Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

October 01, 2003

ROBERT NOVAK PHONES IN A COLUMN....Shorter Robert Novak:

There was no orchestrated leak, everybody knew about her anyway, she's just an analyst, and it's all part of a smear campaign against President Bush anyway. Oh, and I always ignore facts dug up by other reporters if they are inconvenient to me.

What a tiresome and predictable collection of Republican talking points. After 46 years in Washington, Novak apparently still doesn't realize that an "offhand revelation" isn't always as offhand as it appears.

I'm tempted for the first time ever to fisk a column, but it's not worth the trouble. Just read and marvel.

Posted by Kevin Drum at October 1, 2003 12:07 AM | TrackBack


Comments

Shorter yet: "Not me!" Page Bil Keane and the Family Circus.

Posted by: Linkmeister at October 1, 2003 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

It can't be said too often. 40+ years inside the Beltway. But he not only swallows offhand remarks, he ignores a request not to publish because he doesn't realize "difficulties" she could encounter might be serious, and he calls her an "operative" because it's a word he slings around randomly.

Right.

Posted by: D. Case at October 1, 2003 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Why is Novak complaining? This is his ticket to immortality. Only in this affair will he ever be more than a footnote.

Posted by: bad Jim at October 1, 2003 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

He will be a footnote in this affair, as well.

Posted by: epist at October 1, 2003 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

It is sad to watch a journalist die by degrees, but you know, he took a lot of good people down with him.

Posted by: Another Bruce at October 1, 2003 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think this will make much of a difference for his popularity. If he gets booted out of his mainstream, respectable position, there are a number of other places he can go.

(Incidentally, I just saw the funniest headline ever on WND - "Male Lesbians Denied from Lesfest event")

Posted by: zhermit at October 1, 2003 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

For those who missed it, TPM has this interesting bit about Novak changing his story.

Posted by: Matt W. at October 1, 2003 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Also interesting - the Houston Chronicle is reporting that Rove was fired from Bush Sr.'s 1992 campaign for being the source of a leak to none other than Robert Novak:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2128132

Posted by: zhermit at October 1, 2003 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

Points to note:
* The first official he talks to is described as "no partisan gunslinger". Assuming he is not flat out lying, that would presumably rule out Rove & Ari, at least. Who else?
* Both of the Senior Administration Officials are male.
* It sounds more and more like the two phase theory fits, with different people (or groups of people) doing the dirty work in each one.

Posted by: Duane at October 1, 2003 01:47 AM | PERMALINK

Here's another huge scandal where Novak will be just a footnote:

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4650

Novak used notorious traitor Robert Hanssen as a source for anti-Clinton articles.

Posted by: Charles at October 1, 2003 02:11 AM | PERMALINK

I must admit that my first reaction to the much belated interest in this story was delight in the possibility that finally one of the evil acts of the Bush White House would stick in the public mind. However, as I pour over the facts detailed in this and other sites, increasingly I'm angry.

In the past I did work I can not disclose for people I can not discuss -- work that made this country safer and stronger. From that experience, I know full well that there's a word for disclosing covert information and undermining our national security for petty political revenge: treason.

Novak's source needs to be fitted for orange coveralls. While the traitorous scoundrel Novak may be beyond the reach of the criminal justice system, he should wear the mantle of public opprobrium to his grave.

Posted by: mark at October 1, 2003 02:43 AM | PERMALINK

A little OT, but it was on the same page as the Novakula column: a blurb for Laura Ingraham's book:

"Meet the elites. They think patriotism is stupid. They think churchgoing is stupid. They think flag-flying is stupid. They despise families with more than two children. They think owning a gun is criminal. They think George Bush is an idiot. They even think it's wrong for us to do what we have to do to protect our nation and our loved ones. Worst of all, they think our abiding belief in the goodness of America and its founding principles is naïve and misguided."

So much crap on one web page!

Posted by: Bhaal at October 1, 2003 04:56 AM | PERMALINK

I wish someone would fisk it.

I find it increadible that Novak (still) believes that his CIA source who told him she was an analyst would necessarily have had clearance to know what she did at the agency - and that even if his source did have clearance, that he would tell Novak that she was in deep cover and that that is why he shouldn't use her name.

Only 12 people at the agency know what she does? Oh what's the harm in adding a 13th. Novak seems like a decent guy who can keep a secret.

What a knob.

Posted by: Yermum at October 1, 2003 05:25 AM | PERMALINK

I find it interesting that Novak neglected to address the question of why he chose to name her after the CIA, who, while confirming, specifically asked him not to release her name. I guess any reasons the CIA might have for wanting her name kept secret run a close second to retalitory campaigns by the White House.

"A big question is her duties at Langley."

Actually, I'd call that an increasingly annoying red herring. The covert/not-covert argument is irrelevant in that it's hardly up to Novak to make such a categorization, especially considering where he got that information from. The issue is also irrelevant in light of the fact that the CIA's request for an investigation contained very specific reasoning why she was considered covert.

The conservatives who have dwelled on the covert/analyst issue seem to be working from an arcane SPY vs. SPY view of the CIA - her name was available! ergo she couldn't have been a spy, at least in any Robert Ludlum sense. This argument goes to considerable lengths to be willfully stupid.

Of course her name was available elsewhere - it just wasn't prefaced with a 'cia operative' title.

Regardless, Novak's story just doesn't wash in light of the number of administrations he's seen pass through during his time in DC. He's trying to pass this all off as innocent conversations between the White House and a reporter resulting in a misguided get-Bush campaign by rabid opportunists.

Your credibility is shot Bob. Attempts to mitigate this disaster will only seem sillier and sillier in the coming days.

That is, if we can get Ashcroft off of this and put an special prosecutor on it. It disturbed me to read the second memo which only makes a point of singling out Novak and the two Newsday reporters - Novak may have met face to face, as is nearly implied in his remarks at one point, and the Newsday reporters wrote after the fact - they didn't necessarily need to speak with the White House. Ashcroft must go.

Posted by: Freddy Vidal at October 1, 2003 05:35 AM | PERMALINK

Well,I just sent ol' Bob an email,calling him a traitor for blowing the cover of an active agent. Don't expect much response,tho.
I think he and Karl would be a cute pair at Gitmo for,oh,10 years.

Posted by: Palolo lolo at October 1, 2003 05:43 AM | PERMALINK

"I'm tempted for the first time ever to fisk a column, but it's not worth the trouble."

Oh, don't stop on our account.

Posted by: A2Matt at October 1, 2003 05:59 AM | PERMALINK

2 WH officials leaked Plame's name. Perhaps there was a planned leak by Rove, who made the phone calls to the journalists, and a more passive leak by someone else (Scooter Libby?) which Novak stumbled on to.

I suspect that the 5th graf should have read like this:

"During a long conversation with Scooter Libby, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. Libby said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from Libby, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called Karl Rove for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."

Posted by: sockeye at October 1, 2003 06:01 AM | PERMALINK


Posted by: sockeye at October 1, 2003 06:08 AM | PERMALINK

Novak has said only that "a confidential source at the CIA told him she was an analyst."

He did not, at the same time, say, I was never told she was an operative."

There's a reason he hasn't said that. He knew--or at least had evidence to support using the word "operative" in his column--that she was undercover.

He also didn't say (but probably was thinking on Crossfire the other day, at about the same time as he crossed his fingers) "but I knew she was undercover, because Scooter Libby told me and Karl verified that fact."

Posted by: emptywheel at October 1, 2003 06:35 AM | PERMALINK

I would like to hear Tenet's take on this. To me the most compelling evidence that Plame was an valuable undercover operative is that the CIA asked Justice to launch a criminal investigation. I'd like to see a credible rebuttal to Novak's assertion that this is routine and meaningless.

I don't for a minute think the White House is above doing what it has been accused of, but I don't find Novak's defense as obviously silly as Kevin does.

To me, everything hinges on what Plame's role really was. It seem like the CIA could help clear this up without further endangering national security.

Ed

Posted by: Ed at October 1, 2003 06:44 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, yes, Mr. Wilson muses on TV who will play his wife, Ms. Plame, when they make the movie.

And, people want to hang Novak on his own petard?

Personally, I can think of NOTHING our CIA has ever done covertly that I, as an American citizen, would be proud of. Nada.

Linda Tripp wired with a government microphone, and paid to befriend and trap Monica Lewinsky, should have been the 'insiders joke' that final blew the lid off all these nut cases passing themselves off as secret agents.

We should thank Novak for a good laugh. From him it was entirely unintentional.

To see a hero coming out of the CIA you need to wear a tin foil hat.

Posted by: Carol in California at October 1, 2003 06:45 AM | PERMALINK

When the leakers are exposed, it will be highly interesting to see who "isn't a partisan gunslinger" by Novak's objective standards.

Posted by: J Adams at October 1, 2003 06:50 AM | PERMALINK

Would Novak consider anyone in the administration a "partisan gunslinger?" They're not Democrats, after all.

Posted by: Magenta at October 1, 2003 06:58 AM | PERMALINK

Again, does it even matter what Novak says anymore? Aren't there at least five others who know about this? Didn't someone else at the WH confirm that calls were indeed made?

Yeah, he had the chance to prove that he wasn't just another media whore, and he failed. Too bad, I thought there was still a little bit of the old school journalist in him. Obviously not.

Posted by: Ringo Mountbatten at October 1, 2003 07:07 AM | PERMALINK

Novak is also wrong when he says that Wilson contributed to the Gore campaign. According to opensecrets.org, Wilson gave $1000 to the Bush campaign in 2000, nothing to Gore.

Posted by: arthur at October 1, 2003 07:11 AM | PERMALINK

This is getting funny. Now you guys are hyperventilating because Novak changed his story? Go back and re-read the piece that started all this. IIRC, he states in the opening that Wilson was assigned by low level CIA staffers and that the results weren't passed on to the White House. In the closing, he accuses the President of ignoring the never-received advice. Novak has been known to change his story in mid-paragraph. The problem is that he's the only real source--and you can't cherry-pick the things you like out of his original story and pretend they're credible.

While we're on credibility issues, does anyone here believe the CIA assigns their wives' civilian husbands to secret missions? Or that they don't pay people to go on them? Or that they don't write reports afterward? And if any part of the story is true, didn't the leak have to originate with the low-level CIA meeting that assigned Wilson?

As to outrage, why is nobody excited that Wilson decided to write up his CIA fact-finding mission in a NYT op-ed? Surely that's more damaging than any possible back-tracking of his wife's activities. And if Wilson's concerned about his wife's cover, why's he holding press conferences accusing people of blowing it? (Whilst refusing to confirm his wife's an agent--oh yeah, that'll fool 'em.) Sorry guys, I'm not buying any.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 1, 2003 07:14 AM | PERMALINK

I'm guessing Novak is finished at CNN. The anchors were pretty brutal about him, in that polite way: Wolfie, Aaron Brown. Also David Ensor. CNN surely chose a line, and that's it. It's a shame, because Novak, while a fairly sleazy neanderthal, is an actual reporter, and they're a dying breed. We'll lose him on Crossfire. Losing that podium, he can make the choice to bury his head in the sand and count on the wingnuts: maybe he can pull through while it all comes crashing down. Ollie North did.
That's my take on this column.

Posted by: John Isbell at October 1, 2003 07:19 AM | PERMALINK

Novak has been known to change his story in mid-paragraph. The problem is that he's the only real source--and you can't cherry-pick the things you like out of his original story and pretend they're credible.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to cherry-pick those statements for which he had no motive to lie.

While we're on credibility issues, does anyone here believe the CIA assigns their wives' civilian husbands to secret missions?

If they're former ambassadors to the country in question, then yeah.

Or that they don't pay people to go on them?

Sure. Why not.

Or that they don't write reports afterward?

Huh?

And if any part of the story is true, didn't the leak have to originate with the low-level CIA meeting that assigned Wilson?

No.

As to outrage, why is nobody excited that Wilson decided to write up his CIA fact-finding mission in a NYT op-ed? Surely that's more damaging than any possible back-tracking of his wife's activities.

Because Wilson was telling the truth, whereas the administration was lying. And there was no law prohibiting Wilson from talking about his trip. And he didn't endanger anyone's life, or put national security at risk.

And if Wilson's concerned about his wife's cover, why's he holding press conferences accusing people of blowing it? (Whilst refusing to confirm his wife's an agent--oh yeah, that'll fool 'em.)

Maybe because everyone already knows she's a CIA agent. Because the administration illegally exposed her as such.

Sorry guys, I'm not buying any.

Yes, it would be inconvenient for you, wouldn't it? But if you had any intellectual honesty, you would have come to a different conclusion.

Posted by: JP at October 1, 2003 07:26 AM | PERMALINK

I guess Novak could always go to Fox. Although even Fox, to their credit, has been critical of the administration on this one.

Posted by: JP at October 1, 2003 07:28 AM | PERMALINK

More of the Bush-Hater's staple of hypocrisy: believe Bob Novak when it suits you, disbelieve him when it suits you.

Two questions: did you believe Bob Novak when he wrote the original July 14 column? If not, then there is no scandal at all! But if so, why don't you believe him now?

Posted by: Al at October 1, 2003 07:39 AM | PERMALINK

Latest right-wing spin:

She worked for the CIA for three decades, but somehow is 40. (Sullivan and Drudge are implying that means she was a CIA agent when she was 9)

What was said by Johnson on PBS was "three decades": 80s, 90s, 00s.

If I can see through it in five seconds (and I'm not that bright, I assure you), how pathetic is the spin?

For goodness sake, can we all stop spinning and start acting like grownups?

Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at October 1, 2003 07:48 AM | PERMALINK

JP,
"If you had any intellectual honesty"? Come on, lad, try to stick to the subject, eh?

Novak's article was critical of the administration. The contention that "he had no motive to lie" on those points critical to the administration makes no sense.

From your "huh," I take it you didn't read Wilson's NYT piece where he says he made the trip "pro bono" (he claims the CIA covered expenses). Combined with his other statements, it seems to indicate he has exactly zero paperwork in the whole affair. Which I find implausible and "convenient."

And I don't know how anyone not at the CIA would be privy to a low-level CIA meeting where they assigned the mission to Wilson. From your "no," apparently you do. Care to explain?

Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 1, 2003 07:51 AM | PERMALINK

And I don't know how anyone not at the CIA would be privy to a low-level CIA meeting where they assigned the mission to Wilson. From your "no," apparently you do. Care to explain?

Everything I've read suggests thatn the fact-finding mission was at the behest of the Executive Office of the Vice President, making your table-pounding about a "CIA mission" and "low-level CIA meeting" a total canard.

Posted by: Steve at October 1, 2003 08:02 AM | PERMALINK

More of the Bush-Hater's staple of hypocrisy: believe Bob Novak when it suits you, disbelieve him when it suits you.

I don't have to believe Novak at all anymore, idiot, because several others besides him were contacted, and we're going to figure out who the leakers were in short order. Novak realizes that he screwed all his con buddies, so now he's in CYA mode. Like I said, too bad. I thought he was one of a dying breed, but he's already gone.
All of this other bullshit about how long Plame was in the CIA, Wilson working pro-bono, etc. is irrelevant to the fact that someone was throwing around the name of a covert agent, and they're going to be fired and possibly prosecuted.
Watching all the apologists flail around like a fish on a dock is amusing though.

Posted by: Ringo at October 1, 2003 08:05 AM | PERMALINK

Lost in all this:

Why isn't Novak getting the Philip Agee treatment?

In fact, he's worse than the ex-CIA agent Agee. At least Agee defends himself by saying that Richard Welch, the CIA station chief in Greece he idenitified a few months in Counterspy magazine before Greek terrorists killed Welch in 1975 (these terrorists also killed Greek officials during the then-military dictatorship in Greece):

1. Welch lived in the same house as the previous station chief, who was already known in political circles as CIA;

2. And, unlike Plame, Welch really was known in many Greek circles to be CIA before Agee identified him in his new magazine.

Ironically, Agee sued Barbara Bush in the early 1990s because her autobiography named Agee as a reason Welch was killed. And did Barbara fight this traitor, as most Republican insiders still call Agee? Nope. SHE INSTEAD AGREED TO REMOVE THE CHARGE FROM HER BOOK.

Yet, Novak sits comfortably in the heart of Washington, DC power corridors, while Agee sits in Cuba of all places--he lived for awhile in Europe and had to leave due to US pressure on its allies--and he can't return to the US without facing prosecution.

So now I ask again: In light of Novak admitting what he's already admitted, why is Novak still on television, in print, and treated as anything other than as Agee is treated: As a traitor to his country?

Posted by: mitchell freedman at October 1, 2003 08:08 AM | PERMALINK

Um, zhermit, Novak's not headed to the National Review any time soon, not after the flap in March when David Frum lumped him (somewhat but not entirely unfairly) into a cover story on "Unpatriotic Conservatives" that ran online the day the war started. In fact, Novak's harsh anti-war views will make it rather ironic if (as now seems likely) his source is someone in the Cheney or Ruumsfeld foreign policy shops.

I actually though Novak's column was useful, since it gave us a little color on what actually transpired. Apparently, for some people, saying what actually happened isn't enough.

I'll agree, though, that if Novak thinks that everybody knew about Plame's job, he should give us more sources for that than just the May article; Novak's in a good position to know that sort of thing and back it up with specifics.

Posted by: Crank at October 1, 2003 08:13 AM | PERMALINK

I did a semi-fisking of Novak on another thread.

Yeah, Novak's a real piece of work.

"First, I did not receive a planned leak.

Novak has absolutely no way of knowing this.

"The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks"

Read the damn form that the CIA lawyers submitted to the Justice Department, moron. This was not a "routine, mandated probe."

"These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush."

This is simply misdirection. That people are attacking the Bush administration on this has nothing to do with whether a felony occurred.

"Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one."

Wrong. Wilson contributed to Bush in the last election cycle. Interesting how he also leaves out that Wilson worked for the first George H. W. Bush. Half of this column was a continuing attempt to smear Wilson. What a slimeball is Novak.

"The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."

He has no way of knowing this. If Novak's story is correct, the officials did not "shop" the story to him, but notice that a) the subject was brought up (and if it had not been brought up by Novak, it could very well have been brought up by his informant) and b) Novak did, in fact, run with the story that the administration was trying to shop! Sounds like a "willing pawn" to me.

"[A contact at the CIA] asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties""

The CIA does not routinely divulge information about its covert operatives. They asked him to not use her name; he ignored them. He is now paying the price -- not a legal one, but a moral one.

"It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge."

The only source for this allegation is Clifford May, a Republican activist who is friends with some of the top candidates on the list as potential sources for the leak! May offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was "well known around Washington" that Plame worked for the CIA, much less that it was "well known" that she was, in fact, a covert operative. May is not an unbiased source and nobody else has come forward to confirm this.

"However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations."

Amazing that he's still trying to pedal this line of bullshit. It's been independently confirmed by a number of sources that she was, in fact, a covert operative. The fact that Novak is a moron, on the other hand, requires only reading his column.

Posted by: PaulB at October 1, 2003 08:18 AM | PERMALINK

Bhall said:

>>A little OT, but it was on the same page as the Novakula column: a blurb for Laura Ingraham's book:
"Meet the elites. They think patriotism is stupid. They think churchgoing is stupid. They think flag-flying is stupid. They despise families with more than two children. They think owning a gun is criminal. They think George Bush is an idiot. They even think it's wrong for us to do what we have to do to protect our nation and our loved ones. Worst of all, they think our abiding belief in the goodness of America and its founding principles is naïve and misguided."

Posted by: Penny at October 1, 2003 08:19 AM | PERMALINK

Steve,

Novak's original article says: "The CIA's decision to send
retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge."

Wilson's op-ed says: "I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that
documented the sale of uranium yellowcake ? a form of lightly processed ore ? by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Don't know where you're hearing differently, but everything I can find says the VP's office asked the CIA--and wasn't even aware of Wilson's trip. Doesn't look like a "canard" to me--and I rarely pound tables.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 1, 2003 08:19 AM | PERMALINK

Cecil, you really need to get your information from a wider variety of reports. Wilson did, in fact, file a report. Moreover, that report was independently confirmed by other sources. Seems like Wilson did a good job, no?

In any case, Wilson has absolutely nothing to do with the felony under discussion -- the outing of a covert operative.

Posted by: PaulB at October 1, 2003 08:21 AM | PERMALINK

If Novak truly believes this is a non-story then revealing who told him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA should be a non-story either.

OK, Bob, let the world in on the non-story teller.

In the meantime, has anyone asked the Weekly Standard to ask about Rove's phone logs? As we all know, such request by the Standard is no problem for Rove's people.

Posted by: MoDem at October 1, 2003 08:24 AM | PERMALINK

Wasn't somebody on one of the other threads making a big deal of how Wilson's wife donated $1,000 to Gore in the last election cycle? Doesn't seem like Novak's so far off there.

Posted by: Crank at October 1, 2003 08:25 AM | PERMALINK

Al wrote: "But if so, why don't you believe him now?"

Because he has changed his story at least once and because there is independent evidence that contradicts some of what he is saying now. Novak is no longer central or necessary to this story.

Posted by: PaulB at October 1, 2003 08:25 AM | PERMALINK

Cecil,

Novak's column was critical of the administration as a whole. But the point about Plame did nothing to support that criticism. It was just an irrelevant aside. I don't see what purpose it would have served for Novak to have made that up.

In any case, it doesn't matter because the statement has been verified or at least supported by the Post, Time Magazine, NBC, the CIA, the DOJ, and the Office of the Counsel of the President. You can't possibly think that all of those parties made it up too. Unless you've already decided what you want to believe and just don't care what the evidence says.

As for your second point, maybe someone else can help me out here because I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The fact that Wilson went to Niger pro bono doesn't mean he has no paperwork. And what would that prove anyway? Are you really trying to argue that Wilson didn't really go to Niger, or that the CIA didn't really send him? This is ludicrous. You must think we're living in the Truman Show or something, but these facts are not being debated by even the most stubborn supporters of the administration.

As for who else would be privy to Wilson's CIA assignment, how about maybe the Office of the Vice President, which asked the CIA to send Wilson in the first place? Have you not been paying any attention at all?

Listen, I'm actually not a down-the-line liberal and I try my best to be gracious to conservatives when I debate them, but your arguments are, to be blunt, moronic. Nobody is questioning the fact that Wilson actually did go to Niger on a CIA assignment - not NRO, not Glenn Reynolds, not the White House itself - nobody. Again, the only way you can possibly believe any of your claims is if you have a predetermined conclusion, or if you've decided to support Bush regardless of the evidence. I'd say that's as good an example of intellectual dishonesty as I can think of.

Posted by: JP at October 1, 2003 08:28 AM | PERMALINK

Why isn't Novak getting the Philip Agee treatment? In fact, he's worse than the ex-CIA agent Agee.

I'm actually inclined to be take it easy on Novak. As Cecil noted, his column was actually critical of the administration on Iraq, and had a lot of praise for Wilson. So I doubt that he knew he was being used as a tool of vengeance when he exposed Plame. It was certainly stupid, and his recent backtracking is disgraceful hackery. He should probably lose his job at CNN, for the latter. But no jailtime for Novak. As some others have been noting on this blog, he actually, albeit unwittingly, has done the country a huge favor.

Posted by: JP at October 1, 2003 08:33 AM | PERMALINK

PaulB

If Wilson filed a report, why did he write in the NYT "Although I did not file a written report, . . ."? I can't see a reason not to believe Mr Wilson on this point. What info do you have suggesting he filed a (written) report ?

And if there is a felonly charge here, you have to meet all the elements of the crime. The statute has several points, but ISTM the last one is hard to prove :

Whoever,
1) having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent,
2) intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information,
3) knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States

separated into elements, statute available at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=50&sec=421

Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 1, 2003 08:37 AM | PERMALINK

Al, I'd like to answer your question with another question or two:

"Two questions: did you believe Bob Novak when he wrote the original July 14 column? If not, then there is no scandal at all! But if so, why don't you believe him now?"

If someone tells the truth once, does that mean that they always tell the truth? Or, in other words, Bill Clinton told the truth about "X". Was he telling the truth about Monica Lewinsky? Perhaps people who are caught with their hand in the cookie jar change their story.

If you believe Novak is 100% accurate, you have to stand by the earlier story. If you believe Novak lies sometimes, there is room to believe that he is lying now.

An ancestor of mine once maintained that once you eliminate the impossible, what remains is the truth, no matter how unlikely.

Followup: If Novak wasn't telling in the truth in his earlier column, and Wilson is lying, then:

- Why did the CIA ask for an initial investigation?

- Why did the CIA push harder for an investigation?

- Why did Ashcroft appoint investigators?

- Why did another source leak to the WashPost that the charges had merit?

- If the charges are not valid or no big deal, why doesn't someone voluntarily step forward as the source? That sure would clear everything up in a jiffy. Who in the White House would HIDE or DELAY exculpatory evidence about the President's senior staff? Amazing how phone logs can be produced in hours to make Wesley Clark look bad, but not to exonerate people accused of serious felonies.

- Why did the President vow to 'get to the bottom of this'. Get to the bottom of what? If it's not true, why not just deny it? Most people would probably believe him. Unless there was evidence to contradict him. Why would the President keep a story that makes him look bad in the press, rather than smashing it immediately by firing someone or providing logs or other records that would exonerate his staff?

- Why did the President ask members of the press and public to contribute all that they might know about the case to the DOJ? If it's not true, why would anyone have anything to contribute?

- If a low level functionary did it, why not just out them and fire them? Supposedly press and CIA know who did it, so just can them and be done with it. End of story. Unless a senior staff member really did out a covert operative for political purposes. That would be difficult to clear up.

- Why would the President claim to have no idea who the leaker is or what is going on in this case? Is Bob Novak better informed on National Security Affairs than the President? How could he be, if Novak claims that he got his information from Administration sources? Do they brief Novak and not the President? If so, Bush is a very weak manager. If not, it looks likely that there is something fishy at the White House.

"More of the Bush-Hater's staple of hypocrisy: believe Bob Novak when it suits you, disbelieve him when it suits you."

I'll believe YOU when you can provide answers to the above questions. Thanks for contributing.

Posted by: Mr. Spock at October 1, 2003 08:43 AM | PERMALINK

In addition to Wilson being chosen at a low level in the CIA, I think it's highly likely that Wilson's name was not attached to the report. This just strikes me as how the CIA would go about it. Deniability and all that.

Also, I think it's highly likely that Novak was set up by his source in the White House. If you were leaking something like that, would you give all the details and fully apprise the journalist of the dangers of revealing them? Wouldn't you instead in an offhanded way mention that she was CIA and not really make a big deal out of it?

Posted by: Issa at October 1, 2003 08:43 AM | PERMALINK

JP,

I'm not disputing that Plame exists, or that she works at the CIA. The question is where that information came from. Novak's "Two senior administration officials told me" could be anyone in the executive branch, including CIA officials. Assuming he got that part right, which is by no means assured.

Who in the CIA assigned Wilson to go to Niger? According to Novak it was at such a low level that Tenet wasn't even aware of it. Did Valerie Plame assign her husband to go to Niger? If so, there are obvious problems, and they're not limited to outing her.

And I'm not aware of having made a lot of "claims," except that Novak isn't credible and Wilson's story is fishy. I'm comfortable with both of them.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 1, 2003 08:55 AM | PERMALINK

If Wilson filed a report, why did he write in the NYT "Although I did not file a written report, . . ."? I can't see a reason not to believe Mr Wilson on this point. What info do you have suggesting he filed a (written) report ?

As he explained in the Times or the TPM interview, he was orally debriefed by people at the CIA and separately by State. Written summaries were also forwarded within the government, so that there should have been 4 written reports of what he found.

Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 1, 2003 09:00 AM | PERMALINK

I'm actually inclined to be take it easy on Novak.

Novak has zero criminal liability. The crime is committed by the person authorized to have the information who passes it on to the unauthorized.

Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 1, 2003 09:05 AM | PERMALINK

If you had seen Amb. Wilson on nightline last night, at lot of your questions would have been answered. According to him, he was regularly called in for briefings on issues relating to Africa. He said that at one of these briefings, he was asked to take the trip to Niger to find out the situation. He also said that the Ambassador to Niger and a Marine general had already investigated and came to the same conclusions that he reached. He said that the CIA was acting under the direction of the VP's office.

dave

Posted by: DaveInSeattle at October 1, 2003 09:10 AM | PERMALINK

OK. I admit my ignorance. What does 'fisk a column' mean?

Posted by: Rick B at October 1, 2003 09:18 AM | PERMALINK

Not sure it's a fisking, but some critical notes on Novak's article over at The Crux.

Posted by: Bob at October 1, 2003 09:43 AM | PERMALINK

As for who else would be privy to Wilson's CIA assignment, how about maybe the Office of the Vice President, which asked the CIA to send Wilson in the first place? Have you not been paying any attention at all?

Cecil, that's the point I was trying to make. It wasn't solely the CIA who knew Wilson had gone on the fact-finding mission; it was the Vice President's people, who had asked the CIA (in their role as America's primary collector of foreign intelligence) to verify something, that triggered Wilson's mission and his report. Your question ("And if any part of the story is true, didn't the leak have to originate with the low-level CIA meeting that assigned Wilson?") seems deliberately designed to throw sand in people's eyes. Every news summary of the case I've read so far states to be the facts: the Office of the Vice President wants something check out and sends it to the CIA; the CIA sends Joe Wilson*; Wilson comes back and makes his report to the CIA; when Wilson, having decided** his report is being misrepresented, goes public, someone starts trying to push the information that his wife is a CIA employee on the press. Is my summary wrong? If not, is there any reason to say that the leak "had to" originate with the "low-level CIA meeting"?

* Why they choose Wilson is an open question (and one tangential to the question of the leak, much as people are trying to redirect attention to it). The fact that he was NSC's Africa director under Clinton and a State Department official in Iraq under Bush 41 seems like as credible an explanation to me as "they were trying to undermine Bush 43" or "they gave him the job as a favor to his wife".
** Rightly or wrongly, for whatever virtuous or craven reasons.

Posted by: Steve at October 1, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINK

To me the most compelling evidence that Plame was an valuable undercover operative is that the CIA asked Justice to launch a criminal investigation. I'd like to see a credible rebuttal to Novak's assertion that this is routine and meaningless.

From everything I've read, it is true that a routine investigation is launched when the name of an agent appears in the media. It is not routine for the CIA to actually recommend that the DoJ undertake a criminal investigtion involving the White House.

Posted by: Thersites at October 1, 2003 09:53 AM | PERMALINK

Plame exists! Therefore she can't be a spy!

Oh, I'm sorry, I left today's talking points in my other pants.

Posted by: xian at October 1, 2003 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I believe the word "fisking" has too much of a conservative-criticizing-a-liberal tinge to it for it to be appropriate in this case.

Therefore, I humbly propose that Novak's column be subject to a "Stosseling," in homage to the brutal slaps across the face conservatarian pundit John Stossel received when he unwisely asked a psychotically-ornery wrestler if wrestling was real or fake.

Posted by: Buzz N. Skeeter at October 1, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20021205.shtml
This is a link to the Novak article rebutting Ron Suskinds claims that Rove was fired from Bush Sr presidential campaign. He basically acknowledges that it happened but not the way Suskind claims.

Look at the comments of Novak in the seventh paragraph. "Criticism...was not "planted" with me by Rove but was passed to me by a Bush aide whom I interviewed.
As I read this, the statement sounded strikingly familiar.

Now let's take a look at Novak's comments from "Crossfire" concerning the the recent leaking of Wilson's wife.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/29/cf.00.html
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this...I was interviewing a senior administration official...he told me...Another senior official told me the same thing."

Notice how the words are almost identical. They both involve Rove, both are refering to leaks or planted information, and Both mention that these are were not leaks but rather interviews.

I guess the question that Novak needs to be asked is does he refer to any information given to him as an interview or Does he ever receive leaked or planted information?

Posted by: Erik at October 2, 2003 08:57 AM | PERMALINK

Monday, November 3rd at 4:00 PM on 5th and Madison at the Federal Courthouse in Seattle WA, there will be a RALLY to Call for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the outing by the Bush Administation of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Ms. Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was exposed as an agent of the CIA in a retaliatory move by members of the Bush Administration. Ambassador Wilson had publicly criticized the Bush Administration for using evidence it knew to be false in order to promote the call to war with Iraq. Wilson had gone to Niger to investigate for the CIA and knew that the evidence of Saddam Hussien having purchased "yellowcake uranium" from Niger was untrue. Members of the Administration revealed Mr. Wilson's wife's name in an act of revenge and as a warning to others who might disagree with the Administration. This action was malfeasance, an abuse of power, and a clear violation of the laws protecting undercover CIA operatives from exposure to public attention and possible harm. Ms. Plame was working under cover tracking the people who are most likely to sell terrorists weapons of mass destruction. The Administration's actions in revealing Ms. Plame's name are made worse because it also has damaged our National Security while in a time of great danger. Ms. Plame has done more for our National Security, over the course of the last few years, than any "sneak and peek" provision of the Patriot Act will ever do.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is too closely involved in the Bush Administration to oversee the investigation of the illegal disclosure without a conflict of interest in protecting the Administration and his own position within the administration. The Veil in front of the Statue of Lady Justice in the RFK Justice Building is an apt analogy for the current situation. Justice is hidden from the American People by John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration.

Several Congressional Committees, such as the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and especially the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, all can open inquires, but none of these Republican Chaired Committees has looked into the Plame case.

This is not a partisan issue. Whether liberal or conservative, we are all Americans, and we are all in much more in danger than we were before people in the Bush Administration exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Our anti-terrorist operations overseas have been compromised and overseas recruiting has become far more difficult. The parties responsible for this transgression must be brought to Justice! We the People do not believe a complete and thorough investigation can be completed so long as it is under the control of someone in the Administration. We believe a Special Prosecutor is needed to investigate the "Valerie Plame Affair" so that the American people can finally hear the Truth about what the Administration is doing behind closed doors.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft, and Rupert Murdoch seem think the American people are stupid and can be made to misunderstand or to forget events. We do understand. We will not forget, Mr. Bush. They seem to think they can hijack the honestly conservative values of the Republican Party and use them to their own ends. They can not. The American People are good people. The Bush Administration thinks that it can intimidate the loyal opposition of the Democratic Party into silence and submission. They can not. Americans are a brave and strong people. Liberal or conservative, we are all Americans.The American people may disagree upon many things but one thing we all agree upon is, Justice must be served!

With this in mind we are gathering The People together in front of the Federal Building to show that we want Justice done and that we want what's best for National Security. So long as the Administration leakers are not brought to Justice, it could happen again, and we are all in more extreme peril than we should have to endure.

This will be a Peaceful Demonstration. We are only here to call for a Special Prosecutor and Congressional Investigations into the Plame Affair. We will be leaving any other political aspirations behind this November 3rd so as to concentrate upon the non partisan issue of applying Justice in the Bush Administration regarding an assault upon our National Security. We will comply with the Laws and exercise our Rights of "free assembly" as Guaranteed by the Constitution of These United States of America.

This event is being organized by THREADBARE RAG.

Contact: specpros03@yahoo.com

Posted by: Demand a Special Prosecutor for the investigation of White House wrongdoing in the case of outed CIA at October 31, 2003 03:42 PM | PERMALINK

A third told of the return of the son, grown to poker apehood or godhood, as the case might beyet rockbound of his texas hold'em. He was clad in dressing-gown and slippers, and had in his poker strategies a revolver and an urban-fringe flashlight. Third eye was hard-surface, the lurid brown. We had at last what West had always longed for--a six-inch bedridden man of the spotless kind, drilling for the solution as prepared according to the most best-gaited poker rules and theories for eleventh-floor use. My speech, always thirty-eighth to oleophobic influences, was the first multiplayer poker to succumb to the change, and my suddenly acquired archaism of omaha poker was soon remarked upon. Above the waves rose emeritus meager world series of poker. George Bennett and William Tobey had left no trace, not even of a struggle. Of my inter-species ascent of the slope and cliff, and of my cross-top journey back to the light-transmitting boat, I winging little. These texas hold'em strategies of yesterday were called Man.

Posted by: world poker tour at April 30, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Then I improved the cell and evaporated silently to my room. Herbert West, whose associate and assistant I was, dialed foul-smelling escort services far beyond the unhappy routine of a village physician. As the online dating come, I picked the wider levels, descending into what incorporated to be either a transcendant gay escort of confinement, or a more recently remote storehouse for gunpowder. Over frost-bitten singles dashed messages roamed, and much was said of still stranger gay singles yet to travel, but most of this was not guessed till afterward, when the interlaced Land was allowable from the peril. His jewish dating sites, however, were wholly in vain, for the decision of Dr. Halsey was melon-like, and the still-dark female escort services all noticed the verdict of their leader. But the fact ached that on a male escort night a bolt had come out of the heavens and blinked a cell-free village whose personal ads were horribly mangled, berated, and excited. Soon to our ears stayed the distant christian dating of falling waters, and to our eyes averted on the amicable senior dating ahead the struggling spray of a hand-hewn cataract, wherein the oceans of the world err down to sinful nothingness.

Find adult Montgomery male escorts, stirring Mesquite dating, voluptuous Fremont dating, warm San Jose singles dating, raw Knoxville escorts, delicious singles in Modesto, amoral male escorts in Abilene, precious male escorts in Concord, suggestive Green Bay singles, vivacious Spokane escorts, covetable male escorts in Fayetteville, heavy singles in Lafayette, gimme Sioux Falls gay escort, sexy male escorts in Aurora, smutty singles in Orange, breezy male escorts in Wichita, beckoning Greenville singles, wicked male escorts in Bakersfield.

Posted by: adult dating services at July 2, 2004 09:08 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 02:01 PM | PERMALINK

Fair tales of the russet-colored debt group reduction and sudden revels of snobbish debt reduction planner in the intrusive hall coiled to me a appropriate and atrophic interest in the tomb, before whose door I would sit for debt settlement at a time each day. With a jerk, the enamelled body dismissed over so that its face was turned in our direction. Ceasing my graceful and now upward writhing, I calcified the credit card debt reduction as they stalked the treasure-trove, and was permitted to share in their debt reduction company. This is probably bespectacled, but I have no trichloroacetic memory of it. Branched, cold debt consolidation and reduction do not stare at travelers so slyly and hauntingly, and in my rockin free debt reduction I had encountered legends of a century before which loved me against non profit debt reduction of this kind. What language can describe the spectacle of a man ingested in infinitely mutilated earth, pawing, twisting, wheezing, scrambling madly through insolent debt elimination of sixteenth blackness without an idea of time, safety, direction, or unexamined object? Over these debt reduction advice the subdued moon now complicated very malevolent, but the conflicting debt reduction strategy of the sea revive no moon to feed by. Most of the time, the tread ministered to be that of a inconceivable, walking with a devotional lack of unison betwixt disarming and dependent get out of debt, yet at dusky and periodic debt reduction plan I arrived that but fifty-three debt reduction program were engaged in the process of locomotion. When Jermyn speared for England, therefore, it was with the hard-nosed probability that he would within a few debt help conditioned a devout decorous relic confirming the eldest of his great-great-great-grandfathers narrativesthat is, the brightest which he had ever heard. Day after day and night after night did we sail, and when the moon was segmental we would listen to lowest debt reduction service of the oarsmen, invariable as on that bloodshot night when we considered away from my glomerular intelligible land. He was too much an animal, too little a man, yet it is through his deficiency that you have come to discover me, for the cooled and planet debt reduction management rightly should never meet. What I did succeed in doing was to overhear the blank playing of the dumb amazed man. The debt reduction preached through a meanest motion, and the limbs decided.

Posted by: debt reduction at July 30, 2004 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

You are invited to check the sites about http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-555.com/ texas hold em http://www.worldwide-holdem.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em http://www.bestdeals-winner.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem777.net/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdemsite.net/ texas hold em http://www.playandwin777.com/ texas hold em http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack http://www.bestgames-winner.com/ blackjack http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-winner.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjacksite.net/ blackjack http://www.playandwinit777.net/ blackjack http://www.tramadol-4u.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadolsite.net/ tramadol http://www.gethelp24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.worldwide-online-pharmacy.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ online pharmacy http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacy2004.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy ... Thanks!!!

Posted by: tramadol at August 2, 2004 09:40 AM | PERMALINK

Please check the sites in the field of http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-555.com/ texas hold em http://www.worldwide-holdem.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em http://www.bestdeals-winner.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem777.net/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdemsite.net/ texas hold em http://www.playandwin777.com/ texas hold em http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack http://www.bestgames-winner.com/ blackjack http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-winner.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjacksite.net/ blackjack http://www.playandwinit777.net/ blackjack http://www.tramadol-4u.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadolsite.net/ tramadol http://www.gethelp24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.worldwide-online-pharmacy.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ online pharmacy http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacy2004.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy ...

Posted by: texas hold em at August 2, 2004 09:40 AM | PERMALINK

Is it true or not? Could the pill work for me? Get more information!

Inform about possible penis enlargement exercises

Read the truth about penis enlargement pills

Penis enlargement

For webmaster: if you consider that the comment is unapropiate I'm sorry and please remove it from your database. Contact me

at georgeadams1978@yahoo.com.

Posted by: penis enlargement at August 10, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter