12:16 am, 2/3/05
I can't quite get to sleep here, but there's something that's really bothering me about Nancy Pelosi's "response" to the State of the Union.
I want to refer you to this incident
from right at one year ago.
That was when Iranian and Lebanese terrorists went on an early-morning rampage through Iraqi police stations and administrative offices, killing numerous officers, until they were finally caught at one station near Fallujah that made a stand. Despite being caught badly short on ammo, the Iraqi cops there fought back with everything at hand, and even when they ran out, did not flee. Fighting dragged on for an hour, and Coalition forces, only 10 minutes away, could hear the explosions and sent out a radio call to ask if the Iraqis needed reinforcement.
The Iraqi cops politely refused: Despite death and hellfire raining down around them, they didn't want reinforcements. This was their fight, and they wanted more ammo. They got their wish, and ultimately repelled the murderers, taking their RPGs as trophies.
(After the battle, the commander observed
, somewhat prophetically in hindsight, that "there has to be a foreign agency that is financing this type of thing". You can read more about the battle in that article, or this one
. Numerous related photos here
They were tough as nails and would've made good characters in any old Western, but it's one in a long string of their tales of heroism you've probably never heard, and probably never will. 2,000 Iraqi soldiers participated in the battle to retake Fallujah, and they performed well, often operating independently of the Coalition. Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police officers have hunted and captured terrorist overlords, intercepted assassinations and bombings, stormed insurgent strongholds, and sometimes, if they turn their back too long, they're just plain murdered
by the enemies of their homeland.
In a country where walking tall for justice and the rule of law is done at great personal risk, they stand up tallest of all, and no matter how many are slain for standing up to the campaign of murder being waged by Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda, there are eager cadets waiting to fill their shoes.This is what the Democratic Party thinks of their courage
We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the Administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.
For the purposes of Nancy Pelosi, they don't exist. They're all figments of our imagination. Forget what you can plainly see with your own eyes: The Iraqi soldiers Mohammed and Omar came across
on their way to vote the other day? Another Bush lie!
There have been failures, for sure, because Iraq's security forces are green, young, and have a long way to go before they mature into a self-sustaining institution, and they can only learn by example. (That, someone may want to explain to Nancy, is why we're sticking around.) However, they are most certainly there, and that awful harpy's apparent assertion that they aren't is so ludicrous as to defy explanation. It's a despicable, stupid lie, one that escaped through her mock smile in astounding disregard for the dignity of Iraq's fighting men and the memory of Iraq's fallen.
Who could she conceivably have expected to influence with this? What political gain did Pelosi imagine she could harvest with such transparent filth that she believed justified such slander against so many good men? Like Poles to John Kerry, to Nancy Pelosi, Iraqi souls just don't count.
This is apparently the modern face of the Democratic Party, and it's absolutely disgusting. With her "response", Pelosi has quite literally become a bad parody of the old Iraqi Information Minister.Update:
Now that I'm awake and reading the whole thing (I got nauseous and changed channels. As Glenn Reynolds says, most people weren't watching by that point.) it seems there were a lot
of things Pelosi said that were just silly.
We have never heard a clear plan from this Administration for ending our presence in Iraq. And we did not hear one tonight. Democrats believe a credible plan to bring our troops home and stabilize Iraq must include three key elements.
First, this "Democrats believe" stuff? This should really be ditched. Given that they're already the minority party all the way across the board, this really makes the Democratic Party sound like an obscure cult on a recruiting drive. "Zarthusians
believe that macaroni is murder. Are you interested in our newsletter?"
Secondly, of course there isn't a clear plan to leave. That isn't what we're doing right now
. We just had an election and the goal right now is to stabilize the government and society.
Congress has provided billions of dollars for reconstruction, but little of that money has been spent to put Iraqis to work rebuilding their country.
What's she going to do when we start outsourcing jobs to Iraq? Burst into flames?
Diplomacy can lessen the political problems in Iraq, take pressure off of our troops, and deprive the insurgency of the fuel of anti-Americanism on which it thrives.
How does this work? Talking to Syria and Iran will take pressure off of our troops? It will deprive the insurgency of it's fuel? Is she admitting the "insurgency" is a war being waged against our troops by foreign powers? Shouldn't the issue, then, that these governments are facilitating the murder of American troops and Iraqi civilians rather diminish the perceived power of attempting to arrange a tea party with them?
Despite the Administration's rhetoric, airline cargo still goes uninspected, shipping containers go unscreened, and our railroads and power plants are not secure. Police officers and firefighters across America have pleaded for the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack, but the Administration still hasn't delivered for our first responders.
Sorry, but I'm not going to take my shoes off to ride Amtrak. The best way to keep terrorists off our trains is to kill or capture them long, long before they get on. Does she seriously imagine it's even plausible
to start carefully screening every single container? Who is supposed to pay for this? (Rhetorical.) Again, this is a non-plank in a non-platform that failed Kerry miserably, yet the DNC is still running with it. Amazing.
We can and we must keep the world's most gruesome weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands. Nothing is more important to our homeland security, and indeed to the safety of the world.
What? Who's hands? Iran's hands? How are we going to do that? Ask the UN? Regional diplomacy? Oh, that isn't working? What are the Democrats going to do about it that the Republicans aren't? Start a war over it
, Nancy? Hello, McFly?
For three years, the President has failed to put together a comprehensive plan to protect America from terrorism, and we did not hear one tonight.
That's what jaws hitting the floor sound like. Why is this woman considered a leader?Update:
A few angry Pelosi apologists have asked for a number on the current status of Iraqi security forces. Here's one: 94,000
Why anyone would go to bat for Nancy is beyond me, but hey, different strokes. I'm still reeling from Harry Reid bringing up an old Bill Murray movie in his speech.Update:
More Iraqi security personnel who are untrained and imaginary
Iraq's security forces and multinational forces continue to do "a great job" in addressing this threat, Naquib said. During the past three weeks, they have arrested more than 350 terrorists, and on "two or three" recent occasions just before the elections, they came "within about one hour" of capturing al-Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"We have weakened them very much and we are continuing to weaken them, and hopefully in a very short period of time, nobody will hear about Zarqawi and his group," he said.
In the meantime, Naquib said efforts continue to train, equip and modernize Iraq's security forces and to introduce more professional-level, as well as basic, training. He cited successes in building Iraq's special forces elements, which have become active in a full range of security missions.
If only John Kerry were President, Pelosi could do something to turn this situation around. (Via Kallini.com
at 02:37 AM, 2/3/05
Thanks for the specifics in this post. The only thing Pelosi and Reid have to go on is generic hate. Once you point out things that are actually happening instead of telling people how to feel, people understand.
Anyone else notice how Senator Reid said that some 10 year old boy with a skateboard told Reid that he wanted to grow up to be like him? That story makes no sense. I'm not sure I knew even what a Senator was in 3rd grade. Less likely I knew what his name was.
at 08:36 AM, 2/3/05
The Democrats contend they stand for the common man. Except of course when the common man doesn't further the Democrats' political agenda. Ordinary Iraqis working to secure their nation's future doesn't help the Democrats in their attacks on GWB, so they don't exist for folks like Pelosi.
at 08:55 AM, 2/3/05
Despite the pathetic wanderings of Pelosi and Sen Reid's homespun "reaching out" to the moral values of those who take personal responsibility personally and sent the Dems packing(i.e.and who have been the the perennial targets of contemptuous, hate-spewing, jackboot leftist boneheads posturing as "intellectuals"), Sen Reid's story is probably true. You just probably haven't been to Searchlight, NV., or just didn't notice it when you went by (what was that?):-)
I found his comments extremely interesting, and he was chosen very deliberately. Nothing wrong with that, but it just shows once again that politicians will generically and immediately whore-out when they see the train pulling out without them, irrespective of railing against the same agenda with apparent sincerity just in the days before.
The Zell Millers of the world are rare birds indeed.
at 09:54 AM, 2/3/05
At this point can there be any doubt that these people are cheering for failure?
at 10:55 AM, 2/3/05
I believe you misread what Pelosi said- she said large numbers have not been trained, she didn't claim none had been trained. She was referencing the dispute between Biden and Rice at her hearings- Rice claims 120,000 Iraqi troops have completed training, Biden claims 4000, which is what Pelosi was saying, not 0. 4000, or even 10000 if Biden was lowballing it, is consistent with your evidence (such as 2000 in Fallujah), but there's no evidence for the 120k fully trained Iraqi troops and police the administration claims exist.
at 11:32 AM, 2/3/05
SP: Biden's claim is prima facie impossible. 2,000 troops in Fallujah, 3,000 cops in Mosul. That alone indicates significant lowballing, and there's more than a couple cities in Iraq. If Pelosi was somehow trying to "not count" Iraqi police for her statement, perhaps she might be on to something, but, well, that would be pathetic, because I'm guessing the cops sure count themselves as part of Iraq's security personnel.
at 12:59 PM, 2/3/05
Pathetic Pelosi was one of the Bay Area Babes who came to power on an anti-war, anti-military platform that, among other results, drove away most of California's military bases.
at 03:03 PM, 2/3/05
Wait a second. Are there or are there not 120,000 Iraqi troops fully prepared to replace an equivalent number of US troops? If the actual number is substantially below 120,000 troops, then Nancy Pelosi is completely correct in her assertion.
at 03:35 PM, 2/3/05
Wait a minute... She says there aren't enough troops, and your rebuttal is a story about how brave the Iraqi troops are?
Without numbers this isn't a rebuttal, this is just feel-good rhetoric. I second TTN's observation: either there are far fewer than 120,000 troops in Iraq, and Pelosi was right, or there aren't, in which case we should be readying the troops to come home. The fact that we aren't tells me that Pelosi was in fact entirely correct.
You say: "What political gain did Pelosi imagine she could harvest with such transparent filth that she believed justified such slander against so many good men?"
What filth? What slander? She wants to make sure there are MORE Iraqi troops, and this is somehow a bad thing? Umm...
at 03:38 PM, 2/3/05
TTN: Rice didn't claim there were 120,000 Iraqis "fully prepared". She said there were 120,000 Iraqis who had gone through the training program. Further, she did not claim there were 120,000 Iraqi troops, she said there were 120,000 who had been trained as security personnel. That includes tens of thousands of police. Whatever the exact number, it's certainly in the tens of thousands that have gone through the basic training programs. That doesn't mean they're seasoned, not any more than a kid who comes out of the police academy or fresh out of boot camp. That's *potentially* what Biden meant about 4,000.
It will be at least a decade before Iraqi forces can be described as "fully prepared", as it takes years to build a disciplined, competent security institution from the ground up. That's an unavoidable fact, one Pelosi conveniently ignores. Nothing can replace experience.
The statement Pelosi made last night was given with no context, no background, and no perspective. Her implication was that there is no serious effort to train Iraqi security forces, which is a flat out lie. In fact, in context, she specifically said that. Perhaps if she had taken 30 seconds to explain about Rice and Biden, it would've come out differently, but that just isn't what she said.
Heh: It simply isn't.
at 03:43 PM, 2/3/05
Of course there are significant Kurdish peshmerga, who are well trained, battle hardened troops. They comprised much of the forces in Iraqi forces that fought in Fallujah. The problem is the defection, infiltration, and undertraining in the Iraqi National Guard and other national security forces. Before engaging in histrionics, you should familiarize yourself with facts.
at 03:51 PM, 2/3/05
She wants to make sure there are MORE Iraqi troops, and this is somehow a bad thing?
*sigh* This isn't hard:
Pelosi said that the Coalition isn't making a priority out of training Iraqis. That's a lie. For all the Iraqi troops who aren't being trained, a whole hell of a lot of them have been killed fighting. That was what I was getting at with the story.)
She said there isn't "a large number" of Iraqi security personnel that have been trained. That's a lie. (Even Levin puts the number at around 25,000-30,000. That's a large number, by anyone's standard. If 120,000 is overly optimistic, Pelosi was still wrong and intentionally misleading to her audience. She provided no background whatsoever to attach her claim to the "120,000" number.)
in which case we should be readying the troops to come home
That's a fascinating theory. You believe we can whip up a modern military capable of standing up to a deliberate foreign guerilla proxy campaign where none existed before in just a few seasons?
Maybe Pelosi does, too. It's completely delusional, but it would explain her accompanying comments. Or maybe she doesn't care what happens in Iraq, as long as she's scored points with her constituents by taking a couple of obligatory "U.S. out of everywhere!" shots.
at 03:55 PM, 2/3/05
The problem is the defection, infiltration, and undertraining in the Iraqi National Guard and other national security forces.
So you're simultaneously admitting that we're training a substantial force (and that it has problems, as I said above), but, what, then defending Pelosi for claiming we aren't?
at 06:14 PM, 2/3/05
First of all, 25,000-30,000 is not a large number compared to 120,000.
Second, there is a larger point here. How close are Iraqi security forces to being able to take responsibility for security in Iraq? The 120,000 force figure is an attempt to imply that we are close. But, if we are far short of that number and if the forces are are not a "disciplined, competent security institution" then perhaps we shouldn't let that number "lull us into a false sense of confidence."
Everyone is willing to stipulate that it will take a long time for these forces to be ready. Everyone is willing to stipulate that some of them are currently engaged in security action, often performing with bravery and courage. The point is that the Bush administration is trying to imply that we've achieved a level of success in rebuilding Iraqi security institutions that we haven't. Nancy Pelosi is making exactly that point.
at 06:43 PM, 2/3/05
The point is that the Bush administration is trying to imply that we've achieved a level of success in rebuilding Iraqi security institutions that we haven't. Nancy Pelosi is making exactly that point.
And I'm in total disagreement. 30,000 isn't a large number compared to 120,000, but it's still a damn large number. Pelosi provided no point of reference: you and I may have followed the confirmation hearings, but face it, most people listening last night didn't. All they heard was that we haven't trained "a large number", and that the Administration is claiming we have. The implication of the number not being "large" is (and I can't believe I have to explain this) that the number is "small", which is exactly why she phrased it the way she did.
On the other hand, I note from your blog that you seem to be entertaining the Lancet's long-debunked "100,000 civilians" claim.
at 07:48 PM, 2/3/05
Captain's Quarters already debunked this claim at
Over a month before Rice's testimony, there were 94,341 trained security personnel in Iraq. With the huge influx of recruits, it wouldn't be surprising if the raw number for the manpower were close to 120,000.
Of course, Rice's job had nothing to do with following the exact number of Iraqi security forces, so why she should be held accountable for a missquote of less than thirty thousand men is beyond me.
The underlying point, of course, is that the Democrats were either totally ignorant of the reality of Iraq, or lying.
I'm sure all of you on here will just claim the Post was lying, though. It's so easy to just dismiss contrary evidence.
at 09:07 PM, 2/3/05
FWIW, the Lancet study is not "long-debunked." For every "expert" that you provide to debunk it, you'll find just as many that won't. There were imperfections in the statistical model, as there often are in sampled studies. Imperfections lower the level of confidence; they do not, however, justify trashing the results in their entirety.
Would you feel better about 50,000 dead? 25,000? Where is your comfort zone?
"Captain's Quarters already debunked this claim". Ahem.....Pincus was quoting Pentagon figures. Since the Pentagon is part of the bullshit machine, I'm not sure their figures would be very useful for debunking.
at 09:26 PM, 2/3/05
There were imperfections in the statistical model, as there often are in sampled studies. Imperfections lower the level of confidence; they do not, however, justify trashing the results in their entirety.
That statistical model was so flawed that even the "study" itself admitted that the margin of error left the total at anywhere between about 2,000 and 200,000. You don't need experts to debunk it: It debunks itself, and yes, that margin of error justifies trashing it. It's a trash study. Additionally, 100,000 is, quite frankly, physically impossible: You're talking about a couple hundred dead daily, even weekends and holidays. The bodies simply don't exist, and neither the terrorists nor the Coalition have been active enough to make that plausible.
The real number, based on the existing estimates of even humanitarian and anti-war groups *before* some con artist gave you guys a new number to latch on to, was somewhere between 10,000-25,000, and that's entirely possible. Thanks to your buddies publishinig in the Lancet, there appears to be no further serious attempt to get a real number, because you've been screaming "100,000! 100,000!" for quite some time and will continue to do so well into the future, despite the number being dynamic. We may now never know.
Since the Pentagon is part of the bullshit machine
And Biden and Pelosi are part of, what? The DNC Engine of Honesty, despite Biden's claim being provably wrong based on information from two
locales? Face it: One number is plausible, the other is not. Even Levin could, in theory, be right, but based on what we know, we can figure that to be the lowest reasonable estimate.
at 10:06 PM, 2/3/05
Speaking of things that I can't believe that I have to explain -- large and small are relative terms. Is 30,000 a "damn large number?" Well, it depends on context. In this situation, the context is 30,000 compared to 120,000, which you agree isn't large. Thus, Nancy's phrasing was right on the money.
And whatever number of troops have "completed training," the question is what good are they? Even if 120,000 have completed training, what percentage are capable of managing the security situation in Iraq.
Should we have a "sense of confidence" if they are not yet able to perform the task for which they were trained? That's the question, isn't it.
If the answer is yes, then Nancy is wrong. If the answer is no, Nancy's right. And that, my friend, is the bottom line.
at 10:13 PM, 2/3/05
In this situation, the context is 30,000 compared to 120,000, which you agree isn't large.
Except that that isn't the context: Pelosi may have been refeerring to what Rice said, but she did not say that, and she did not mention a number. Not many sit around watching confirmation hearing, she left it entirely to the imagination to determine what "large" means. Most people would agree that training a force of 30,000 in a year is pretty impressive.
Should we have a "sense of confidence" if they are not yet able to perform the task for which they were trained? That's the question, isn't it.
No. No, it isn't. The Administration has been very clear that these guys aren't ready to defend Iraq by themselves. It's a straw man that Pelosi set up. Completing basic training does not equal a disciplined institution prepared to sustain itself.
For whatever reason, Pelosi implies that it should, and that's just idiotic.
at 10:21 PM, 2/3/05
And that, my friend, is the bottom line.
So . . . the bottom line is feel-good platitudes and instant gratification? Good thing that's not the rest of the country's bottom-line.
You're shifting the goal-posts again, but that's common for the left.
"There aren't enough trained men."
"Oh, there are? Well, they're not trained well enough."
"Oh, they are? Well, they're not improving fast enough, then."
The most recent Gallup poll puts support for Bush and his Iraq policy at 78%. Guess most people understand what actually building infrastructure entails, be it military, economic, or otherwise.
And Doug, you're a fuckwit. You want debate, but your response to any contrary evidence is immediate dismissal or outright ignorance.
There are at least 100,000 trained soldiers/police in Iraq, according to all available evidence. Unless, and until, you can produce more than a "gut feeling" or political whining from Pelosi, I'm just going to have to to conclude that you're wrong.
I'm sure that Pelosi has more of an inside line on Iraq's military growth than the Pentagon. She's spent all that time in Iraq, after all.
Of course, this is all moot, since you'll stop reading once you see the word "fuckwit" up there, and proceed to whine about Right-winger insults. Blah blah blah.
at 10:50 PM, 2/3/05
"Most people would agree that training a force of 30,000 in a year is pretty impressive."
Not if they were told that the goal was 120,000. Maybe she should have laid out all the numbers. But, I don't fault her for omitting them -- this was a rebuttal speech, not a statistical lecture, after all. The point is, if she had, "small" would be the conclusion that reasonable people would draw. Therefore, her statement is both accurate and honest.
at 07:03 AM, 2/4/05
"Of course, this is all moot, since you'll stop reading once you see the word "fuckwit"
You are correct.
at 09:05 AM, 2/4/05
The critical distinction here is the difference between untrained, trained, and seasoned.
It is just plain silly to even suggest at this point that the Iraqis should be able to replace American soldiers one-for-one at this point. They can't, and won't be able to for awhile.
Why? Because the American Soldiers in Iraq are the best trained and best equiped soldier and marines in the world. Period. Add to that, that they are battle hardened. As for quality, due to the training and experience, probably the only troops in the world that come close are those of our coalltion partners.
The thing is, Iraq cannot be expected at this point to have a complete corp of seasoned security forces. It is just too soon. But we are doing the right thing. What seasoning takes is time on the job and training. And that is what they are getting. That is indeed precisely why we shouldn't leave right now, or in the next couple of years.
Moral and seasoning also takes not getting your ass kicked too often, too soon. That is why the Russian troops, despite their battle experience in Afghanistan and Checknya are not that good. And that is one place where we come in - backing them up and providing the ultimate weapon, American might, when they get in over their heads.
But I saw today (above?) a report of Iraqi police chief politely turning away requests from a nearby American commander to help in a fire fight. The Iraqis ultimately won, without our help, and proudly displayed their captured RPGs. This is and extremely good sign.
Ultimately, the Iraqis are going to get to the point where they don't need our help, or at least not much of it. Despite the noises by the Democrats, this is moving along at a good speed. President Bush has indicated that he will pull our troops out when requested. And I have no reason not to believe him.
at 01:32 PM, 10/6/06
indigested Galway http://www.hotelsman.info/bod_Portugal/accouchement_Lisbon Coast/indigested_Lisboa_1.html
at 06:43 AM, 10/12/06
reissue Barcelona http://www.bestrhotel.info/miser_Republic of Ireland/syphilis_Leinster/reissue_Dublin_1.html
at 02:18 AM, 10/25/06
Debt and debt-consolidation strategies go together in the American economy like peanut butter and jelly. <a href= "http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/business/news/articles/agency-debt.html" >Purchase Money Transaction</a> and <a href= "http://www.live.com/" >money </a> <a href= "http://interactives.hostway.com/cgi-bin/slither/Driver.py/InterActives/Guestbook/Guestbook.render?guestbook_id=304&page=1&logged_in=26" >Amortization</a> <a href= "http://www.compost-bin.com/faq_forum/faq_forum_messages/9808.html" >First Mortgage</a> <a href= "http://www.birdmancini.com/forums/Bird_Mancini_Message_Board/posts/7272.html" >Nonconforming Use</a>
at 05:08 AM, 11/10/06
On this path, you can apply for a closed-end home equity loan in which the bank pushes the entire loan amount across the counter at a fixed interest rate. <a href= "http://xdesign.ucsd.edu/mrtg/calculator/Amortization-Tables.html" >what are points mortgage</a> and <a href= "http://www.live.com/" >money </a> <a href= "http://www.dmgifts.com/guest.asp?Page=29" >capital mortgage funding</a> <a href= "http://cgi38.plala.or.jp/r-factor/1/apeboard_plus.cgi?command=read_message&msgnum=11" >baltimore american mortgage</a> <a href= "http://forum.trosradar.nl/viewtopic.php?t=33768&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&sid=1c021741923ecbcf431f915149b7e020" >home mortgage financing</a>
at 05:53 PM, 12/13/06
Dublin hotels http://www.thebbhotel.info/thebbhotels2/Portugal/Madeira/Funchal-hotels.html
Niagara Falls hotels
at 07:22 AM, 1/8/07
Niagara Falls hotels http://www.hotel-searching.net/hotelsearch_en/Canada/British_Columbia/Vancouver-hotels.html
at 07:14 AM, 1/15/07
Tampa hotels http://www.hotel-bahamas.ws/bahamas66_en/United_States/Florida/Miami-hotels.html
at 05:21 AM, 1/29/07
at 08:54 PM, 1/30/07
at 06:52 PM, 2/1/07
at 05:54 PM, 2/3/07
at 02:58 PM, 2/4/07
at 05:52 AM, 2/5/07
at 06:22 PM, 2/5/07
at 05:18 PM, 2/6/07
at 07:56 PM, 2/6/07
at 08:47 PM, 2/7/07
at 04:30 AM, 2/8/07
at 03:37 PM, 2/9/07
at 03:57 PM, 2/9/07
at 05:35 PM, 2/10/07
at 02:34 AM, 2/11/07
at 01:47 AM, 2/23/07
auto, auto trader, auto part, auto repair, auto dealer, napa auto part, car part used, used auto part, advance auto part, auto body shop, auto wrecker, used auto, advanced auto part, auto trader.ca, auto part store, auto trader online, kragen auto part, advanced auto, discount auto part, auto buying, vw auto part, honda autopart, auto zone auto part, auto trader uk, classic auto trader
credit, bad credit, credit check collection agency, credit check, credit free score, consumer credit counseling, credit history, credit bureau, free credit check, credit help, ford credit, bad credit debt consolidation, credit debt, bad credit refinance, pentagon federal credit union, consumer credit, credit and debt counseling, bad credit repair, average credit score, credit management, credit reporting, business credit, annual credit report.com, improve credit score, california free credit report
cell phone, cell phone deal, camera phone, free cell phone, motorola cell phone, verizon cell phone, cell phone plan, nokia cell phone, sprint cell phone, samsung cell phone, nextel cell phone, lg cell phone, used cell phone, splinter cell, splinter cell, best cell phone, free cell phone ringtone, nokia cellular phone, cell phone game, cell phone ring tone, cell phone headset, cheap cellular phone, sony ericsson cell phone, camera cell phone, discount cell phone
night club, aol music, downloading music, myspace music, madonna music, 50 cent music, live music, online music, listen to free music, bar night club, hip hop music, new music, latin music, pop music, jessica simpson music, music business, in da club bmg music club, house music, night club chicago, music club, columbia house dvd club, columbia house music, baltimore club music, club house
kelly blue book, book store, buy book online, amazon book, used book, borders book, comic book, book club, borders book store, book review, book review, online book, book mark.net, entertainment book, guest book, harry potter book, christian book store, harry potter book 7, free book, book search, reference book, discount book, kid book, entertainment coupon book, coupon book
dating, dating site, free online dating, online dating, dating services, online dating service, adult dating online, adult dating, free dating, internet dating, christian dating, lds dating, free dating services, adult dating free, single dating, adult dating services online, gay dating, black dating, free dating site, dating personals, jewish dating, web dating, lesbian dating, indian dating, dating tip
at 03:39 AM, 3/13/07
E evidente che il luogo e stato fatto dalla persona che realmente conosce il mestiere!
Comment Policy: Irrelevant or obscene posts, including ad hominem attacks, SPAM, crazed ranting, and threats of violence may be removed at the owner of this site's discretion.