|
 |
October 24, 2003 ADDING UP THE MONEY....The Madrid donor conference is over. So how much money did we get?
Compare that to the individual numbers I added up by reading these three stories.
This is ridiculous. Sure, the numbers are probably in flux right now, but the figures from their own stories don't add up to either $13 billion or $37 billion, and the grant money doesn't come close to $4 billion. Can't they even do simple arithmetic? In any case, it looks like the conference did slightly better than expected but was still sort of a bust: the money is almost all in loans, with only a few billion in outright grants regardless of whose numbers turn out to be right. And that's even after getting a UN resolution and agreeing that all foreign donations would be under the control of an international agency. Maybe this will get the ball rolling and there will be more donations later. But considering the lack of success we've had even getting Iraq's external debt forgiven, it's hard to be optimistic. It's looking increasingly like we're on our own here. UPDATE: The LA Times hasn't weighed in yet, but yesterday they predicted that the conference would stump up $20-30 billion. Sheesh. And one other thing: this was sort of buried, but there were a couple of warnings in these stories that the aid money promised in Madrid isn't all new. Rather, much of it was simply taken away from foreign aid that would have gone to other countries, some of them worse off than Iraq. When all the details are in, I wonder how much incremental money this whole conference will really turn out to have raised? Posted by Kevin Drum at October 24, 2003 01:18 PM | TrackBackComments
A lot of those stories total $ figures are including the US grant/loan amounts, which your table does not have. Posted by: S at October 24, 2003 01:23 PM | PERMALINKThanks much for this chart, Kevin. I was going to do the same, but I was too lazy. Now can just link to yours. Posted by: tristero at October 24, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINKNo they aren't. All three of them, including the AP story, don't include the US figures. In fact, they specifically add in the US numbers later, coming up with a total of $33 billion. The AP story might just be screwed up, but it also specifically talks about money "on top of" the $20 billion from the U.S. Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 24, 2003 01:33 PM | PERMALINKThis analysis is very good Kevin. A careful selection of bloogers will do your mind wonders. Posted by: LuigiBob at October 24, 2003 01:38 PM | PERMALINKUmm, maybe they just didn't print each and every promise that was made. Hasn't Britain, for example, pledged some money? It ain't on your chart. Spain? Australia? Do the reporter have an obligation to print every single country that has pledged money? In fact, perhaps the reporters don't even know all the pledges. Was the conference entirely out in the open where every country stood up and said "We pledge to loan $___ and grant $___"? I doubt it. Your criticism seems quite petty, Kevin. In any case, these things are just pledges anyway. Most of the pledges probably won't even be entirely kept - they certainly weren't re the pledges for Afghanistan last year. Of course, I've never hears any lefties complaining that those countries are unilaterally breaching their international obligations... only the US can do that. Posted by: Al at October 24, 2003 01:39 PM | PERMALINKLet's assume that if we'd gotten UN support, the European nations would have contributed ten times as much they are contributing now. That would amount to a whopping $ 8 billion in support. Let's not forget that the European nations are among the few capable of contributing substantial sums. Most of the countries of the world, like those in Central and South America, Africa, and parts of Asia, are desperately poor and simply can't afford to contribute much of anything, even with a UN resoultion. Nor can most of Eastern Europe, Russia...there are very few nations in a position to do anything. Moreover, many wealthy countries are too small to make a meaningful contribution. We can't expect the Danish, with a population of only 5 million, to shoulder a meaningful portion of the load. Ah, yes, allies are so valuable. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at October 24, 2003 01:40 PM | PERMALINKI think some of the 'pledged' money includes money already pledged or given. I wonder if this will all fade away like some of the other funding we haven't seen yet. Posted by: Tripp at October 24, 2003 01:53 PM | PERMALINKThere's a time factor as well. The $75 billion that's been kicked around is supposedly a total for 5 years. the pledges may only be for this year. And much more important is the amount of Halliburton's overhead. The cost may be 10 times as much if they do it, versus letting Iraqis have the contracts. Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 24, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKAh, yes, allies are so valuable. They sure were when they paid over $48 billion for the Gulf War, while the U.S. paid only $13 billion. Posted by: David W. at October 24, 2003 02:07 PM | PERMALINKJoe, Joe, why do you expect countries where there is still widespread public opposition to the US policy in and for Iraq to pony up money when they have been told that they are irrelevent, wrong, immoral, useless, squeamish, wimps until the US needs them to bail the US out. Why? Posted by: fester at October 24, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINKKevin, "International donors Friday pledged more than $33 billion for Iraq's reconstruction in the next four years — nearly two-thirds of it from the United States. " USA Today: I am, more than anything else, terribly disappointed with France and Germany. Opposition to the war based on concerns for the welfare of the Iraqi people is wonderful. However, to then refuse to offer any significant assistance to the reconstruction effort speaks of nothing but alterior motives on the part of France and Germany. They did not want to wage the war because Iraqis would be killed and wounded, and now they refuse to give the aid necessary to keep Iraqis safe and healthy. Selfish? Perhaps, perhaps not. It was our war, not theirs. However, their claims of concern for the Iraqi welfare are invalidated by their inaction when the Iraqis need it most. Posted by: Jon at October 24, 2003 02:24 PM | PERMALINKfester: Why? Because helping Iraq become a stable democratic country is the right thing to do. But, obviously, between helping Iraq become a stable democracy and thumbing their noses at the US, we see what France, Germany and the rest will choose every time. Of course, Franceand the others have a lot invested in making sure that Iraq fails -- after all, will Msr Chirac look better if, in a few years, Iraq is stable, properous, and democratic or if Iraq is a mess? Posted by: Al at October 24, 2003 02:29 PM | PERMALINKWhen I write a check to a charity I always ask myself how much of the money is going to go to doing some good. I don't want it to just fatten someone's bottom line or bloat some organization's administration. If I were sitting in Paris or Berlin thinking of writing a check for Iraq I would be thinking the same thing. Even if there's independent control of the donated funds, what does that mean? That you get to have your choice of subsidizing Halliburton, Bechtel, or the Pentagon? Another thing, read Kevin's prior posts on this subject. Until Bremer became abjectly desperate for money and bodies he described US policy as "principled opposition to the international community being in charge." Considering that a primary modus operandi of the Bush administration is to say one thing and do another, why would anyone in their right mind put their money into Iraq even if they were promised a modicum of control? Posted by: Joe Bob at October 24, 2003 02:55 PM | PERMALINKIf I may play devil's advocate here for a moment, Al: Is it in these countries' national interests to give their citizen's hard earned money (that they "confiscated" via taxes, of course) to make the U.S.-led adventure in Iraq look good? Would it be in our interests to use American taxpayers' money to, say, fix a major Chirac blunder in Africa so that he could get re-elected? We went into Iraq in an attempt to serve our own national interests (and the neocon argument was that we were perfectly correct to do so). Why quibble when others attempt to serve theirs? All of a sudden the right wing is all bleeding heart and massively in favor of "humanitarian" foreign aid now that THEIR boy has stepped in a pile of sh*t. This is exactly the nation building stuff they characterized as pure boondoggle only a few years ago. These surreal outrages fly at us so thick and fast these days you can't concentrate long enough to do anything useful about any given one. Hmm. Maybe that's the plan. Posted by: Julia Grey at October 24, 2003 03:06 PM | PERMALINKThis whole argument that X country is evil if it doesn't pony up Y dollars to reconstruct Iraq is sullivanism at its worst. There are a whole lot of poor countries in the world, many of them in far worse shape than Iraq. But because the United States declares that reconstructing Iraq is the great cause of our age, nations that opposed the war (and which in the case of France and Germany spend a lot more on foreign aid than we do already) in the first place are supposed to come running to pony up their taxpayers' dollars into the kitty? Why is Iraq so much more important a receptacle for French and German dollars than, say, Democratic Congo with its 3 million dead? Posted by: Zack at October 24, 2003 03:12 PM | PERMALINKAl, They did not want to wage the war because Iraqis would be killed and wounded, and now they refuse to give the aid necessary to keep Iraqis safe and healthy. They did not want to wage the war because they knew doing so was a stupid thing to do, and now they refuse to give this boondoggle any money because there is no way it will be used to "keep Iraqis safe and healthy." We all know it will be used to keep Halliburton and its subsidiaries "safe and healthy", at least when its not being siphoned off into Chalabi's Swiss bank account. When Bush and his cabal are in the dock at The Hague -- then's the time to come to the aid of Iraq. Posted by: Basharov at October 24, 2003 03:34 PM | PERMALINKJon: Germany and France refusing to pledge aid might be more to discourage the US from doing this in the future (Iran, Syria) than a petty snub with humanitarian costs for Iraqis. The Europeans might figure that the US won't fail to fund the rebuilding effort, even if they have to do it alone, so contributions by France and Germany would just transfer the obligation from us to them. Especially if they witnessed the apparent fall in the popularity (for the prez and the war) when the check came - the $87 billion (which leaves out the $150 billion already spent, btw). Democratic pressure, via US taxpayers' wallets, might curb the war planners ambitions. I don't know what their motivation was though, obviously. Posted by: andrew at October 24, 2003 03:35 PM | PERMALINKThe Euros would be making a gamble, with costs of potential Iraqi
lives, to save future lives in other countries. Which, ironically, is
what we did in this war: The numbers that come out of this conference are and will remain highly suspect. Many of the 'loans' are going to be simply cancellations of loans already made to Iraq that the country had no likelihood of getting repaid anyway, and the $1.5 billion grant offered by Kuwait includes $1.0 billion they have already spent. Most of the numbers that reach the newspapers will be money that the Iraqis never see. It is merely public relations smoke and mirrors so that the bush admininstration can conceal from the American Public how much we are on the hook to bail out their idiotic folly. Check out Talking Points Memo http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_10_19.html#002117 and especially read the Washington Post article Josh links to. Posted by: Rick B at October 24, 2003 03:50 PM | PERMALINK"You broke it, you bought it". Plus for completeness Kevin you should tabulate the existing Hussein-era loans Iraq still owes. (my comeback to the winger "but the Iraqis are better off now without Saddam!" is simply "but are we?" -- $100B is no small chunk of change -- it was a manned expedition to Mars, a Manhattan Project for alternate energy research, or 10 years worth of well-funded research from 10,000 scientists). Posted by: Troy at October 24, 2003 03:59 PM | PERMALINK I hardly see how this matters. Rupert nearly got voted off last night, and now the tribes are back to even! Drake has lost all momentum. John's out of there next. Posted by: Stoffel at October 24, 2003 04:37 PM | PERMALINKTroy: 'my comeback to the winger "but the Iraqis are better off now without Saddam!" is simply "but are we?" -- $100B is no small chunk of change ' These $100B had almost zero chance of being collected while Saddam is in power. Now - again zero. Posted by: GB at October 24, 2003 05:20 PM | PERMALINK? The $100B I was referring to is the FY03 & 04 supplemental military spending required to depose Saddam and maintain some semblance of order in the country. Saddam only owed us $2B or so. Japan was on the hook for $4B. European countries were in for $1B - $3B each. Iran-Iraq War allies of Saddam had of course loaned him tens of billions of dollars, plus another $90B in war reparations claims. Posted by: Troy at October 24, 2003 05:37 PM | PERMALINKKevin Your summary is less accurate than the reports you criticize. It is widely reported in media sources (including the LA Times article you mention) that the larger figures include the 20B$ US pledge. You could have at least mentioned that - and I have trouble believing you were unaware of it - for the sake of avoiding the sloppiness you claim to decry. Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at October 24, 2003 05:49 PM | PERMALINKHey Gabe how 'bout laying off the personal attacks and more fully backing up your counter-claims, hmmm? Posted by: Troy at October 24, 2003 06:22 PM | PERMALINKGuys - If I understand what little information we get we are a long way from being able to spend most of the monies these countries are pledging. There are "security" caveats - So what they are doing now is meaningless, place holding, face saving BS. We still have to spend whatever to keep our troops and admin folks there until we can quiet things down to the degree necessary to really begin to commit the big reconstruction money. I think most of what we, the US, are spending now is to continue the "occupation". Doesn't count capital costs. Just to support the troops. Isn't that the $67B plus or minus that we're agreeing to anyway? Now if we could get troop commitment, that would speed up providing
security, which would facilitate putting the money to use- that would be
the ideal. I think it's troops from other countries, not money per se
(clearly troops cost money) which will make the real difference. And we
don't want the only troops on the table. Turks. This donor conference is just wallpaper. But i'm just a grandmother. what do i know. Posted by: Granmere at October 24, 2003 07:35 PM | PERMALINKWell hell, you're not including the dollars forgiven for debts and reparations owed. When you figure in all the bad faith funny money, well, who knows how much we are really dealing with? After all, this is not reality, ya know? Posted by: SOB at October 24, 2003 07:54 PM | PERMALINKAndrew: Germany and France refusing to pledge aid might be more to discourage the US from doing this in the future (Iran, Syria) than a petty snub with humanitarian costs for Iraqis. Totally agree. Very possible. However, this is done, of course, at the expense of the Iraqi people's welfare, is it not? While it is wonderful to discourage the U.S. from this sort of foreign policy, witholding resources Iraq hurts Iraqis. However, I suppose that the only way for France and Germany to get their message across to the U.S. is to hit us in the pocketbook somehow and make us bear more of the cost. Posted by: Jon at October 24, 2003 07:54 PM | PERMALINKI also heard from an NPR story that Japan's $ was for Japanese contracts only. Just a little insight into how the game is played. Posted by: Vivy at October 24, 2003 08:18 PM | PERMALINKI just love how the argument is warped into "help the poor benighted Iraqis or you're bad people" argument. Fuck the Iraqis. If they truly want democracy they can fight, and pay, for it just like anyone else. This position is consistent with libertarian Cato Institute papers, but not consistent with our military nation-building posture and pronouncements. Posted by: Troy at October 24, 2003 08:18 PM | PERMALINKGabe, it sounds like the initial reports (on which the table was based) were confused about whether the US $20B was part of the total cited or not. It sounds to me like it's been clarified, and as the picture gets clearer still, most of the "real" contributions are piddling or with significant strings attached, or from the US or US-controlled organizations (IMF, etc). So don't blame Kevin for trying to make sense of early incomplete reporting. He did point out the inconsistency. As for the "libertarian" plan: what the hell are we doing putting an entire country on welfare? Iraq is already a libertarian paradise (no taxes, no regulations, lots of powerful guns freely available, and drugs are on the way from Afganistan by now, I'm sure) a bunch of governmental meddling will just ruin the place! Why, don't you think a lot of libertarians, objectivists, and hard-right republicans should move there to enjoy the paradise? Now that Rush is off the air, there's no reason to stay here in the US, is there?
A few more to add to the list: Saudi Arabia — $1 billion in loans through 2007 and export credits; also willing to consider forgiving some of $24 billion in Iraqi debt owed to it. United Kingdom - $900 million by 2006. European Union — $812 million for 2004, $1.5 billion through 2007. Iran - credit facility of up to $300 million, offered cross-border electricity and gas supplies and said it would allow Iraq to export oil through Iranian terminals. Italy - $232 million over three years — in addition to the 3,000 troops it has stationed in Iraq. Canada — $230 million, most already spent. South Korea (news - web sites) — $200 million over four years in addition to $60 million committed this year. Norway — $34 million for transitional and development aid. India — $30 million for 2004. China — $24.2 million. Switzerland — $15 million. Oman — $3 million. Philippines — $1 million. Sri Lanka — nearly $1 million in goods, including 100 tons of tea. Vietnam - $500,000 worth of rice. Slovakia — $290,000. Bulgaria - $0 plus technical assistance. Egypt - $0 plus technical assistance. Germany - $0 France - $0 Russia - $0 Spain - ? Australia - ? India - ? Turkey - ? Israel - ? Brazil - ? South Africa - ? Argentina - ? Lybia - ? Indonesia - ? Mexico - ? Venezula - ? Columbia - ? Posted by: ascap_scab at October 24, 2003 09:26 PM | PERMALINKscab, most nations on this planet are net recipients of economic aid -- it makes little sense for them to turn around and donate what they're being given, other than for appearances, of course. Mexico and the Phillipines receive ~1B/yr in aid each, Indonesia a lot more. What the Iraqis owe: Austria: $800M I can understand why "old europe" is less than enthused about ponying up the cash when their existing claims are in extreme limbo, if not the toilet. Posted by: Troy at October 24, 2003 11:47 PM | PERMALINKEuropean voters were so against this war that it would probably bring down their governments if France or Germany made large donor pledges. Posted by: Carol (in NJ) at October 25, 2003 05:53 AM | PERMALINKTroy- No living American has had to fight for his freedom. Our ancestors did that for us 200 years ago. Don't you think you're being a little harsh? Posted by: Joe Schmoe at October 25, 2003 08:30 AM | PERMALINK"Fuck the Iraqis." Oh, those caring, compassionate liberals. Posted by: Al at October 25, 2003 09:09 AM | PERMALINKNobody mentions that Iran has promised a steady stream of tourists to visit Iraq. So it's great that Sri Lanka is providing tea. The mistake Shrub made with his Iraqithon 2003 was scheduling it during National Public Radio pledge week.... ------------- Two, more "serious", thoughts: #1. In 1979, Neal Israel ("Police Academy") made a bizarre film called "Americathon" in which our President hosts a telethon to prevent the US from foreclosure. The film was absurb in so many ways--that the US would be a debtor nation, that the problem of national debt would be so trivialized, that average citizens and foreigners would be expected to bail out the nation's finances.... Yet art (sic) seems to have become life: The US tanks financially, and our leaders can only think to hold an international beg-in to bail themselves out of a policy blunder. Tsk, tsk. #2. Whatever happened to Afghanistan? to AIDS in Africa? to Chinese
human rights? to the North Korean people who must endure an unhuman
regime? to the subsistence farmers in Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia? It
must be, like the banker on "Beverly Hillbillies", that the US only
cares about "black gold, Texas tea...." Anyone notice that Japan was the only country who made any significant contribution? I think that's because the Japanese understand how Bush is infatuated with the power of the US President. They understand "tsujigiri" --defined as "the act of trying out a new sword on chance passerby". The Japanese also understand that sometimes the easiest way to maintain "Wa" (harmony) is to buy AIDS in Africa??? Duh. Well, fortunately President Clinton and Bill Gates are doing as much as they can there. As for us, we are ever so anxious to spend and spend and spend in Iraq. So far the war has cost us a mere 81 billion dollars and more than 2,000 American and British soldiers wounded and killed. Posted by: Ari at October 25, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINKYou broke it, you pay and if you don't you will be charged criminally. Posted by: Europe at October 25, 2003 11:12 AM | PERMALINKNo living American has had to fight for his freedom. Come again? WTF was WW2 then? Our ancestors did that for us 200 years ago. Don't you think you're being a little harsh? No. I consider us liberating 10,000+ Iraqis from their lives a little harsh. "I consider us liberating 10,000+ Iraqis from their lives a little harsh." I consider us liberating 10,000+ Iraqis who would have been killed by Saddam if we hadn't invaded not harsh. But of course the lefties don't now (and never did) care about Iraqis anyway... as witnessed by the wonderful leftie quote above "fuck the Iraqis". Posted by: Al at October 25, 2003 04:44 PM | PERMALINKMaybe the pledges were weak because we didn't offer coffee mugs and logo umbrellas. Donors just love tote bags. Posted by: Kip W at October 25, 2003 04:46 PM | PERMALINKI consider us liberating 10,000+ Iraqis who would have been killed by Saddam if we hadn't invaded not harsh. One of the human rights organizations estimated that SH was killing a few hundred people a year. The average for his time as dictator was much greater, but most of his victims died in the two wars and putting down the Shiite rebellion after Wulf War I. IOW, the civilian deaths due to the invasion were something like the number he might have killed in 10-20 years. Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 25, 2003 05:10 PM | PERMALINKOne of the people I know estimated that the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war was something like a few hundred. So, Roger, the comparison between your asinine # and mine stands. Posted by: Al at October 25, 2003 05:53 PM | PERMALINKAl, don't be so harsh on the "lefties." Not all of us have lost our idealism and become isolationist hermits like Troy, here. The reconstruction of Iraq is my primary concern, as a "lefty," so to speak. In my opinion, those on the left (with me, I remind you) who want to "fuck the Iraqis" and cut and run are simply bidding for the political upper hand by playing off of a struggling reconstruction effort. Realistically, however, we have to do the job. I think you and I can agree on that, Al. Posted by: Jon at October 25, 2003 06:43 PM | PERMALINKI'm arguing in generalities, not current conditions here. I believe we had no moral, legal, or rational in justification throwing 100,000+ combat troops into a sovereign nation on a nation-building exercise like we have done. I believe the neocon "but think of the Iraqis!" is just a bullshit smokescreen -- my response is simply "think of *US*, dipwad!". $100B flushed down the toilet, thousands of US casualties, wear and tear on frontline combat divisions, diversion from the real WOT, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, crippled, de-housed, and orpaned -- and for what? Liberation? Liberation is something any populace can achieve, if they want it badly enough -- cf. Eastern Europe. There was no present threat. The government of Iraq is of Iraqi concern, not ours, and it is pure hubris to forcibly attempt to liberate at gunpoint, just like it was hubris to attempt to maintain the status quo in SVN in the face of massive RVN malfeasance, incompetence, and illegitimacy. Interventions **can** be moral -- like eg. swooping down on Hitler when he re-militarized the Rhineland (which the western powers failed to do), or our rather noble sacrifice in keeping the stalinist north koreans from over-running the entire Korean Peninsula. Iraq was a bone-headed gambit in a silly & costly crusade of a campaign. Whether it succeeds or not, it will not be worth the costs incurred. Posted by: Troy at October 25, 2003 08:43 PM | PERMALINKOne of the people I know estimated that the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war was something like a few hundred. So, Roger, the comparison between your asinine # and mine stands. It depends on which source to believe. I've seen figures as high as 20,000 for total Iraqi deaths, but I don't recall one for civilians. There are no official US estimates, unlike previous wars, so it depends on which source to believe. I note that the government and right-wing sources have a pathetic history of dishonesty on any numerical prediction or estimate regarding this war, so a reasonable person wou erject their figures. Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 26, 2003 04:12 AM | PERMALINKLiberation is something any populace can achieve, if they want it badly enough -- cf. Eastern Europe. They wanted liberation badly for decades, but it took the USSR falling apart for them to achieve it. I think we have to grant the neocons the point that SH's grip on Iraq was too strong for an internal revolt to work, even one with strong covert backing. In the Cold War, we had universal agreement by all leaders of the Free world on the strategy of containment.. In particular we agreed on the basis in general Enlightenment values of personal liberty and open, representative political systems. the problem with the Iraq invasion is that it represents the beginning of the neo-con program, and this isn't an Enlightenment project. The goal is nightmarish.
think we have to grant the neocons the point that SH's grip on Iraq was too strong for an internal revolt to work, even one with strong covert backing. I grant nothing. We forget that the US Reagan-Bush administration was publically against the Israeli airstrike on Iraq's french-built reactor, we blocked UN attempts to censure Iraq for its use of chemical weapons, etc. Is this real ? Now these same con-artists come back that oh Saddam bad, we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to liberate the poor Iraqis. The neocon crew could not put together a coalition for peaceful
change, but only because their fingerprints were all over the support
Saddam received, 1979 - 1990. Jon - When I use the general term "lefties", I don't mean to imply
every single left-winger in the entire country. There are certainly
some honorable liberals remaining. You just don't usually find them
commenting on these threads... "I note that the government and right-wing sources have a pathetic history of dishonesty on any numerical prediction or estimate regarding this war, so a reasonable person wou erject their figures." I would far sooner believe numerical estimates from the government or a right-winger than from a left-winger. I mean, remember the asinine estimate of some left-wing New Hampshire of Afghan civilian deaths, which was proven to be completely detached from reality? Posted by: Al at October 26, 2003 06:58 PM | PERMALINKI had read the latest survey in Iraq: I would far sooner believe numerical estimates from the government or a right-winger than from a left-winger. The anti-war overestimated the cost of the war in deaths on both sides. This seems to be due to the Iraqi not putting up a fight. OTOH, the neocons underestimated the cost of the occupation in money and lives. The internal estimate was that we would be down to 30 K troops at this point. One does not think of Gen. Shalikashvili, as a left-winger, but he was all but publicly stripped of rank for the reasonable suggestion that hundreds of thousands of troops for several years was a realistic requirement. This was a reasonable estimate, based on comparison with the Balkans. We were also assured that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction out of oil revenues, "and soon". Again, there was plenty of baseline data that suggested otherwise. Another example of spurious numbers is the precise quantitative numbers of tons of nerve gas, etc. that Iraq was supposed to possess. The precise figures were for propaganda purposes, to give an impression that the figures had been checked and audited. or the claim that SH could launch them in 45 minutes. Not 40. Not 50. Exactly 45. Givemeabreak. Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 27, 2003 12:24 AM | PERMALINKA trippa di zianata - "your aunt's tripe" Posted by: gay porn fan at April 9, 2004 12:37 AM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 08:16 AM | PERMALINKBuy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system. Posted by: directv at May 27, 2004 11:15 PM | PERMALINKFind your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete! Posted by: fioricet at June 14, 2004 02:49 PM | PERMALINKgo to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals! Posted by: credit card debt at June 15, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKNow you can Play Poker online any time! Posted by: online poker at June 25, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINKNow you can Play Poker online any time! Posted by: Play Poker Online at June 25, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKWe provide valuable data and information pertaining to the Libyan membership will enlighten you with specific and detailed information about Libyan market from the first click. Posted by: Libyan Investment at June 28, 2004 05:44 AM | PERMALINKcaptainstabbin pics captain stabbin pics captain stabbin pictures captainstabbin pussy captain stabbin pussy captain stabbin trailers captain stabbin video clips captainstabbin videos captain stabbin videos free captain stabbin inthevip Posted by: inthevip at June 30, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKyou can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com Posted by: blackjack at July 21, 2004 06:45 PM | PERMALINKyou can play blackjack online here! If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide you should be in a god position to play poker. Posted by: online casino at July 26, 2004 07:54 PM | PERMALINK
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free! Posted by: online casino at July 30, 2004 07:07 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/nude-jason-scott-lee.html nude jason scott lee html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/nude-hewitt-martin.html nude hewitt martin html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/don-nude.html don nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/nude-neil-patrick-harris.html nude neil patrick harris html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/nude-andrew-tirman.html nude andrew tirman html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/boyan-nude-milusev.html boyan nude milusev html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/barbiesboobs-gal3-ssa07.html barbiesboobs gal3 ssa07 html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/alan-howard-nude.html alan howard nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/andrew-nude-mccarthy.html andrew nude mccarthy html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/private-porn-picture-and-free-gay-pix.html private porn picture and free gay pix html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/tim-daly-nude.html tim daly nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/movie-celebrities-harvey-keitel-male-celebrity-star.html movie celebrities harvey keitel male celebrity star html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/ben-murphy-nude.html ben murphy nude html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/davis-nude-brad.html davis nude brad html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/fatmir-nude-haskaj.html fatmir nude haskaj html http://www.spermavirtualvoyeurism.com/gal3-gal31.html gal3 gal31 html Posted by: Bizarre Sex Pictures at August 4, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINK1890 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 08:53 PM | PERMALINK2904 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - You have a great looking SITE! 7678 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 09:35 AM | PERMALINK5631 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 09:48 PM | PERMALINKFound some great outdoor equipment at: http://www.campfireoutfitters.com/, http://www.bike-gear.net Posted by: Frank Green at August 10, 2004 09:51 PM | PERMALINKHello it a very interesting site! 4894 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 03:51 AM | PERMALINK4754 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 08:32 PM | PERMALINKExcellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz 1095 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 02:32 AM | PERMALINK3678 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 296 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 08:57 PM | PERMALINK8463 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for My respect! Very interesting site - a good resource for everybody! 4084 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 10:52 AM | PERMALINK6242 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 08:47 PM | PERMALINK1311 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 09:46 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
