Dr. Condi and Ms. Rice

Michael Young | December 11, 2005

In the Washington Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is at her have-it-both-ways best, penning an important piece on the transformation of U.S. foreign policy. Her argument is best summed up in this line:

In times of extraordinary change such as ours, when the costs of inaction outweigh the risks of action, doing nothing is not an option. If the school of thought called "realism" is to be truly realistic, it must recognize that stability without democracy will prove to be false stability, and that fear of change is not a positive prescription for policy.

One might of course reflect on what Rice is trying to say about Rice. Amid reports that she has rediscovered her "realist" roots (and even shared a meal with her mentor, predecessor, and devoted purveyor of stalemate, Brent Scowcroft), the secretary may be trying to say that things are more complicated than people imagine. She may also be reassuring her boss, President Bush, who seems to be among the last true believers in spreading democracy left in his own administration--particularly democracy in the Middle East.

However, my sense is that there is something more important going on here--or also going on: Rice lays down, in a historical context of state relations so dear to academics, a new rationale for foreign affairs. She's not pandering to Bush's ill-explained gut feeling that democracy's spread means more international stability, she is giving it intellectual validation; and she is doing so by, of all things, co-opting the likes of Dean Acheson, old-line realists and "sovereignists" who also supported the emergence of the most idealistic of strategies: open-ended containment of Soviet-backed communism.

Rice also seems to be doing something else: trying to somehow reconcile realism with the ambitions of democracy-spreaders. She is, in many ways, also trying to reconcile two contrary sides of her own personality, since the secretary was for a long time a realist who, after 9/11, adopted many a neocon strophe when she understood that was what Bush wanted. She is also clearly trying to take the democracy argument out of the hands of the ideologues and push it into the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy.

Does it work? Not really, not when democracy comes out as a strategic goal, yet remains so incomprehensible to realists in that incarnation. In writing an unintentional epitaph for the realist in herself, Rice may also have written one for realism in general. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy may be going in quite another direction.

Comments

|12.11.05 @ 5:47AM|#

The funny thing was that I saw that as a Who reference before a reference to classic literature.

|12.11.05 @ 10:25AM|#

The funny thing was that I saw that as a Who reference before a reference to classic literature.

He only comes out when I drink my gin...

|12.11.05 @ 11:03AM|#

If the school of thought called "realism" is to be truly realistic, it must recognize that stability without democracy will prove to be false stability, and that fear of change is not a positive prescription for policy.

So when do the invasions of North Korea and China begin?

|12.11.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Shawn Smith,

...and that fear of change is not a positive prescription for policy.

One better have a good idea of the potential landmines ahead and the costs and benefits associated with them before one embraces change. That, to be frank, is not the sort of analysis I don't see anyone making explicitly in public; what I do so is a bunch of romantic rhetoric about democracy. Anyway, if that is fear of change, so be it.

|12.11.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Hakluyt,

I didn't mean to suggest that we should start the invasions. I would hope that we don't invade. It's just that so many in this administration (like many other administrations before them) are principled only when it suits their purposes. Why did Bush go after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Sudan or Myanmar(sp?) or Cuba? I have (as is typical) no clue, other than a wild ass guess of GWB having a personal animosity towards Saddam Hussein, that he doesn't have toward the leaders of the other countries.

Uncle Sam|12.11.05 @ 12:08PM|#

Again, the lie of restricted choices.
You can either "do nothing", or invade other countries. The intellectual/creative range of statists is tightly bounded.
If you give them a hammer, all they can think to do is hit, or threaten to hit, people on the head with it.

|12.11.05 @ 1:33PM|#

The "spreading democracy" thing was mostly just the neocon's pretext for getting our government to commit to attack Iraq, which they thought would be good for the Israeli government. If spreading democracy was the real goal, they would be pushing for an end to US tax money supporting anti-democratic regimes. Such as the Israeli government's brutal occupation of Palestine, the Jordanian regime that Michael mentions, and Uzbekistan where our government is using our tax dollars to support the savage, soviet style dictatorship of Islam Karimov, the former head of the Uzbek Communist party.

As with US government interventions in the Mid-east, the seeds of another terror attack against us are likely being planted again. As the carnage that Karimov's regime inflicts on its own people mounts, so surely does the resentment that Uzbekis harbor toward Americans.

|12.11.05 @ 2:18PM|#

"Why did Bush go after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Sudan or Myanmar(sp?) or Cuba? I have (as is typical) no clue, other than a wild ass guess of GWB having a personal animosity towards Saddam Hussein, that he doesn't have toward the leaders of the other countries."

Shawn,

I have this running theory on the war that sees it more like the end result of a whole bunch of foreign (and domestic) policy decisions going back at least as far as the fall of the soviet union. The neocons in their current manifestation began to dominate the Republican Party about this time (by forming an unstable coalition with reaganites, paleocons, and the religious right) and the whole ideology of america-as-world-stabalizer/democratizer became refocused. From the beginning, Iraq was seen by such leading neocons as Donald Kagen and son as both a vicious threat to world stability and potential symbol for the new world order (notwithstanding our own nasty history with the Hussein regime, of course). Thus, as I see it, the invasion of iraq had the force of at least a decade and some change behind it. To refer to Bush as "invading" the country is both unfair to the president and an overestimation of him. That's not to say he's not implicated in the whole debacle-- he certainly is-- but he's also no more the architect of it than any other second-rate hack of a politician running the show these days.

Wintermute|12.11.05 @ 3:18PM|#

I scanned her screed and looked up Dean Acheson on Wiki, found this:

"Acheson persuaded Truman to dispatch aid to French forces in Indochina, but later counseled President Lyndon B. Johnson to negotiate for peace with North Vietnam."

20/20 hindsight, or what?

Uncle Sam|12.11.05 @ 4:07PM|#

Why did Bush go after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Sudan or Myanmar(sp?) or Cuba?
Perhaps because Iraq had been substantially disarmed in the previous invasion and subsequent UN constraints, etc. Additionally, many Arab countries weren't too keen on Saddam as his regime was perhaps the most secular in the region and an attack there would be less likely to be viewed as an attack on Islam in general. Desite years of occasionaly bombings and the trade restrictions, the U.S. had been unable to provoke Saddam into doing anything rash enough to justify a U.S. attack, hence to campaign to tie Saddam to 9/11 and garner suport for the invasion.

|12.11.05 @ 4:34PM|#

Now that Iraq seems well on it's way to representative government, isolationist Libertarians
are going to have to rethink their positions exporting democracy as a legitimate foreign policy.

Uncle Sam|12.11.05 @ 5:04PM|#

What's an isolationist?

Uncle Sam|12.11.05 @ 5:07PM|#

I apologize for all the typos.

|12.11.05 @ 7:46PM|#

I for one, believe that the position of bringing self-rule to a place like Iraq at this time is the right thing to do. I also believe and am inspired by the speeches of Rice, Bush, and Cheney regarding freedom as THE human desire that can bring about the greatest chance of peace and prosperity. As for why Iraq and not... (insert various other countries), it is because 1) We have a pre-text for going to war, 2)It is in a region that really needs a stable and pro-American government, 3) The war is winnable, 4)They have resources that can make it independent of American aid (eventually), 5)We really need to show the Muslim world we can kick butt and be trusted (we let down a bunch of folks when we left Saddam in power the First Gulf War, 6)THERE WERE LINKS TO TERROR including paying off Palestinian terrorists, 7) His threat to the world seemed to be growing rather than diminishing, 8) France didn't want us to.

|12.11.05 @ 7:56PM|#

exporting democracy as a legitimate foreign policy

The lack of swift condemnation of the recent violence in the Egyptian elections merely denotes a flat tire on the road to freedom.

|12.11.05 @ 8:43PM|#

"Why did Bush go after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Sudan or Myanmar(sp?) or Cuba? I have (as is typical) no clue, other than a wild ass guess of GWB having a personal animosity towards Saddam Hussein, that he doesn't have toward the leaders of the other countries."

Shawn,

That assesment is so tainted toward getting the desired impact that I don't know if it even deserves a response, but here goes:

Because Saudi Arabia gives us BILLIONS in revenue and if our economy got mucked up the public would be truly outraged. Because N. Korea has nukes and a crazy fucking nutjob dictator that puts Saddam to shame. As bad-ass as the US millitary is, N. Korea could send us packing unless we went all-out, start the draft, send millions of young boys, nuke a few cities, crazy savage-style warfare on them.

In general you don't test your foriegn policy via warfare tactics on the HARDEST possible target that will cause great ecominic and human hardships. You start easy and see how things go. I mean think: The public isn't too happy about invading Iraq, even though we have a standing quarrel with that country. What the hell do you think would happen if the gov't decided "Crazy middle-easterner's attacked us on 9/11... lets go attack N. Korea!"

I don't even support the whole Iraq invasion, but Christ your question is so terribly leading and myopic as to be annoying.

Oh, and remember that Bush doesn't rule the world. He needs our support as US citizens to pull off this crap. So maybe you should look into what animosity the US public has towards the middle-east and Iraq that would let Bush go invade and be mostly un-questioned. I don't see you in the streets with millions of your peers demanding a withdrawl. Why not? Because in all the high-and-mighty retoric of those opposing the war, it isn't enough of a travisty to really risk their hides getting out there and stopping things by any means necessary.

Iraq is pretty obviously a country that our president can invade without too much flak. The others aren't.

|12.11.05 @ 8:45PM|#

Neo Conner:

Now that Iraq seems well on it's way to representative government

That doesn't seem like a fair assessment of the current state of affairs but let's say it is. How long may we realistically expect this representative government to last? BTW, the vast majority of Iraqis want our government to leave. It will be a test of the effectiveness of any Iraqi government as to weather the US government departs Iraq. The libertarian case for non-intervention still holds vis a vis Iraq. What likely outcome in Iraq justifies anymore American deaths? What outcome could possibly justify the total cost in lives and money? The libertarian position on foreign intervention is that it can only be justified if it necessary to neutralize a threat to American security. The Iraq tragedy fails dramatically.

Also, note our government's Mid-east interventions that motivated the 9/11 attacks against us, especially our government's support of the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land. The findings of the 9/11 commission reveal:

"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

|12.11.05 @ 9:14PM|#

One reason Realists haven't had any traction is that most of them won't speak their minds, frankly - it is too hard to accept...not so much among the mass of the American people, but in our cultural and political elites.

What would a Realist counsel the US in today's circumstances?

Generally: improve our relationship with Putin's Russia...who cares if he's Vlad the Impaler? That isn't our problem, right?

Ditto with authoritarian China - it's the best we can get.

Dump Pakistan and make love to India.
Dump Israel and find new friends in Egypt, Jordan, SA and Libya.

Make love to Persia...mullahs and all!

These are the important players...plus (maybe?) Great Bitain and Japan.

That's what a Realist would say.

But they don't, because to much of it is unsayable...so they repeat versions of John Kerry's silly memes on the signifigance (NOT!) of our continental EU "allies" - what's "realistic" about that?

|12.11.05 @ 9:16PM|#

"Why did Bush go after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Sudan or Myanmar(sp?) or Cuba?"

easier, less expensive, easier to sell to the public, and it has a higher strategic value...is it just me or do the askers of this question intentially acting ignorent.

|12.11.05 @ 9:41PM|#

Andrew:

Dump Israel and find new friends in Egypt, Jordan, SA and Libya.

In firing away at your realist straw men, you're missing the wisdom of a libertarian foreign policy. You're also missing a good bit of reality. Israel, Egypt, Jordan and SA are ALL the recipients of US tax money! This is the genesis of many problems.

|12.11.05 @ 9:57PM|#

Why did Bush go after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Sudan or...?

The US government attack on Iraq is the fruition of long standing neocon plans.

Many of the lies that came out of the Pentagon's OSP justifying the Iraq war were produced by neocons including Doug Feith whose office is at the center of the current Israeli government/AIPAC spy scandal,who had earlier written reports for the Israeli government advocating the removal of Sadom as a first step in a process to make the Mideast more friendly to the Israeli state. Note that Wolfowitz was one of the authors, with a number of neocon biggies, of A Clean Break a 1996 policy advisory written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The advisory advocated the elimination of Saddam Hussein as a primary goal. Baghdad was depicted as the lynch pin in the undermining of both Iran and Syria for the good of the Israeli State. After A Clean Break the neocons start a campaign to put forth those goals laid for out the Israeli government as something America must do in its own interest. Fabrication and exaggeration of Saddam's WMD capacity are part of this campaign. Wolfowitz actually pounded the table for going into Iraq right after 9/11 instead of Afghanistan!

"Only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq . . ." PNAC founder Kristol wrote in a 1997 report. Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine is owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox News


One of PNAC's first goals when it was founded in 1997 was to urge Congress and the Clinton administration to support regime change in Iraq. This was before the group approached Rumsfeld.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) sent a letter to President Clinton in January of 1998. It's signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams and others. The letter argues for aggression against Iraq. They lobbied both Clinton and Gingrich to remove former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power using military force and indict him as a "war criminal."

Unsatisfied with Clinton's response, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998, to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott:

"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power..."

I posted this before with lotsa links but the Reason thing nabbed it cuz I had too meny of em. So here it is, sans any links. I think that Reason will post it with the links. If you don't want to wait, email me and I'll send em to ya. I'll find out what the rules are for links and start observing them. Sorry, Reason

|12.11.05 @ 11:02PM|#

I for one, believe that the position of bringing self-rule to a place like Iraq at this time is the right thing to do.

I think I understand why many people thought that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power, but I'm not sure I understand why it was the right thing to do "at this time." Care to fill me in?

Andrew,

Rick Barton's right--that's quite a straw man you've got there!

|12.11.05 @ 11:38PM|#

I would love to argue with Andrew, as I often enjoy our debates. However, I must insist that he not accuse me of being indoctrinated by lefty college professors.

It's not that I'm too thin-skinned to take a few barbs and arrows. That's no big deal. But, you see, somebody else has determined that I'm actually a right wing corporate apologist gun nut. Simultaneously being the liberal in one man's head and the right winger in another man's head is simply too much. And don't even get me started on being the subscription renewal notice in Mona's head! :) So, you cannot accuse me of being a lefty until you've gotten that other guy's permission to do so. (Maybe if you buy a CD by his band he'll be nice.)

Anyway, with that humor out of the way, I don't know if I'm a realist in the paleocon sense, but my own take on some of the situations that you brought up:

Generally: improve our relationship with Putin's Russia...who cares if he's Vlad the Impaler? That isn't our problem, right?

Ditto with authoritarian China - it's the best we can get.

How, pray tell, is the current crop of leaders getting tough with either country? If you're going to argue that your approach is better, first explain how it's different.

Dump Pakistan and make love to India.

Um, I thought that realists would want Pakistan's cooperation, while neocons would be idealists who want friendly relations with the far more democratic India. I can't really argue with you here until I figure out what you're saying.

Dump Israel and find new friends in Egypt, Jordan, SA and Libya.

As has been observed, we already give money to Egypt and Jordan. And while the exact nature of our oft-criticized (from the left, at least) "support" for Saudi Arabia remains murky, the Saudi leaders sure seem to be friendly with our government. So, um, are you arguing with us or with the allegedly neocon-friendly Bush administration?

Make love to Persia...mullahs and all!

If I were President, I'd do everything in my power to allow the free flow of American goods and services into Iran, with the stipulation that Americans cannot trade with Iran's state-owned firms. Americans should be free to trade with Iran's private sector, but their government is an enemy and should remain off limits. (Sorry, Oliver North.) And I'd unilaterally lift all tariffs on products produced by private firms in Iran.

|12.12.05 @ 12:23AM|#

As far as the title of this thread, the first time I looked at it I hadn't had my coffee yet, and I thought that she'd gotten married unexpectedly.

Go figure.

|12.12.05 @ 12:43AM|#

Rick Barton,
OK, so your interpetation of what constitutes a threat to American security differs from mine, which probably differs from George Bush's. We can argue their relative merits, but the plain fact is that there is no such thing as a Libertarian Foreign Policy in the sense that Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and/or conservatives understand the term.


"The libertarian case for non-intervention still holds vis a vis Iraq. What likely outcome in Iraq justifies anymore American deaths? What outcome could possibly justify the total cost in lives and money? The libertarian position on foreign intervention is that it can only be justified if it necessary to neutralize a threat to American security. The Iraq tragedy fails dramatically."

|12.12.05 @ 2:13AM|#

"If I were President, I'd do everything in my power to allow the free flow of American goods and services into Iran, with the stipulation that Americans cannot trade with Iran's state-owned firms."

now that would be a legistical nightmare....and any attempt to actually enforce this would end in assured failer...if you are going to trade then you should just trade...if the Iranian state wants something the private sector has it will find a way to get it...dummy company anyone???

I don't think that coffee has sunk in yet thoreau...but the rest of your points are good so i don't know what the hell.

|12.12.05 @ 2:24AM|#

Neo Conner,

In general, libertarian foreign policy is non-interventionism. It's fair to say that when the country is not being threatened, a libertarian foreign policy is no foreign policy. This was the prescription of the founders of our republic.

The non-interventionism of libertarianism is not to be confused with isolationism. In fact, it allows the very expansive and liberating dynamic that is capitalism to take hold. von Mises observed: "When goods stop crossing borders, troops soon do". The counter-posit seems equally true.

|12.12.05 @ 2:42AM|#

thoreau,

I know that SA, at least, used to get US taxpayer-backed loans. But still, SA is indeed in a different category than Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. I shoulda delineated that by perhaps saying that those three receive US tax dollars, while SA has in the past, and maybe now, been the beneficiary of US tax dollars. My bad.

|12.12.05 @ 2:51AM|#

thoreau, Ken and Rick

I am not setting up a straw-man. For yhe past couple of weeks I have been engaged in a personal thought experiment...trying to imagine what a Realist foreign policy would actually look like, and would have looked like, throughout the 20th century and till today.

Interesting....because the longer I played this game, the better I liked it!

You can discern three schools of American foreign policy:

Isolationism
May only have been an actual policy during the 20's (or maybe not) and otherwise has been an armchair theory.

Realism
Actually WAS pretty much American FP from 1860 (or earlier) until 1914...but it would be unfair to lean too hard on examples from the period (when that Realism was spectacularly sucessful) because this was not quite the modern world ushered in by WWI.

Idealism
This has often been the FP of the Center-Left, at least when OUT OF OFFICE, and has recently been adopted by the Right - sincerely, I believe. To some considerable degree, this was American FP under Wilson and FDR.

To describe the positions -

Isolationists hold that NO American intervention
in world affairs can possibly benefit either the US or the world. Strict neutrality and peacableness is the only thing the US can contribute to world order.

Idealist hold that American intervention in world affairs that benefit the world, benefit the US...at least long-term: what is good for the world is good for US.

Realists believe the US can actively intervene in world affairs on behalf of fairly immediate American interests...and might argue that in most cases the outcomes (when the interventions are successful) would be beneficial to the rest of the world - in the long run, and usually in the short run: what is good for US, is good for the world.

The interesting game is to take each year from 1914 forward, given the actual circumstances in each year, and speculate on what each school would have advised, and the probable outcomes.

The schools could overlap, of course - Realist might (or might not) have agreed that the US had an insufficient stake in WWI. Realist might agree that the US had a real interest in thwarting the Axis and containing Communism. But where they differ, Realists look pretty good, most times.

Take the 30's. The FDR admin entered office with an ideological loathing for Mussolini, and went ballistic when he invaded Ethiopia. Why? What did we care how Italy was governed, or Ethiopia? And the embargoes didn't save Ethiopia, anyway (Or Greece, or Yugoslavia).

A good relationship with Benito might have checked Hitler, apart from modest re-armaments and retaking the Rhineland (both reasonable, anyway). No Anschluss, no invasion of Checko...no general European war.

In Asia the US had a real interest in preventing the Japanese conquest of China...something we failed to do under FDR, but might have done given a stable European situation.

The world thus crafted by the Realist would not have looked very glamorous, short-term.
Hitler rules Germany, and harasses Jewish citizens. Mussolini rules Italy, Franco Spain, Salazar Portugal. Most of Eastern Europe from Greece to Finland is dominated by strong-men (Checko excepted). The Japs still live under somewhat chasten Samurai. Hell, even the Soviet Union is still run by Stalin.

But...no fifty million causaulties - including most European Jews, no Stalinist empire bestride half of Europe for another generation...and NO WAY Chiang loses to Mao absent the Japanese occupation!

And those are just the immediate benefits. What you get in perhaps a generation? Communism, absent the tribute states, dissolves after Stalin dies, and the rest of the countries mentioned are well on the way to becoming commercial republics. Was it SO distasteful to treat with Mussolini?

|12.12.05 @ 8:13AM|#

OK, that is different from how I initially interpreted your post.

I'll have to think about that and get back to you.

|12.12.05 @ 10:46AM|#

If "open-ended containment of Soviet-backed communism" is "the most idealistic of strategies," Mr. Young, then why have you spent the past three years viciously and dishonestly denouncing those who supported open-ended containment of Saddam's regime, or even aggressive action (like enforced, intrustive inspections) short of invasion and occupation, as soulless, dicator-coddling realists?

|12.12.05 @ 2:48PM|#

thoreau:

Americans should be free to trade with Iran's private sector, but their government is an enemy and should remain off limits. And I'd unilaterally lift all tariffs on products produced by private firms in Iran.

It seems that more trade with Iran's private sector will be a liberalizing influence as trade facilitates lots of diverse interaction. So that lifting all tariffs on products produced by private firms in Iran will confer benefits beyond economic betterment for both countries. I think that the cultural interaction between trading partners often benefits both of em. But the interaction with our freer society offers critical improvements for Iran.

Not allowing Americans to trade with the Iranian government however seems like an unnecessary restriction on our liberty. Now I think that not trading with that government might well be a good thing. And I certainly think that, that trade, or any trade, should not be subsidized. But to force others not too trade? What is the immediate security concern to justify this restriction of action? This is an area where I think that government "jawboning" might be appropriate. As well as private jawboning.

|12.12.05 @ 7:29PM|#

Andrew,

That certainly is some selective alternate history. And it will not absolve the neocon's from their Mid-east interventionist failures that motivated the 9/11 attacks against us, especially our government's support of the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land.

The Reason that realists are called that is by way of contrast to the neocon's reckless record.

But to your thought experiment. It's easy to extrapolate us not getting involved in WWII where Hitler and the Commies fight it out and there is no Soviet empire.

|12.12.05 @ 7:38PM|#

Andrew,

Even if we assume the best intentions of interventionist policies (a real stretch), you still miss the logic of libertarian non-interventionism. If it's not right to take people's money to provide welfare for others, it's also not right to take people's money to provide democracy for others.

|12.13.05 @ 2:52PM|#

If only the neo-Wilsonians running around this administration would remember the wisdom of John Quncy Adams, that America is the friend of freedom everywhere but the guardian only of its own.

Kevin

kara|12.15.05 @ 5:32AM|#

http://www.jovencitas-lesbianas.toohoot.com @ http://www.jovencitaslesbianas.toohoot.com @ http://www.lluviadorada.toohoot.com @ http://www.la-maquina-sadica.toohoot.com @ http://www.lamaquinasadica.toohoot.com @ http://www.putas-dela-calle.toohoot.com @ http://www.putasdelacalle.toohoot.com @ http://www.secretarias-muy-putas.toohoot.com @ http://www.secretariasmuyputas.toohoot.com @ http://www.parejasfolladoras.toohoot.com @ http://www.hard-sex-videos.toohoot.com @ http://www.hardsexvideos.toohoot.com @ http://www.amateurs-cachondos.toohoot.com @ http://www.amateurscachondos.toohoot.com @ http://www.rubias-muy-putas.toohoot.com @ http://www.rubiasmuyputas.toohoot.com @ http://www.blowjobs-deluxe.toohoot.com @ http://www.blowjobsdeluxe.toohoot.com @ http://www.latinasy-putas.toohoot.com @ http://www.latinasyputas.toohoot.com @ http://www.fiesta-interracial.toohoot.com @ http://www.fiestainterracial.toohoot.com @ http://www.street-girls.toohoot.com @ http://www.streetgirls.toohoot.com @ http://www.poratras.toohoot.com @ http://www.festin-de-porno.toohoot.com @ http://www.festindeporno.toohoot.com @ http://www.folladasduras.toohoot.com @ http://www.sexo-cachondo.toohoot.com @ http://www.sexocachondo.toohoot.com @ http://www.real-hard-sex.toohoot.com @ http://www.realhardsex.toohoot.com @ http://www.jovencitas-muy-putas.toohoot.com @ http://www.jovencitasmuyputas.toohoot.com @ http://www.embarazadas-putas.toohoot.com @ http://www.embarazadasputas.toohoot.com @ http://www.sfondatanale.toohoot.com @ http://www.asiatissime.toohoot.com @ http://www.belle-rosse.toohoot.com @ http://www.bellerosse.toohoot.com @ http://www.bionde-torride.toohoot.com @ http://www.biondetorride.toohoot.com @ http://www.cazzoculo.toohoot.com @ http://www.cinema-guardone.toohoot.com @ http://www.cinemaguardone.toohoot.com @ http://www.contattireali.toohoot.com @ http://www.esotiche.toohoot.com @ http://www.festa-gay.toohoot.com @ http://www.festagay.toohoot.com @ http://www.figacalda.toohoot.com

kara|12.15.05 @ 5:40AM|#

http://www.donne-sexy-con-tacchi-a-spillo.77anale1.com @ http://www.donne-vecchissime-nude.77anale1.com @ http://www.doppia-anale.77anale1.com @ http://www.due-che-fanno-sesso.77anale1.com @ http://www.eiacula.77anale1.com @ http://www.erotica-matura.77anale1.com @ http://www.erotica-tour-2005.77anale1.com @ http://www.eroticampania.77anale1.com @ http://www.esageratamente-donne-porche.77anale1.com @ http://www.esplosive-cum.77anale1.com @ http://www.eva-henger-che-mostra-la-figa.77anale1.com @ http://www.eva-henger-che-mostra-la-sua-figa.77anale1.com @ http://www.fanno-pompini.77anale1.com @ http://www.fare-sesso-con-stivali.77anale1.com @ http://www.federazione-bukkake.77anale1.com @ http://www.fermoposta-video-bologna.77anale1.com @ http://www.figa-amatoriale-giovane.77anale1.com @ http://www.figa-in-cinta.77anale1.com @ http://www.figa-leccata-gratis.77anale1.com @ http://www.fighe-pisciate.77anale1.com @ http://www.fighe-scoperte.77anale1.com @ http://www.film-xxx.77anale1.com @ http://www.filmati-divertenti-sexi-gratis.77anale1.com @ http://www.filmporno-con-animali.77anale1.com @ http://www.fisuri-anale.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-culi-sotto-la-gonna.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-di-asini.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-di-casalinghe-in-minigonna-e-tacchi-sexy.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-di-pisciate.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-di-tacchi-a-spillo.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-di-uomini-nudi-gratis.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-donne-fighe-che-fanno-la-pipi-pelose.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-fighe-orientali.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-gratis-di-donne-con-stivali.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-gratis-piedi-atlete.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-incinte.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-kaviar-porno.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-piedi-famosi.77anale1.com @ http://www.foto-sborrate-femminili.77anale1.com @ http://www.fotogratisvecchie-porche.77anale1.com @ http://www.fotomontaggi-eros.77anale1.com @ http://www.franco-anale.77anale1.com @ http://www.froci-gratis.77anale1.com @ http://www.frustare-un-bel-culo-di-donna-che-orgasmo.77anale1.com @ http://www.gay-18-uomo-nudo.77anale1.com @ http://www.gay-prepuzio.77anale1.com @ http://www.gay-scopano.77anale1.com @ http://www.gay-scopato.77anale1.com @ http://www.gif-porche-smiley.77anale1.com @ http://www.giocattoli-80.77anale1.com

kara|12.15.05 @ 5:50AM|#

http://www.galerie.77anale2.com @ http://www.galery.77anale2.com @ http://www.galerias.77anale2.com @ http://www.gallery.77anale2.com @ http://www.gallina.77anale2.com @ http://www.gallows.77anale2.com @ http://www.gambaletti.77anale2.com @ http://www.gambe.77anale2.com @ http://www.gambelli.77anale2.com @ http://www.gambelunghe.77anale2.com @ http://www.gandolfi.77anale2.com @ http://www.gaping-vagina.77anale2.com @ http://www.gasha.77anale2.com @ http://www.gat.77anale2.com @ http://www.gatas.77anale2.com @ http://www.gatto.77anale2.com @ http://www.gatto-con-gli-stivali.77anale2.com @ http://www.gatto-con-gli-stivali-shrek.77anale2.com @ http://www.gatto-mammone.77anale2.com @ http://www.gatto-stivali.77anale2.com @ http://www.gattomammone.77anale2.com @ http://www.gau.77anale2.com @ http://www.gauge.77anale2.com @ http://www.gauge-porno-star.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-amsterdam.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-anale.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-art.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-australia.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-bdsm.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-bear.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-bears.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-berlin.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-black-men.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-cartoons.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-cock.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-com.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-community.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-cruise.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-dad.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-day.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-dick.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-discrimination.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-events.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-fucking.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-galerie.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-georgia.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-golden-shower.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-hardcore.77anale2.com @ http://www.gay-hardcore-movie.77anale2.com