"bin Laden determined to strike within the U.S."

I eagerly await the righteous indignation from the Plame Platoon about the spilling of secrets in wartime and its impassioned calls for an independent counsel to prosecute the leakers. And wait....And wait....

Waiting? We did that a couple of years ago. Still waiting for results.

The problem with attempting sarcasm with half a brain is that you wind up getting it backwards.
.

So has anyone asked why Bush didn't use this power on his own staff to find the identity of the leaker?

Max Boot is an ingnorant schmuck. Apparently he hasn't noticed that a major terrorist attack occurred on Dubya's watch, after he had been warned repeatedly by the Clinton administration.

Clinton thwarted the Millenial attacks w/o breaking the law.

Posner (see Atrios) defends BushCo, because we face existential threats.

This is the worst of all possible worlds.

By spying on fur protests, vegans, lesbians, Quakers, and political opponents, BushCo totally belittles the need for a new approach to new threats. By saying they couldn’t follow the law *because it involves paperwork* (see AmericaBlog) and they couldn’t try to modify the law (also at America), they’ve made it much more unlikely that Posner's or Robert Wright’s proposals will ever get a real hearing.

BushCo are both incompetent (Lawrence Wilkerson’s comments about their not preparing for biological attacks; ignoring “bin Laden determined to strike,” Katrina; etc.) and corrupt (DeLay, Frist, trying to slip ANWAR drilling into the Defense appropriations bill, etc.). BushCO have done everything possible to make us less safe – breaking the law re: spying is just the latest, and probably not as serious as pissing off the rest of the world. To avoid terrorism and existential risks, we need allies.

If you want a safer America, you have to throw these criminals out before they destroy everything bin Laden could never touch.

What's ever so useful about Mr. Boot's position is that, in his view, he owns both sides of the question, "Why hasn't there been another attack in the U.S. since 9/11?" As long as there has been no attack, it's evidence that the president is a strong defender of the country. When/if there is another domestic attack, it will be because other people stood in the way of the president.

Shorter Boot: the president deserves only praise and never blame, because he's a strong leader.

I also wonder about the fact that the president and vice president consistently recite the litany of attacks elsewhere ("in Bali, in Madrid, in London", etc.) as evidence of the continuing threat. Isn't it also evidence that we're not so great at countering the "global" part of the GWOT? Is that evidence that the president needs even more authority? Or evidence that global security is a bit broader than even American shoulders?

Of course, I already know Max Boot's answer.

Maximus Bootyus has no shame or brain, and only puts his butt on the line as a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Brigade.

HYPOCRITE. Matt Drudge has exposed how warrantless searches were already authorized by liberal Demorcrats Clinton and Carter so you libs are just being hypocritical complaining about Bush.

Link

"Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.""

"I eagerly await the righteous indignation from the Plame Platoon about the spilling of secrets in wartime and its impassioned calls for an independent counsel to prosecute the leakers. And wait....And wait...."

Of course, last time the Right got cranked up on one of these, they had to punt when it looked more and more like the source was Republican...

I'm with Josh Marshall on these things: Whistleblowers do take a risk. Lay it all on the table and let the chips fall where they will...Abramoff, Plame, Energy task force, Iraq intel, NSA TIA, whatever.

The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades (al Qaeda in Egypt) supported Bush in the 2004 election for one reason: he's their bitch.
.

Look, I can understand the outrage over spying on Quakers but those vegans are dangerous people. They must be stopped now!

Awfully convenient -- no attacks justifies their law breaking, and attacks justify more law breaking.

"But never their fault. Never the fault of those who have so little faith in America's institutions in the first place. It's never their fault."

With all due respect, its hard to see how the Patriot Act, etc., could make a terrorist attack on U.S. soil more likely. You can argue that the positives of certain programs are outweighed by the negatives involving civil liberties (though ultimately this is always an unproveable proposition) but you can't argue that they make such an attack more likely.

(You may be able to argue that the invasion of Iraq has made an attack on U.S. soil more likely but that's a separate question.)

What about the "grading" of Bush's administration by the 9/11 committee? The Administration got Ds and Fs for protecting the country. Did the administration think it was doing a good job "by other means"? Is that why they just went "oh well, we're covered" and ignored the second report? Of course it is. But I would contend that the administration is just trying to use the cheapest methods only because they've got an expensive full on war in Iraq. My 2 cents....

HYPOCRITE. Matt Drudge has exposed how warrantless searches were already authorized by liberal Demorcrats Clinton and Carter so you libs are just being hypocritical complaining about Bush.

Al, you ignorant slut. Your talking points are already past their expiration date:

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?

the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.
and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:

the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law. Hot damn, that sounds like a check and balance to me!

The only thing Drudge has "exposed" is how easy it is to use your ignorant ass.
.

Al, here is the debunking of your first lie of the day:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

We look forward to your next lies.

I haven't gone bankrupt since the new bankruptcy laws were passed, so they were necessary to help prevent me from going bankrupt.

War Is Peace.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

It's hard to know the exact reason we've been spared, but surely part of our good fortune should be attributed to the very measures — the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, the renditions, the enhanced interrogation techniques — that are now being pilloried by self-righteous journalists and lawmakers.

With so few terrorist attacks on American soil, can anyone make a cause and effect relationship? That's like saying that everytime I eat Lucky Charms cereal it rains; therefore, Lucky Charms cereal causes the rain to come. Maybe there's a point here - after all, they are magically delicious!

Al, Clinton did not sign an executive order allowing for warrantless searches. That's a falsehood. It is true (kos to the contrary) that Clinton consistently argued that he had the authority to order warrantless searches...but he never actually issued an executive order allowing for them.

Cheney & Boot:

"it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years."

Simpsons:

Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh? How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you? [pause]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock! [A moment's hesitation; then, money changes hands.]

Sorry, Texan -- I posted while you were posting

PS -- um, you don't need to protect me from hot lesbian action, Dick.

Correlation does not imply causation.

The implementation of the Patriot Act correlates exactly with no polar bear attacks on my person.

max boot- his name says it all.

There's an interesting account of a meeting between the LAT Op/Ed honchos and people concerned with the Scheer dismissal and the direction of the Opinion page generally at La Observed.

It's becoming a little obnoxious the way Andres Martinez defends the LAT from charges that it's just doing Jeffrey Johnson's bidding, but offers absolutely no explanation why Scheer was let go, implying he's just following orders and can't justify it in any credible way.

Carole Myers repeatedly questioned why the LA Times would continue to run Max Boot, when the guy had been wrong about everything -- WMD's, etc. -- for the last few years. Didn't the LA Times have a responsibility to tell the truth? Why would they fire Scheer when he did tell the truth, when he was right about being Left all along?

When Martinez and Goldberg mentioned wanting to be intellectually provocative on their Opinion pages, thereby running people with far-right opinions, Marcy asked, "Would you run Hitler? Would you give a half a page to someone who espoused annihilating a race?" They got defensive, but we pressed on -- saying these were extraordinary times in which people were being disappeared, tortured, sent to fight a war based on lies, etc. "You should be writing editorials calling for impeachment." No traction there.

Speaking of not their fault. During Bush's press conference he was asked again if he had made any mistakes. He turned it around and pointed out everyone else's mistakes but did not admit to making any himself. So much for taking responsibility.

When will the delivery of weapons-grade anthrax to US Congressional buildings be recognized as an act of terrorism?

I am glad you posted Max so I do not have to read him. Also, your succint summarization says it all. Thank you.

With all due respect, its hard to see how the Patriot Act, etc., could make a terrorist attack on U.S. soil more likely.

The act itself probably doesn't hurt anti-terrorism efforts (though I can't say that for sure), but the administration's emphasis on aquiring more power and attacking anyone who would limit their power probably does.

When will the delivery of weapons-grade anthrax to US Congressional buildings be recognized as an act of terrorism?

When Rush magically transports it into the Clinton administration. Just wait a couple of years.
.

In the 4 years since 9/11, not one American city has been ravaged by a huge reptilian monster that came from the deep waters off the coast of Japan. Not one!

Thank you George Bush, American Hero!

Ask yourself why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001

i question the predictive ability of a model based on two data points (assuming he's using two points, and not just one)

Ask yourself why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001. Not one.

Um, why would I ask myself for an explanation of something that isn't true? There was a terrorist attack on July 4, 2002, at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport by an Islamist linked to al-Qaeda following a pattern used previously by terrorists against El Al ticket counters in Europe in 1985. Last I looked, 2002 was "since 2001" and LAX was "American soil".

But its interesting to see that the "no attacks since 9/11" lie has, after being used for years, finally been adjusted to account for the even more inexplicable error of forgetting about the Anthrax attacks.

With all due respect, its hard to see how the Patriot Act, etc., could make a terrorist attack on U.S. soil more likely.

Anything that reduces due process protection and openness makes it more possible for the government to get the short-term political benefit of claiming to be doing something about terrorism without the public having access to information with which to assess whether the government is actually doing anything effective, targeting the right people, etc. This is one reason for due process and open process which is nearly as important as, and perhaps in some ways more important than, the civil liberties of the accused.

kevin, i thought you opposed torture? why do you flay us and yourself with the contemptable max boot?

Oday otnay aysay anthraxway onway ethay ebway. Ouyay areway
underway urveillancesay.

You MUST understand, it's someone else's fault that George Bush has not caught Osama bin Laden.

Goerge Bush hasn't caught Osama bin Laden because he lacks resolve. Or becasue he pulled out before the work was done. Or because he retreated before victory in an act of recklessness and dishonor.

Nope, it's because someone thought he should have to explain to a judge why he put wiretaps in place. Yep, demanding the President explain himself is why we haven't caught Osama bin Laden.

It is also why Santa Claus remains elusive.

i question the predictive ability of a model based on two data points (assuming he's using two points, and not just one)

Honestly, what do you expect from an ignorant, bone-in-the-nose creationist?
.

As a card carrying member of the VLQP (Vegan Lesbian Quakers for Peace), I take great umbrage with the domestic spying perpetrated by the Rumsfeldinators.

The UK also went to War in Iraq, stepped up and took part in enhanced surveillance that might have crossed the boundaries of civil liberties in the UK, and in Iraq at least taken part in the abuse of prisoners. Yet they still suffered terrorist attacks this past Summer. I wonder if Da Boot could explain the difference?

I hope everyone also caught Boot's magnificent euuphemism for (as Andrew Sullivan keeps pointing out) explicit torture: "enhanced interrogation techniques". Lenin couldn't have phrased it better.

Kevin writes: America is a lot stronger than its supposed defenders give it credit for.

Regurgitators of rightwing propaganda like Max Boot have nothing to do with "defending America" or making America "stronger".

They are sniveling, bootlicking apologists for the unlimited, unchecked power of the neo-fascist corporate state. They are fascists, period.

Digusting is what Boot's column is.

These guys know damn well the president's power grab is both illegal and unconstituional and frankly they couldn't care less. We on the left have spent far to long putting good faith efforts into trying to understand the whitehouses spin machine arguments, whose sole purpose is to stall public discourse and obfuscate executive reasoning. In fact what's actually happening is a well organized and orchestrated conspiracy within the right wing media to knowningly aid and abet a criminal enterprise.

It's time to stop listening to the echo chamber and to address the republican base directly. Further its time to show the public just how similar these "spokes people" are the pay-for-play think tankers exposed in the Abramoff scandal of the last weeks.

Enough is enough is enough. Either these guys put down the politics and help find a graceful solution or they suffer severely in the fallout afterward.

They are fascists, period.

Actually, they are pussies. After perusing comments at LGF yesterday, I was struck by how terrified these wingnuts truly are. Be sure to end every sentence now with, they are trying to kill us!

If you assume that these people are scared witless, then their belief system, and what they support starts to better explain their behavior. Witless.

My mother comments about life in the US before and during WW2 that Americans observed the rising threat of fascism in Germany and they knew that secret things were happening, dark horrors, but no one knew for sure what was going on. Everyone was reluctant to acknowledge the German threat because Stalin was so much worse and people didn't want to believe that Germany would become such a threat. No one could bear the idea of another world war.

So we fast forward to 2001 and Bushco. Bush is above the law because of 9/11. His followers justify anything he does because we need a strong leader to stomp out the rot threatening our society. People today--especially conservatives--criticize Chamberlain for trying to appease Germany in the 1930s. But today, everytime an American conservative rationalizes illegal acts by the president, we are seeing modern appeasement. They are so scared of one threat that they are afraid to deal with the bigger threat to our government and way of life.

PTate wrote: They are so scared of one threat that they are afraid to deal with the bigger threat to our government and way of life.

Bingo. Those that support them are ultimately fear driven. Sad.

Max can't be so stupid as to not know the difference between "whistleblowing" i.e. secret spying and "retaliation" i.e. Joe Wilson.

Cut me some slack Max.

"whistleblowing:" --serves our political purposes

"leaking:" --serves the opposition's political purposes.

Pretty much been that way for long before Bush was elected.

As for comparing the number of attacks before 9/11 with the number of attacks afterwards, a reasonable person might expect that the threat level from al Qaeda would have gone up a little bit after we attacked Afghanistan, destroyed their bases, killed many terrorists, and sent the rest into the mountains of Pakistan. Never mind the ongoing war against al Qaeda on many other fronts.

So yes, I am a bit more amazed by the recent lack of attacks than I would be by the lack of them in 1997. Whether this can be credited to any specific policy is a bit harder, but there are lists out there of attacks that have been prevented, and the 9/11 Commission concluded that whatever intelligence systems we had before 9/11 were not getting the job done.

Comparing those two time periods before and after 9/11 and the war on Afghanistan is about as appropriate as comparing the number of German attacks on Britain in the four years after 1939 with the four years before that. What changed?

What changed?

Um, the British ran around like little girls and banned all telephone communication, on the grounds that it was too dangerous?

Do I win?

It's kind of amazing, Tom, to watch your veneer of "libertarian" just wash away in the fear of random death by crazy brown people.

Tbrosz, once again, completely mistates the case.

We've been over the Valerie Plame issue so many times I know that even someone with as low an IQ as Tbrosz understands the difference, so I won't take the bait.

But expecting more attacks after we've " destroyed their bases, killed many terrorists, and sent the rest into the mountains of Pakistan" is mind-bogglingly stupid.

Gee, do you think that it might have had some effect on their capacity to attack us?

Bottom line: Plame leak was illegal and the motivation was partisan political (self) interest, not whistleblowing; the NSA leak was illegal and the motivation was to expose illegal activity by the people's representatives to the people, and thus is clearly whistleblowing.

Why is it so hard for the media to make these distinctions? Americans understand what whistleblowing is, and they understand what it is not, so just lay the facts out, and frame them in terms of what constitutes a "good" leak from a "bad" leak, which is whether it meets the whistleblower standard.

How many terrorist attacks have there ever been on American soil?

How many terrorist attacks have there ever been on American soil by foreign terrorists?

How many before 9-11?

How many after 9-11?

There is no basis to believe that we have prevented any serious terrorist attacks, just on their absence, especially when we offer up plenty of rich targets in Iraq.

And for Cheney to assert that thousands of lives have been saved, since several thousand were killed on 9-11, does Cheney actually want us to believe that they have prevented actual plots that would have killed as many Americans as on 9-11, once or twice or thrice over?

Ask yourself why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001. Not one.

Actually, Boot does have a potentially valid observation.

The terrorists hate our freedoms, so Bush has been taking our freedoms away. As long as he keeps appeasing the terrorists (and helping them create a nice recruitment center in the Middle East), they're leaving us alone.

Bush, the terrorist appeaser. We lose him, and we could end up getting attacked again.

I'm having trouble following your advanced logic. Since nothing happened after we interred the Japanese, therefore there were no Japanese spys in America. Since Joe McCarthy went overboard, there was no need to worry about communists, etc.
The Church Committee, Stansfield Turner, and Jiminy Attack Rabbit Carter took a meat ax to the intelligence agencies of this country, and we had four assets in Iraq to confirm or deny WMD's. If you self righteous libs want to run on your Bill of Rights for the simatar swingers I say go for it -- the vast boobwasee in this country will put another batch of Max Clelands' out to pasture.

I'm having trouble following your advanced logic.

That's to be expected. Don't feel bad.

the bush administration has been sooo successful at preventing terror attacks that.....

Days the federal terror alert system has been in place: 1,407

Days spent at terror alert level Green or Blue: 0

The amazing thing about Repug talking points -- well one of the amazing things -- is that they can be totally meaningless and the press still types them. Joe Wilson was supposed to be "embarrassed" by the revelation that his wife had arranged his unpaid trip to Niger? The fact that his wife may have suggested Wilson for the trip casts doubt on the credibility of the French uranium officials who told Wilson it was impossible for Iraq to get what they wanted? WTF?

There's this from George Will: On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies, the President's decision to authorize NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration's almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled.

Will calls it a "mistake". Earlier in his article he makes a case that it is a "crime". but he also notes that Bush could almost certainly have gotten authority to do what he did without explicit authority (and Will does not directly dispute that Bush might have had implicit authority). It's not too likely that Congress is going to punish Bush for doing what it would have granted him the authority to do had he asked; he may very well persuade them that there was an intelligence penalty had he tried to obtain explicit authority. It seems that a majority of the public, and a majority of Congress, not large majorities in either case, believe that Bush did have authority to do what was done.

There might be some way for Democrats to make headway against the Republicans by dwelling on the "mistake" and the way that it reveals Bush's distrust of Congress and the voters and the courts. However, if Democrats continue hectoring on the "illegality" (ignoring the precedents of the Carter and Clinton administrations, and the failure of Democratic congressfolks to enquire deeper), then they'll just lose more votes.

Besides, the NYTimes broke the story in order to promote a book, not out of any patriotic concern for Americans' civil liberties. As with Wilson/Plame, the Times' primary motive was to make money by embarrassing Bush. Whatever the merits of the "message", the "messengers" are seriously tarnished. They kept the Clinton and Carter secret wiretaps secret, and that wasn't even in time of war.

My guess is that the Times didn't reveal the story 14 months ago because they thought that it would have put Kerry in a bind and helped Bush. Clearly this action of Bush is supported by a majority of voters, and Kerry would then have had to find a way to express support/opposition simultaneously on yet another issue. (Kerry, by the way, has recently supported and opposed impeachment of Bush, on consecutive days -- but either may have been a joke.)

papgeno writes: Will calls it a "mistake". Earlier in his article he makes a case that it is a "crime". but he also notes that Bush could almost certainly have gotten authority to do what he did without explicit authority

really?

the a-g disagrees with will...

Baker and Charles Babington wrote in Tuesday's Washington Post:

" 'This is not a backdoor approach,' Gonzales said at the White House. 'We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance.' He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying.....

but decided against it because it 'would be difficult, if not impossible' to pass."

go figure....

Papageno:

"However, if Democrats continue hectoring on the "illegality" (ignoring the precedents of the Carter and Clinton administrations, and the failure of Democratic congressfolks to enquire deeper), then they'll just lose more votes."

This talking point has already been shown for the farce it is - in this comments thread, even. See above or, really, just about any other non-LGF blog.

"Clearly this action of Bush is supported by a majority of voters"

Clearly? Data? How about we poll on this question specifically? I'm glad of the fact that you're at least willing to pin it directly on Bush. That will make the hearings a bit shorter.

Clearly? Data? He who lives by the focus group dies by the focus group. We are willing to take this to the voters next November, then we will see how much traction you get from your yipping and whining about the poor widdie terrorists phone privacy.

"the poor widdie terrorists phone privacy"

No, you fool, it's EVERYBODY'S phone privacy.

Were Muhammad and Malvo not terrorists?

For the record, Boot did say "since 2001", not "since 9/11/01", and the anthrax attacks were in September-November 2001 (although it is misleading to not mention them at all). The beltway sniper attacks, however, were not until October of 2002.

At the same time, it's a public service to reveal abuses of power, including illegal programs to engage in domestic surveillance. That ought to be pretty easy to understand. - Kevin Drum

So why wasn't Scooter doing a public service by revealing an unusual CIA use of a diplomat with no confidentiality agreement to perform an investigation? Isn't making sure the CIA doesn't start playing politics, of public interest?

Liberalism. Totally unable to think.

Plus why is the press suddenly the sole authority on what is and is not good enough to classify?

Would it be incorrect to assert at this point that no warrantless wire tapping of American citizens was done in any case unless at least one of the parties had a link to a known terrorist organization? In other words, has anyone yet verified a super-legal NSA eavesdropping between American citizens and correspondents whose innocence is beyond reproach?

mp3 list sitemap

map1
map2
map3
map4
map5
map6
map7
map8
map9
map0
map11
map12
map13
map14
map15
map16
map17
map18
map19
map20

Kevin wrote:

"Of course, you might just as well ask yourself why there were no terrorist attacks on American soil in the four years before 9/11."

Actually, there were no terrorist attacks on American soil in the EIGHT YEARS before 9/11.
.

adult personals

adult personals and adult singles top choice

free adult personals

free adult personals, adult singles and adult chat rooms

adult dating

adult dating for adult personals and adult singles

free adult dating

free adult dating with free adult web cam and free adult chat - adult
dating free

adult swingers

adult swingers and adult personals use this free adult web cam and adult chat

free adult swingers

free adult swingers, free adult personals - adult sex dating

adult chat

adult chat and free adult dating for adult personals

free adult chat

free adult chat and free adult web cam

adult friend

adult friend and adult personals free adult dating

adult web cam

adult web cam and free adult chat for sex personals

adult finder

adult finder for adult personals

free adult web cam

free adult web cam and free adult chat

adult dating service

free adult dating service with free adult chat

sex dating

sex dating for adult personals and erotic adult personals

adult sex dating

adult sex dating for adult personals and adult singles

adult singles

adult singles for adult sex dating

sex adult dating

sex adult dating, adult singles site

adult dating service

adult dating service, sex adult dating

adult models directory

top adult models free directory

adult friend finder

find adult friend for free

adult finder

adults find friends for free!

adult chat

best adult chat available here

best porn stars

best and most famous porn stars

adult dating

top adult dating site

adult dating chat

adult dating chat - any adult welcome!

adult sex dating

adult sex dating portal

free adult dating

free adult dating available here

adult dating online

adult dating online best choice

adult dating personals

find adult dating personals here

adult dating site

best adult dating site

adult xxx dating

adult xxx dating available here

adult singles dating

adult singles dating top site

porn star gallery

most famous porn stars free gallerys

porn star gals

best porn star free gals

famous porn stars

most famous porn stars free photos

katie morgan porn
star

porn star Katie Morgan Free photos

porn stars

porn stars and adult models free photos

free porn stars

free porn stars listings and galleries

top porn stars

top porn stars free listings

online dating
service

free online dating service

dating services

free dating services, online personals

single dating

singles dating online

christian dating

christians dating services free

christian dating
service

dating service for christians

christian dating
services

dating services for christians

free online dating

free online dating services

online dating
Louisville

Louisville online dating

hispanic dating
service

hispanic dating services

dating lexington
online

dating lexington online singles and personals