July 15, 2005
Saddam and Osama in 1999
I haven’t written much at all – ever – about the links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The linkage always seemed pretty limited or stretched, and it had little or nothing to do with why I supported Iraqi regime-change. Saddam’s links to other terrorists – Abu Nidal, Hamas – have never been in doubt, but again that didn’t factor in all that much for me. I would have been in favor of removing him even if he hated all terrorists. I've been in favor of removing him for at least ten years now already, since before Al Qaeda even existed.
But listen to this audio clip. (Hat tip: Roger L. Simon.)
ABC News reported in 1999 that Osama bin Laden had a “long relationship” with his “friend” Saddam Hussein, that he was “welcome in Baghdad,” that he tried to get enriched uranium from Saddam, and that he also asked for political asylum in Iraq. They even have a clip of Osama himself admitting he hoped to get enriched uranium from Saddam.
That was in 1999. So, what changed in the meantime? Why did this ABC News report go down the memory hole all of a sudden?
Posted by Michael J. Totten at July 15, 2005 10:27 AMMichael, if this were true then Bush was right all along about Iraq and Bin Laden.......Gotta be fake !
Posted by: John at July 15, 2005 10:34 AMWhy did this ABC News report go down the memory hole all of a sudden?
For the same reason the MSM and the bushlied crowd collectively forgot that everybody and their pet dog was also saying Saddam had WDMs too in the late 90s. They must have all been lying. They won't be reasoned with-- Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Posted by: spaniard at July 15, 2005 10:36 AMRefresh my memory: who was President in 1999?
Posted by: exhelodrvr at July 15, 2005 10:44 AMRefresh my memory: who was President in 1999?
When I considered voting for John Kerry, this was part of my calculation. It's easier for liberals to be hawks when Democrats are in charge.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 15, 2005 10:46 AMDisclaimer - I think Saddam was a mass-murdering psycho and had no business running a country
---
If this information is factual, it gives us evidence that Bin Laden wanted to be friends with Saddam. It indicates that Saddam didn't think that Osama was Evil (imagine... two crazy people who don't think the other person is crazy)./ However, though Osama apparently 'wanted' stuff from Iraq, neither this 'news' nor any actual evidence supports the idea that Iraq wanted to give Osama stuff. Indeed, did Osama ever actually get political asylum from Saddam?
The Administration had bad intel, it appears that the Administration prefered to believe the bad intel because it supported their political goals. They apparently allowed the US population to believe the bad intel, in fact they seem to have re-inforced it.
We can judge the rightness or wrongness of the misdirection some day in the future, once we see if the gamble pays out. But, trying to find excuses to justify it now, seems dishonest.
Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at July 15, 2005 10:52 AMNot only have I been in favor of removing Saddam for more than 14 years now, but Ive been in favor of "draining the swamp" for about 8 or 10 years also.
Posted by: mnm at July 15, 2005 10:55 AMI hate to say it, but all of this is in a book written a couple years ago but virtually ignored by the world -- The Connection by Stephen Hayes. More recently, there's a 17-point listing of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda somewhere (sorry, I left the link on another computer; I saw it on RCP originally).
I think there's a tendency in the media to conveniently nonreport anything that supports the case for war.
Posted by: TallDave at July 15, 2005 10:56 AM"We can judge the rightness or wrongness of the misdirection some day in the future, once we see if the gamble pays out. But, trying to find excuses to justify it now, seems dishonest."
I don't get that, unless you are saying it is also dishonest to say the war is wrong.
Posted by: mnm at July 15, 2005 11:03 AMIt's dead because the 9/11 report thoroughly dealt with it.
From page 83 of the report:
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks on the United States.Posted by: Kimmitt at July 15, 2005 11:50 AM
It's dead because the 9/11 report thoroughly dealt with it.
The 9/11 Report thoroughly dealt with 9/11, not the fact that Osama was trying to get uranium from Saddam, as well as other contacts between his regime and international terror.
This clip proves that the bright line that the Dems have drawn between Iraq and the war on terror is disingenousness of the highest order.
Posted by: spaniard at July 15, 2005 12:11 PMThat is so dishonest, Kimmit. That there was no proof that bin laden and Saddam operated together on specific terrorist acts means nothing. It does not take operational ties for specific acts to give support to al Qaida, give training, money, or even vials of something lethal.
And there would be no guarantee that the ties we knew about and did not know about, would not develop into something stronger in the future.
Posted by: Syl at July 15, 2005 12:17 PMAny network that would try to educate the public about this would be laughed off the airwaves. The people already know that Saddam and Osama hate each other. You know, secular vs religious and all that.
If the media thought its job was to educate the public they would see this for the evidence of failure that it is. But since they have long gotten over that naive view of what the media is all about, replacing it with the 'speak truth to power, the facts be damned' approach, they could care less.
Posted by: Sweetie at July 15, 2005 12:52 PM"It does not take operational ties for specific acts to give support to al Qaida, give training, money, or even vials of something lethal."
Of course it does. That is the definition of "operational relationship".
Kimmet is absolutely right. This is a total non-story. All it is evidence of is that Osama wished for friendly ties with the dictator of Iraq. Well, duh.
But Saddam never gave him enriched uranium, nor political asylum. If anything, this story just reinforces the notion that that there were no ties between them, despite Osama's wishes.
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 12:58 PMOsama wished for friendly ties with the dictator of Iraq. Well, duh.
Why would OBL wish for friendly ties with Saddam?
Posted by: PC^KILLA at July 15, 2005 01:12 PM"Why would OBL wish for friendly ties with Saddam? "
So he could get some enriched uranium and political asylum......
enemy of my enemy etc.....worth a shot.
Karl, Karl, Karl. The definition of "operational relationship" is working together on an actual terrorist operation, and the definition of evidence is "we have some proof." It excludes sheltering, funding, and training, Saddam broadcasting anti-Saudi propaganda for Osama, and also any operational relationship our far-from-infallible intel orgs don't know about. There are numerous Iraqi Intel docs describing dealing with Al Qaeda on these things.
But that hasn't stopped people from making the disingenuous and dangerously misguided claim that "Saddam had nothing to with 9/11, the 911 Commission Report proves it" to score some cheap political points against Bush and the war.
Posted by: TallDave at July 15, 2005 01:35 PMs/b "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission Report proves it", forgive my sloppy typing
Posted by: TallDave at July 15, 2005 01:36 PM"Secular" Saddam vs Religious Bin Laden debunked:
President Saddam Hussein has taken delivery of a copy of the Koran written using his own blood.
Iraqi TV and newspapers reported that the Iraqi leader had the volume produced in thanks to God for bringing him safely through many "conspiracies and dangers" in his long political career.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/941490.stm
It's true that there was a good case to be made for war on Iraq without bin Laden and 9/11 (just as there is a good case to be made for war against North Korea today based on humanitarian and military reasons). Obviously invading Iraq was high on Bush's priority list when he was originally elected president.
But Bush's main mistake was to try to scare the American public into supporting the war (by talking about mushroom clouds, deliberately conflating Osama and Saddam, making fraudulent presentations at the UN, etc.) instead of offering us an honest argument and trying to build real support. (I still think the administration's shameless leveraging of 9/11 to justify an invasion they had decided upon long before, is one of the most immoral spectacles I have ever witnessed.)
A solid foundation of support from mainstream America, based on the realistic sacrifices this invasion would involve (instead of scare tactics and talk of "cakewalk" or whatever), would have gone a long way towards sustained support of the war.
Barring that, a competent execution of the invasion that took into consideration some basic things like border control and post-war occupation plans, would have made doubters such as myself have to admit we were wrong. That didn't happen either, and now support is fading as people realize what a load of crap they were sold.
It's depressing to think how different events might have been if the President really was a "straight shooter" and valued honesty, and accountability, and had the courage to hear, not to mention consider, alternative points of view to ones he currently holds.
Posted by: Northcoaster at July 15, 2005 01:45 PMIt would help to listen to the tape before arguing. Saddam also sent envoys to meet with Osama in Afghanistan, and Osama was told that he would always be welcome in Baghdad.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 15, 2005 01:45 PMIf this is such great evidence, and it's been around since at least 1999, why wasn't Colin Powell playing it at the UN when he made the case for the war? Why didn't we hear it night after night on Fox News back in '03? I'm suspicious about it's authenticity, verifiability, etc.
Posted by: Kung fu at July 15, 2005 01:47 PM"why wasn't Colin Powell playing it at the UN when he made the case for the war? Why didn't we hear it night after night on Fox News back in '03?"
For the same reason that the Kean commission didnt point to it. Or that Bush and Cheney never speak of it. Cuz their aint nothin' there. But hey, lets blame it on the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy!
Seems like yet some more pathetic spin from the heart of darkness (Ledeen-Simon wing).
Long live the sane center, eh?
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 02:10 PMKarl,
Did you listen to the recording? Just asking.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 15, 2005 02:26 PMenemy of my enemy etc.....worth a shot.
So Karl, can we agree that it would be equally logical for Saddam to reach out to OBL?
Posted by: PC^KILLA at July 15, 2005 02:37 PM"But Saddam never gave him enriched uranium, nor political asylum. If anything, this story just reinforces the notion that that there were no ties between them, despite Osama's wishes.
Posted by Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 12:58 PM
Karl, if Saddam would have given OBL what he wanted would you have supported armed invasion of Iraq?
Posted by: mnm at July 15, 2005 02:43 PM"So Karl, can we agree that it would be equally logical for Saddam to reach out to OBL?"
By that logic, sure. So why is it that they never established an operational relationship?
I dont know. But apparently they didnt. There were surely lots of factors involved. The enemy of my enemy could be my friend. But he can also be my enemy too. All manner of caculations go on, no doubt. Saddam had decades of experinece making such calculations.
Bottom line though - focussing on Saddam to combat alQ terrorism had no basis in reality.
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 02:45 PMWhy Saddam, why not ask for uranium from Pakistan or Saudi or Turkey.
Posted by: mnm at July 15, 2005 02:48 PMYes Michael, I listened to the clip. Who was the nutjob doing the commentary?
What do we have here? "Intellegence sources" are sure (!) that Osama was told he would be welcome in Baghdad, even though they had no idea what was discussed??? What intellegence sources were they? And why didnt Osama take up the offer?
Sudanese government officials working for Osama, sending out feelers for wmd? What ever came of that?
A "long relationship"? Merely asserted by the reporter, based on what? That Iraqis made nice with Sudanese at some point, and the Sudanese were "working for Osama"?
Yes, Osama tried to get WMD. Apparently he failed. This is a reason to go to war with Saddam?
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 03:05 PM"Karl, if Saddam would have given OBL what he wanted would you have supported armed invasion of Iraq?"
Yes.
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 03:07 PMBy that logic, sure.
And why would Saddam seek out OBL? What is it that OBL brings to the table that Saddam needs?
Posted by: PC^KILLA at July 15, 2005 03:21 PMKarl: Yes, Osama tried to get WMD. Apparently he failed. This is a reason to go to war with Saddam?
Actually, I think I made it clear that this has always been a sideshow for me. I just think the tape is interesting. Blast from the past indeed. There was a time when talking about Saddam and Osama as pals was not controversial.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 15, 2005 03:24 PM"And why would Saddam seek out OBL? What is it that OBL brings to the table that Saddam needs?"
Apparently nothing.
I answered your hypothetical - by the enemies-enemies logic, Saddam could seek out Osama. I guess he didnt though. Minor detail.....
No, Karl.
Saddam had little use for OBL's organization other than a convenient party in the game of plausible deniability.
Saddam had WMD programs and resources to implement such into practical weapons as soon as the UN inspection regime was lifted. That is a fact. Another is that both Saddam and OBL had the incentive and were actually seeking each other for mutual cooperation against the US. The inspection regime was irrevocably coming apart. Saddam wanted to exact his revenge. And he would have, if given more time.
Posted by: PC^KILLA at July 15, 2005 03:43 PMGiven the fact that Saddam has proven in the past to be a mad man, planning an assination attempt on George Sr. Killing his own with nerve agent, shooting scuds at Isreal who was not even involved in GW1, unprovoked invasion of a friendly neighbor and many many other atrocities and given the fact that of all the people in the world who may have access to Uranium, OBL reaches out to Saddam, don't you think a reasonable person would conclude that Saddam may some day give OBL what he wants taking in to consideration the whole friend of an enemy's enemy thing.
Well it's good to know Karl, that you would support armed invasion of Iraq only after Saddam gives OBL what he wants.
Posted by: mnm at July 15, 2005 03:44 PM"Karl, if Saddam would have given OBL what he wanted would you have supported armed invasion of Iraq?"
"Karl: Yes."
Why? What would have been the point of attacking Saddam after the fact? I thought the logic was to prevent the possibility, and not to wait for the imminent threat, let alone a fait accompli? If, e.g. Iran gets nukes, are we gonna attack them after the fact?
Posted by: Caroline at July 15, 2005 03:51 PM"Why Saddam, why not ask for uranium from Pakistan or Saudi or Turkey."
Why not ask them ALL.
And, speaking of Pakistan, Saddam (letalone bin laden) would have been delighted to partake of Khan's little nuke network...after the heat was off.
"And why would Saddam seek out OBL? What is it that OBL brings to the table that Saddam needs?"
Well, let's see. Syria is a secular baathist regime too. So, um, why are all those pesky foreign al Qaeda terrorists getting into Iraq from...Syria? If it's convenient to support terrorists, well, then use your imagination. Saddam might find it convenient. He never ever disavowed them.
And never forget Saddam's threat to us. He may not be able to touch us but he said "an individual Arab may reach you'. Now, how might that happen? Who could he get that he could disavow?
Posted by: Syl at July 15, 2005 04:14 PMBecause of the corporatist links between the media and the right wing administration. They set the agenda and tell you what to think, in this case supporting the imperialist and racist war for oil.
/moonbat off
Naa... speaking of uranium, probably the same reason all the recent reports on the Wilson leak I've read keep referring to him exposing bogus arguments used by the administration.... same memory whole I guess since, in fact, most of his allegation were the one’s shown to bogus... I'm voting pro dem bias in the media...
Posted by: Thomas at July 15, 2005 04:15 PM> Saddam also sent envoys to meet with Osama in
> Afghanistan, and Osama was told that he would
> always be welcome in Baghdad.
Michael, all that was summarized in the 9/11 report, as well. I don't blame the media for forgetting about an ABC story broadcast 6 years ago-- I blame them for downplaying the findings of a bipartisan commission that totally undermined their "no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" narrative.
On the other hand, a loudmouth rightwing AM radio jackass is hardly the best guy to stump for that point.
Posted by: W. James Au at July 15, 2005 04:41 PMThis is old news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
When this was dredged up again during the attempts of the Bush administration to link Saddam to al-Qaeda it was widley interpreted as a meeting of a low level freelance contact that nothing came of. Do you have any new evidence?
To say this is 'new' (or has only just re-surfaced) is patently un-true
Posted by: Robin Grant at July 15, 2005 05:18 PMGentlemen, I rest my case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,812827,00.html
I finally got to hear the audio clip now that I'm home from work. I was amused by how much weight the annoying right-wing DJ is putting into a report from that liberal MSM!
Posted by: Northcoaster at July 15, 2005 05:27 PM"...how much weight the annoying right-wing DJ is putting into a report from that liberal MSM'
The MSM tells the clear and unadulterated truth.
When they say things that you want to hear.
They are pinko traiterous scum when they say something that rocks your boat.
Subtle this strategy aint.
Posted by: at July 15, 2005 06:00 PMMichael
You've got savvy, I'm surprised at you. This is old news, been dealt with.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,812827,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
This clip is more of a rather loud and skewed attack on ABC by a rather obnoxious sounding bloke, rather than anything of value.
Posted by: Benjamin at July 15, 2005 06:16 PMRobin,
You rest what case? That might have been the most retarded post in the history of www.michaeltotten.com and we are all a little dumber having read it, may god have mercy on your soul.
Posted by: mnm at July 15, 2005 06:17 PMNorthcoaster
But Bush's main mistake was to try to scare the American public into supporting the war (by talking about mushroom clouds, deliberately conflating Osama and Saddam, making fraudulent presentations at the UN, etc.) instead of offering us an honest argument and trying to build real support. (I still think the administration's shameless leveraging of 9/11 to justify an invasion they had decided upon long before, is one of the most immoral spectacles I have ever witnessed.)
You know I did not support the President at the time, did not vote for him, and would have been inclined to think the worst just as you. The fact is when one puts everything in the full perspective with what was "common knowledge" by everyone at the time, in both the intelligence and political community, it would have been ridiculous to suggest there was not any WMD's, and Saddam wasn't much of a threat, in fact in a post 911 world it would have be irresponsible for him to do anything less then assume the worst. What reason was given us by Saddam to not assume the worst and that he had WMD's? He kicked out the weapons inspectors, violated the terms of the ceasefire from 1991, was shooting at planes in the no-fly zone and was known to have mass-murdered even after the 1991 war.
You ascribe all sort of deviant reasoning's to Bush's motives but then again I'm sure you just know what a bad seed he is right? The truth is as much as I disliked Bush at the time all such conspiratorial rantings of which yours is the least is what lead me to do a serious double take. The fact is Bush did not chose the pretext of arguments he needed to make, the UN did. Sure, Bush wanted to take Saddam out, and thankfully so, anyone with an ability to put personal prejudice aside knows what Bush's main reasons for the actions he took against Iraq, but he nonetheless properly used the UN's own pretexts and went with what was common knowledge at the time. You say fraudulent? Until Bush and his actual calling in all cards his arguments were not out of context and never would have been considered fraudulent, this is why they worked. He wisely quoted Kerry, Clinton, and every other Democrat and used their words and arguments. In this he not only boxed in Saddam but also Democrats and made it difficult if not impossible for them to oppose him, hence the high support in the congressional vote. He didn't deceive or defraud anyone he called them on their own words and now you want to call him fraudulent? Actually in this you are calling he whole world fraudulent which is closer to the truth for to hold this against Bush, and not Democrats, the United Nations, and the rest of the "Oil for Blood" world that had made wretched blood purchased peace with a murderous man thumbing his nose in defiant contempt toward the world and humanity.
The fact is your sense of morality is selective and as such I will spare the rest because my guess is what you care about is out of sorts anyway.
Joseph Samuel Friedman
Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2005 06:20 PMJoseph,
He certainly could well have had legitimate suspicisions. And he certainly had the responsibility to do what was necessary for the security of the country, irresepective of its popularity. But there was a clear and obvious way forward. Forced, cumpulsory insepctions, lasting as long as necessary to resolve the issue.
It seems clear now, however, that he first made the decision to go to war. He needed to be convinced / pressured to even go to Congress for authorization, and he needed to be convinced to go to the UN. All that was just slowing down a war plan that was already being marketed. He got his resolution, calling for inspections, and the inspectors were let in. And they had the freedom to do real inspections. And then he arbitrarily called them off and invaded. It was clearly a sham.
Belief in the existence of WMD gave him every right to put the issue front and center, and to push for a resolution. But he seems not to have had the slightest interest in any resolution short of war. And that is why he hyped and outright lied about the nature of the evidence. He was not interested in finding real evidence through inspections - he had his mind made up and that was that.
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 07:30 PMBelief in the existence of WMD gave him every right to put the issue front and center, and to push for a resolution. But he seems not to have had the slightest interest in any resolution short of war..."
Good for him. A true leader. He saw what needed to be done and he did it. Three years later and a lifetime of examples of why the enemy must be defeated behind us, and this endless dance continues. On and on and on, and just for variey on......
This ridiculous intellectual masturbation is not even tedious any longer. It's just totally irrelevant. People are being blown up in London by jihadist lunatics, and the debate is still over what did GWB know and when did he know it.
Who Cares ?
Karl: "He was not interested in finding real evidence through inspections - he had his mind made up and that was that."
So you don't think that Saddam had sufficiently proved himself to be quite adept, for many years, at evading inspections? And if he had satisfied (or possibly evaded) the inspectors one more time, I assume you were willing to feel it safe enough to lift the sanctions of Iraq and let Saddam go on about his business? (Or out of curiosity, what precisely was your solution to ending the sanctions?)
Posted by: Caroline at July 15, 2005 08:34 PMDougf has it straight on. Talk all you want, not one word will affect the next bomber. I just came over from reading the BBC pocket bio's on the four London bombers. One was 30, married, a little daughter, an elementary school teacher for the last few years. A killer's profile? But it will eventually emerge that he had a mentor of sorts. A handler that found his jihadist nerve, wired it to kill innocents for Allah, and got him the explosives to do it. Two of the younger ones, 18 and 22, had recently returned from Pakistani vacations spent in madrassas that seem to churn out so many suicidal intellectuals. Slam dunk on those two. Nice boys, they were, according to family and friends. That handler had those guys from the first hello. The fourth was a mystery Jamaican. Maybe. Waiting on the dna. We will know when the "moderate" Muslims are coming around to fighting with us against the terrorists when the stories begin trickling in about these Islamo-fascist pimps being turned in by the moderates. In any neighborhood, most people know who's who. So far, not a peep. They are scared, and they haven't shown the will to get their hands dirty. Just declarations about how this is not true Islam, all this suicide bombing of everyday people. I'm still hoping though.
Posted by: allan at July 15, 2005 09:12 PM"Good for him. A true leader."
And that makes you a true follower. No questions asked, I'll just trust what my great leader says. Pathetic.
"Who Cares ? "
I guess you don't.
Do you make it a habit of butting into other people's conversation when you have no interest in the discusssion, and nothing intellegent to say?
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 15, 2005 10:08 PM"Talk all you want, not one word will affect the next bomber."
Thank you for setting us straight on that Allan. Ya see, we were discussing these matters with the fond hope that the weight of our words would somehow transform the world into a beuatiful and peaceful place, free of all strife, contention, and terrorists.
Oh well...
"It's dead because the 9/11 report thoroughly dealt with it.
From page 83 of the report
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks on the United States."
So no evidence seen becomes proof that none ever existed?
Wow I am glad YOU are not in charge of threat analysis for the Nation.
That kind of logical blindness convinces me more and more the Republic can never afford a Proggesive Leftist Administration.
The main supporter had contacts with Bin Laden but because we cannot find documentation of actual operational plans none ever existed and OF COURSE Bin Laden was the ONLY terrorist in a generation that Iraq did NOT support?
I wonder what Salman Pak was for? You know the training camp that even had an entire jet airliner to practice hijacking on?
"Refresh my memory: who was President in 1999?
When I considered voting for John Kerry, this was part of my calculation. It's easier for liberals to be hawks when Democrats are in charge"
THINK Michael? Voting for people who play games with the Security of the Nation, just so they can gain power?
I will admit they probably have a greater opinion of the capabilities of the US than some of us. Attacked we wish to attack back, they lie about it and figure they can sort things out AFTER they regain political power.
Posted by: at July 15, 2005 10:57 PMKarl Jr.
First I want to acknowledge your approach and reasoning are better then most and the fact that there are legitimate reasons to disagree with this President. I get very frustrated because before I voted for Bush I had been a long time Democrat and truly understand many of the legitimate reasons someone might disagree with this President on issues of War and Peace, the fact is I appreciate them more then I might sometimes lead on. But even more true is that fact that I grow tired of the damn personalization and apparent necessity of my former compadres on the liberal-left to cast everything in the light of conspiracy, ill-will and subversive intent on the part of Bush, it just isn't true and unnecessary.
I will add to the above that this President if anything is the most straight forward President in my lifetime with the exception of Carter (who I voted for), but political adeptness is something Carter lacked and Bush has shown in spades. On this point whether one agrees with Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or our current President it doesn't require very much intellectual honesty to recognize the political gifts and skills each possess as different as they might be. Bush's political skill to turn the tables on Democrats has quite frankly been uncanny and he appears to outdo himself each time, but this is not based in dishonesty or subversion and the Democrats will never gain the support of a clear majority until they prove themselves more grownup then they have behaved in this. The truth is Bush has the bully pulpit and wins, plain and simple. So when you say...
He certainly could well have had legitimate suspicisions. And he certainly had the responsibility to do what was necessary for the security of the country, irrespective of its popularity.
I would say... absolutely, but where his suspicions unique? No! There was basic consensus in both parties, so what changed? The Democratic position did and I know because I live here in Washington D.C. and was much involved at that time and know what the policies where. The President simply held the U.N., Democrats and others to account for all this, he turned the tables. I was not with the President on this at the time and I was with everyone one else clamoring for multilateralism and involving the U.N. and let's be honest, this was our desire to keep him (Bush) in check. I never expected to see a reversal of fortunes on this matter but that is exactly what happened. Bush won fair and square, sure he had a prescribed outcome he wanted but he didn't "cheat" getting there, he just out flanked the Democrats and the Democrats have been wasting their time and political capital trying to rewrite this story ever sense, it is just silly. Of course your above statement is straight forward and true. But the next is very subjective and open honest disagreement...
But there was a clear and obvious way forward. Forced, cumpulsory insepctions, lasting as long as necessary to resolve the issue.
This is where judgment and prerogatives of leadership comes to play. What you put forward as "clear and obvious" is clearly the Democratic Party approach. Only one problem, Bush is a Republican with his own legitimate prerogatives. Bush is a man of action not of talk, remember we had been through all this before, Saddam thought he could hide behind Chirac, Schroeder and the U.N. and balked... big mistake as this showed a clear misreading of Bush. Eventually this became obvious and when Saddam's son's predicted their impending doom they said, "Bush isn't like Clinton he really means it." They actually showed a truer understanding of Bush then all the politicos that waste their time trying to tear him down on a personal level, they have picked the most unassailable trait the man has and played an all or nothing game in trying to tarnish that image and have come up empty. They are now trying to do it using Rove as a proxy. A big waste! The truth his Bush had the right to pull the trigger, many thought he should wait, but for whatever reason knocking the whole table over and throwing a tantrum while we are at war has relegated the Party to a lesser status. The real kicker is if the Republicans gain seats again it will be the first time in History a President has gained seats in every congressional election after coming to office. The Democrats are hell-bent on making this happen. Now the next seems reasonable enough...
It seems clear now, however, that he first made the decision to go to war. He needed to be convinced / pressured to even go to Congress for authorization, and he needed to be convinced to go to the UN. All that was just slowing down a war plan that was already being marketed. He got his resolution, calling for inspections, and the inspectors were let in. And they had the freedom to do real inspections. And then he arbitrarily called them off and invaded. It was clearly a sham.
Well reasonable until the sham phrase, sham by Bush or Saddam? Sure, it was a "I am going to count to one" Bush clearly thought Saddam wouldn't comply and Saddam didn't, the sham part is truly our allies that expect "I am counting to one" to mean "you can expect two or three more chances". That Bush didn't do such didn't make it a sham, it meant he was going to enforce rulings to the letter, Bush didn't bait and switch anything, he didn't employ deceit which is what a sham implies, whatever sham there you perceive was more created by the UN our allies and former administrations that never followed through on their threat, to them go the blame not Bush because he was there to change such silliness... get it? If you don't then I doubt you ever will. Policy differences do not make dishonesties, subversions or deceit. The true problem is Bush's straightforwardness up against the backdrop of a world that Saddam had no reason to think would hold him to account, the oil for food scandal makes this clear. Now the load in the following says it all...
Belief in the existence of WMD gave him every right to put the issue front and center, and to push for a resolution. But he seems not to have had the slightest interest in any resolution short of war. And that is why he hyped and outright lied about the nature of the evidence. He was not interested in finding real evidence through inspections - he had his mind made up and that was that.
Do you really think Bush would have gone to War if Saddam didn't play cat and mouse? Do you think he would have gone to War in Afghanistan had they turned over Bin Laden? Now you may think Bush was asking what would be near impossible to accomplish but he had every reason and right to do as much. He had the right to be true to his policies he believes will make the world safe. I know many feel strongly it should be done differently, many of his supporter would say as much, but he has shown a willingness and stomach for the fight. Bush doesn't do nuance, he did make up his mind he was "last chance sheriff", but Karl, he views the life or death nature and this clash of civilizations in very different terms then you do. Now what you said above is fine except the "outright lied" part. How long Democrats will choke on such things remains to be seen. Bush is a hawk that doesn't do nuance, you aren't comfortable with that which is understandable, but these differences do not add up to lies. When the Democrats start focusing on policy rather then personalizing, calling disagreements lies, and claiming how they wouldn't have made the mistakes Bush made while they are piling up their own mistakes, they will have more political opportunities, but as of now other then showing they collectively lack the stomach for the fight, I don't know what their policy is. Oh I know what Democrats wouldn't do, and in a multilateral fantasy world what they would have magically convinced our allies to do (cooperate more, whatever that means) This translates into appeasement and I say "no thanks". Karl, I am sure on many other issues besides National Security we would agree. But I am with Ed Koch and my view is the same, fighting for civilization trumps arguing on the margins of tax policy and like Ed Koch this former Democrat doesn't think but knows the Democratic Party on the whole doesn't have the stomach for this long fight. It is clear you don't see the WOT the way I do, plain and simple, but that doesn't make you a liar either.
Joseph Samuel Friedman
Posted by: Joseph at July 15, 2005 11:13 PM"But there was a clear and obvious way forward. Forced, cumpulsory insepctions, lasting as long as necessary to resolve the issue."
Yep that is exactly what we did, there are few things as effective as USCENTCOM to put some meaning into the word cumpulsory
What exactly did YOU have in mind if they said no?
I mean cumpulsory has to mean cumpulsory or it means nothing.
Posted by: at July 15, 2005 11:25 PMTotten, the report is odd and the radio guy is very annoying. At the start of the clip the woman claims that the American government "suspects" UBL is trying to buy yellow cake. I have no faith in the media, this might be another Nazi Idaho, killer bee, everyone has aids story.
Posted by: Mike#3or4 at July 15, 2005 11:37 PMJoseph,
Its 2:30 AM, and i cant do your long post the justice it deserves. But a few quick comments.
You speak of Bush's political mastery over the dems, but I must say, i am much less impressed. First of all, he is the president, so he has a lot of power to begin with. Secondly, the nation was attacked. People looked to him for leadership. He did well with the obvious response, in Afghanistan, and his approvals went up to 90%. At that point even Jimmy Carter could have had his way politically for quite some time. In addition, there was an ongoing war against al-Q, with no clear benchmarks for success or failure (other than another attack), so he could coast a long time in the war-president guise. This does not take political mastery, it is more simply the circumstances. One can even say that to go from 90% approval to a bare 51% re-election against a less-than-ideal opponent, in just three years is a pretty bad political performance. So long as war is in the air, a president has enormous political advantages, not the least from all those who seem to think it treasonous to criticize the government in war time.
As for the inspections, I think he did employ deciet. He had no intention to do anything other than go to war. Yet he pretended that through the inspection regime, there was a path toward a different resolution. He had some success in convincing the world that Saddam needed to be disarmed (he got the first UN resolution), but a lot of the deep anger toward him, around the world, is the sense of being lied to about the whole UN gambit. That it was a sham.
I dont consider Bush to be a straight shooter at all. I dont believe he went to war as a last resort, as he said. I think he made his decision to go to war the previous summer, and lauched a marketing campaign to sell the idea to the nation and the world. And he said whatever he needed to say to disarm his critics, irrespective of the truth of his intentions.
And yes, he did lie about the nature of the evidence. He expressed certainty about the existence of WMD when no reasonable person could be certain. Rumsfeld went so far as to claim to know exactly where the WMD were, when clearly he did not, for there were none in existence. They talked of not wanting smoking guns to be mushroom clouds, when they knew for certain that he had no nukes. He repeatedly invoked the aluminum tubes as evidence when the experts in the Energy Dept were sure they could not be used for centrifuges, and only the political types were maintaining that they could. At every turn he expressed with certainty or near-certainty evidence that was weak, or flimsy, or non-existent.
You consider that straight-shooting? To me it qualifies as lies. At least that is what my momma taught me.
I think the democrats have the stomach for the fight. That is why they voted unanimously in the Senate, and almost unanimously in the House for the war in Afghanistan. They (or most of them) do not beleive that the war in Iraq was a wise move as part of a war against the islamists. And I certainly dont see now that any progress against these people, the real enemy, has come from the Iraq war. There are troubling signs that things have gotten worse as a result. We probably wont know for quite some time. But I dont think it fair to make the type of charges that you do. A hypothetical democrat in the WH would have probbly persued the war against the islamists without an iraqi front. That is a difference in tactics, not in commitment or courage. And it may have worked out better as well.
Posted by: Karl Jr. at July 16, 2005 12:06 AMKarl, the base of the Democratic Party doesn't have the stomach for it by comparison most Democrats even realize this. Also you think the War was to Bush's advantage? He was sitting in Truman's and LBJ's chair and weathered what they couldn't. Without the War Bush would have won in a landslide with more then 55% of the vote. Anyway you believe what your want your perspective is jaded, my support for him is mostly WOT. He wins ugly but he wins, he has dictated the agenda more then Clinton ever did and he did so before September 11th on taxes. On most issues he has started with less then 50% approval, including War, and proceeded to win the arguments. His opponents dismissal of him (similar to yours) is why he does, but hey, if you don't think he has been rolling the Dems over and over and think Dems have been fairing ok then so be it. If you think Bush has little to do with it then if and when in the next midterm elections congressional gains are made for the third consecutive time, something never accomplished by the Party in Presidential power, you can also chalk that up as nothing impressive, or that Bush has little to do with it. Either way it doesn't matter, the Dems are getting rolled and it is sad.
Posted by: Joseph at July 16, 2005 12:31 AMI hate this stupid meme that so many people utter with smugness... as if it is the person who dares to believe in any connection who is the idiot.
Its as simple as the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I remember watching a Frontline episode after the 91 Gulf War showing WMD supplies transiting through an Iraqi warehouse, they were clearly stamped in English script "Al Queda", back then I didnt really pay it much attention, but the episode was replayed a few years ago and my wife and I laughed outloud when we saw those crates again.
I wrote about this back in May, here... http://www.seanlafreniere.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_seanlafreniere_archive.html#111735709100618354
And back in April of 2003, here...
http://seanlafreniere.blogspot.com/2003_04_06_seanlafreniere_archive.html#92512424
And we should all keep in mind that the Czech still stand by their report that 9-11 ringleader met with Iraqi security cheif and recieved a wire transfer of moe than $50k days before the attacks on NY and Dc.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/
Posted by: sean at July 16, 2005 01:04 AMKarl: "He had some success in convincing the world that Saddam needed to be disarmed (he got the first UN resolution), but a lot of the deep anger toward him, around the world, is the sense of being lied to about the whole UN gambit."
IIRC, we sent troops to the Gulf after getting that 1st UN resolution (or was it like the 17th such resolution?). After our troops were already stationed there, Blair convinced Bush to go back for one more resolution and it was at that point that the French, who had heretofore appeared to be behind us, announced that they would veto any further resolutions. That was AFTER our troops were already in theatre. Furthermore, the claims that Saddam was starting to come clean (after the 1st and before the 2nd resolution) - were clearly related to the fact that we had troops over here. When France said they would veto, the implication was that we would have to leave our troops there for some indefinite period of time or turn around and bring them home, while setting off again on another round of Saddam playing the same game. I had also initally favored going in only with UN approval but you have to look at the actual facts confronting us in around February/early March 2003 (again, this is my recollection of the timeline, open to correction) - troops stationed, no second resolution coming due to the French, Saddam appearing to cooperate somewhat because our troops were actually over there, signalling that we meant business. Now add to that situation something which many people seem to forget - namely that summer was coming on. There appeared to be some agreement that if we waited even several more months for this to play out, our troops would be significantly hampered in fighting the war itself. It was at that point, that I was willing to go in without another resolution because we were being played by both Saddam and the French (we now know why) but it was our troops (the ones who were actually going to fight this war!) who were going to pay the price for all this. But - so let's assume we did what you and apparently many others would have recommended - bring the troops already stationed there home, maybe let it go on through the summer, send them back in the fall if the game continued once we had left etc. Given 12 years of this game and 17 prior resolutions why do you think anything would have changed? And again I ask you, in response to your statement that we should have given the inspections as long as necessary - what did you propose to do about the sanctions which had gone on for 12 years? Continue them for years more, despite what we understood to be the impact on the iraqi people? At some point we would have had to lift them. And the Darfur report showed that Saddam was prepared to reconstitute all his programs and could have done so within a few months of the sanctions being lifted so obviously lifting the sanctions wasn't an option.
Posted by: Caroline at July 16, 2005 06:17 AMJebus Totten, a mind is a terrble thing to waste.
(p.s. this small thing left framey posty thing of yours shows up like shit in firefox.)
Posted by: jerry at July 16, 2005 07:21 AMToday i really need to get some work done :), so just a few quick responses.
Joseph - I do not claim that the dems arent being rolled. I claim that it is less because of any great political skill on Bush's part, than the circumstances of being the prez when the country was attacked. I think the political quagmire of the last few months - the big nothing that has come from spending his election capital - is evidence of that. Lets just see what happens in 06, ok?
Carolin - I agree that the presence of our troops and the sense that war might be imminent was the factor which made the inspections a workable solution. Without a credible threat, they would not have worked. But your points about the timing of the invasion relative to the seasons just begs the point. That consideration can only be made once you assume that war is inevitable. If it is, then sure, get the timing right. But the whole point of my approach, which is also the approach that Bush was pretending to follow, was that war would not be inevitable, and that the inspections would proceed till wmd were found, or determined convincingly not to be there.
As far as France is concerned, their unwillingness to ever agree to war is irrelevant. We could have proceeded with the inspections, and if at some point, we determined that there were reasons to invade (contined blocking of inspections, wmd all over the place, evidence that wmd were being sold or given to terrorists etc) then we could have invaded without the French, and most people (obviously never all people) in this country and around the world would have found it completely justified.
Well if this constitutes "terrorist ties" and a reason for war, why haven't we invaded Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia long ago? Oh, I almost forgot, one is our dealer and the other one our trusted ally...
Posted by: novakant at July 16, 2005 08:29 AMThe problem we see here is that the "Bush lied!" crowd (i.e., Democrats) and the MSM (same thing) would impose a burden of proof on the administration more appropriate to a criminal trial on the Saddam-al Qaeda connection, yet this was not the standard imposed on the Clintonites.
This, and the fact that liberals have yet to offer any strategic alternatives to dealing with Saddam and the greater issues of the GWOT, simply demonstrates that they are not serious people, therefore I no longer listen to what they have to say.
Posted by: SWLiP at July 16, 2005 09:03 AMKarl, you make some reasonable arguments, and I think reasonable people can make reasonable arguments about the direction this country has taken in regards to the WOT even if I completely disagree, but the fact is we are in Iraq now and we need to win. United I think our odds of success are much greater.
This constant criticism from the left is not helping, if anything it is putting wind in the sails of our enemys. What good does that do?
I truly believe that if the left would put their criticisms on pause we would get this thing won faster and with less soldiers being killed.
It would be a huge blow to the moral of the insurgency if we were united and I think everyone would agree that's a good thing.
Posted by: mnm at July 16, 2005 09:08 AMthen we could have invaded without the French, and most people (obviously never all people) in this country and around the world would have found it completely justified.
Most people already have found it completely justified. The detractions come from a small but very loud minority whose message was helped and amplified by the MSM. Sorry you bought into the MSM's leftist echo chamber and reality field distortions, but more and more people like you are learning they are in the minority. Bush, Blair, Howard, all won their reelection.
Posted by: PC^KILLA at July 16, 2005 09:34 AMKarl: "But the whole point of my approach, which is also the approach that Bush was pretending to follow, was that war would not be inevitable, and that the inspections would proceed till wmd were found, or determined convincingly not to be there."
Karl, I just spent a few minutes refreshing my memory by googling the status of weapons inspections back in February 2003. That was also the time of Powell's presentation to the UN. At the time Hans Blix made a lot of conflicting statements about the extent to which he felt Saddam was continuing to evade the inspections, and that was with the credible threat of our troops stationed there.
But - let's assume that we had continued to station the troops there until we had verified that there were no WMD. After that, what? Lift the sanctions and bring the troops home? Or endless containment - and what would such containment have involved? Sanctions? For how long? We know after the fact that there were no WMD (although some still maintain that it was the lengthy UN process that may have permitted Saddam to remove whatever he had and one still has to wonder whether an endless inspection routine could have allowed precisely that, as we didn't know at the time whether he had WMD's or not) - BUT, we also know after the fact from the Dulfur report, that Saddam had both the capacity and the INTENTION to rapidly reconstitute his programs after the sanctions were lifted.
So - again I ask you - what was your long term solution to the sanctions? IIRC it was liberals who were screaming the loudest that the sanctions had killed 100,000 Iraqi children. The sanctions were also one of UBL's primary grievances in attacking us on 9/11. What was your solution to the sanctions?
Posted by: Caroline at July 16, 2005 09:43 AMAs another Kerry voter who has been impressed by Bush's integrity (his wisdom requires more discussion) with regards to terrorism and democracy, I must say that some recent lengthy comments by Joseph Friedman should be read by all liberals and Democrats. I still like to think of myself as 'liberal' in the best sense of the word, but I also believe that 'brain dead' might characterize how Democrats have been talking lately (not to mention the Huffington Post).
Posted by: Benjamin Orion at July 16, 2005 10:01 AMwhy wasn't Colin Powell playing it at the UN when he made the case for the war?
If you look at the wording of the resolutions, you'll see to some extent it was, but Colin Powell didn't make a big presentation on it because the UN case wasn't about Al Qaeda, it was about the 17 UN Resolutions demanding Iraq comply with WMD inspections, which he never did. But fwiw, Doug Feith agrees the terrorism case should have been made.
You know, it's worth pointing out that had Saddam agreed to fully cooperate with inspections on Feb 2005, his heinous regime would probably still be in power.
But now that he isn't, there is new evidence not available in 1999: seized Iraqi intel documents. And they prove out the connection pretty definitively.
Posted by: TallDave at July 16, 2005 10:15 AMPIMF! 2003, not 2005.
Posted by: TallDave at July 16, 2005 10:16 AMJoseph: Without the War Bush would have won in a landslide with more then 55% of the vote.
I doubt it. I wouldn't have voted for him without the war, and neither would anyone else I know who switched their vote from 2000 to 2004.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 16, 2005 11:39 AMMJT, I think you are incorrect. If Pres Bush had rested on his laurels after Afghanistan, he would have won in a landslide.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at July 16, 2005 11:46 AMexhelodrvr,
I see. I meant without the Terror War in general, not the Iraq war in particular.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 16, 2005 12:20 PMTallDave wrote:
I think there's a tendency in the media to conveniently nonreport anything that supports the case for war.
I'm not sure what world TallDave is living in. I think the media did a spendid job of giving all the parties who wanted to wage war in Iraq plenty of time to make their case. There was plenty of media coverage on the "Case for war". Unfortunately, the case made for war was based on misinformation, bad intelligence and a willingness to take as fact things that were not certain evidence (not certain by a long shot). I don't think you can blame the media for covering the false Nigerian yellow-cake claims and the erroneous 6 month nuclear capability of Iraq. This got plenty of coverage before the war started. They are just doing their job by reporting the bad news. Now that the war is being waged and going badly, it is easy to "blame the media" for not supporting it. You can't have it both ways though. If the primary case for war was weapons of mass destruction (and that WAS the primary case made at the UN general assembly by Colin Powell) and that primary case falls through miserably. Then we can't expect media to ignore that in favor of reporting what a bad man Saddam was.
Posted by: Jim Jones at July 16, 2005 12:56 PMMJT:
I think the point is that the Iraq invasion was politically very expensive for Bush, but he believed it was of overriding importance in furthering the objectives of the GWOT. The fact that he would pursue a course based on his conviction that it was the right thing to do, despite the possible fatal political consequences to himself (it did almost cost him the election in '04. If not for the internet keeping the Swiftboat Veterans alive long enough to force the MSM to deal with them he would probably have been defeated) speaks very highly of his integrity.
Those not blinded by their personal animus for the man or their ideology see this whether they agree with his specific policies or not. To such people, the extreme hatred and mischaracterizations of the Democrats is more than off-putting. They've become the crazy shouter on the sidewalk that you cross the street to avoid.
+1 on J.S. Friedman's superb posting. His clarity, honesty, and fairness sets a high water mark in every post he graces with his commentary. I wish he would start his own blog!
Posted by: Paul at July 16, 2005 01:07 PMSpaniard wrote:
This clip proves that the bright line that the Dems have drawn between Iraq and the war on terror is disingenousness of the highest order.
I love how Totten and Spaniard use the same words (down the memory hole, bright line) of the obviously right wing radio commentator. Don't you guys have your own catch phrases? I don't think this clip really proves anything. Far too many uses of the word "allege" and "allegation". So the most that it proves is that bin Laden wanted nuclear weapons. There are almost no official people named and no way to substantiate any of this. The only thing I think it proves is that bin Laden had a desire to get nukes and thought maybe Saddam could give it to him. Well big news, Saddam didn't have nukes (don't you remember Bush joking about not finding them at the 2004 Press Club Banquet) and Saddam never did give bin Laden asylum. Certainly not airtight evidence of any sort of collaboration and certainly not worth invading Iraq at the cost that has already been paid. Not by a long shot...
Posted by: Jim Jones at July 16, 2005 01:09 PMTotten wrote:
Actually, I think I made it clear that this has always been a sideshow for me. I just think the tape is interesting. Blast from the past indeed. There was a time when talking about Saddam and Osama as pals was not controversial.
Must ... backpedal ... faster...
Posted by: at July 16, 2005 01:15 PMJim Jones,
"Memory hole" is from George Orwell. The radio show host did not invent it himself.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 16, 2005 01:42 PMJim Jones,
I'm living in the real world. Feel free to visit me here any time.
Why haven't the media reported the Iraqi Intel docs that show the Saddam-Osama connection? Why has Stephen Hayes' book been ignored? Why is it barely mentioned that contrary to what Joe Wilson claimed, his report bolstered the claims Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger?
Posted by: TallDave at July 16, 2005 02:43 PMWell, if Osama thought Saddam had WMDs, why should we have considered the possibility at all? I mean, he was an obviously innefectual looney who couldn't have harmed us at all....
Posted by: Mark Poling at July 16, 2005 03:21 PMKarl -
" First of all, he is the president, so he has a lot of power to begin with."
I've always held that a key factor in the 9/11 attacks was the picture our media had painted of the early Bush administration.
1. Out of touch.
2. Simple (putting it mildly)
3. Lacking in credibility or public support.
The best time to kick a big guy is when he is down.
When the Reality Based Community reads the NY Times and believes what is in the print, it's just par for the course.
When a barbarian half a world a way bases strategic decisions on what he reads in the Times or hears on CNN, getting burned probably comes as a rude surprise.
Joseph -
Nice to see you again, sir.
I think that Bush's political instincts and maneuvering are excellent, too - but then again the current cream of the Democrat crop comes across as chainsmokers working in a fireworks factory.
Say what you intend to do. Do it. Move on to the next challenge.
How hard is that to understand?
The Left is running out of victims; populist promises aren't getting any traction in an ownership society, either.
And people still want to kill us. That counts for a lot. I know which side of the aisle will keep the pressure on.
2006 is going to be a great year. I hope that Michael follows the elections closely, and that you bring your insights here.
Posted by: TmjUtah at July 16, 2005 03:27 PMexhelodrvr
Thank you for so accurately clarifying my point. Had Bush ended with victory in Afghanistan followed by time flattering the public, 53-57% would have been his range. The truth is Larry Sabato has Bush pegged as close as anyone, Bush pulled of an amazing political feat and survived a negative war environment that would have doomed most. He could have been like LBJ with Vietnam or Truman with Korea, they couldn't overcome their predicaments or didn't try. The fact that he received a clear majority, something that hadn't been done since 1988 and a feat in and of itself, saddled with an unpopular War is a testament to what he pulled off.
MJT
I see by your 2nd response more understanding to what I meant, I should have been clearer. Now even taking your response on the grounds as you stated before exhelodrvr's clarification, you made a point I very much agree with in that you point out that people like you or I may not have voted for Bush (without the GWOT I just don't see myself voting for him), but this doesn't near negate the fact that many people who voted for him in 2000 did not in 2004 for reasons very much inverted to ours. One truth I don't find joy in admitting but must be said is that quite frankly us Liberal Hawks aren't as great of numbers as we would like to think, certainly not near enough to have given him re-election, the 'new voter' gains he made among Social Conservatives eclipsed ours by miles. It was new voters more then people crossing lines that made the difference. In fact in the line-crossing game Bush lost ground. If one compares the actual numbers between 2000 and 2004 in Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (also New Hampshire a State that flipped against him), had he carried the Republican suburbs with the same numbers he had in 2000, he would have carried all these states. The reason why Bush lost ground in these usual Republican areas? IRAQ! People who think Bush benefited from Iraq, or neglect to realize the unnecessary risk it was in political terms (I am obviously not talking about you Michael) I think just don't understand politics. Bush had way more to lose then gain, in fact he almost lost an election he most certainly would have easily won, Tom Freidman and other more sane liberals have acknowledged this many times.
--
In general I would like to end first by saying, whether one is a Republican or Democrat their are a few important things to understand concerning Bush's approvals. Now people can have a partisan reaction to what I am about to say if they feel so compelled, it is not meant to inspire such but more a point of fact concerning polls. Many people like to point to Bush's numbers as if they were a sign to some weak place he finds himself. People who truly understand polls, which ones matter, human nature, and political inertia understand the futility of such declarations. One important point to understand concerning Bush is that he is the only President in modern times to have never had his approval ratings drop below 40%,.. NEVER! How significant is this? Every other President including Clinton and Reagan dropped to not just under 40 percent, but below 30%! Bush's worst polls are 12-15 points better then the next best on this point. Bush's approvals are better at this point in his term then Clinton or Reagan. Now people can take this for what they want but I will tell you as someone with a political past it is very significant and I will tell partly what this means.
It does not mean he is 12-15 percent more popular, it speaks more to Bush's base level support or 'the floor' of his support. This floor is very firm, his political personal worse case scenarios aren't as dire as usual, add this to a propensity for being bold and it is meaningful. Forget for a moment what a poll may or may not say on policy, when Bush personally puts himself on the line his hard base level of support leaves him where he needs only to move 3-7% of the public to get traction. I was a very big Clinton supporter and we can talk about Clintons numbers all we want, but his floor was soft by comparison. Bush is in a position where he can and does more to drive the public debate, I don't mean just winning a political battle, hell Clinton was as good as any at that, I mean changing what the debate is about.
Posted by: Joseph at July 16, 2005 11:31 PMTotten, I'm well aware of where "memory hole" comes from. I also read 1984. Just pointing out that the re-use of the term seems that you have bought into the POV of the radio host/political hack.
Posted by: Jim Jones at July 16, 2005 11:45 PMJim Jones, everyone who heard the audio clip agrees that the DJ is a jackass.
Just for fun:
1. How many on the left thought Kerry would be a great president?
2. How many people on the right think Bush is a great president?
3. Do they both suck so bad that you wonder why we would have to choose between the two? (300 million people live in this country and we get Bush vs. Kerry!)
(Please exclude destroying our enemies in your response, because we ALL agree about getting some)
Posted by: Mike #3or4 at July 17, 2005 12:19 AMJoseph, you need your own blog. You're good.
Posted by: Mark Poling at July 17, 2005 06:52 AMTMJUtah
Thank you, and I do agree with you on the ineptness off Democrats. When Clinton was President I was grateful when Gingrich and other Republicans screwed up, however I never viewed them inept. I do view the current crop of Democrats as inept. As you said, chainsmokers in a fireworks factory... indeed.
The other point you make about Bush which is so lost on the left, a complete blind spot, in fact a fatal blind spot, is the inability to understand or acknowledge the following truth about what Bush does... Say what you intend to do. Do it. Move on to the next challenge... How hard is that to understand? Beats the hell out of me. Even the tacit denials of the political whippings Democrats have received at his hand almost as if it were an accident due to cheating, explained away by an unfair "911" advantage, Karl Rove, just pushes Democrats into positions where they are ill-prepared to beat him.
By brother, who is an incredible athlete and also incredibly liberal, in a moment of honesty said what I think is the real truth. He was in a tennis tournament and was playing an opponent who he knew he was better than. He got in the tournament and lost the first set as everything seemed to go the other guys way. His opponent seemed to get all the breaks, calls on the lines, lucky shots that fell just inside the lines at incredible moments, and though his opponent was slow and seemed to barely reach what my brother would make routine, his opponent would somehow awkwardly pull off the shot. While this left my brother in what should have been an obvious advantage to get his opponent outstretched and off balance, it rarely worked that way as my brother's own game was thrown off by the unorthodox style and mental distraction caused by the frustration. My brother went on to lose every set and said, "I felt all along that his victory was luck and he shouldn't have beaten me." The problem is his opponent went on to win the whole tournament which left my brother to ponder, "Was it really due to luck, a bad day on my part, or is their something about this guy that put him in more in control then I in crucial moments?" Had the guy not won the whole tournament my brother might have been comfortable with explaining it away, but in the end my brother couldn't. I will tell Karl Jr. my brother would never explain away Bush's successes the way he has, in fact he has dire predictions for 2006 because of this type of thinking. He said "to beat a man as measured as Bush requires a match of discipline and understanding that he is for real". I say for those sign seekers that if a Democrat can explain away the Presidential Party in power gaining in three successive elections, a feat never accomplished, then they can explain away almost anything. I bet many who say "we'll see in 2006" after that day if the President puts himself personally on the line and prevails, most of his opponents will nonetheless return like a dog to it's vomit because they just can't face up to it for what it is. When I see peoples characterizations of Bush, it brings personal memories of my explaining away Reagan and I think, "What the hell, we humans can convince ourselves of whatever realities fit" If one fashions Bush to not be a straight shooter, a person who deceives then that is a burden they carry, it isn't Bush's that's for sure.
Now... How hard is that to understand? I'll say that we humans are good at making simple things complicated. 1+1=2 or is it 10-2+8-16+2=2? Can we go on to calculus? People accuse Bush of cheating at chess when he is playing checkers. This leads to labeling disagreements in policy as lies. Many want him to rule according to their prerogatives, they want him to play the game according to how they want it played and if he does it differently they cry foul. Crying foul doesn't make it foul. When people accuse Bush of never really wanting peace, or being a War monger their evidence of such always requires them closing gaps in evidence with interpretations of his intent. These interpretations require believing that Bush doesn't mean what he says, this goes against all evidence. I was against Bush going to Iraq and I knew he wanted to go to War. This is why I hoped, a vain hope, that Saddam would comply because I felt there was a small chance we could avoid war. Saddam is the one who tried to bait and switch and start a cat and mouse game to test Bush. Bush being true to himself realized in a post 911 world he viewed a flinch as a defeat. The whole world was watching the #1 nose thumber put his thumb to his nose. What did Bush think should be done? Well he did it, he smack Saddam's ass to the ground, killing his sons and taking Saddam prisoner. The argument is did he really have to do that? How one answers such question says more about them and how they see the GWOT, not Bush. They don't like Bush's stance, but his stances are clear.as day and have been from day one, there is no deceit. People who say... "Democrats are tough, they would have gone to Afghanistan" miss the point. This is not a police action, this is a Global War. This isn't about vengeance it is about draining the swamp. It is about turning enemies into democracies so we fight about free trade and not civilization. There are two issues at hand. What is the nature of our conflicts and how should we prosecute it? The democrats are calling all the differences between the two camps on these points lies and deceptions. They aren't lies, Bush sees things differently and this is what makes him who he is so in a sense people require him be untrue to himself for them to consider him honest?
Many of Bush's opponents see Bush as overreacting, yet to many of us we see in Bush restraint. Of course these same opponents say if he would just admit he lied and the War is going bad then he would be better off. I don't think I need to tell Bush to not take advice from such silly foes. Bush employed deceit to get us into War? Look there was bad intelligence and common consensus that was clearly wrong but why would Saddam want us the think he had WMD's and why not cooperate? The truth is Saddam did not accept his 1991 defeat and decided he didn't have to abide by the terms of the ceasefire and was taught by Clinton and the World Community that he didn't have to. I am a liberal guy on most other political counts but an unwillingness or inability of the left see this War in the proper terms is a fatal flaw as far as I am concerned. The propensity to treat Bush as the greater threat during the times we live in unpardonable. I hopped ship because of this.
As far as polls and a follow up of my previous comment, if people want to oppose Bush they better understand the hardness of his base level support and what that means. It may not be 50% but the hardness of Bush's support at about the 45+% mark is by far the most firm in my lifetime and that includes Reagan. Trust me when I tell you James Carville understands what that means and he isn't so dismissive of Bush's political skills. and the fact Bush doesn't have to jump very high to create political waves. To Mike #3or4 I would say that what you say is somewhat out of sorts, the right and Republican base are as solidly behind this President as any ever has been, especially at this point in his term. Greatness will be determined later and you are projecting and speaking out of turn concerning what people considered about the choices in 2004 for President. You have made it clear what you think.
Posted by: Joseph at July 17, 2005 08:33 AMKarl Jr.
"Yes, Osama tried to get WMD. Apparently he failed. This is a reason to go to war with Saddam?"
You bet.
If and when Osama and Saddam decided to collaborate, how the hell do you think we would have found out? Via Hans Blix inspections? Through a joint press conference?
You know how we'd find out. In body counts in our own cities.
There were plenty of reasons to be concerned about where this relationship could go, and plenty of precedents in history where birds of a different feather suddenly discovered value in creating a tactical alliance. Stalin and Hitler come to mind. Once they signed a mutual non-aggression pact, WWII was off and running within five weeks. Two nationalist leaders whose respective countries despised each other and had a history of war, who had enormous cultural and ideological differences, suddenly found common ground, and the world paid an enormous price.
The differences between Osama and Saddam were modest by comparison. They are both Sunni Arabs, they both hated the United States and if given the chance would exact revenge. They were both dellusional and misunderstood the West (upping the anty) for a miscalculation, Saddam had a nation state and the technical know how to build WMDs, and he had a track record of using them not only on his own people but against hostile nations. (Factoid, Iran suffered 100,000 casualties from Saddam's WMD attack). He had diplomatic access to the U.N. and sat on billions of petrol dollars.
Osama brought to the table the stealth of a world wide network of terrorists, which might have been able to convince Saddam that he could get away with helping Osama without being directly accountable for financial, WMD, or conventional weapon support. (Unlikely to you and me, but not to someone who actually thought he could invade Iran and be in Tehran in three days.) And of course Osama brings the leftist panache of a guerilla warrior. Like Che Guevera, he would appeal to idiot college kids around the world and they would have made a boodle just selling T-shirts.
To categorically deny the danger of such an alliance boggles my mind.
Posted by: bob at July 17, 2005 08:34 AMMark Poling
I appreciate it but no way. Coming to a place like this is all I will ever do.
Posted by: Joseph at July 17, 2005 08:36 AMJoseph writes:
Bush's approvals are better at this point in his term then Clinton or Reagan.
This is a complete and total falsehood. Bush's approval ratings are now between 42-48%, In July 1997 Clinton's approval ratings were between 56-64%. In fact, at no point in his second term did Clinton's ratings even approach, much less cross down below 50%.
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
Posted by: at July 17, 2005 10:48 AMKarl Jr.
"Yes, Osama tried to get WMD. Apparently he failed. This is a reason to go to war with Saddam?"
Bob:
You bet.
If and when Osama and Saddam decided to collaborate, how the hell do you think we would have found out? Via Hans Blix inspections? Through a joint press conference?
In material terms, there's no reason to believe that the cost of ownership of WMDs won't continue to fall. If we take as a given that Jihadis such as the recent London bombers are going to be a fact of life for a while, then I believe it's critical to interupt supply chains that have the potential to get the wrong stuff in the wrong hands. Because supply and demand have a way of hooking up.
I said it in a previous thread, and I'll repeat it; in the current environment, waiting until we're attacked is criminally negligent.
"Forcing" Democracy on the Middle East is the least harmful active measure I have heard proposed. Iraq was and is the logical place to start. (It's good to see the Lebanese pick up the ball and run with it, though...) If there was an alternative strategy proposed that didn't boil down to "wait and see what happens" I sure missed it. And anybody who wants to reply with "but we weren't attacking terrorists", please include a description of what "attacking terrorism" would look like from a practical perspective.
I mean, if you're talking about middle-of-the-night random searches of flats throughout Leeds, I'll grant that tactic might be effective. Of course, then you'd be justified in calling the governments of the US and Britain latter-day fascists.
Sorry, not seeing viable alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Come up with one or keep wanking.
Posted by: Mark Poling at July 17, 2005 11:45 AMBush's approvals are better at this point in his term then Clinton or Reagan.
"This is a complete and total falsehood. Bush's approval ratings are now between 42-48%, In July 1997 Clinton's approval ratings were between 56-64%. In fact, at no point in his second term did Clinton's ratings even approach, much less cross down below 50%.
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
Posted by at July 17, 2005 10:48 AM"
Umm July, I think Samuel was referring to the fact that Reagan and Clintons approvals had dropped below 40 at some point in their terms and Bush's ratings has not to this point in his term. Go back and re-read.
"Totten wrote:
Actually, I think I made it clear that this has always been a sideshow for me. I just think the tape is interesting. Blast from the past indeed. There was a time when talking about Saddam and Osama as pals was not controversial.
Must ... backpedal ... faster...
Posted by at July 16, 2005 01:15 PM"
Nevermind don't go back and re-read, go to school instead.
Posted by: mnm at July 17, 2005 11:59 AMBush's approvals are better at this point in his term then Clinton or Reagan....This is a complete and total falsehood.
Whoever left the above comment should read all the reasoning to what I said, put it in context and seek to understand and not just give the typical think the worst knee-jerk response. A complete a total falsehood? I bet you are a Bush is a liar kind of person too. No it doesn't immediately fit your reality so you assume the worst. There are to levels to approvals, job and favorable/unfavorable, I never said job for in truth it is the personals that will do a hell of a lot more to carry one through tough times. Job approvals are most often tied to how things effect us personally, so for example the economy is good then I approve of the Presidents job.
I will tell you had the economy been bad during Lewinsky Clinton would have been toast and the reason is simple, he did not have the personals to carry him through. If Bush had not the personal approvals to give him enough of a "benefit of doubt" to edge back, Iraq would have hung on him like LBJ and Truman's Wars hung on them. The fact is they didn't have the personals to carry them through. This is also why the Iraq war was a one way risk to Bush himself politically, the man has chutzpah.
Before I explain the above I will simply state that Bush's personal approvals are why he has been spared, not his job approvals. The truth in this fact is shown by the desperation the MSM and Democrats have endeavored to personally tarnish him. You say I am employing falsehoods and I will disagree without calling you a liar, you see misunderstandings aren't lies and this has been my point all along, hopefully the irony in this is not lost on you, it won't be lost on many reading. When you say...
Clinton's approval ratings were between 56-64%. In fact, at no point in his second term did Clinton's ratings even approach, much less cross down below 50%.
Which approval ratings? Let's see, taken at the same time using the oldest where they are comparable from CBS....
Bill Clinton
Job
1/98 Approve 58 Disapprove 29
Personal
1/98 Approve 34 Disapprove 36
George Bush
Job
7/15 Approve 49 Disapprove 47
Personal
7/15 Approve 54 Disapprove 45
Look I supported Bill Clinton in a very big way monetarily and politically, I will spare you the personal details. The fact is Clintons personal ratings were often 20% below his job approvals. Bush's personals are more often higher then his job approvals, Now as an example if Bush is at a point to push a policy with the above numbers, I can assure you his personals become important, because these people who have favorable disposition towards him can be viewed by him as strong potential backers, especially if and when he "makes personal" appeals to the public. With Clinton many people were protecting themselves, not Clinton, Bush would be more apt to be protected by the public because they felt he deserved it and this is what makes him so tough to deal with politically. This is also why he can campaign and as Zogby said, "Cause a 5% shift in his direction", Bill Clinton did not have the personals to effect things the same way.
Look I am just stating something people can chose absorb and respond to however they desire, but in the end reality is what it is and one can make of it whatever they want. The fact that people who take shallow views will make grandiose visionary pronouncements will always be, but I am simply trying to point out that there is a lot more to this then numbers and spin. Much of Bush's success can be explained but an accurate understanding of where his power and strength comes from is critical if one considers himself an opponent, if you think I am peddling trash then ignore or reject it, but as for me I appreciate insight when I can get it even if I disagree with it. I do like Bush but I also supported Clinton this is not about anything other then stating life as I see it today. I said earlier Clinton was gifted and won his battles, but anyone who doesn't realize that Bush has won at least as many political battles isn't looking at reality anyway.
I would advise you to not be so brash.
Posted by: Joseph at July 17, 2005 12:43 PMJoseph, keep talking here! (When TmjUtah got his own blog, his (better?) comments here dropped by some 50-80%!)
Karl Jr, did you read UN 1441? Did you see how it put the burden of proof on Saddam to prove he had no WMDs? Did you see Blix's Feb. 2003 -- where Blix was unwilling to state that Saddam had proven he had no WMDs?
I was watching. After Blix, I supported war.
Bush wanted PROOF that Iraq had no WMDs. Saddam's game was to give "the minimum" to avoid invasion, with the goal of "winning" over the US. No surrender means victory.
I heard that Saddam was offered sanctuary elsewhere if he would leave: I believe that. Bush wanted: unconditional victory over Iraq's WMD program; and he expected he would need war to get that (I thought so, too.)
Truman wanted unconditional surrender from the Japs, and was willing to use the Bomb to get it; and thought he would have to, after a certain amount of time. In fact, he needed both.
Saddam was playing to win -- by surviving. Lookie, silly UN no findie no nukey. Silly UN; "we all know" (wink wink).
I, great Saddam, leader of Arabs, win again... yada yada.
That was the "more inspection" alternative.
But the press also put down the memory hole the prior anti-US issue: "sanctions kill thousands of Iraqi children each month". Those anti-sanctions folk were, mostly, also anti-Liberation.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 17, 2005 02:37 PMWhy do supporters of the war always point to Blix's February statement. Surely his March statement is more relevant.
Posted by: jojomccann at July 17, 2005 04:07 PMjojomccann: "Why do supporters of the war always point to Blix's February statement. Surely his March statement is more relevant."
You mean this? March 7, 2003
"Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq’s Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence."
"The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the testimony is given without outside influence. While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq."
"On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you."
"What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear....
"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:....It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance"
And that was with the very credible threat of invasion on their doorstep.
Posted by: Caroline at July 17, 2005 04:44 PMTom Grey: "Those anti-sanctions folk were, mostly, also anti-Liberation."
Exactly. And given Saddam's sheer determination to acquire WMD's eventually (confirmed by the Duelfer report), the only 2 options were endless sanctions/inspections (the 12 year status quo, but apparently now with our troops stationed outside Iraq continually imposing a credible threat, the only factor which appears to have gained some degree of cooperation with the inspections) or liberation. One couldn't logically oppose both sanctions and liberation unless, of course, one didn't care whether or not Saddam acquired WMD's, in which case, one should just come right out and acknowledge that (actually, some honest lefties did, on the grounds that we were being hypocritical in demanding that Saddam disarm). But otherwise, war was inevitable and since it was inevitable, even Karl would apparently acknowledge that we would be justified in going in when we did – on our terms - before the summer heat would have seriously hampered our troops, and absent a 2nd UN resolution.
Posted by: Caroline at July 17, 2005 04:53 PMJoseph writes:
"Bush's approvals are better at this point in his term then Clinton or Reagan."
Response:
"This is a complete and total falsehood. Bush's approval ratings are now between 42-48%, In July 1997 Clinton's approval ratings were between 56-64%"
Joseph again:
"I never said job for in truth it is the personals that will do a hell of a lot more to carry one through tough times." ANd a lot of blah, blah, blah....
Response:
Pew- PERSONAL APPROVAL
Aug 1997 Clinton 61 / 38
July 2005 Bush 53/ 45
NBC - PERSONAL APPROVAL
July 1997 Clinton 56 / 30
July 2005 Bush 47 / 43
Joseph:
"...in the end reality is what it is and one can make of it whatever they want. The fact that people who take shallow views will make grandiose visionary pronouncements will always be,..."
Response:
Aint it the truth
Sorry to pile on, but given the extensive thesis by Joseph, I would just refer you to the Bush PERSONAL APPROVAL numbers of today (roughly 50 /44) compared with (from NBC poll):
Clinton - Dec. '98 during impeachment
51/36
Clinton - Jan. 01 upon leaving office
56/32
Without a single illicit blowjob, Bush has higher PERSONAL unfavorables than Clinton during impeachment, or at the end of his second term.
Would you care to spin / explain that Mr. Joseph, especially in light of "Bill Clinton did not have the personals to effect things the same way."?
Posted by: at July 17, 2005 11:18 PMWould you care to spin / explain
Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Posted by: PC^KILLA at July 18, 2005 04:35 AM"Iraq was and is the logical place to start. (It's good to see the Lebanese pick up the ball and run with it, though...) If there was an alternative strategy proposed that didn't boil down to "wait and see what happens" I sure missed it. And anybody who wants to reply with "but we weren't attacking terrorists", please include a description of what "attacking terrorism" would look like from a practical perspective."
Sorry, not seeing viable alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Come up with one or keep wanking.
Define the war on terrorism. It makes no sense.
You ask for an alternative to attacking terrorism?
I for one, refuse to allow the debate to be parametrised by the extremely narrow confines of american partisan politics or the CNN/WH talking points.
If this is your point of departure, "how can we attack terror", then you cannot lose this debate and you are correct in saying that Bushs doctrine is the best. But it makes no sense.
What is the result of "attacking terror"?
When will it be defeated? How do you measure success? Will terror raise a white flag some day?
How long before we are using terror to combat terror? Hint: it may be happening, but were trying to protect the identies of the victims as we would otherwise be violating their geneva rights...;-)
(More pics to be released friday, should be another decicive blow againt terror, it sure is reeling)
You can debate the war on terror for ever, and you will win.
but you are playing their game.
The question is not, how do we attack terror?
Its how do we stop terror?
Shock and Awe is probably not a good way to "bleed the swamp".
Is this not obvious to you clever people?
Posted by: kevser at July 18, 2005 04:37 AM"The question is not, how do we attack terror?
Its how do we stop terror?"
Okay, I'll bite: what's your prescription? I'm still hearing a lot of kvetching but precious little in the way of suggested solutions.
Or did you miss that part of my post, clever boy?
Posted by: Mark Poling at July 18, 2005 06:20 AMWithout a single illicit blowjob, Bush has higher PERSONAL unfavorables than Clinton during impeachment, or at the end of his second term.
Would you care to spin / explain that Mr. Joseph, especially in light of "Bill Clinton did not have the personals to effect things the same way."?
Surprise, surprise: Mr. Triangulation had both fewer people who loved him and fewer people who hated him than Cowboy Bush.
Don't get me wrong, as a caretaker President Clinton did a fine job. And he deserves credit for realizing which way the wind was blowing and getting behind Welfare Reform. But I never trusted him to do anything but what was best for Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Mark Poling at July 18, 2005 06:29 AMok kevser, how do we stop terror?
Posted by: frendlydude2k at July 18, 2005 06:40 AMMark Poling
"The question is not, how do we attack terror? It's how do we stop terror?"
I must address one aspect to keyser's point. (Though the arrogance and sarcasm was quite unnecessary) The point is "attacking terrorism" is one critical dimension that was indeed lacking pre-Bush and was properly introduced into the equation by him in our quest for a solution to stopping terrorism, but it is one dimension. I must point out terrorism like poverty will never be completely eradicated but in both we should try. I hope keyser you aren't implying that this single dimension of us going on the offensive is all that has been introduced by the President and those that support him. You made a vague point (or accusation) and I would encourage you to follow up and clarify and prove to me that people on the political right aren't the only ones doing most of the intellectual heavy lifting concerning these things. Many of us "War Liberals" come here to Michael's and like places, and are then considered part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and heretics by those on the left, but we are here for a reason. Armed Liberal most aptly pointed out that the spirit of debate is "encouraged on the right" and "shutdown on the left", I am inclined to agree. Most liberals that support this War are considered neocons by those on the left, the right will listen so speak up in earnest and let us hear your answers, I would advise to leave the naysaying aside and simply answer... How do we not just attack terror, but stop it?
----
To the person hiding behind noname, take whatever numbers that suit your fancy, I'll let others read the full text of all I had to say and then read all your wisdom and let them make a judgment. Don't be too impressed with yourself. For your sake I'll just say, we all know that...
Clinton was great, Bush is evil.
People trusted Clinton, Bush is a liar.
It must be hell for those who feel a need to hang on and defend such times with such desperation.
Posted by: Joseph at July 18, 2005 07:10 AMJoseph says:
"Armed Liberal most aptly pointed out that the spirit of debate is 'encouraged on the right' and 'shutdown on the left', I am inclined to agree."
One of the things that most surprises and alarms me is that most of the brains on the web seem to be on the right, not that they all have brains. It's hard to find a sustained, detailed and factual analysis on liberal sites. Didn't it used to be 'intellectuals' who were liberal or pinko? Well, maybe it still is, though the definition of intellectual has changed. Liberals now seem reduced to pathetic personal attacks.
Posted by: Benjamin Orion at July 18, 2005 08:07 AMSo I wonder, did the information reported by ABC, come from our ever loving secret agent "Curveball"?
Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at July 18, 2005 08:10 AM"To the person hiding behind noname, take whatever numbers that suit your fancy,"
Hmmm, a robust case of evidentiary relativism, I see. Its not a question of taking "whatever numbers suit your fancy", its a question of dealing with reality.
"I'll let others read the full text of all I had to say and then read all your wisdom and let them make a judgment."
I offered no wisdom or opinion at all. Just the facts. The facts undermine your entire thesis. But thats ok, I guess. Your thesis is a long rambling myth-making enterprise which amounts to exactly what Bush-supporters want to hear. Which is why, of course, they recieve it with enthusiasm. That is has no empirical basis seems not be a relevant point. Faith-based politicing, and all that....
"Don't be too impressed with yourself."
Looking up data on well-known, easily available websites is certainly not the crowning intellectual achievment of my life, nor something that makes me impressed with myself.
"For your sake I'll just say, we all know that...
Clinton was great, Bush is evil.
People trusted Clinton, Bush is a liar."
Clinton was a scheming politician who had no problem lying to the public to avoid the thrust of partisan attacks. Bush is a scheming politician who has no problem lying to advance his agenda.
But please dont let me get in the way of your strawman-construction.
"It must be hell for those who feel a need to hang on and defend such times with such desperation."
You are just lashing out blindly here. I was defending no one - just pointing out the facts which happen to undermine your fantastical thesis.
Posted by: InvisiblePoster at July 18, 2005 08:56 AM"One of the things that most surprises and alarms me is that most of the brains on the web seem to be on the right, not that they all have brains."
Am I the only one who thinks this "we're smart, they're dumb" line of argumentation is pretty pathetic, self-stroking, and a great setup for the inevitable fall that comes to those with such arrogance?
Posted by: InvisiblePoster at July 18, 2005 09:01 AMInvisiblePoster, the "we're smart, they're dumb" routine is tiresome; on the other hand, it seems the Libertarian/Conservatives (who might be characterized as Ninja-Dwarves) do a better job of tossing around ideas and variations than do the Liberal/Progressives (Elven-Pirates).
Case in point, where did kevser go when aked for substance to go with his snark?
The Left will rebound when it starts feeling fresh again. I believe Ratatosk would agree that we live in a culture that demands to be entertained and stimulated; a steady diet of "just say no" ain't going to win converts.
(Speaking of revitalizing the Left, good news for those of us who don't like the slide the New York Times is in; Sarah Vowell is filling in for MoDo. God willing, Sulzberger will have the sense to make it permanent.)
Posted by: Mark Poling at July 18, 2005 11:04 AMInvisiblePoster
This is it and I am through, On the following concerning your comments we heartily agree...
I offered no wisdom or opinion at all.
But the following is predictable...
...Just the facts. The facts undermine your entire thesis.
Look my numbers are just as real as your numbers, they create a dispute and discrepancy on the nature of the facts. The difference is you continue to claim falsehoods on my part, yet what is such claims based upon? You never addressed my specific numbers, you simply found ones that fit your argument yet never declared why they are more worthy... THEY CAME FROM THE SAME SITE! Yet you say...
Hmmm, a robust case of evidentiary relativism, I see. Its not a question of taking "whatever numbers suit your fancy", its a question of dealing with reality.
What reality? Surely you are capable of explaining why such cavalier rejection using a different set of polling data make me a peddler of falsehoods. Look you made a point and the only thing that point did was at most leave you with a responsibility to explain why they are more relevant... but lies and falsehoods? Keep digging in that is your prerogative you are making my point in spades. Are you going to take the time to perhaps talk about the origin of such numbers which do more to create dispute then clarify? Perhaps take the time and address the nature of the poll questioning, and present to us why CBS's numbers are less relevant then the ones you presented? Yes you are right, it is a matter of whatever suits your fancy if you are unwilling to address the difference. Facts aren't one dimensional, and they aren't one way ticket to cut down debate. Your set of numbers doesn't cancel out my numbers and as such prove no falsehoods, they beg for more questions, yet you declare it as an open and shut case?
Yet you say...
You are just lashing out blindly here.
Typical, you come in and call me a liar, don't even present an opinion, only an attack and cry when called on it. But to say...
I was defending no one - just pointing out the facts which happen to undermine your fantastical thesis.
Not defending, indeed attacking. By your own admission you presented no wisdom or opinion, you just cavalierly interjected a counter poll that would at most justify debate over the differences, but as Armed Liberal correctly stated debate isn't the left's goal, shutting it down is. That is all you have sought to do, you have offered nothing, no wisdom, no opinion, that is what one might expect from a reactionary, what the left has become.
Posted by: Joseph at July 18, 2005 12:37 PMJoseph writes,
"Look my numbers are just as real as your numbers, they create a dispute and discrepancy on the nature of the facts."
With all due respect, this is simply false. Your claim was that Bush's approvals are higher at this point in his presidency than Clintons. The only numbers you provided were from one poll at different points in each presidency. The low point for Clinton, of course. That is a selective use of misleading data - misleading since it fails to substantiate your original claim.
"Surely you are capable of explaining why such cavalier rejection using a different set of polling data make me a peddler of falsehoods."
Yes, I think I am capable of doing that. Your thesis is that Bush has higher personal approval ratings, both at this point in his presidency, and in general - as an explanation for how and why he is able to manifest such political mastery as you seem to think he is doing.
But your claims regarding comparable periods in their presidencies are totally false, as ALL the relevant poll comparisons show. And your general point is also unsupported, as my second post showed - Bush's unfavorables are higher today than Clinton's during impeachment and also at the end of his long ride.
The only data you present are numbers from one poll at one point in time - thereby establishing only that Clinton had a moment in which his unfavorables were worse than Bush's today. To use this evidence to support your "comparable points in time" argument is wholly deceptive and just plain false. To use this data to support your general thesis is also specious.
If you would like me to deal with the numbers that you provide, as irrelevant as they are to the assertion you made, I would point out the following: (Clinton personal approval / disapp)
You correctly report numbers for 1/26/98 as
34/36
But just ONE WEEK later, the same poll finds
51/26
One week after that, the same poll finds
44/32
Eleven days later, the same poll finds
57/29.
After that, things settle down somewhat to a general positive of 44-50, negative to 33-35.
At no point in the rest of the polls does his positive dip down anywhere near the 34 that you selected. And his negatives are almost always below what Bush's are today. In short, no support whatsoever for your thesis. Excuse me for concluding that you are being misleading at best.
"By your own admission you presented no wisdom or opinion, you just cavalierly interjected a counter poll that would at most justify debate over the differences, but as Armed Liberal correctly stated debate isn't the left's goal, shutting it down is."
I dont think you do your cause, or the argument against liberalism, any credit with this line of argument. What I "cavalierly interjected" was real data directly relevant to the question. You are faulting me for not wrapping it in a layer of spin?
And how, pray tell, is interjecting a little empircal data, relevant to the question, somehow equivalent to an effort to shut down debate??? What kind of debate do you imagine is the ideal? One that is free from any reliance on data? One in which your polemical skills can shine through untroubled by any reference to the real world?
IP (that me) wrote:
"thereby establishing only that Clinton had a moment in which his unfavorables were worse than Bush's today"
Sorry for the error. The data Joseph presented established only that Clinton had a moment in which his favorables were worse than Bush's. Even at that point, his unfavorables were better than Bush's today.
Posted by: InvisiblePoster at July 18, 2005 03:18 PM"Clinton was a scheming politician who had no problem lying to the public to avoid the thrust of partisan attacks."
Interesting. Is "politician" assumed to be perjorative whereever it is used?
And I would respectfully disagree on the contention that Clinton's contortions were remotely centered on avoiding the thrust of partisan attacks. He tried to avoided the onus of personal responsibility for his actions, or lack thereof. But most damning, he abused the power and ignored the responsibility that came with his office.
Not minor differences.
Posted by: TmjUtah at July 18, 2005 06:02 PMoh grow up already
Posted by: at July 18, 2005 06:59 PMThanks for taking the time to reply to my post.If you think that was sarcastic then you should have seen what i was originally gonna write;-)
My point is that "fighting terror" is intellectually dishonest and practically impossible.
YOU are the advocates of the war. You have to tell me how it works.
I am saying the issue is to stop terrorism.
Deal with the issue of terrorism using all the faculties we have. (And we have so many!)
The war is going very well. It really is. If its humiliation, death, destruction, pain, fear, despair and a sure way of milking the taxpayer for billions, then wars the answer. But are we solving the problem of terrorism?
I contend that we are not.
We could look to historical examples but as we all know who writes the history, this will be, in my opinion, unproductive.
But before i offer some solutions to the problem of terror, i want to ask, are there people here who honestly believe that the current administration is more interested in solving this problem than protecting and projecting american strategic interests in the world?
It sounds like a trick question. But i believe that it is essential to debate this. The debate has to be framed in this way.
Who has the power and how are they using it? Is there a bias at work? Is there fairness in dealing with third party conflicts?
Can we separate the two issues?
If not, how are we adressing this dilemma?
Hello guys , Good Day !
Posted by: casinos at July 31, 2005 11:03 PMhi guys - cool blog
Posted by: poker at August 7, 2005 11:28 PMHi Guys - Love Your Blog ,
Online Casinos: :Online Poker: :
sexy outfit @ sexy pantie @ sexy photo @ sexy picter @ sexy picture @ sexy porn @ sexy porn star @ sexy porne @ sexy pose @ sexy prom dress @ sexy pussy @ sexy redhead @ sexy screensaver @ sexy secretary @ sexy shemale @ sexy shoes @ sexy single @ sexy skirt @ sexy sluts @ sexy stocking @ sexy story @ sexy swim wear @ sexy swimsuit @ sexy tattoo @ sexy teacher @ sexy teen @ sexy teen model @ sexy thong @ sexy tit @ sexy toe @ sexy tops @ sexy underwear @ sexy video @ sexy wallpaper @ sexy web site background @ sexy wife @ sexy woman @ sexy woman picture @ sexygate @ she think my tractor @ shemale ebony fuck @ shemale movie sex @ shemale strokers ebony @ sierra ebony porn star @ silly black sluts @ single ebony woman @ skinny ebony girl @ skyy black porn star @ slut wife black cock @ slut wife for black
Posted by: ruben at September 8, 2005 04:25 AMHi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack
online poker
online poker
online casino
online viagra sale
try viagra online
order viagra online
buy viagra online
order cialis online
free levitra online
cheap meridia online
buy xenical online
order propecia
order viagra online
online casino
online slots
phentermine
phentermine
levitra
tami flu
online poker
poker
poker
online poker
online poker
poker
poker
cialis
levitra
viagra
Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service join free.
adult
personals Adult personals online
personals
adult dating
adult dating sex dating
adult
personals adult personals sex dating
Internet Dating Service Internet Dating Service
dating
services dating services - adult dating
service
adult dating
service adult dating service adult
personals
adult photo personals adult photo personals
sex
dating sex dating adult dating service
sex
dating sex dating adult personals
personals
personals adult personals
adult sex
dating adult sex dating adult personals
adult dating
online adult dating online adult personals
online
personals online personals adult personals
adult dating
service adult dating service adult
personals
adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult
personals
adult dating
adult dating service
adult dating
service adult dating service
adult dating
online adult dating online
single woman single woman
singles singles
singles match singles match
sexy singles sexy singles
singles dating singles dating
single dating single dating
dating service dating service
dating tips dating tips
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult personal ads adult personal ads
adult dating adult dating
adult singles adult singles
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult personal page adult personal page
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult photo personals adult photo personals
xx xx
adult personal ads adult personals ads
adult singles adult singles
adult photo personals adult photo personals
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult personal page adult personal page
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult dating adult dating
personals ads personals ads
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult dating ads adult dating ads
adult singles adult singles
adult single dating adult single dating
adult personal adult personal
free adult dating free adult dating
adult dating online adult dating online
adult dating site adult dating site
adult swingers adult swingers
adult friend finder adult friend finder
xx xx
x x
singles adult singles adult
sexy singles sexy singles
singles personals singles personals
singles dating online singles dating online
adult singles dating adult singles dating
adult singles adult singles
singles site singles site
singles club singles club
singles dating service singles dating service
adult swingers adult swingers
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
singles on line singles on line
personals singles personals singles
sex personals sex personals
swingers swingers
swingers club swingers club
dating sex dating sex
personals sex personals sex
adult personals dating adult personals dating
online adult dating online adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult dating
sex dating sex dating
adult personals adult personals
personal ads personal ads
adult personal ads adult personal ads
free personals free personals
adult personals adult personals
sex dating sex dating
Autosurf For Cash autosurf for cash
Get Paid To Surf get paid to surf
satellite tv satellite tv
adult personals adult personals
sex site myspace.com sex site myspace.com
Discount Airfare discount airfare
Discount Hotels discount hotels
Discount Travel discount travel
Discount Cruises discount crusies
Discount Hotel Rooms discount hotel rooms
Discount Car Rentals discount car rentals
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Vacations discount vacations
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Air Travel discount air travel
Discounted Airfare discounted airfare
Airfare airfare
Levitra Generic Levitra
online pharmacy online pharmacy
Prozac Prozac
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
tadalafil tadalafil cialis
meridia generic meridia Sibutramine
Zenegra Zenegra
Celebrex Generic Celebrex Celecoxib
sildenafil sildenafil
sibutramine sibutramine Generic Meridia
celecoxib celecoxib Generic Celebrex online pharmacy
adult personals adult personals
home security home security
nanny cam nanny cam
nanny camera nanny camera
home security system home security system
home automation kits home automation kits
wireless camera systems wireless camera systems
universal remotes universal remotes
camera systems camera systems
home automation home automation
home security systems home security systems
credit card offer credit card offer
Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service adult singles join free.
boston celtics news boston celtics news rumors
charlotte bobcats news charlotte bobcats news rumors
miami heat news miami heat news rumors
new jersey nets news new jersey nets news rumors
new york knicks news new york knicks news rumors
orlando magic news orlando magic news rumors
Philadelphia 76ers news philadelphia 76ers news rumors
washington wizards news washington wizards news rumors
atlanta hawks news atlanta hawks news rumors
new orleans hornets news new orleans hornets news rumors
chicago bulls news chicago bulls news rumors
cleveland cavaliers news cleveland cavaliers news rumors
detroit pistons news detroit pistons news rumors
indiana pacers news indiana pacers news rumors
milwaukee bucks news milwaukee bucks news rumors
toronto raptors news toronto raptors news rumors
dallas mavericks news dallas mavericks news rumors
denver nuggets news denver nuggets news rumors
houston rockets news houston rockets news rumors
memphis grizzlies news memphis grizzlies news rumors
minnesota timberwolves news minnesota timberwolves news rumors
san antonio spurs news san antonio spurs news rumors
utah jazz news utah jazz news rumors
golden state warriors news golden state warriors news rumors
los angeles clippers newslos angeles clippers news rumors
los angeles lakers news los angeles lakers news rumors
phoenix suns news phoenix suns news rumors
portland trailblazers news portland trailblazers news rumors
sacramento kings news sacramento kings news rumors
seattle supersonics news seattle supersonics news rumors
tickets tickets
sports tickets sports tickets lakers tickets
concert tickets concert tickets
eagles concert tickets eagles concert tickets
theater tickets theater tickets
tickets tickets
nfl tickets nfl tickets
2006 super bowl tickets 2006 super bowl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
nba tickets nba tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
clippers tickets los angeles clippers tickets
boxing tickets boxing tickets
nascar tickets nascar tickets
tennis tickets tennis tickets us open
final four tickets final four tickets college basketball tickets
college football tickets college football tickets
rodeo tickets rodeo tickets pbr tickets
pbr tickets pbr tickets nfr
national finals rodeo tickets national finals rodeo tickets
2006 world cup tickets 2006 world cup tickets
soccer tickets soccer tickets world cup
wwe tickets wwe tickets raw smackdown
raw tickets wwe raw tickets
smackdown tickets wwe smackdown tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap los angeles lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap lakers tickets
lakers season tickets lakers season tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
los angeles lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
2006 rose bowl tickets 2006 rose bowl tickets
pasadena rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
bowl games bowl games cheap super bowl tickets
cheap super bowl tickets cheap super bowl tickets
cheap super bowl tickets cheap super bowl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
nfl super bowl tickets nfl super bowl tickets
ducks tickets mighty ducks tickets tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
2005 world series tickets 2005 world series tickets bowl tickets
baseball world series baseball world series
world series world series
miami vice dvd miami vice dvd
miami vice miami vice
la live la live
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
music events music events
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
all events all events
sports events sports events sporting event tickets sporting event tickets lakers tickets
music events concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tickets online concert tickets online
broadway tickets broadway tickets
broadway show broadway show
broadway musical broadway musical
nfl tickets nfl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
cheap nfl tickets cheap nfl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
basketball tickets basketball tickets
nhl hockey tickets nhl hockey tickets
nhl tickets nhl tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key dvd the skeleton key dvd
law and order dvd law and order dvd
serenity serenity
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin the 40 year old virgin
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key the skeleton key
law and order dvd law and order
white sox world series tickets white sox world series tickets
chicago white sox world series tickets chicago white sox world series tickets
white sox tickets chicago white sox tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
baseball world series tickets baseball world series tickets
tarps tarps
discount tarps discount tarps
covers covers
discount covers covers
hollywood club hollywood club
club club
music site myspace.com music site myspace.com
700 sundays tickets 700 sundays tickets
wilshire theatre wilshire theatre
wilshire theatre tickets wilshire theatre tickets
700 sundays 700 sundays
Buy cheap concert tickets for audioslave, 2005 rolling stones concert tickets as well as the eagles concert tickets plus kanye west in concert and keith urban buy depeche mode tickets you can even buy paul mccartney concert tickets gwen stefani of no doubt concert tickets don't miss 311 in concert if you have children the wiggles concert tickets would be a great choice plus get all concert tour schedule for 2005 music events.
concerts concerts
concert schedule concert schedule
concert dates concert dates
concert tickets concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tour concert tour
kanye west concert tickets kanye west concert tickets
rolling stones tour rolling stones tour
rolling stones tickets rolling stones tickets
eagles concert eagles concert
the eagles the eagles
audioslave tickets audioslave tickets
depeche mode tickets depeche mode tickets
gwen stefani tickets gwen stefani tickets
paul mccartney tickets paul mccartney tickets
paul mccartney tour paul mccartney tour
paul mccartney concert paul mccartney concert
paul mccartney 2005 tour paul mccartney 2005 tour
paul mccartney 2005 us tour paul mccartney 2005 us tour
bon jovi tickets bon jovi tickets
bon jovi concert bon jovi concert
bon jovi tour bon jovi tour
bon jovi tour dates bon jovi tour dates
bon jovi concert dates bon jovi concert dates
bon jovi concert schedule bon jovi concert schedule
rolling stones concert tickets rolling stones concert tickets
eagles concert tickets eagles concert tickets
eagles farewell tour eagles farewell tour
eagles tour eagles tour
eagles concert tour eagles concert tour
audioslave concert tickets audioslave concert tickets
audioslave tickets audioslave tickets
audioslave concert audioslave concert
depeche mode concert tickets depeche concert tickets
depeche mode tickets depeche tickets
gwen stefani concert tickets gwen stefani concert tickets
gwen stefani tickets gwen stefani tickets
gwen stefani concert gwen stefani concert
gwen stefani tour gwen stefani tour
gwen stefani tour dates gwen stefani tour dates
paul mccartney concert tickets paul mccartney concert tickets
paul mccartney tickets paul mccartney tickets
paul mccartney tour paul mccartney tour
paul mccartney concert paul mccartney concert
paul mccartney 2005 tour paul mccartney 2005 tour
paul mccartney 2005 us tour paul mccartney 2005 us tour
paul mccartney us tour paul mccartney us tour
bon jovi concert tickets bon jovi concert tickets
stones tickets stones tickets
rolling stones concert rolling stones concert
rolling stones tour 2005 rolling stones tour 2005
rolling stones tour rolling stones tour
2005 rolling stones tour 2005 rolling stones tour
rolling stones tour dates rolling stones tour dates
rolling stones concert tour rolling stones concert tour
rolling stones concert schedule rolling stones concert schedule
2005 rolling stones 2005 rolling stones
the wiggles tickets the wiggles tickets
the wiggles concert tickets the wiggles concert tickets
concert ticket wiggles concert ticket wiggles
wiggles tickets wiggles tickets
the wiggles concert ticket the wiggles concert ticket
wiggles concert wiggles concert
the wiggles tickets the wiggles tickets
the wiggles tour the wiggles tour
wiggles concert tickets wiggles concert tickets
wiggles in concert wiggles in concert
keith urban tickets keith urban tickets
keith urban concert tour keith urban concert tour
concert keith urban concert keith urban
keith urban concerts keith urban concerts
keith urban in concert keith urban in concert
keith urban tour dates keith urban tour dates
keith urban concert keith urban concert
keith urban concert tickets keith urban concert tickets
kanye west concert tickets kanye west concert tickets
kanye west concert kanye west concert
kanye west tour kanye west tour
kanye west concert ticket kanye west concert ticket
kanye west tour date kanye west tour date
kanye west in concert kanye west in concert
311 tickets 311 tickets
311 concert tickets 311 concert tickets
311 tour dates 311 tour dates
311 in concert 311 in concert
311 concert 311 concert
311 concert tour 311 concert tour
final four tickets final four tickets
cheap sports tickets cheap sports tickets
theatre directory theatre directory
football directory football directory
nba basketball tickets nba basketball tickets
ncaa tournament ncaa tournament
broncos football directory broncos football directory
nba basketball nba basketball
buy theatre tickets buy theatre tickets
kicking and screaming dvd kicking and screaming dvd
munsters dvd munsters dvd
unleashed dvd unleashed dvd
land of the dead dvd land of the dead dvd
high school reunion collection high school reunion collection
cinderella man dvd cinderella man dvd
tickets links tickets links
battlestar galactica dvd battlestar galactica dvd
broken flowers dvd broken flowers dvd
american gothic dvd american gothic dvd
sports tickets for less sports tickets for less
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
sports links sports links
tickets directory tickets directory
Resources for major league baseball tickets buy baseball tickets
Major League Baseball Tickets where mlb baseball tickets are bought
Baseball Tickets U2 tickets cheap concert tickets has scored another box office bonanza, grossing $48.4 million on tour during the first half of 2005.
Concert Ticketsinfo to purchase cheap concert tickets
Cheap Concert Tickets info to purchase cheap concert tickets
Concert Schedule You can buy nba basketball tickets
Basketball Tickets for all basketball games with nba finals tickets
NBA Finals Tickets where to buy nba tickets Basketball TicketsNFL Football tickets NFL Football , American, distinct type of nfl football tickets
NFL Tickets that developed in the United States in the 19th century now get your super bowl tickets.
NFL Tickets As NHL Hockey tickets spread across the continent with the national hockey league
National Hockey League , there was a marked increase in the number of organized NHL hockey tickets
Hockey Tickets leagues. Hockey Tickets wwe tickets world wrestling federation or as it is know the wwe buy wwe tickets for all wrestling tickets events with wwe smackdown tickets
WWE Tickets also wwe wrestling tickets. WWE Tickets rodeo tickets rodeo tickets are becoming even more popular these days the pro bull riders or known as the pbr tickets and the national finals rodeo tickets also known as nfr tickets
Rodeo Tickets are flying through the roof. Rodeo Tickets soccer tickets or what they call in european countries football tickets in the US as us soccer tickets go World Cup Soccer Tickets buy world cup soccer tickets.
Soccer Tickets Part of the Los Angeles Center Theatre tickets Group with los angeles theater tickets, along with the Mark Taper Forum, the Ahmanson Theatre tickets or as you would say ahmanson theater tickets don't forget to get the hard to get wicked tickets.
Theater Tickets buy los angeles tickets like los angeles dodgers tickets Dodgers Tickets or buy los angeles lakers tickets
Los Angeles Lakers Tickets or relax and buy los angeles theater tickets
Los Angeles Theater don't for get those los angeles clippers tickets have a good time los angeles concert tickets. Los Angeles Theater well you won't lose out if you go to live horse racing tickets there is plenty of enjoyment at the fairgrounds at thoroughbred horse racing.
Thoroughbred Horse Racing buy boxing Schedule with boxing schedule Boxing Tickets. autoracing or the term for today really would have to be nascar tickets with nascar schedule along with nascar racing
Nascar Racing people these days are scrambling to buy nascar tickets for all the nascar races.
Nascar Tickets buy sports tickets Sports Tickets for all events what sports tickets are you going to buy?
rose bowl tickets rose bowl tickets singles singles
the big lebowski the big lebowski dvd
Lakers Tickets buy sports tickets
Sports Tickets for all events like lakers tickets what sports tickets are you going to buy?
sex dating sex dating.
best affiliate program best affiliate program free affiliate program free affiliate program
dodgers tickets dodgers tickets big lebowski dvd big lebowski dvd the big lebowski big lebowski dvd
Los Angeles Lakers Tickets buy los angeles lakers tickets at staples center for all events like los angeles lakers tickets what los angeles tickets are you going to buy for sports tickets?
Blues Brothers blues brothers dvd movie
rumble fish dvd rumble fish dvd
carlito's way rise to power carlito's way rise to power carlitos way rise to power carlitos way rise to power
angels tickets angels tickets sports tickets sports tickets
Los Angeles Concert Tickets buy los angeles tickets for all los angeles concert tickets Los Angeles events like los angeles dodgers also los angeles angels tickets events like los angeles clippers tickets what los angeles tickets are you going to buy for los angeles concert tickets? Affiliate Program ticket affiliate program
lakers tickets lakers tickets sports tickets sports tickets singles dating singles dating
lakers news lakers news
dodgers tickets los angeles dodgers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
super bowl tickets super bowl tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets tickets tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
sports events sports events
sporting event tickets sports event tickets
event tickets event tickets
all events all events
sporting events sporting events
theater tickets theater tickets
music events music events
all events all events
other events other events
concert events concert events
lakers rumors lakers rumors news
music events music events
all events all events
nfl tickets nfl tickets
broadway tickets broadway tickets
concert tickets concert tickets
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
sports events sports events
sporting events sporting events
other events other events
music events music events
event tickets event tickets
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
sporting events sporting events
seaquest dsv dvd seaquest dsv dvd
seaquest dsv seaquest dsv
leave it to beaver dvd leave it to beaver dvd
hollywood club hollywood club
sports site myspace.com sports site myspace.com
music site myspace.com music site myspace.com
leave it to beaver leave it to beaver
2006 super bowl 2006 Super Bowl
rose bowl rose Bowl
lalive lalive
wrestlemania tickets wrestlemania tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
lakers tickets cheap los angeles lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
lakers tickets cheap lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers season tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
buy theatre tickets buy theatre tickets
los angeles theater los angeles theater
nfl directory nfl directory
nfl sunday tickets nfl sunday tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
nba basketball tickets nba basketball tickets
nba directory nba directory
cry baby dvd cry baby dvd
breakfast club dvd breakfast club dvd
mall rats dvd mall rats dvd
house dvd house dvd
Very nice site .
Posted by: Panasonic at November 6, 2005 09:52 AMhttp://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/escorte-girl-transsexuelle-free/escorte-girl-transsexuelle-free.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/escorte-girl-a-paris-transsexuelles/escorte-girl-a-paris-transsexuelles.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/comment-devenir-transsexuelle/comment-devenir-transsexuelle.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/transsexuelles-sexy-black/transsexuelles-sexy-black.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/galerie-dephotos-transsexuelle/galerie-dephotos-transsexuelle.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/belle-grosse-queue-transsexuelle/belle-grosse-queue-transsexuelle.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/transgenre-travesti-transsexuelles/transgenre-travesti-transsexuelles.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/club-transsexuelle/club-transsexuelle.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/photo-x-transsexuelles-gratuit/photo-x-transsexuelles-gratuit.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/video-belle-transsexuelles/video-belle-transsexuelles.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/video-x-transsexuelle-black/video-x-transsexuelle-black.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/photo-transsexuelles-amateur-et-gratuit/photo-transsexuelles-amateur-et-gratuit.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/recherche-transsexuelle-sur-paris/recherche-transsexuelle-sur-paris.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/escorte-transsexuelles-montreal/escorte-transsexuelles-montreal.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/photo-transsexuelle-gratuite/photo-transsexuelle-gratuite.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/perso-transsexuelles/perso-transsexuelles.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/rroossaa/transsexuelle-escorte-club/transsexuelle-escorte-club.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/tuning-bmw-m3-photo/tuning-bmw-m3-photo.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/tuning-auto-bmw/tuning-auto-bmw.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/nouveaux-ordinateur-tuning/nouveaux-ordinateur-tuning.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/tuning-club-83/tuning-club-83.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/moto-tuning-piece-occasion/moto-tuning-piece-occasion.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/tuning-sur-opel-vectra-1-7-td/tuning-sur-opel-vectra-1-7-td.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/boitier-et-accessoire-tuning-pc/boitier-et-accessoire-tuning-pc.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/jante-tuning-nord-france/jante-tuning-nord-france.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/tuning-sur-clio/tuning-sur-clio.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/fond-ecran-tuning-auto/fond-ecran-tuning-auto.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/piece-auto-tuning-ssab/piece-auto-tuning-ssab.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/clio-1-tuning/clio-1-tuning.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/exposition-voiture-tuning/exposition-voiture-tuning.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/jorawerr0/bmw-x3-tuning/bmw-x3-tuning.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/toutes-voiture-sport/toutes-voiture-sport.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/voiture-occasion-bmw-318i/voiture-occasion-bmw-318i.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/voiture-rc-thermique/voiture-rc-thermique.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/achat-voiture-neuve-quebec/achat-voiture-neuve-quebec.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/occasion-voiture-belgique/occasion-voiture-belgique.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/vente-au-enchere-de-voiture-a-beauvais/vente-au-enchere-de-voiture-a-beauvais.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/comparatif-batterie-voiture/comparatif-batterie-voiture.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/jeu-video-voiture/jeu-video-voiture.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/cote-et-voiture/cote-et-voiture.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/jeu-de-voiture-de-sport/jeu-de-voiture-de-sport.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ingr2005/voiture-de-sport-a-vendre/voiture-de-sport-a-vendre.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/moteur-voiture-electrique/moteur-voiture-electrique.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/voiture-de-collection-a-louer/voiture-de-collection-a-louer.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/alarme-voiture-telecommande/alarme-voiture-telecommande.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/louer-une-voiture-avec-chauffeur-cannes/louer-une-voiture-avec-chauffeur-cannes.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/voiture-chinoise-france/voiture-chinoise-france.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/occasion-voiture-audi-allemagne/occasion-voiture-audi-allemagne.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/vente-voiture-sans-permis/vente-voiture-sans-permis.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/voiture-collaborateur-occasion/voiture-collaborateur-occasion.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/image-voiture-fond-ecran/image-voiture-fond-ecran.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/garage-achat-voiture-occasion-73/garage-achat-voiture-occasion-73.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/tarif-voiture-chinoise/tarif-voiture-chinoise.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/garage-voiture-occasion-voiture-occasion/garage-voiture-occasion-voiture-occasion.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/piece-moteur-voiture/piece-moteur-voiture.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/voiture-vendre-occasion-allemagne/voiture-vendre-occasion-allemagne.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/kalifert05/ampli-voiture-jvc/ampli-voiture-jvc.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/james-bond-target-free-wallpaper/james-bond-target-free-wallpaper.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/free-and-celebrite-and-wallpaper/free-and-celebrite-and-wallpaper.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/free-wallpapers-changer/free-wallpapers-changer.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/mangas-wallpapers-screensaver-mangas/mangas-wallpapers-screensaver-mangas.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/wallpapers-mangas-naruto/wallpapers-mangas-naruto.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/wallpaper-land-fond-ecran-monde/wallpaper-land-fond-ecran-monde.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/fond-ecran-wallpaper-beyonce/fond-ecran-wallpaper-beyonce.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/free-sexy-girl-wallpaper/free-sexy-girl-wallpaper.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/sexy-men-wallpapers/sexy-men-wallpapers.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/wallpapers-and-anime/wallpapers-and-anime.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/wallpaper-moto-gratuit/wallpaper-moto-gratuit.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/animated-background-wallpapers/animated-background-wallpapers.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/final-and-fantasy-and-wallpaper/final-and-fantasy-and-wallpaper.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/wallpaper-land-sexy/wallpaper-land-sexy.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ringere/wallpaper-mangas-hentai/wallpaper-mangas-hentai.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/logiciel-gratuit-webcam-vista/logiciel-gratuit-webcam-vista.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/chat-sur-webcam/chat-sur-webcam.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/gratuit-webcam-en-live/gratuit-webcam-en-live.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/webcam-gay-gratuite/webcam-gay-gratuite.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/webcam-young-girl/webcam-young-girl.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/logiciel-gratuit-webcam-creative-nx-pro/logiciel-gratuit-webcam-creative-nx-pro.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/logiciel-creative-webcam/logiciel-creative-webcam.html
http://medlem.jubii.dk/leachers/webcam-direct-marseille/webcam-direct-marseille.html
casino
the new casino information blog !!
http://www.the-new-online-casino-directory-2006.com/
Posted by: casino at November 17, 2005 06:36 AMAirfareLowest.net provides great tickets at cheap airfare prices for everyone. We have cheap hotels and cheap rental cars available. You can buy cruise tickets all over the worlds. Feel free to check out our prices so you can see that we have the cheapest prices for all tickets. We have all Airfare our tickets are all Lowest Airfare prices for all Cheap Airfare prices world wide. First Class Airfare is available so as Last Minute Airfare Available. We also provide Cheap Hotels for all Hotel Visitors and we do our own Hotels Reservations including Las Vegas Hotels, London Hotels, New York Hotels, Hilton Hotels, Orlando Hotels. We have all Rental Cars for all the location if you take a cruise ship plus cruise reviews available for all cruises. Plane Tickets available 24 hours a day on our secure server. A fare is the fee paid by a traveller allowing him or her to make use of a public transport system: rail, bus, taxi, etc. In the case of air transport, the term airfare is often used.
The fare paid is a contribution Hotels to the operational costs of the transport system involved, either partial (as is frequently the case with publicly supported systems) or total. We have Hitlton Hotels for all hotel motel places such as chicago hotels for hotels deals. Paris hotels are available all the time San Francisco Hotels 24 hours a day with Habbo hotels, for discount hotel rooms, plus all hawaii hotels, and sheraton hotels, plus malaysia hotels. It's great to spend time in radisson hotels with hotel rooms in New York city hotels plus miami hotels, and singapore hotels. We provide all kind of boston hotels for disney hotels and cancun hotels, plus discount vegas hotels for all our clients. San Diego hotels available with best western hotels in bangkok hotels, and cheap new orleans hotels, amesterdam hotels with great view of the city. Number one choice hotels at wyndham hotels for Prague Hotels and Hyatt Hotels, bellagio hotel. Doubletree hotels phuket hotels and westin hotels we have them all at all times plus toronto hotels, and niagara falls hotels. Many bus and rail systems in the United States recover only around one-third of their operational costs from fares.
The rules regarding how and when fares are to be paid and for how long they remain valid are many and varied. Rail and bus systems usually require the payment of fares on or before boarding. In the case of taxis and other vehicles for hire, payment is Cheap Rental Cars normally made at the end of the ride.
Some systems allow fare transfers: that is to say that a single payment permits travel within a particular geographical zone or time period. Such an arrangement is helpful for people who need to transfer from one route to another in order to reach their destination. Sometimes transfers are valid in one direction only, requiring a new fare to be paid for the return trip.
A Net dating service, also known as hispanic dating service online dating or internet dating, is an example of a dating system and allows individuals, couples and speed dating groups to meet online and possibly develop a social, romantic or sexual interracial dating relationship. Net dating services free dating services provide un-moderated lesbian dating matchmaking through the use of personal jewish dating computers and the Internet.
Such black dating services generally allow people to provide personal information, then search for other individuals using sex dating criteria such as age range, gender and location. Most sites allow members to upload photos of themselves dating lexington online and browse the photos of asian dating others. Sites may offer additional services, including webcasts, dating chat online chat, and message boards. Sites dating advice typically allow people to register for free but may offer services which require a monthly fee.
It seems that everywhere bbw dating you turn today been going to dating sites, people are online dating from site dating. More and more American singles use the online dating services to find love, online personals, friendship, or simply an online friend for matchmaking sites. We were launched to help online dating louisville singles of all ages for free online dating and free dating, religions such as christian datind christian dating services and sexual interests, find exactly what they're looking for with singles dating. Every personals or singles site gets reviewed before being posted here on dating web sites.We have availablegay dating, on our online dating sites, LDS Dating also available for everyone. We have dating tips for everyone, all ages dating available such as seniors dating , internet dating and also we have dating personals We provide all kind of dating such as singles for all singles websites so guys and girls can meet single girls to meet singles online. Many sites are broad-based, with members from a variety of backgrounds looking for different types of relationships. Other sites are more specific, based on the dating personals type of members, interests, location, or matchmaker dating relationship desired.U.S. any dating eharmony has href marriage match more online per service than residents spent $469.5 million on online dating and dating issue personals in 2004, the largest segment of “paid content” on the web, according to a study conducted by the Online free dating personals Publishers Association (OPA) and comScore Networks.
In terms of the dating of free dating site complete authoritative texts, there are dating idea three main versions of the relationship dating Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to be first indian dating assembled russian dating in the 4th century CE. The oldest chicago dating known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex, the yahoo dating oldest complete match dating text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the christian dating services tenth century CE. There is the Septuagint, married dating which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the third century BCE. The oldest dating or services copy of the Septuagint is dating direct centuries older than the seattle dating oldest complete Masoretic text, and texas dating fragments of the Septuagint date to the second century BCE. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which teen dating emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the web dating northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a dating game variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining latin dating authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to 445-460 CE.
Online casino, also recognized as virtual casinos, is the online description of land-based casinos. They permit you to play casino games through the internet casino. Some online casinos supply various games such as casino gambling, while others only offer only one type of game. Online poker is also very well-liked and there are many devoted companies that offer this activity such as casino bonus, free casino games, grand casino and world wide such as uk online casino, las vegas casino.Online casinos can for sure have games offer better odds than casino on net. Land casinos on slots and other formats where the chance of captivating is resolute by the house. Table games like casino gaming, blackjack which have an casino poker, recognized house edge: for a given set of rules, they offer the similar payout, online or offline. Reliability and faith are hard to gambling casino online establish. To solve this issue, many online casinos purchase their software from well-known best casino, companies such as Wager Works, Microgaming, OddsOn, Playtech and Cryptologic, though a little study casino on line, into credentials of any e-commerce site you plan to use is gambling casino, ordinary sense. These software companies use a casino online gambling random number maker online casino slot to ensure that the casino online gambling, numbers, cards or dice appear randomly. All reputable companies in service in a regulated environment use robust random number generators.
For this particular online casino game example, this would mean that a player depositing $100 would start with $200 in his account. He must make $5000 in wagers online+casino before withdrawing. This can be played at a game such as blackjack.
online pharmacy, pharmacy, canadian pharmacy, vicodin online pharmacy, canada pharmacy, phentermine online pharmacy, online pharmacy valium, xanax online pharmacy, ultram online pharmacy, pharmacy online, alprazolam online pharmacy, discount pharmacy, mexican pharmacy, internet pharmacy, mail order pharmacy, canada online pharmacy, overseas pharmacy, foreign pharmacy, phentermine pharmacy, tesco pharmacy jobs, on line pharmacy, pharmacy technician, online+pharmacy, international pharmacy, viagra pharmacy, pharmacy job, canadian online pharmacy, pet pharmacy, pharmacy discount, canadian pharmacy online, pharmacy drug, pharmacy canadian, pharmacy order tramadol, cvs pharmacy, pharmacy drugs, lortab online pharmacy, lortab pharmacy, mexico pharmacy, vicodin pharmacy, pharmacy jobs, ultram pharmacy, online pharmacy affiliate program, soma online pharmacy, pharmacy on line, canadian discount pharmacy, discount online pharmacy, viagra online pharmacy, adderol online pharmacy, canadian pharmacy affiliate, online discount pharmacy, vicodin+online+pharmacy, online pharmacy tramadol, canadian pharmacy on line, diazepam online pharmacy, pharmacy schools, online pharmacy no prescription, online canadian pharmacy, valium pharmacy, foreign online pharmacy, hydrocodone, online pharmacy, cialis online pharmacy, wholesale pharmacy, cvs pharmacy career, phentermine+online+pharmacy, brooks pharmacy, line pharmacy, online+pharmacy+valium, xanax+online+pharmacy, alprazolam+online+pharmacy, ultram+online+pharmacy, pharmacy school, walgreens pharmacy, international online pharmacy, mexican pharmacy online, hydrocodone pharmacy, pharmacy tech, best online pharmacy, online internet pharmacy, ambien pharmacy, online doctor pharmacy, pharmacy no prescription hydrocodone, online pharmacy celebrex, online pharmacy medicine, line pharmacy phentermine, pharmacy technician schools, canadian on line pharmacy, online pharmacy pay pal, pharmacy tech online, online pharmacy canada, canada+pharmacy, mexican pharmacy ortho novum cheap florida online pharmacy, canada in online pharmacy, law online pharmacy, aldara online pharmacy, online pharmacy technician, online pharmacy technician course, online pharmacy florida delivery phentermine, pharmacy tech online schools, pharmacy technicians
Posted by: Airfare at January 5, 2006 10:15 PMpuz, sl, zdrowa żywność, mieszkania Warszawa
ogłoszenia nieruchomości, projektowanie stron
tworzenie stron, agencja reklamowa, reklama w internecie, psycholog, nauka angielskiego, soczewki kontaktowe, psyche sf, jk, nls, projektowanie wnętrz, hydraulik Warszawa, opcataloz, domy opieki, freetimes, jidds, fabrykapoe, sfworks, polskepoeje, pb, pp, jk, wypadki, opony, agroturystyka, klimatyzacja, apteka, dentysta, f, kray, ewes, angs, git, akupunktura, sc
hotels, cheap hotels, new york hotels, las vegas hotels, orlando hotels, london hotels, us hotels, discount hotels, hawaii hotels, south beach hotels, vegas hotels, san francisco hotels, kauai hotels, marriott hotels, hilton hotels, chicago hotels, paris hotels, bangkok hotels, cancun hotels, maimi hotels, sheraton hotels, amsterdam hotels, reno hotels, rome hotels, hotels in johannesburg, boston hotels, hotels london, venice hotels, atlantic city hotels, wyndham hotels, prague hotels, radisson hotels, anaheim hotels, san diego hotels, singapore hotels, vancouver hotels, toronto hotels, westin hotels, thailand hotels, hyatt hotels, choice hotels, sydney hotels, new york city hotels, luxury hotels, montreal hotels, hotels in london, myrtle beach hotels, california hotels, new orleans hotels, disney hotels, hotels in san francisco, florida hotels, hotels singapore, hotels in singapore, italy hotels, best western hotels, bali hotels, hotels cheap, hotels dublin, philadelphia hotels, atlanta hotels, hotels discount, barcelona hotels, milan hotels, hotels barcelona, hotels search, washington dc hotels, melbourne hotels, hotels canada, casino hotels, hotels resort, bahamas hotels, perth hotels, hotels in paris, hotels, flights, tennessee hotels, nice hotels, hotels branson, travel hotels, resorts hotels, regency hotels, lodging hotels, hotels in cancun, rooms hotels, reservations hotels, hotels austria, maui hotels, mississippi hotels, reservation hotels, hotels accommondation, key hotels, monte hotels, kong hotels, hotels time, hotels dc, room hotels, hotels prague, marriot hotels, hotels in mexico, cruise, cruise travel, alaska cruise, princess cruise, carnival cruise, windstar cruise, caribbean cruise, royal caribbean cruise, discount cruise, mediterranean cruise, european cruise, princess cruise line, europe cruise, celebrity cruise, bermuda cruise, cruise vacation, cruise lines, cheap cruise, cruise ship, disney cruise, cruise deal, crystal cruise, cruise deals, cruise line, celebrity cruise line, disney cruise line, norwegian cruise line, cruise chips luxury cruise, tom cruise, carnival cruise line, norwegian cruise, bolsover cruise club, cruise vacations, halland america cruise, royal caribbean cruise line, last minute cruise, sex cruise, honeymoon cruise, radisson cruis, cruise packages, norwegian cruise line, cruise reviews, cruise package, princess cruise lines, cruise holidays, hawaiian cruise, carnival cruise lines, mexico cruise, travel cruise, vacation cruise, celebrity cruise ship, cruise special, alaskan cruise, princess cruise line alaska, packages cruise, hawaii cruise, ships cruise, lines cruise, carabean cruise, cruis cams, river cruise, royal caribbean sovereign sea cruishe ship, crystal cruise line, norwegian cruise lines, holland america cruise line, bahamas cruise, carnival cruise ship, panama cruise, qe2 cruise, last minut cruise deals, cruise+travel, silversea cruise line, cruise from hawaii, grand princess cruise, cruise planning, royal carribean cruise, royal cruise, cruise ship jobs, celebrity cruise lines, princess cruise irlanda, antarctica cruise, family cruise, royal carribean cruise line, discount cruise discount travel, caribbean cruise line, panama canal cruise, singles cruise, cruise line vacation, cruise to the bahamas, norweigen cruise line, raddison cruise line, direct princess cruise line, cruise hawaii, rental cars, cars rental, discount rental cars, avis rental cars, cheap rental cars, budget rental cars, rental+Cars, los angeles rental cars, rental cars dublin, buying rental cars dating, online dating, dating service, sex dating, dating site, internet dating, free dating, christian dating, dating online, dating services, senior dating, dating personals, internet dating service, free online dating, gay dating, dating sex, online dating service, asian dating, dating agency, single dating, christian dating service, dating web site, dating sites, dating chat, dating tips, black dating, dating advice, lesbian dating, online dating services, jewish dating, online single dating, interracial dating, dating personal, dating club, on line dating, free dating services, online dating site, russian dating, bisexual dating, personal dating, alternative dating, dating services online, international dating, christian dating services, latin dating, dating tip, speed dating, new york dating, free dating service, dating women, mature dating, uk dating, singles dating, dating russian, chicago dating, free online dating service, free dating site, free online dating services, dating romance, seattle dating, computer dating, dating internet, dating single, free dating online, dating ads, internet dating services, dating girl, dating idea, seniors dating, gay dating services, teen dating, dating on line
dating, online dating, dating service, sex dating, dating site, internet dating, free dating, christian dating, dating online, dating services, senior dating, dating personals, internet dating service, free online dating, gay dating, dating sex, online dating service, asian dating, dating agency, single dating, christian dating service, dating web site, dating sites, dating chat, dating tips, black dating, dating advice, lesbian dating, online dating services, jewish dating, online single dating, interracial dating, dating personal, dating club, on line dating, free dating services, online dating site, russian dating, bisexual dating, personal dating, alternative dating, dating services online, international dating, christian dating services, latin dating, dating tip, speed dating, new york dating, free dating service, dating women, mature dating, uk dating, singles dating, dating russian, chicago dating, free online dating service, free dating site, free online dating services, dating romance, seattle dating, computer dating, dating internet, dating single, free dating online, dating ads, internet dating services, dating girl, dating idea, seniors dating, gay dating services, teen dating, dating on line
airfare, cheap airfare, cheapest airfare, cheap international airfare, lowest airfare, low airfare, international airfare, cheap discount airfare, list minute airfare, airfare bargain, airfare cheap, airfare discounts, discount international airfare, bargain airfare, online airfare, best airfare, student airfare discounts, discounted airfare, airfare deals, vail airfare deals, low cost airfare, student airfare, travel airfare, europe airfare, jet blue airfare, airafe travel, last minute airfare deal, discount airfare ticket, cheap airfare ticket, airfare specials, discount airfare price, airfare to hawaii, minute airfare, airfare tickets, airfare deal, budget airfair, las vegas airfare, first class airfare, dirt cheap airfare, philippine airline airfare, cheap airfare travel, airfare discount, hawaii airfare, dates airfare, airfare price, malasian airfare, cheap airfare to london, cheap airfare to europe, airfare too bahamas, student discount airfare, cheap student airfare, airfare sales, cheap+airfare, lowest airfare rate, airfare consolidator, cheapest airfare ticket, london airfare, cheap airfare international, cheap airfare tickets, airline airfare, airfare ticket, airfare prices, southwest airline airfare, cheapest international airfare, low airfare international, cheap airfare europe, low price airfare, international discount airfare, very cheap airfare, airfare quote, lowest international airfare, low airfare price, hotwire airfare, domestic airfare, cheap airfare london, cheap airfare uk, travel cheaper airfare, cheapest airfare tickets, concun airfare, lowest price airfare, cheap airfare las vegas, discount airfare to cancun, last minute discount airfare, cheapest airfare price, philippine airfare, airfare search, cheap airfare deal, business class airfare, airfare special, airfare com, cheap first class airfare, lowest airfare price, one way airfare, discounted international airfare, cheap airfare to hawaii, discount airfare australia, travelocity airfare, airfare online, cheap airfare to mexico,
Dating Services
Online Dating services Online
Dating services
Free Dating Services Free
Dating Services
single dating services single
dating services
online Dating Service online
Dating Service
online personal dating services
online personal dating services
Adult dating Adult dating
adult friend finder personals
adult friend finder personals
adult dating
adult personals
dating sites
online dating
adult dating services
adult dating service
adult dating
Adult personals
adult personals dating
free adult personals
adult personal adult personal
online adult personals online
adult personals
adult sex dating adult sex dating
adult dating online adult dating
online
Adult Dating Adult Personals
adult dating single adult dating
single
adult dating personal adult dating
personal
free online dating sites free
online dating sites
dating web sites dating web sites
on line dating sites on line
dating sites
personals dating web sites
personals dating web sites
dating, online dating dating,
online dating
adult personals adult personals
adult Dating
adult personals
personals
Adult Personals Adult
Personals
Free Adult Personals Free
Adult Personals
Adult Dating Personals Adult
Dating Personals
dating services dating services
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
dating sites
Dating Site
adult dating
adult personals
Dating
Online Dating Online Dating
Online Dating Service Online
Dating Service
adult dating
Adult Dating
Adult personals
Dating Sites
Online Dating Sites Online Dating
Sites
Dating web Site Dating web Site
adult dating site adult dating
site
free dating sites free dating
sites
Online Dating Site Online Dating
Site
free online dating free online
dating
online dating services online
dating services
online dating site online dating
site
dating online dating online
online personal dating services
online personal dating services
swingers group swingers group
swingers web site swingers web
site
swinger site swinger site
adult swingers club adult
swingers club
adult dating
adult dating services adult dating
services
free adult dating site free adult
dating site
adult personals dating adult
personals dating
adult dating service adult dating
service
adult singles dating adult singles
dating
internet dating internet dating
internet dating internet dating
dating services dating services
local swingers local swingers
swingers ads swingers ads
swinger wife swinger wife
swinger site swinger site
swingers group swingers group
free adult dating free adult
dating
adult dating site adult dating
site
adult dating services online adult
dating services online
adult dating adult dating
adult personals
dating sites dating sites
adult Dating
online Dating
sex Dating
Dating
Internet Dating Internet Dating
Internet Dating Services
Internet Dating Services
internet dating service
internet dating service
adult personals
dating sites
adult dating
personals
Adult Personals Adult
Personals
Free Adult Personals Free
Adult Personals
internet dating online internet
dating online
internet dating site
internet dating sites
online dating
dating services
personals adult dating
personals adult dating
personals personals
adult dating
adult personals
adult dating service
adult dating services
Dating
Online Dating Service
Online Dating Service
Online Dating Services
Online Dating Services
adult personals adult personals
adult Dating
adult personals
personals
Adult Personals Adult
Personals
Free Adult Personals Free
Adult Personals
Adult Dating Personals Adult
Dating Personals
free online dating free
online dating
online dating service
online dating service
dating service dating
service
free dating services free
dating services
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult
personals
ADULT PERSONALS
Adult Dating
Adult Dating Site Adult Dating
Site
Adult dating Service Adult dating
Service
adult dating services adult dating
services
internet datinginternet
dating
dating services dating
services
adult dating adult dating
adult dating service
Adult Dating Personals
Adult Dating Personals
Adult dating Adult dating
adult friend finder
personals adult friend finder personals
online personals dating
services online personals dating services
alternative
lifestyle alternative lifestyle
adult dating adult
dating
adult personals
adult personals
dating
Adult Swingers Adult Swingers
Swingers Swingers
Swinger Club Swinger Club
swinger personals swinger
personals
swingers sex swingers sex
ADULT dating ADULT dating
adult photo personals
adult photo personals
adult personals adult
personals
Dating Services Dating
Services
Online Dating Online
Dating
online personal dating
services online personal dating services
online single dating
service online single dating service
internet dating services
internet dating services
DATING DATING
online datings online dating
adult dating adult dating
adult personals directory
adult personals directory
adult personal adult
personal
online adult personals
online adult personals
adult dating adult
dating
adult personals adult
personals
ADULT PERSONALS
personals
Alternative
Personals Alternative Personals
Alternative Dating
Alternative Dating
Dating Personals
Dating Personals
Gay dating Gay
dating
dating sites dating sites
adult Dating
online Dating
sex Dating
Dating
Internet Dating Internet Dating
Internet Dating Services
Internet Dating Services
internet dating service
internet dating service
Lesbian Dating
Lesbian Dating
alt personals alt
personals
adult photo personals adult
photo personals
online adult personals online
adult personals
adult dating personals adult
dating personals
adult photo personals adult
photo personals
adult personals adult
personals
adult personals directory
adult personals directory
gay personals gay
personals
lesbian personals
lesbian personals
alt dating alt
dating
adult personals adult personals
swinger dating swinger dating
adult dating online adult dating
online
adult dating sex adult dating sex
adult dating ads adult dating ads
adult dating
adult personals
lesbians lesbians
gays gays
lesbian lesbian
gay gay
Home Security Systems
Home Security Camera ,
Home Security System , home security system
Home Security Systems , home security systems
Home Security Systems , home security systems
Home Security cameras , home security cameras
Home Security camera , home security camera
Home Security camera , home security camera
x10 wireless camera ,
x10 wireless cameras ,
Home Security Camera ,
Home Security Cameras ,
Home Security System ,
Home Security Systems ,
Home security product ,
security products ,
wireless security ,
wireless security system ,
camera phone security ,
Home security camera ,
Home security cameras ,
Home Security Camera System ,
prom dress ,
formal dress ,
formal dresses ,
homecoming dress ,
dress up ,
dresses ,
sexy dress ,
girl dress ,
gowns ,
evening gowns ,
prom gowns ,
formal gowns ,
best prom dress ,
dress shoes ,
cheap prom dress ,
formal wear , formal wear
dance wear , dance wear
evening wear , evening wear
gown , gown
prom gowns , prom gowns
dance shoe , dance shoe
casual dress , casual dress
dress , dress
formal gown , formal gown
Prom dress
dress
wedding dress
dress shoes
dress up games
evening dress
best prom dress
bridesmaid dress
cheap prom dress
formal dress
prom dress
wedding dress
dresses
bridesmaid dresses
formal dresses
flower girl dresses
cocktail dresses
bridal-dresses
homecoming dresses
bridesmaids dresses
wedding gowns
bridal gowns
gowns
evening gowns
formal gowns
designer wedding gowns
prom dresses and gowns
bridal shoe
womens shoe
Home Security System
Home Security Systems
Home Security Camera
Home Security Cameras,
x10 cameras ,
x10 home security ,
home security store ,
security home ,
nanny cam ,
x10 wireless camera ,
x10 wireless cameras ,
Home Security Camera ,
Home Security Cameras ,
Home Security System ,
Home Security Systems ,
home security product ,
home security system ,
wireless home security system ,
wireless security system ,
camera phone security ,
Home security camera ,
Home security cameras ,
Home Security Camera System ,
Home Security Camera Systems ,
spy camera ,
surveillance camera ,
wireless camera ,
wireless security camera ,
security camera system ,
camera security ,
surveillance video camera ,
security cameras ,
home automation ,
x10 home automation ,
automation home wiring wireless ,
home automation software , <a
href="http://www.csun.edu/~jap56043/">Sport site ,
Baseball Site ,
basketball site ,
Footbll site.
http://homesecuritysystem.50megs.com
http://homesecuritysystem.ourprofile.org
http://homesecurity.alkablog.com
http://homesecurity.friendcircles.com/journal
http://homesecuritysystem.mysite.com/
http://homex10.white.prohosting.com/
http://wirelesscameras.memebot.com/
http://www.freespaces.com/homesecurity/index.html
http://www.homesecurity.familyplanit.com/
http://www.homesecuritycamera.zoomshare.com/
http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Tickets-for-Sale-Online
压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪
压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas
Achat DOFUS Kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
陈楚生
runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk
