Freudian Slip?

From Bush's press conference yesterday:

I'll say that the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership, and America is more secure.

Was I the only one who did a double take at that?

Comments

[lone ranger]

My favorite line of the press conference:

Reporter: Some people just wish you would level with us about the situation in Iraq

Bush. Yeah, well I told you it was a dangerous place, that's leveling. What else can I say?

LOL.

That's why he's gonna whip the shit out of whoever he runs againt

[ImpeachBush]

.. every time I start to think that Bush may not be a raving lunatic after all, he comes up with a statement like this ..

.. peace?? .. starting an unprovoked war??
.. security?? .. creating a thousand new bin Ladens??
.. freedom?? .. his PATRIOT POS is the worst destruction of freedoms in this country since Reagan used the Bill of Rights for toilet paper ..

.. history will show the single term of the second Bush presidency will languish in the bottom 10% of all administrations in this country ..

[Josh]

".. security?? .. creating a thousand new bin Ladens??"

As often as I hear this, I have yet to hear anyone back it up.

[dhex]

give it some time...though chances are they'd have been created anyway. inevitability and all that. not that bin laden matters all that much 'cept as a symbol of eeeeevil. or godly righteousness, depending on which brain-damaged point of view you ascribe to.

anyhoo...the hilarious thought that comes to mind is that having gore in the white house would have resulted in a similar patriot act, ushering in a rare phenomenon of republicans who suddenly think civil liberties are important, and not just when it comes to NRA fundraisers. laff riot!

[Jason]

I dunno. I mean, it just stands to reason doesn't it? You remove a leadership of any country, you're gonna piss of some of residents regardless of how tyrannical the leader may be. The present unrest in Iraq is more then enough proof of that. Granted none of them may have pockets as deep as bin Laden, but that doesn't mean they can't make us regret ever stepping foot in Iraq.

[Tom from Texas]

I'm a little confused here. During the past two years there has been no echo of jackboots on my stoop as I was roused from slumber for violating the Patriot Act. And during the 1980s (during which I was a working, taxpaying adult, compared to many here) I fail to remember anything that Ronald Reagan did that impinged on my freedoms (and this was a time when I voted for Carter, Mondale and Dukakis; yes, we can all be fuckheads in our youth).

Can someone tell me precisely WHEN and WHERE my precious rights have been violated by this administration?

[Citizen]

"".. security?? .. creating a thousand new bin Ladens??"

As often as I hear this, I have yet to hear anyone back it up."

Agreed.
And clearly, if we haven't found any already, there must not be any at all. We've been lied to about the existance of Bin Laden all along.

[Jimmy Antley]

Yes, "ImpeachBush" is an idiot, Tom. Reagan did a lot more in the cause of smaller gov't than any president in the last 50 years, though that is not saying much. Not a lot you can do when the Congress and Senate are controlled by a large margin by Democrats.

Bush is another story. He could do a hell of a lot for freedom in this country, and he is dissapointing the crap out of me. Second, I don't agree with Tom from Texas about the Patriot act. Now, THAT is using "the Constitution as toilet paper", to use a phrase from the idiot above.

One more word to make my point: the fucking TSA.

(oops, that was 3 words ;-}

[R. C. Dean]

I'll say that the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership, and America is more secure.

The previous policy of "talk frequently and carry a small stick" is what laid the groundwork for the single most devastating breach of American security in history, so I would say that, as of today, America is more secure under Bush than it was under Clinton. As 9/11 showed, America was quite unsecure before Bush, but we just didn't know it.

The Islamist nutballs have been pushed back, hard, and are now targeting soft targets in the Middle East instead of America. I would say that America is more secure, in both the short and the medium term, as a result of Bush's hardnosed reaction to 9/11.

Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan, are certainly more free now than they were before Bush. I would also say that the world is certainly on the road to being more free if we can get the dominos to fall in the Middle East. Without the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, there would be no prospect of increased freedom in the Middle East.

In fact, with Americans sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that the prospects for peace in the Middle East are also significantly better than if we had done nothing. For one thing, nobody is going to be starting any wars with the 4th ID sitting on their border.

Of course, whether more peace and freedom are the longterm result of this war depends on whether we do a good job of finishing what we started. Without the war, though, American security, peace and freedom would certainly be less than they will be if we finish the war right.

[Jason]

Oh please, like it was completely Clinton's administration that enabled 9/11. The same thing could have happened during Bush Sr.'s term just as easily, if not moreso.

George W. just got lucky that he had 9/11 to use as his blinders for a carte blanche on the rest of American policies. "Yooohooo!!! Terrorists in the Middle East! Look at all the security measures I'm putting place! Aren't I a terrific president? Nooo.. I'd never use these security measures to take away freedoms of the people! Trust me! Don't pay any attention to what the man behind the curtain is doing!"

[Anonymous]

"Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan, are certainly more free now than they were before Bush. "

And they'll have even more freedom the sooner we get the fuck out.

[D Lusional]

It's the idiotic blathering of moronic shitheads who make statements like "George W. just got lucky that he had 9/11" that make some of these threads really hard to stomach.

I don't like Bush much. I don't think his presidency will be good for the country. Right now, I like Jason less.

What an asshole.

[Jason]

Gimme a break. You know what I meant. Don't choose to read it on some other level just to piss you off.

You can't tell me that 9/11 didn't give him freedoms to move things in whatever direction he felt would be best quicker and easier then if it hadn't happened. That, and only that, was by what definition I meant when I said "lucky".

[rst]

New OBLs were being created anyway. There is no need to crawl under a rock just because our foreign policy creates enemies. Not everybody prays to the same dollar. It happens.

As often as I hear this, I have yet to hear anyone back it up.

Because it cannot be backed up. It is an accusation without substance, like the erroneous idea that the war was unprovoked.

Go read the UN resolution following Desert Storm (687? Whichever, I don't feel like looking it up). You'll notice that it demands specific (no-fly zone, etc.) concessions from Iraq as prerequisite to a cease-fire. Iraq failed to provide those concessions, effectively rejecting that cease-fire. Calling this war entirely unprovoked and unexpected is entirely ignorant. There is more to the world than what you saw on the news. Just because you all ignored those little backpage stories about no-fly incursions and gunfights in Iraq for the past 12 years doesn't mean they didn't happen, it just means that you weren't paying attention then, and now you're surprised. Well, that's what you get.

Anyway, there is no measure by which you can determine the extent to which the world is more or less peaceful under Bush. In the face of partisan propaganda you will generally be guided by your own prejudices. Politicians rarely speak in terms that can be tied to practical, observable things...they invoke invisible idols and intangible ideas, leaving the more grounded among us to scratch our heads at the attempts.

The correct response is to take it for what it is, an advertisement. No, Tide will probably not really get that massive grass stain out of your pants, and drinking Coors light will probably not land you in the middle of a huge party with hot blonde twins. The world is probably not any safer, but the important part is that you're still buying, and you won't stop buying, no matter how disgusted you get.

[rst]

P.S. We are the empire. Enjoy it kids, it won't last forever.

It's the idiotic blathering of moronic shitheads who make statements like "George W. just got lucky that he had 9/11" that make some of these threads really hard to stomach.

Well, he did make the "trifecta" joke...

[Dan]

Was I the only one who did a double take at that?

No, I'm pretty sure most of the folks at Democratic Underground and Indymedia did double-takes, too. 🙂

[D Lusional]

Jason,

I read it just the way you meant it and i stand by mt original post.

[LauraN]

What amazes me is the sheer shortsightedness of everyone. If you think these Arab countries are troublesome, give some thought to the satellite tech that Clinton handed over to the Chinese.

We haven't enough cannon fodder for THAT war and they know it. And I cannot express how angry I get each time I crank up the DirecTV. Damn it, I love capitalism but...did you HAVE to sell them the damned stuff? I'd have tossed an extra $10 each month at you to keep that shit here in the files.

[Kari]

Regarding Bush being "lucky": So, you actually think Bush was sitting around the White House, just waiting for the chance to subjugate you? Get serious. Many of us object to parts of the Patriot Act. Enough, in fact, that more and more members of Congress are having second thoughts (witness the two House votes this summer limiting enforcement of select provisions). But in the wake of 9/11, the national reaction not only allowed the Patriot Act to pass, it practically demanded it. We were under attack; we "needed" protection. An excuse for objectionable provisions? No, especially given the red flags many saw in the first place. But was the White House reacting or capitalizing? I see plenty of evidence for reaction; little but conspiracy-dreaming for the other.

[rst]

Kari, come on, they were rubbing their hands together and hatching diabolical plans. They had to be, they're Evil Republicans. And Bush, he was guffawing on 9/11." Ha ha! Your precious civil liberties will soon be all mine! I shall singlehandedly kill a few hundred of our thousands upon thousands of troops, then blame it on Islamic extremists!"

It's just like the movies, Kari. Republicans are the bad guys, and the Democrats are the good guys. We normal people play the part of the oft-gunned down innocent bystanders.

[StMack]

I can just picture the high fives as their dreams to rescind the bill of rights came true. UBL is alive today because of the administration's undying gratitude.

Jason - buy a roll of foil and make a new hat.

[pinhas]

I don't know about "lucky", but there was a cadre of hawks that had been itching to invade Iraq for the last decade, and used the security fears caused by 9/11 to sell the idea to both the White House, and then, the public, despite there being no obvious connection between a secular dictator who had not attacked us and the Islamic fundamentalists who had.

As for the creation of a 1000 OBL's, who knows? But polls have been consistent that the numbers of people who hate America across the world have skyrocketed in the past couple of years, and OBL's recruiters could not have gotten a greater gift than the invasion of Iraq. In the long run, this doesn't bode well for American security.

[JDM]

"I don't know about "lucky", but there was a cadre of hawks that had been itching to invade Iraq for the last decade, and used the security fears caused by 9/11 to sell the idea to both the White House, and then, the public"

The reason to invade Iraq didn't change after 9/11. 9/11 was simply a wake up call which illustrated what the hawks had been thinking about all along - the middle east was a dangerous cesspool. You can disagree with them without misrepresenting their motivations. In other words, 9/11 was one of the things the hawks thought invading Iraq would help prevent.

[jus sayin]

"As for the creation of a 1000 OBL's, who knows? But polls have been consistent that the numbers of people who hate America across the world have skyrocketed in the past couple of years, and OBL's recruiters could not have gotten a greater gift than the invasion of Iraq. In the long run, this doesn't bode well for American security."

Most of them probably hated the US to before that, it's just that the Guardian and BBC weren't going around asking every Muhammad and Abdul for their opinions back then. Anyone who would get angry at us specifically for removing Saddam was probably not sane in the first place.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"More peaceful? Where?"

Manhattan.

[Caitlin Kilkka]

*laugh* I noticed that while reading the news at work today... I found the quotation amusing, but lack of "media controversy" was even more surprising. I would have thought the Democrats would be jumping all over it by now...

[R. C. Dean]

I think that "cadre of hawks" was proven correct in their fears that the Middle East, left unreformed, would eventually breed terrorist attacks directly on the US.

[Ian]

Sure, the hawks were proven correct that the Middle East would breed terror attacks. But... Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, so... we invade Iraq? What??

[Anonymous]

Iraq was a central part of a world that created and made safe international and anti-American terrorism, Ian, even including Al Qaida. (Please don't make me list several books worth of evidence.) And this isn't just a war on the 19 who attacked us, or even Al Qaida. We've decided not to wait until many more thousands of Americans (and Westerners) die on their own soil. You may disagree on the best strategy to achieve our goals, but kicking Saddam Hussein out of power and attempting to have a republic in the Middle East is a strategy that takes our problems on directly.

[chillydogg]

Tom from Texas, there are 280 million u.s. citizens, just wait your turn is coming.

[Me]

Yes, you were.

[Bill]

Face it Bucky: The President of the United States IS the leader of the free world.

[Kevin Carson]

"Freeing the Slaves, Enslaving Free Men"

[Jack]

I agree with Me. While I would question the accuracy of it, it's not worthy of a double-take.

[Chuck]

Yeah, I think what President Cicero was trying to say is that both America and the rest of the world has profited from his leadership in the War on Terror.

A highly dubious proposition, to say the least.

[Me2]

More peaceful? Where?

[Jason Walker]

Kevin's got a point. I don't think Bush is wrong, per se. I mean, you throw together the Iraqis and Afghans, and they're a lot more free now. I don't know of any regimes that have become less free with Bush's actions. Well, that is, except for us here in America. We may be more secure - I don't know enough to know for sure. At the very least, we can credit intelligence agencies, for all of their incompetence, at least are aware of dangers they didn't pay attention to before. The world is more secure with Afghanistan's terror network struggling to survive, instead of actively plotting new terror.

But were the anti-civil liberties provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act necessary for this? I doubt it. But then, given what happened under Clinton, I have little doubt that a Clinton or Gore sponsored bill reacting to 9/11 would have been far worse.

But you should still vote Libertarian in 2004.

[chthus]

Had this come out of a better speakers mouth, it might be something to notice. But given Bush's frequent verbal stumbles, it doesn't seem like anything of note.

[Rick Barton]

Yeah, a double take for sure. A fitting response, since the Bush pronouncement sounds like Orwellian " double speak".

[Julian Sanchez]

Just to clarify in case there's confusion... my double take was at the locution "the world...under my leadership" rather than the substance, however debatable, of the remark.

[Me]

Yes, we know. Thanks Julian.

[mdw]

Dave Barry in 2004!

Enough Already with Leadership

[NoStar]

Watching Bush-Lite attempt to embellish his legacy is going to be more fun than watching Clinton polishing the knob of his legacy

[yelowd]

who the hell is dave barry?

[richard III]

Actually, I think we all had quite enough of Clinton getting his knob polished.

[StMack]

If it walks like a nit and talks like a nit - pick it.

[Jean Bart]

Anonymous,

Please do list the several books full of information; and send an e-mail to Bush with the same information as well, he could use it. 🙂

What I find interesting about the entire Iraq debacle is how willing people are to lower the bar any time one of the criteria for invasion is undermined. Bush is especially good at this. Of course he's also good at lying, as the recent statements about the banner behind him on the carrier illustrate. 🙂

[Dan]

All of which is true, in some degree or another, but how is a special threat to the U.S.?

Earth to dumbshit: it's not just that he was attempting to develop WMDs. It's not just that he'd used them on civilians. It's not just that he hated America. It's not just that he supported terrorists. It's that he did all these things, collectively.

You know a guy's a known serial killer. You know he'd love to see you dead. You know he knows who you are, where you live. You know he's trying to buy a gun. At this point, a sane person would take action to neutralize the threat the man represents. Fuckwits like you would sit around saying "well, he's not the ONLY serial killer in the world, you know, and he's not the only person with a gun" until the day he showed up at your door. Then you'd whine that nobody protected you from him.

[Dan]

What I find interesting about the entire Iraq debacle is how willing people are to lower the bar any time one of the criteria for invasion is undermined

Yeah, whatever. The moral case for removing him is unassailable, so the best you can hope for debacle-wise is that events will prove that it would have been in America's best interests to continue to NOT do the moral thing. Unfortunately for you, the odds of that happening are slim.

Proven facts as of this date:
(1): Hussein was willing to use WMDs on civilians.
(2): Hussein hated the United States.
(3): Hussein gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
(4): Hussein's government had developed WMDs in the past, attempted to continue doing so in the present, and planned to continue doing so in the future.

That's enough -- more than enough -- to establish, once and for all, that Hussein had to go. Removing Hussein was, and is, the only sane choice for a rational and self-interested voting populace. The loony left has never missed a chance to suck up to a genocidal dictator so long as he had the proper anti-American credentials, but you guys are barking up the wrong tree on this one. The only people who have any regret for the invasion of Iraq are people who passionately hated Bush well before 9/11 ever happened.

Debacle? Millions of lives saved, millions of people freed. The potential for a democracy in a region that has been living under crushing dictatorships since the dawn of history. How much do you have to hate the people who made this possible, to think of it as a debacle?

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I don't like him; he's too fundamentalist, and I don't trust him with my rights. But the Democratic candidates (and the Greens, and sadly even the Libertarian party by and large) have shown themselves to be either deeply stupid or utterly amoral. For all the good it'll do (since I'm a Californian), Bush has my vote for 2004 -- because the thought of what the world would be like today if a Dean or a Kerry (or a Nader, even) had been in office on 9/11/03 is horrifying to me. The war on terrorism is too damned important to place in the hands of men whose greatest ambition in life is to keep bribing Americans with our own money and telling us whatever we want to hear.

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

I'm not part of the left; and I'm not an anti-American. Get your head out of your ass, and quit thinking in paradigmatic labels.

Regarding the loony, need I remind you that the American right has sucked up to its own viscious dictators of choice - including Ronald Reagan and his administration's to be frank criminal support of Nicolae Ceausescu?

Now let's dissect your syllogism:

"(1): Hussein was willing to use WMDs on civilians."

So was Churchill; and so have to be frank has the US - American expertise on WMDs, after all, comes from its own, long-term experimentation with them. The USSR was also willing to use them, BTW. So you will have to differentiate why Saddam's willingness to use them is different from these other actors, and thus requires a differing approach than that applied to say the USSR during the Cold War.

"(2): Hussein hated the United States."

Well shit, so do a lot of people. What makes Saddam's supposed hatred of the U.S. particularly special? And Saddam has not always hated the U.S.; in fact, he had very cordial relations with the U.S. at one time.

"(3): Hussein gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

When did he give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda? On Frontline, Chalabi stated this very same thing, and even claimed that he had proof of such, which his organization never produced for Frontline.

The biggest thing that you've got on his regime is that they had some tenuous contacts with that terrorist group which operated in the Kurd area, as well as his payments to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers. I've as yet to see any other connections. Taken in isolation, this is not much of a cassus belli.

"(4): Hussein's government had developed WMDs in the past, attempted to continue doing so in the present, and planned to continue doing so in the future."

All of which is true, in some degree or another, but how is a special threat to the U.S.? This factor depends on the other factors above, yet one of those factors is almost non-existant, and the other two are qualified.

The Moral Case For War:

Though it may be agreed that knocking down his regime was the moral thing to do, the ultimate problem with such a rationale is that its rather dangerous in its application, and not something one particularly wants to use very often as a rationale for foreign policy. Its certainly not the way the U.S. normally acts in its relations with other countries - if it did, then it would sever all ties with the PRC for example.

As to whether it was moral or not, I do not think either of us know if that is ultimately the case - certainly the Iraqi National Congress thinks so, but I can imagine scenarios where these actions could make it worse for the Iraqis (which throws us into a Kant v. Mill, de-ontological v. utilitarian debate).

"Debacle? Millions of lives saved, millions of people freed. The potential for a democracy in a region that has been living under crushing dictatorships since the dawn of history. How much do you have to hate the people who made this possible, to think of it as a debacle?"

It is a debacle; saying that it is does not imply hatred for the Iraqis, and implying that I do is one of the dumbest things I've seen in quite some time.

The fact is that I may be quite sympathetic to the cause of their freedom, but think that the constant willingness to lower the bar as I argued before defeats that purpose. In other words, its a hell of a lot easier to take someone seriously, and to sympathethize and otherwise accept the merits of their cause, when they are honest.

I don't care about the 2000 election or the 2004 election either, at least in a sense that it will effect me; and I have as yet to see any real difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

In 2007 I am voting for Sarkozy. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

BTW, for the most part, Bush has very little influence on the workings of other governments/nations/peoples.

[Jeff Clothier]

The comment was an interesting window into the mind of W, if such can be said to exist, in several ways. First, it is further evidence that he truly believes himself to be leader of the world - free and otherwise - AND that the inhibitions of taste and diplomacy which ordinarily prevent presidents from spouting such irritating banalities are very, very thin and weak in his character and makeup. Plus, when I first read that line, I thought to myself - by "the world," does he mean the United States? Iraq? The free world?

The comment further indicates to me that the man's mind operates as a set of free-floating axioms without basis or substance but which cannot be contradicted. Very dangerous in a - or the - world leader.

[joe]

If Bush was a person known for his exacting speeches and verbal dexterity, this would be an interesting Freudian slip. As it is, it's just Shrub getting tripped up by English syntax again.

Amusing, but I'm not reading too much into it.

[John Hood]

JB:

"(3): Hussein gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

When did he give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda? On Frontline, Chalabi stated this very same thing, and even claimed that he had proof of such, which his organization never produced for Frontline.

The biggest thing that you've got on his regime is that they had some tenuous contacts with that terrorist group which operated in the Kurd area, as well as his payments to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers. I've as yet to see any other connections. Taken in isolation, this is not much of a cassus belli.

You're a smart person who often engages in constructive dialogue. You also appear to be well-informed on many subjects. If you have "yet to see any other connections" between Iraq and al Qaeda despite the (by now) significant reporting of same in various media -- involving not just the Ansar group but Southeast Asia-based operatives, Iraq-based operatives, training camps in Iraq, the cooperation of Al Qaeda thugs in the pre-war planning in Iraq earlier this year, etc. -- then I regretfully come to the conclusion that useful debate on this issue has become impossible.

No one is suggesting that there is clear evidence Saddam Hussein had anything to do personally with planning or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. But it is, at this point, undeniable that Saddam's Iraq offered sanctuary, arms, intelligence cooperation, and other assistance to al Qaeda and its affiliates. Because we are at war with al Qaeda, any of its affiliates, confederates, financiers, suppliers, or facilitators are legitimate targets of military operation.

Period. (Or perhaps, Exclamation Point).

[John Hood]

Whoops: I messed up the italics on the previous post. Here's how it should read:

JB:

When did he give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda? On Frontline, Chalabi stated this very same thing, and even claimed that he had proof of such, which his organization never produced for Frontline. The biggest thing that you've got on his regime is that they had some tenuous contacts with that terrorist group which operated in the Kurd area, as well as his payments to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers. I've as yet to see any other connections. Taken in isolation, this is not much of a cassus belli.

You're a smart person who often engages in constructive dialogue. You also appear to be well-informed on many subjects. If you have "yet to see any other connections" between Iraq and al Qaeda despite the (by now) significant reporting of same in various media -- involving not just the Ansar group but Southeast Asia-based operatives, Iraq-based operatives, training camps in Iraq, the cooperation of Al Qaeda thugs in the pre-war planning in Iraq earlier this year, etc. -- then I regretfully come to the conclusion that useful debate on this issue has become impossible.

No one is suggesting that there is clear evidence Saddam Hussein had anything to do personally with planning or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. But it is, at this point, undeniable that Saddam's Iraq offered sanctuary, arms, intelligence cooperation, and other assistance to al Qaeda and its affiliates. Because we are at war with al Qaeda, any of its affiliates, confederates, financiers, suppliers, or facilitators are legitimate targets of military operation.

Period. (Or perhaps, Exclamation Point).

[Anonymous]

All four of Dan's points could also be applied to Musharraf, with even more certainty than with Hussein. But since Pakistan isn't close to Israel and isn't close to the oil, US foreign policy chooses to ignore the morality on that one.

[Kevin Carson]

ImpeachBush,

The USA Patriot POS is the worst hatchet job on the Constitution since Janet Reno's stooge Chuck Schumer railroaded through his own counterterror legislation in 1995.

People who think jackbootism is limited to one party, and fall asleep at the switch when their own people are in power, are the reason it always seems to ratchet upward from one party's administration to the next. Apparently you are the mirror image of the freepers who rightly feared for civil liberties under Auntie Jen (aka the Butcher of Waco), but think everything is hunky dory now that "a good Christian man" is in charge of the Gestapo.

Do you still believe in a place called Hope?

[Citizen]

BTW JB, I think Dan was implying that you hate Bush, et al, not that you hate Iraqis. Re-read his statement in this light and I think you'll see what I mean.

[Neb Okla]

CNN seems to think that it would make a good campaign slogan. They say so in the first paragraph.

[Bachner Suzanne]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.65.252.130
URL: http://vimax.build-penis.com/
DATE: 11/28/2003 10:40:54
If you would be unloved and forgotten, be reasonable.

[Sarantitis Joshua]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.65.252.130
URL: http://www.effective-penis-enlargement.net/
DATE: 11/28/2003 10:42:30
Perceptions do not limit reality.

[Green Mark]

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

DATE: 12/10/2003 11:45:53
To be poor without bitterness is easy; to be rich without arrogance is hard.

[Hooper Chris]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 64.164.0.235
URL: http://www.EFFECTIVE-PENIS-PILLS.NET

DATE: 12/20/2003 03:49:43
'Of course' is cyanide of the mind.

[Schneider Dan]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 64.164.0.235
URL: http://www.TRY-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT.NET

DATE: 12/20/2003 03:54:11
Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.

[Becker Michelle]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://big-natural breast.drugsexperts.com
DATE: 01/08/2004 07:40:39
I am a hobo in the house of the lord.

[StalkerWilde Julie Wilde]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 218.185.66.178
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 08:59:28
'May you live all the days of your life.' - Swift

[Pitarys Katherine]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 64.108.32.30
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 11:18:59
Underestimation is a two-way street.

[Arnold MarieAnge Payet]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 66.250.68.55
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 12:56:00
Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies.