say do we say anything at all.

Posted by: Mayer Kaety at May 2, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINK

If you're going through hell, keep going.Everybody is a star with the potentiality to shine in the infinite sky of eternity.

Posted by: Brockway Kim at May 3, 2004 03:48 AM | PERMALINK

Imitation is the sincerest form of television.

Posted by: Hubbard Cristin at May 20, 2004 01:52 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

It is dangerous to confuse children with angels.

Posted by: Hall Carolyn at June 3, 2004 07:39 AM | PERMALINK

We are the master of

Posted by: Becker Maki at June 30, 2004 07:47 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 01:59 PM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter