Newspaper Blogs

February 13, 2004

THE CLEANSING OF THE PRESIDENT....The main witness to Bill Burkett's story about the "cleansing" of George Bush's National Guard files is a fellow former guardsman named George Conn. Burkett claims that he mentioned his concerns to Conn in mid-1997 and a few days later Conn took him on a stroll over to the the base museum building where Burkett caught a glimpse of Bush's files being tossed away in a trashcan. (My interview with Burkett about this stuff is here.)

On Wednesday Conn declined to comment on Burkett's charges to the New York Times but did say this via email: "I know LTC Bill Burkett and served with him several years ago in the Texas Army National Guard. I believe him to be honest and forthright. He 'calls things like he sees them.'"

Yesterday, though, Conn decided to comment further:

Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records. "I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."

Conn's recollection also undercuts another of Burkett's central allegations: that he overheard Bush's onetime chief of staff, Joe M. Allbaugh, telling a Texas Guard general to make sure there were no embarrassments in the Bush record.

Burkett says he told Conn, over dinner that same night, what he had overheard. But Conn says that, although Burkett told him he worried that the Bush record would be sanitized, he never mentioned overhearing the conversation between Allbaugh and General Daniel James III.

This is obviously a major blow to Burkett's credibility. What's odd, though, is that it doesn't actually directly contradict what Burkett told me on Wednesday:

  • After overhearing the "cleansing" conversation in General James' office, Burkett says he "brought it up" with Conn and later mentioned it "in passing." Then: "I don't know in what detail we talked about it, but I know we talked."

  • Conn agrees that he took a walk with Burkett over to the museum but says he never saw any records being tossed out. But in Burkett's account to me he was actually pretty clear that Conn never actually said or did anything specific. He just led him in the direction of the trashcan and Burkett looked in and saw some of Bush's files.

  • I asked Burkett if Conn had brought him to the museum deliberately and he said, "I believe so. And that's the reason I traced the path, I don't think there's any doubt about it."

    In other words, Conn never said anything directly about it. Burkett inferred Conn's intent from what he saw there.

Now, this is all very strange. Three people — Conn, Dennis Adams, and Harvey Gough — are on record as agreeing that Burkett spoke to them in 1997 about his concerns that the Bush record was being sanitized. What's more, Conn agrees that he and Burkett visited the museum together one day. But he denies that Burkett ever mentioned specifically to him what he saw in the trashcan.

So what really happened? I don't know the truth, but I did speak with both Gough and Conn this morning to get their side of the story. (No luck with Adams yet.) I'll have a post about that in a few hours.

Posted by Kevin Drum at February 13, 2004 08:23 AM | TrackBack


It gets more and more complicated every minute. Just what the Republicans are hoping for. Only the wonks & ABBs will keep following it.

Posted by: chris at February 13, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINK

Furthermore, it the contradictions give the media a fig leaf to hide behind in dropping the story.

Posted by: chris at February 13, 2004 08:29 AM | PERMALINK

Strange but completely uncorrobrated.

Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 13, 2004 08:29 AM | PERMALINK

Story? Someboday say story?

Posted by: Paul in AZ at February 13, 2004 08:37 AM | PERMALINK

As Kevin continues to pile more tinfoil on his hat...

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 08:37 AM | PERMALINK

chris, although they appear to be, I do not think the correct interpretation is that the media are on Bush's side. They have lazy CW consensus, and seem to jump on a lot of bandwagons. They like access so they tend to be helpful to those in power with caveats. They are very sensitive to criticism of bias, so they overreact in a "they say the world is round, the other side disagrees"-kind of way, giving a benefit to those that play fast and loose with the truth. But, the one thing they are really beholden to is the story. If there is a possibility of breaking a headline, they will follow it, regardless of ideology. They have let a lot of stories go due to some of the above, and now that the bandwagon is changing there are a lot of stories that have not been written about the Bush record.

Posted by: theCoach at February 13, 2004 08:39 AM | PERMALINK

Keep digging, Kevin. Good work.

Posted by: gabe at February 13, 2004 08:39 AM | PERMALINK

How do you breathe with your head so far up your ass?

Posted by: chris at February 13, 2004 08:39 AM | PERMALINK

Chris says, "It gets more and more complicated every minute. Just what the Republicans are hoping for. Only the wonks & ABBs will keep following it."

That's doubtless the strategy. But Bushco is used to playing flimflam games and having the press be too stupid to see through it. They are not used to an aroused citizenry being p---ed off about being lied to.

This whole Administration is marinated in lies. They are brilliant at saying things that may be technically sort of true but clearly intended to deceive (Iraq/Africa/uranium/nuff said).

The easy acceptance of lying, not just by Bushco but by their partisans is destroying this country. Unraveling and punishing the lies publicly is a matter of national survival.

Posted by: js at February 13, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINK

Um, you guys need a bit of education in evidence.

The mere fact that someone (person B) says something that disagrees--nee, contradicts--what person A says doesn't implicate person A's credibility. It raises a question of fact. If others can corroborate person A's story, that suggests that his story is more likely to be true. Similarly, if someone can present evidence that person B is biassed in favor of, say, X, that might call person B's evidence into question.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Posted by: raj at February 13, 2004 08:41 AM | PERMALINK

Wasn't Conn the guy on the grassy knoll?

Posted by: Oliver at February 13, 2004 08:46 AM | PERMALINK

Bush/Cheney '04
[REDACTED] for America!

Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2004 08:48 AM | PERMALINK

The whole is quite interesting.

Al, what is your objection to Kevin digging around and exploring the terrain of the story? I have yet to see any real rationale from you on that score . . . although I have not religiously followed your posts since they tend to be predictable.

If Bush wants to prove what he did and that he does not suffer from impaired credibiliy/integrity (his little mercilessly flogged meme that he rode to power on) . . . why don't they just release the records?

It would certainly silence his critics and, to some extent, make them appear to be grasping/foolish.

Until then . . . let the story and all of its intrigues and mysteries unwind . . .


Posted by: tnd at February 13, 2004 08:49 AM | PERMALINK

Al sez:

Any attempt to find information is paranoia.

"Ignorance is strength."

Al loves Big Brother, is all. Except Kevin is the object of his Two Minutes Hate.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 13, 2004 08:50 AM | PERMALINK

Here's the difference between you, Kevin, and all those right-wing attack sites: you've actually listened to the other side's evidence, and tracked down their stories. The other side just throws stuff out there to see what sticks.

I believe this will stick, because it's backed up with evidence, and all evidence to the contrary is considered and evaluated, not just shouted down.

Look at what the Times is saying this morning about what the right is doing to Kerry's antiwar record. All the right can come up with is a photo of him and Jane Fonda. The article goes on to quote a Republican who thinks Vietnam is one issue they should stay away from in the election.

Posted by: peejay at February 13, 2004 08:50 AM | PERMALINK


Um, you guys need a bit of education in evidence.

I am still taking a wait & see attitude to consider the follow-up evidence. However, it is my contention that the press will drop the story because they have now "heard both sides" and it, to them, is a he said/she said story. As theCoach says, they like their access (which they will lose as soon as they start poking too hard at Bush) and are in competition to find new and exciting stories.

Evidence can only be presented if the press continues to dig instead of presenting Bush's hand-selected paperwork and shielded witnesses as gospel. The media (except for a few hardy souls) have taken on the role of printing what's handed to them instead of investigating the evidence.

Posted by: chris at February 13, 2004 08:51 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously, all allegations that Bush did not serve his time by *actually showing up* MUST be true.

This is because there's no evidence he did not show up. Lack of evidence, apparently, connotes guilt.


Where's my tinfoil hat?

Posted by: Dr. Furniture at February 13, 2004 08:52 AM | PERMALINK

Chris, I take the opposite view. The more murky the better, in the long run. Anyone with a brain can see they're hiding something. With Bush's credibility numbers tanking, these kinds of stories will continue to take their toll.

Also, reporters are now on this story. While the Administration can put pressure on big news editors to shut this down, that's not gonna be complete in this day and age. People like Kevin are on this, and, let's face it, we have some time here before the election.

If I were advising Bush and Rove, I'd tell them to let it all hang out, and try to put the best spin on the deal as possible, to get it over with. SOMETHING will turn up regarding just what it is that they're hiding. This simply has to be dealt with. This was on MSNBC and CNN last night -- they're gonna have to come clean on these records sooner or later.

I thought it was very interesting that the Washington Post in the last several days came out and mentioned IN THE PAPER the old "mano a mano" story.

This absolutely has to be dealt with, from their perspective. They can't afford to go another six months with this hanging over their heads. Someone, some enterprising soul will want to make a name for his or herself.

Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 13, 2004 08:56 AM | PERMALINK

I am still taking a wait & see attitude to consider the follow-up evidence. However, it is my contention that the press will drop the story because they have now "heard both sides" and it, to them, is a he said/she said story. As theCoach says, they like their access (which they will lose as soon as they start poking too hard at Bush) and are in competition to find new and exciting stories.

Call me a crazy optimist, but I think that the press smells blood in the water and will continue to press on this and other stories which embarrass the administration. Their "access" is only to the privilege of having their questions ignored by Scotty; they have nothing to lose - particularly if a different administration will be in place next year.

Read the transcripts of the press events on They're losing patience with the BS. They're getting snarky. It's heartening in a way, even though it's analogous to the courage of a pack of hyenas circling a wounded animal.

Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft at February 13, 2004 08:59 AM | PERMALINK

Al, what is your objection to Kevin digging around and exploring the terrain of the story? I have yet to see any real rationale from you on that score . . . although I have not religiously followed your posts since they tend to be predictable.

I have absolutely no objection to Kevin digging into the story.

Just like I had absolutely no objection to the rightwingers digging into Clinton's connection with Mena, Arkansas and that drug ring. I think they came up with eyewitnesses for that, too.

Whatever floats your boat, I say. I just appreciate Kevin allowing us to comment on his digging, unlike, say, Mark Kleiman. It makes it more fun.

Anyway, you really should follow my posts religiously...

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 09:01 AM | PERMALINK

Check out Josh Marshall. He's got a transcript of this morning's gaggle. Helen Thomas apparently asked a simple yes-or-no question about whether Bush served community service while in the guard. McClellan's avoidance of the issue is entertaining. The media doesn't seem to be letting go -- I saw MSNBC report the contentious discussion over the community service question 30 minutes ago.

Posted by: Jim E. at February 13, 2004 09:01 AM | PERMALINK

"As Kevin continues to pile more tinfoil on his hat..."

Al, if, as you believe, the whole story is a transparent absurdity, why won't GWB release all his records? Every other presidential candidate in recent history who served in the military has unconditionally released his military records, but GWB won't waive his privacy rights, and prefers to spoon-feed selected bits to the media. Why is that?

Like the 9/11 investigation, like the Plame investigation, like the intelligence investigation, the story would be over a lot more quickly if GWB would cooperat--if he really has nothing to hide.

Posted by: rea at February 13, 2004 09:03 AM | PERMALINK

This morning I heard a report on the radio that some fellow guardsman of Bush has come forward asserting that he did show up in Alabama. I'm sure we will hear much more about this. I was already wondering, how long does it take these guys to present a witness/testimonial.

Posted by: cm at February 13, 2004 09:05 AM | PERMALINK

Some here made a point I would like to expand on.

Whatever the political proclivities of reporters and publishers are, I think that laziness is a stronger motivator.

It's hard to dig up a story that's off the radar screen. There is a lot of work involved, and a lot of risk, both for the reporter and the editor.

Reporting on a report, be it a Limbaugh "Who Killed Vince Foster" talking point, a Newsmax Monica talking point, etc. is easy.

Since the right wing has the monopoly on scurrilous rumors in print and radio, this is where most of the press has gone.

If you look at the Trent Lott birthday affair, the story that originally hit the big media was not, "Lott Praises Thurmond's 1949 Racist Presidential Bid", but, "Bloggers Point Out Lott's Support of Thurmond's 1949 Racist Presidential Bid".

The latter story is a much easier one to sell. There are no questions of fact, and you can show an absence of malice.

Liberal blogging makes the press fairer because it gives a truthful alternative for lazy reporters.

Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 13, 2004 09:05 AM | PERMALINK

Al, if, as you believe, the whole story is a transparent absurdity, why won't GWB release all his records?

What's the point? They been "scoured", so there's obviously nothing embarrassing in them! Right, Bill Burkett?

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 09:08 AM | PERMALINK

While reading this piece, I kept thinking "I hope Kevin calls Conn and talks to him." Then I got to the end and saw that you have.

Thanks for reporting both sides of the story, and for blog investigation above and beyond the call of duty.

Posted by: J Mann at February 13, 2004 09:09 AM | PERMALINK

Thank God for Helen Thomas. However, the rest of them certainly did not let Scott get away from it. It is also interesting to note that the WH does not have the transcript on their site yet.

Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINK

Can someone interview James R. Bath of Houston?

aWol's buddy who refused the flight physical & was also grounded at the same time.

aWol's buddy who is rumored to have helped aWol out of a personal problem.

An investor in aWol's Midland oil company who used $$$ from Osama's brother to invest.

Posted by: Ineedabath at February 13, 2004 09:12 AM | PERMALINK

While I have no direct experience in sanitizing files, I do think I would, if I were to be involved in such a thing, put the discards someplace besides the trashcan in the same office. Face up so they could be seen without difficulty by somebody who happened to look. With nothing benign on top of them. Hell, Ollie North's secretary took stuff home.
Just a thought.
Also, the idea of subtracting stuff from the files is curious. Here we are looking for evidence of a positive--that Bush was in various places when he said he was--and finding it. What kind of subtraction would contradict that?
Okay, he got paid on dates such and such. The records exist. Does somebody think there are records of his having to return the pay, upon the discovery that he really wasn't there?
Perhaps there is another positive. For instance, maybe he was punished for one or another military crime. If so, how come the honorable discharge? The sanitizing happened, if it happened, several decades after the honorable discharge, so it couldn't have led to an uninformed honorable discharge.
Does not add up.
For those of you who are not aware, in the military, officers come up for promotion twice at each grade. If they fail the second time, they are invited to leave. I saw a major turn into a staff sergeant (his permanent rank) once. Not pretty.
Those passed over for promotion can be bitter.
And the usual hierarchy is that the next higher rank contains one fourth as people as your present slot, so somebody inevitably loses. This is somewhat skewed in the fixed-wing community where the pilots all begin as second lieutenants, but, I am told, straightens itself out in the full colonel and up area.
Point is, there are lots of guys who have been passed over and their careers ended, some of whom may not be able to "move on" and think, accurately or not, that they have been ill-used.
Whatever the issue, this is a caution when listening to a recently retired officer dish dirt. One journalist asked me, when I offered him a story of fraud, "What's your ax to grind?"
I didn't have one. I thought it was a good story. So did the FBI later on (they got it from somebody else).
That's a question that needs to be applied even in this case.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 13, 2004 09:14 AM | PERMALINK

BushCo. the non-person has indeed re-invented himself, the buck stops anywhere but him. Must be Clinton's fault (both of them).

Posted by: bill dekking at February 13, 2004 09:15 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, let's air that community service bit in Houston out a bit. Helen Thomas is sharp as hell. This story will burn his ass I predict.

Posted by: IneedsomeP.U.L.L. at February 13, 2004 09:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ask yourself this question: if you could corroborate Burkett's story, would you do it? Or would you make a statement similar to Conn's, which is basically "I don't recall doing that, but Burkett is a standup guy."

Seems to me that there's an implied threat in corroborating a potentially damaging story about the POTUS. According to the Globe Conn is "a civilian government employee working with the US Army in Germany." Think he doesn't have an incentive to stay out of the fray?

Also, according to Burkett, Conn and Harvey Gough were ejected from the NG apparently in retaliation for backing Burkett in 1997-1998. So there seems to have been payback for crossing Bush in the past.

Conn did not contradict Burkett directly, and he even endorsed Burkett as honest. Seems like an effort to be neutral, whatever his reasons for doing so might be.

Posted by: Jon at February 13, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINK

rea--"Al, if, as you believe, the whole story is a transparent absurdity, why won't GWB release all his records?"

Aal--"What's the point? They been "scoured", so there's obviously nothing embarrassing in them! Right, Bill Burkett?"

Well, Jeez, Al, the time to complain that we won't believe what the records show us is after we get shown the records, isn't it? Why won't he make the same disclosure everyone else did?

And why, for crying out loud, does the president's press secretary respond to a question about whether the president was senteced to community service in criminal proceedings by saying that its been 30 years, and the president can't be expected to remember every little thing that happened 30 years ago--like being sentenced for a crime? Has the man been convicted of so many crimes he can't reasonably be expected to remember them all?

Posted by: rea at February 13, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINK

At this point, it is reasonable to believe that Bush was in Alabama. What was he doing there? I am interested to hear from people who worked alongside him in Blount's campaign.

Posted by: Roland at February 13, 2004 09:24 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin is in the investigation stage. He hasn't claimed any results yet, and hasn't declared Bush guilty.

So what's the problem? The resident trolls and the new ones crawling out from under the dumpster are angry that we are even asking questions. They have been pulling random kneejerk objections to what Kevin's doing and slapping them down one after another without any logic at all.

Kevin hasn't convicted Bush. He hasn't even indicted him. He's investigating. What's wrong with that?

There are a LOT of reasons to believe that there's something (several things) fishy in Bush's story around 1968-1975. The Guard story is just part of it. Considering that Bush represents himself as the Character Candidate, aren't these stories relevant?

My feeling is that Bush and Rove would clear these rumors up in a minute if they were able to. But they can't. We don't know what's there, but there's got to be something.

Especially since the Republicans have done a lot worse to much better men than Bush -- including the Republican Sen. McCain. (Yes, I'm aware that Bush and Rove personally have plausible deniability on that one, but some Republican supporter of Bush smeared McCain.)

And all the people who were big into the Clinton smears now are very pious about changing the tone in Washington. Jesus.

Posted by: zizka / John Emerson at February 13, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINK


Yeah, this aspect of the story may die. But the media has a sense right now that there's stuff in the records that Bush doesn't want people to see, and they'll continue to follow that thread.

This document got posted over at Atrios's site, and it has a couple of interesting things. First of all, there was another guy (James Bath) who got suspended the month after Bush for refusing to take his physical. He's been linked to Bush before, but what interested me was this bit:

"Off[icer] will comply with para 2-1, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13."

Anyone know what this means? I assume it has something to do with the regulations they violated, but googling on the reference (and I also tried assuming that it means Air Force Manual) turned up nothing.

Posted by: Kevin Brennan at February 13, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINK

"...and the president can't be expected to remember every little thing that happened 30 years ago--like being sentenced for a crime?"

"The author recounts Bush's steel-trap memory: He could remember all of Willie Mays's batting averages, and in 1988, he memorized the names and faces of 100 key Washington political reporters in preparation for his father's Presidential campaign."

Sounds like his memory isn't the problem.

Posted by: mac at February 13, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINK


I'll follow your posts with more regularity if you can promise to come up with some more novel forms of obfuscation.

Thx . . .


Posted by: tnd at February 13, 2004 09:51 AM | PERMALINK

Welcome to the non-story of the year (to everyone but Bush haters). By wasting so much time on this crap, you lose more credibility than the President.

Posted by: Ben at February 13, 2004 10:45 AM | PERMALINK


You wish.

It's getting a helluva lot of airtime for a "non-story".

Posted by: chris at February 13, 2004 10:50 AM | PERMALINK


Great reporting.

I agree with you that George Conn's new account does not contradict Burkett's own in the transcript you provided yesterday. Burkett never claimed that Conn "saw" the contents of the trash. Burkett claims only that HE saw the files in the trash.

Notice that Conn too uses that verb, "saw," in his kind of demurral.

A really good question would be: Had Conn HEARD about the file cleansing? The Burkett interview transcript is helpful in this regard. Conn is identified as a base maven (my word), which is to say, he knew everyone on base and knew what everyone was DOING. Burkett, in the transcript, reports that Conn appeared to have known about the cleansing Bush's files. Why, because Conn made such a show of walking him, without explanation, to the room where it was happening. Conn wanted someone, not himself, to witness the activities, and take the heat later for coming forward with that eyewitness reporting. That someone was Burkett. Meanwhile, in a kind of elision, Conn can say he himself "saw" nothing--this is not untrue. But he made sure that Burkett did.

Posted by: PaxR55 at February 13, 2004 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

keep up the good work, kevin!

i am still hearing about this in the screeching head media, so it ain't going away yet!

Posted by: skippy at February 13, 2004 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

What Chris said.

This story is being woven into a complicated web of he-said, she-said reporting, just as Herr Rove likes it. It seems like many of these people who have recently come forth to contradict incriminating statements have ties to right-wing organizations, but then all it really takes is a payoff and we know the Texas Oil Barons have plenty of dough. Regardless of why these Bush defenders have fluttered into the public spotlight like so many moths, their effect is to break up the story's narrative into a contest of accusations and vouches that will no longer resonates with the public. Only a black & white crime will indict Dubya in the hearts of the American public, since they are so accustomed to being lied to that they distrust the truth and any who speak it.

Posted by: Subterranean at February 13, 2004 02:28 PM | PERMALINK

The points you've neglected are that (a) the museum doesn't store service records, and (2) the service records themselves were transferred to Colorado in 1973, when Bush went inactive.

So what you've got is a guy who claims to have seen other people "cleansing" -- they'd call it "sanitizing", by the way, it's a term of art -- records that weren't there, being refuted by the same people he claims as witnesses.

Who has a grudge against the TANG anyway.

Can you say "bupkis"? You should practice, because that's what you've got.

You guys really are deranged.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 15, 2004 09:21 AM | PERMALINK

I dont know what to say, but i likeed it.

Posted by: France Kim at May 3, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINK


Great Blog!

big naturals

Posted by: mike in brazil at July 13, 2004 09:39 PM | PERMALINK pornography teenage blowjob bondage dog picture snake avi porn blondes penthouse html black dirty cam fake redheads cyberporn baby studren fuck rooms supermodels animalvideo realvideo adult cocks sexual japan als teen sound cunts nude jpg html fois japn beaucoup pissing d nus nues cum gros castor html animal sex enjoy now html femmes perverses html perverses pornographie sex html anal sexo grupal de ultimos fotos pornos imagenes regalo html escort hentai nude lover queens porn long fun sex html model cindy sexual demi animal shaved bodybuilder models ejacuations bears male animalvideos boy spam little bondage tit breast cats animalsex white pissing japanese games hiden erotica live cunts html site cul html fotos mar de sexo panochas cogiendo eroticas amadoras gratis html mamelon bite html oral cum sluts blowjobs sex drinking html shaved pass cum nudes video hardcore mpeg facials animals boy celebrity drink orgy nasty animalvideo man chat html x sexe gratuit html gay sex mov vivo fag html

Posted by: animalvideos pre blond male password redheads madonna at August 1, 2004 12:09 AM | PERMALINK oral anal picture sexo et chatte mouillie sexe clitoris huge gallery html penetration sperme fille image html girls white kara black getting pissed on by adult playground chicks pics html kara adult downblouse playground pics html geschlechtsverkehr html oral anal mouillie sexo chatte sexe et news photo bizarre penetration html anal sexo et chatte mouillie oral sexe amateur seins nus fermes html kara playground adult banned pics html penetracion html kara animee adult playground pics html kara adult pics gothic porn playground html gayman animals celebrities pics fetish liveshow hiden pissing sperma fisting eel net voyeur little pictures rooms intercourse shows html education html anal chupada en peliculas de relax sexo gratis raspando aaasexo oral html oma tot animal alt opa ausgezogen neu nemark holland belgien deutsch hard guy m auml spezial html re femmes viol d html

Posted by: handcuffs hard core titanic amatuers foot sperme cum sm fetish pics orgy big tits pamela and tommy l at August 2, 2004 04:22 PM | PERMALINK pussy free membership teen page html monkey bestiality index html coquine se fourrer hommes parking faire html beastalitystories index html tit mpeg jpg bodybuilder you teenager camera gays lesbians animalsex studren nude animals gymnast html les la cochonne par rocco bureau foutre au veut se dans coquine faire jouir toilettes html cher ses veulent rocco hotel nathalie copines se faire l par et enzo a html interacial cartoon toy model video check links adult wife stories free site chat html free model henti manga chat check video movie adult links site html classifieds model cartoon check video adult dvd chat html sexpages masos perverse amatrice html endowed nude women pictures photo28 html a hotel fesser au stars hommes l faire enculer par suceuses veulent se plusieurs travail les html adult passwords xxx warez dvd cartoon model free site html movie naturists toy adult model cartoon chat free site html anime picpost check free adult chat site dvd model movie links html

Posted by: Free Porn at August 3, 2004 04:14 AM | PERMALINK

6546 You can buy viagra from this site :

Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 03:18 PM | PERMALINK

2683 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

Posted by: texas holdem online at August 9, 2004 04:04 PM | PERMALINK

7363 ok you can play online poker at this address :

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:31 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

Posted by: penis enlargement at August 11, 2004 07:01 AM | PERMALINK

2875 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see.

Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINK

1713 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at

Posted by: blackjack at August 16, 2004 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

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

Posted by: Krankenversicherung at August 17, 2004 09:35 PM | PERMALINK

7998 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through pronto

Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 01:41 AM | PERMALINK

4552 for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model

Posted by: Adult DVD at August 19, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by viagra at Saturday 21 August 2004 22:17:59 for powered by car hire at and diecast

Posted by: viagra at August 21, 2004 01:17 PM | PERMALINK

7610 check out the hot blackjack at here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 04:54 AM | PERMALINK

3444 Herie is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

6280 check out for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 11:29 AM | PERMALINK
Contribute to Calpundit

Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter