What a Crock

President Bush has unmasked the real culprit in the Plame leak: The press itself.

Reports the WashPost:

"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official," the president said in response to a reporter's question. "Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea."

…

Bush said that "everything we know the investigators will find out," but told reporters: "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

What a crock of horseshit. If Bush can't turn over the leaker, he's either a) lying or b) useless as a chief executive. It's his goddamned, famously tight-lipped crew that did the leak, for god's sake.

As Reason's Ron Bailey wrote, "There should be no need for an investigation by the Justice Department. The President should order whoever made the leak to admit it and resign."

Bush is compounding an ugly situation by such misdirection. It's insulting, at the very least.

Comments

[Richard]

Just for clarification, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml this is for all of you who think that this is a real issue, I just have one criticism of you...YOU ARE ALL SHEEP...bah,bah,bah...to the liberal media spin.

[Flem Snopes]

"The President should order whoever made the leak to admit it and resign."

YAhahahaha! hilarious, bro. say that one again, that was a good one. yes, presidents down through time must have missed this seemingly obvious step. why monkey about with unconstitutional independent counsel statutes and messy DOJ investigations when we can just ask the leaker to step forward! problem solved! *snaps fingers!* how breath takingly simple, forsooth!

hey...wait a sec! what if...what if whoever leaked it WON'T admit it? given that a) the press seems to be dug in on protecting their sources at all freaking costs and b) the guy's secrecy seems otherwise assured? i mean, just tossing around some possibilities here in the haze of a beltway afternoon and all

[Mo]

Liberal media Richard? If the liberal media was trying to spin this out of proportion in order to get Bush, don't you think they would've jumped on the story back in July?

This is treason (and not in the squishy Coulter-esque sense) plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

treason

another word that is now meaningless (thanks ann and mo)

[jim]

I have never seen a blurb bring such morons out of the woodwork! The crime was the leak, not reporting it. It wasn't treason, just a run of the mill felony. Richard is an mindless asshole.

[jim]

I have never seen a blurb bring such morons out of the woodwork! The crime was the leak, not reporting it. It wasn't treason, just a run of the mill felony. Richard is an mindless asshole.

[Richard]

No...have you ever known a liberal to do the right thing at the right time?...And yes I do think they are doing this right now, not because they dropped the ball in July, but because it is that much closer to the election...Don't you all pay attention...the liberal LATimes held onto the Arnold grope stories for four months, and published them four days before the election. Come on. Ever since campaign finance reform was deemed not to offend the first amendment, the media has sidestepped the fourth estate that it once held and is now the purveyor of unlimited political propoganda as the politicos would have to disclose who spent what and where they got they money...

[JDM]

You people should really read the Novak column Richard linked above. This is not a case where someone leaked the identity out of spite. If that had been the case why would it have taken 3 months for Bush's opponents to drum up this "scandal" after the original column published her identity? Plame was never put in any danger.

[Clement Vallandigham]

JDM,

The legal issue is not the motivation for the leak...the legal issue is was she classified as "undercover" or "an operative" when Novak received the information?

I have read conflicting reports on this, and yesterday Novak wrote that she was listed 1-2 years ago on a Wilson job application in a method inconsistent with the way the CIA handles "operatives."

If she was "undercover" in July, then must be held legally accountable.

[Clement Vallandigham]

I meant "someone" must be held accountable

[Mo]

anan @ 1:29
trea?son (tr?'z?n)
n.
1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2) A betrayal of trust or confidence

Revealing the cover of an undercover CIA agent seems to fit into that quite well. And yes, Agee was a treasonous bastard as well.

[fyodor]

What kind of voodoo is Bailey using to brainwash Gillespie?? Sure, Bush's cavalier attitude and implicit finger pointing at the press are annoying, but it's obvious that he won't do the fess up thing cause it wouldn't work and then he'd look ridiculous for trying it. And he has a point, if both parties of a conversation keep the identity of one party a secret (and do it right, with no blabbing), seems like there may be no way to go about figuring out who that party is. Or am I missing something?

[R.C. Dean]

There is a very simple and straightforward way to find out who leaked: Subpoena the reporters, put them in front of a grand jury, and ask them. They know, and they have no legal privilege to withhold knowledge of a crime. Why ask dozens or hundreds of people to incriminate themselves, when you already know the half-dozen people who know the answer?

It is very odd, is it not, that the press is reporting that the identity of the leaker is a big freaking mystery, when the press already knows who the leaker is! The press is essentially saying that it won't report what it knows, and that this refusal somehow reflects badly on the administration.

I should point out that Novak has already said the leaker is not a White House staffer, but that this revelation seems to have had no effect on the media, who continue to act as if the leaker must have been in the White House.

Sorry, gang, but unless something new breaks, this has overblown non-story written all over it.

[Mike A]

Nick, you lost me on this one. Demanding that the President order the leaker to surrender assumes that the identity is known. If Bush knew the identity, he could just publish it now. The obvious answer is that someone down the chain let the info out, not that the leak was orchestrated from the top. Second, when are we going to find out if she was even a covert agent at all?? She has two kids about 3 yrs old. She certainly wasn't undercover while pregnant. I keep hearing that she was actually an analyst, not an active covert agent.

The real question to be answered is how Wilson was allowed to be involved with any sort of investigation. If he was assigned to go to Niger and investigate the yellowcake claims, and he ended up sitting in restaurants drinking mint tea, he didn't do his job. Why aren't we questioning the fact that this man appeared to "phone in" a crucial intelligence investigation??

[Rick Barton]

I hope this situation doesn't take an ugly turn; see: Raimondo's Oct.8 "Hands Off Bob Novak!" piece for some speculation: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

[JDM]

Clement,

I can go along with that. Obviously someone was too careless talking to the press, but the spin on this story (which some of the Reason staffers have bought wholsale) has been that the odious, hypocritical, treasonous Bush administration imperiled the wife of a political enemy out of pure spite.

I'm willing to bet that the penalties for carelessly leaking information about a CIA agent are different from those for doing it maliciously. And if they aren't, they ought to be.

[R.C. Dean]

Mike, I agree that the real scandal here is that Wilson was sent to do the investigation at all, and by all accounts did an amateurish job of it. That is a symptom of a much larger and unaddressed problem at the CIA. The leak of Plame's identity came about in large part as an answer to this question, and the real question has been lost in the frenzy of gotcha politics.

The law against revealing an undercover op's identity only applies for a five-year period after the op's last overseas assignment. Given Valerie Plame's activities in the last 5 years (posted in Washington when she met Wilson, courtship, marriage, pregnancy, motherhood) it is highly unlikely that she was so posted. However, it has probably been (correctly) decided by the administration that making this point would be bad, political PR-wise, so they are acting as if the leak is subject to the law.

Novak has said the leak did not come from the White House. This is entirely plausible, as the leak has intra-agency catfight written all over it, but is completely ignored.

[R.C. Dean]

Been looking for this: Glenn Reynolds has done an excellent job of covering various angles on l'affaire Plame. This entry has links to all of his other stuff as well:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011830.php

[Anonymous]

It's no surprise to the see president's desperate defenders citing Novak's follow-up column here. But those of us who actually follow the story (as opposed to following the Republicans' talking points) know that Novak keeps changing his story. For example:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_28.html#001980

[\]

"the real scandal here is that Wilson was sent to do the investigation at all"

translation: "I am very, very eager to change the subject"

[joe]

Please, tell me more about what The Real Scandal is!

Hey, look over there!

[Anonymous]

Why are we getting all worked up over the privacy of a government employee? If you're a government employee, you have no right to privacy, at least where your emplyment is concerned. If you want privacy, work in the private sector.

How fucked up is it that a public servant is supposed to get some kind of privacy protection, while all the civilians are subject to "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide."

Don't give me the national security is at stake shtick either. This "leak" hasn't affected anyone's security one bit, except perhaps the job security of a few public servants. Screw 'em.

[JDM]

Here's the text of the link anon provided:

"Another big problem with Novak's comments on Crossfire today. Today he said ...

Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.

But then there's this passage in a July 22nd article in Newsday ...

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

I'd say the story's changed.

--Josh Marshall"

What? How does that in any way say his story has changed? The two statements are in no way contradictory or even slightly incompatible. Furthermore, they aren't even quotes. This is a third party analysis of Novak being paraphrased by someone. Perhaps Novak's peice is a complete fabrication, but there is no reason to think so. His initial column was not a hit piece on Valerie Novak. He simply mentioned her name because it was important to the angle he was taking on the story.

[Unimpressed]

Subpoena the reporters!

[Julian Sanchez]

Ok, I'll admit a certain amount of initial skepticism myself, but Ron's suggestion actually makes a lot of sense. Mark Kleiman has a post today on why:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/000971.html

[reason614]

Who cares? The outcry is political in nature, designed solely to pit people against each other over abstract ideals pertinent only to an election (the dictionary definition of treason, by the way, is not the legal definition of treason. If it worked that way, paper companies would stand accused of rape against forests). Worry about your local air quality before you worry about some exposed spook/informant. The CIA makes little to no difference in the quality of your life or even the level of your security; the world is too big and complex for them to contribute to the kind of degree Hollywood portrays. The CIA is a pacifier, and we are paying too much attention to the babies crying over spilled milk.

[Stephen Fetchet]

It's not treason. What the dictionary says doesn't matter; what the U.S. Code says about treason in Title 18 does matter. This isn't even close to treason. It's a felony.

But assuming you are correct, Mo (and I assume that is your first name, your last name being "Ron")... Well then, let's prosecute Novak, and the 6 other folks the Senior WH Official approached, for accessory to treason. After all, Novak publicized the leak, spreading the word about Ms. *****, and the other bastard reporters knew what was going on, and failed to report it.

While we're at it with the treason charges, perhaps we could pass an ex post fact writ of attainder against Karl Rove...

[mike]

Bush is the all-knowing, and therefore must know who in his administration of x00 staffers slipped this information out (if Novak is believed)? And treason? How many of you treason-mongers defended John Lindh against charges of treason? (He actually joined an "army" fighting against his country.) Remember the old two-witnesses rule. Well since the "traitor" has 5th amendment privileges and you all are in thrall to the golden calf of the right of the press to aid and abet in committing such a "treason", looks like your charges are going nowhere.

Nutshell: Someone in your office told me something he shouldn't have and you're not telling me who it is. You are a criminal.

What planet is this?

[Craig]

Before Nick argues that a competent administration should be able to know about all leaks, he should have a thought to the kind of police state tactics that would be required to do so, including 24 hour surveillance (including wiretaps, computer records, and everything else) of everyone in the administration.

Bailey's piece at least makes a good argument that Bush should ratchet up the pressure on the leakers, so that giving up now is a better alternative than being caught later (although, for that to work, you still need the investigation so that there'd be a theoretical threat of being caught).

Gillespie offers no argument or explanation about how Bush is supposed to find the source of the leak legally and fairly. Amazingly for a libertarian, he seems to favour a world wherein any vaguely competent administration will have the absolute ability to detect any leak, even one arising from a single conversation with a single reporter, and trace it accurately back to the source, and shows not a shred of irony in so doing.

[Anonymous]

"Furthermore, they aren't even quotes. This is a third party analysis of Novak being paraphrased by someone."

They are quotes. Strictly speaking, the first is a quote and the second contains a quote.

Are you deliberately lying, or are you just stupid?

[JJ]

It's obvious from Bush's comments that he is less interested in finding the leakers than in defecting blame. That's what's a crock.

[fyodor]

Julian,

Kleiman's analysis makes sense IF the fear of perjuring oneself in such a manner is a credible concern. But if the perpetrator has told not a soul about his indiscretion and if there is no evidence pointing to him and if he thinks he can trust Novak, then I would question Kleiman's assumption that there's a "high probability that the truth will come out." As for legal defenses for the original act, I just don't understand that. Anyway, it seems like it's more consistent with human nature to perpetuate a lie rather than fess up to avoid greater trouble. Maybe it's worth trying, but if it's done publicly and doesn't work, then Bush looks like a wimp, so he's not likely to try it, publicly anyway. And in any event, it's hardly a panacea.

[Ratherworried]

If national security has been impacted by this disclosure, someone needs to go to jail. If national security has not been impacted by this disclosure the Democrats have destroyed (again) their credibility by all of the hyper-ventilating. The sad thing is the exposure of the dirty Republican trick looses its punch if you over-play it.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe needs to go away and a more savy politician take over. He keeps shooting himself in the foot. If he has over played this 'scandal', he has done it again!

His strategy in California was incredibly stooopid. Lets place all of our strategy on an unpopular governor and try to keep any credible moderate Democrat from signing up for the recall. Yeah, what a brilliant idea...moron.

This was ignored by the press because the brilliant DNC missed the obvious opportunity to bash the Bush administration when the disclosure was fresh. The entire problem is just a little too obviously manufactured at this point.

BTW: Wilson would be a little more credible if he was not so obviously enjoying himself. Hey I'm important now! I'm a playa! Tell me, if your wife and family is in danger why are trying to get on TV to remind everyone constantly about it?

[fyodor]

Hmmm, to restate the second sentence of my last post, if there's a "high probability the truth will come out," then you don't particluarly need sworn statements (although they might possibly expedite things). If the chances for discovery are low OTOH, sworn statements won't accomplish a thing.

[Mo]

Novak or the other 6 reporters shouldn't be charged with anything, just subpoenaed. The worst thing about this whole story is that the identities of the leakers aren't secret, the media is just keeping quiet because they don't want to lose their precious access.

And that's Mr. Ron to you.

[joe]

I think Robert Novak should be shot by a military firing squad.

Now, what's this about a White House leak?

[JDM]

anon,

Mainly just stupid. Or maybe hurried. Here's a better rephrasing: The link is not to a set of contradictory quotes. The damning part of the the "quotes" is the sentence: "Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information." Which is not what the *actual* quote provided says AT ALL.

I don't think you're lying.

[JDM]

The worst thing about this is that, in the end, there will likely have been no crime committed, and we'll all still be hearing about how traitorous Bush killed a CIA agent for the next 20 years.

[John Hood]

Clement:

The legal issue is not the motivation for the leak...the legal issue is was she classified as "undercover" or "an operative" when Novak received the information?

I agree that Plume's status at the CIA is a legal issue, but so is the motivation for the leak. I believe that the statute in question requires, among other things, that the accused know that the identity of the CIA agent is not already publicly disclosed and that leaking said identity would endanger the agent. There has to be felonious intent for a felony to be committed.

For example, if the administration official who talked to Novak had the impression that Plume's relationship to Wilson and CIA status was already widely known around DC, then the leak is stupid but not criminal.

[joe]

"The worst thing about this is that, in the end, there will likely have been no crime committed, and we'll all still be hearing about how traitorous Bush killed a CIA agent for the next 20 years."

Funny, I thought the worst thing was that a generation's worth of covert contacts on WMD proliferation are now worthless.

[Warren]

I truly despise Bush and his cronies, but this is small potatoes. Let's move on. Using the powers of office for personal gain is closer to treason. Especially when it involves the better part of a trillion dollars and the blood of innocents and those sworn to defend us.

[Russ]

So if revealing classified information is a crime, who is the bigger criminal: Someone who spreads the information to 6 people, or someone who broadcasts the information to millions of people?

The media have conveniently glossed over their own culpability in this silly affair to generate ratings.

[bughunter]

The "real issue" isn't who leaked what, or even whether the act is one of treason or felony or even misdemeanor. The real issue is that the Bush administration is behaving in a manner suggesting fanaticism: selective filtering of evidence to support preconceived notions, ignoring advice inconsistent with their agenda, intolerance for those who disagree with them, assumptions of grandeur and omnipotence, exclusiveness and secrecy in policymaking, insistence upon strict and unquestioning loyalty, and vicious retribution for those who they feel have betrayed said loyalty.

The Plame scandal is just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg. Its uniqueness is that it can be prosecuted as an alleged criminal act. As savvy and leakproof as the Bush/Cheney/Rove White House has been in its dealings with the media, it's a safe bet that someone directly advising the president knows who talked to Novak. And it's nearly as likely that he or she was put up to it by the same advisor(s).

It may not arise from the Plame scandal, but this Bush administration is going to eventually be revealed as the gang of thugs and cronies that it is. And the only ones who can't see it (or just won't admit it) are thugs and cronies themselves (or just wannabe thugs and cronies).

[joe]

I agree: the traits you mention make a Watergate-level scandal nearly inevitable. They cannot help but act in a way that will bring it about. It's only a question of when.

[dan]

But for willing accomplices in the media there would be no leak. If the media wants the leaker's
scalp, let them harvest it. Six in Washington's press corps know the leaker(s)'s identity. Any one
of them can be a hero by telling the truth. I won't be holding my breath while I wait for that to happen.
.

[jim]

Maybe Liddy will vounteer to take the hit.

[Anonymous]

I thought the following was a universal principle of how governments opperate.

"the (insert any name here) administration is behaving in a manner suggesting fanaticism: selective filtering of evidence to support preconceived notions, ignoring advice inconsistent with their agenda, intolerance for those who disagree with them, assumptions of grandeur and omnipotence, exclusiveness and secrecy in policymaking, insistence upon strict and unquestioning loyalty, and vicious retribution for those who they feel have betrayed said loyalty."

[joe]

Let's insert "Carter." Nope.

[bughunter]

I'm not comparing.

I'm talking absolutes. The Bush/Cheney gang of thugs operates so open loop that eventually they are going to diverge from reality entirely, and that's when they are going to fall flat on their ass, and their big bag of lies, half-truths, deceptions, and favoritisms is going to bust open and spill its contents for all to see.

You can point to other presidencies all you want, but the only one that even approaches the G. W. Bush presidency in imperiousness, fanaticism, and corruption ended in the resignation of the chief executive.

I'm expecting a much less pretty end for this one. And they're going to precipitate it themselves.

[trog]

Ron Bailey's suggestion about "order whoever made the leak to admit it and resign" was stupid when he made it, and now I see Nick Gillespie endorsing it.

Let's see how this goes: one of you people has possibly committed a felony worth 5 years in jail. Fess up, now! And quit! Then you're unemployed and can't pay the defense lawyer you'll need.

As much as I enjoy Reason, I'm rather glad I don't work there if that's the management style...

[A.W.]

Republicans are divorced from reality?

about 60% of Californians vote for a republican and the dem spin? Bush ought to be worried. yeah, i am sure he is pissing himself to see another macho republican not very good with spoken english take over in Cali. Yeah.

Or take the Plame affair. We currently don't know if she was actually, legally a covert agent, including a 5 year, deployment overseas requirement. We don't know if the leaker was in the white house. And we don't know if her identity as a CIA agent was actually a secret. But everyone is ready to leap to the conclusion that a crime has been committed!

Or how about this one. Bush said there was an imminent threat. The dems say that all the time. Only thing is, he didn't.

Sorry it is the democrats these days that seem to have lost their grip on reality.

[John Strom]

"The President should order whoever made the leak to admit it and resign."

Don't forget, the fifth amendment prevents public employees from being "ordered" to encriminate themselves.

[bughunter]

You automatically counterattack with the label "democrat." I am not a democrat or a liberal. I am a moderate conservative, one who believes in the Constitution and the principles of democracy and representative government they taught us about in high school. I voted for Bush because I couldn't stand Gore. But now I've become extremely disappointed in how Bush/Cheney have conducted affairs from Washington.

Like I said, only the thugs, cronies, and wannabes can't see what's happeneing...

[Greg]

Gillespie, you're a fucking idiot (thanks, FCC!) and this blog is the only good thing about the mag you're running into the ground. Presidents can't know everything their staff is doing and pressure the identity of the leaker out of anyone. But unless these reporters consider this source(s) a useful leaker in the future, there's no reason to cover his or her ass. Being a journalist means never having to say you're sorry.

[Dan]

Here's something to think about - apparently, six reporters were given this information. None of them are talking.

If you want to believe the media is liberal and out to 'get' Bush, there's a good explanation why they won't reveal the source - because there's nothing to it. It'll turn out to be some low-level functionary somewhere, and nothing will implicate the administration in any way. So the media's sitting on it because it keeps the story in the public eye and makes the administration look worse than the truth would.

If it were someone like Cheney or Rumsfeld, what are the chances that the media would sit on that information? Novak, I can understand - he was conducting an official, off-the-record interview. But what about the six or apparently received unsolicited calls? Are they still bound by their code of ethics to maintain the anonymity of the leaker?

Is this going to become another case of the media injecting itself into the debate for partisan reasons?

[joe wilson]

$500K, $700K..... good god my book's gonna be flying off the shelf..how's my hair look, honey?

[Anonymous]

well, several members of the press do know the leaker's identity, and they're not saying... do they have an obligation to come forward, if they're concealing the identity of a criminal who endangered national security and people's lives? maybe, maybe not, but it's a reasonable opinion

[TB StLouis]

Look folks, reason is wasted here....All perceptions and beliefs, among some, proceed from the premise that Bush is evil. Anything which tends to disprove this assumption will be categorized as "part of the conspiracy".

[A.]

Look, this is silly. Bush is an idiot or useless because he doesn't track every conversation by every person in his administration? I work for the White House. (Really, I do.) Just figuring out who in the EOP might have given this information would be neigh on impossible -- not to mention that it could have come from anywhere in a HUGE executive branch. Palme's job was an open secret, after all, so it's not as if only a few top people had access to this information. We're required to turn over all records pertaining to this matter and come forward with any information about conversations but I would be shocked if the leaker complied when it's so easy to avoid consequences by staying silent.

[Anonymous]

"Are (the media) still bound by their code of ethics to maintain the anonymity of the leaker?"

They're bound by their code of hoping to be confided in by their sources.

[Kevin Carson]

JDM,

Karl "we're gonna fuck him like he's never been fucked in his life" Rove and Bob Novak have a history of doing this sort of thing. The Washington Post initially reported the story was leaked by two senior officials.

I first read about the significance of the Plame affair in early August, and wondered how long it would take to explode as a major story. Why did it take so long?

I suspect the same reason it took 'til the spring of 2002 for all the stories to appear in the mainstream press about ignored warning signs of impending terror attack, and about plans in the works as early as July 2001 for an October war on the Taliban. I first saw those stories in late September and early October 2001, from the same sources that were quoted when they hit the mainstream press the next year.

Stories generally become part of "consensus reality," I suspect, only when they become politically useful for major players in the power system. That doesn't mean they aren't true; it just means that it doesn't matter whether they're true unless somebody profits from them. COINTELPRO was carrying out stuff a lot worse than Watergate against minor leftwing parties and newspapers for a long time; but when Nixon crossed the line and used the same covert attack methods against one of the Big Two parties in the corporate power structure, suddenly the press noticed it.

[bughunter]

Clearly, TB, you operate under the assumption that just because extremists on the left and right see things in black and white, good and evil, that the rest of us do. That if we're not out there on the far right wing with you, then we're lefty liberal commies.

That world view is plain wrong. I consider myself on the conservative side of moderate. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after the 2000 election, and the first thing he did is hand out favors to his friends in business and the upper crust. Fear of this is exactly why I voted against Gore.

And again, after 9/11, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. And all he's done is lie and dissemble and use the tragedy to further the agenda of the PNAC.

Sorry. He's not getting anything but my distrust anymore. It's not anger or hatred or loathing. I don't see him as evil. Just crooked and dishonest.

Gee. Sounds like an earlier chief exec, doesn't it?

I've seen it before. I'm more of a patriot than to give my loyalty to a liar and a crony just because he wraps himself in a flag and says the only way I can be true to my country is to follow him unquestioningly. Sorry, charlie.

[kontaktlinsen]

This year you can elect a new president and than it is good!

[Next]

After Clinton and Arnold, who's next to grope whom and get away with it?

[Kontaktlinsen]

Great Site !!!

[Colored Contacts]

Very interesting Site !!!

[kontaktlinser]

From Sverige I wish you all the best for election in November!

[contactlenzen]

Like my collegue from Sverige! I am from the Netherlands and I wish you all the best for your election, too!

[Dvd Verleih guenstig]

hello interesting blog. Ralf

[Walker Tyrone]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.top-penis-enlargement-pills.net/
DATE: 12/09/2003 11:29:36
Unusual ideas can make enemies.

[Arnold MarieAnge Payet]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-CAPSULE.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 01:24:02
It is wise to apply the oil of refined politeness to the mechanisms of friendship.

[Haas Levke]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.QUALITY-PENIS-PILLS.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 01:24:04
There is no great genius without some touch of madness.

[Fried Kate]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://tip-for-penis-enlargement.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 05:18:48
I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.

[Eakin Beth]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 11:58:20
Don't worry that other people don't know you; worry that you don't know other people.