Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 21, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS....The final election results from Iraq initially indicated that the combination of the Shiite religious coalition and the main Kurdish coalition had failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to form a government. Juan Cole reports that although that's true, they have enough small-party support to put them over the top:

The Shiite fundamentalist coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, won 128 of 275 seats in parliament. It needs 138 for a simple majority. The Risaliyun or Message Party won 2 seats; it represents the Sadr movement of young Shiite clerical nationalist Muqtada al-Sadr, and has announced that it will vote with the UIA. So for all practical purposes, the UIA has 130 seats, 8 short of a simple majority.

[Revised]: The Kurdistan Alliance has 53 seats. I am informed by Peter Galbraith that the Kurdish Islamists, who gained 5 seats, will vote with the Kurdistan Alliance. Together the religious Shiites and the Kurds therefore have 188. A 2/3s majority of 275 would be 184. By that calculation, the two have the votes to choose a president, who will certainly ask the UIA to form a government and provide the prime minister.

So that's that assuming that the UIA and the KA form a partnership, as everyone seems to expect. All that's left is haggling over ministries.

And the Sunnis? Out in the cold, apparently. Stay tuned to see how that works out.

Kevin Drum 5:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share

I feel safer already.

And oh-so-happy about all the deaths and hundreds of billions spent.

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on January 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK


Don't worry, democracy is on the march.

I am sure the Shiites will respect the minority Sunnis, no problem. Forgive and forget.

Posted by: Chris on January 21, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Waiting for tbrosz and other assorted automatons to start waving their purple fingers any second now.

Posted by: judy on January 21, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

With the Sunni's being about 35% of the Moslem population in Iraq, being shut out of the government sounds very much like........taxation without representation.

If that is how it pans out, it would not be the first time a revolution was born.

Posted by: jcricket on January 21, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

cricket,I've always heard the % was around 20,are you adding in the foreign fighters?
Now that a gov't can be formed, troops should be out in lees than a year. Unless the 62/day casualty rate for ISF goes up. After all, there are 223,000 ISF and that's only a 10% annual casualty rate.

Posted by: TJM on January 21, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if they had an electoral college and a corrupt judiciary they could have won the election ala 2000?

Posted by: murmeister on January 21, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

I have to admit, I did not know what a near proximation of the % was until I Googled it and got the info on Yahoo Education...

If this is an overstatement, then a mea culpa is in order, but the effort to understand the magnitude of the issue was made in good faith..

What you may be referring to is that 20% of the whole population is Sunni, while it is 35% of the Moslem popluation....?

Posted by: jcricket on January 21, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

I would guess that once the Members of the Iraqi Parliament are sworn in, Iraq would become a stable democratic state, just as the planners in the USA had envisioned.

I will then be waiting for the next round of Democratic effort to collectively hope for USA's loss in Iran.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 21, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

I will then be waiting for the next round of Democratic effort to collectively hope for USA's loss in Iran.

Nothing like liberals rooting for failure! *Snicker*

Posted by: Al on January 21, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

I found it extremely strange that the front page article in today's NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/international/middleeast/21iraq.html) called the Sunni's 58 seats "the second-largest bloc" several times, lumping the Shiite and Kurdish coalitions together as if they are actually a single bloc.

I understand that they have a fair amount in common, but is treating the Shiites and Kurds as one really justified in this context?

Posted by: Mark L. on January 21, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Earth to tbrosz and al: Time to recharge or turn on your shit detectors.

Posted by: james on January 21, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

I think Iraq is about 40% Sunni population if you include the Kurds, who are Sunni.
Just one trolls opinion but I think the outlook is getting better in Iraq.
Maybe a minority Gov't with the Kurds and Sunnis forming a partnership to prevent the feared "theocracy".

Posted by: berlins on January 21, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

They say the skiing is going to be pretty good in Kurdistan.

Posted by: Matt on January 21, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq has it's republic - if they can keep it.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on January 21, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt the Sunnis will be left out in the cold, for the simple reason that to do so would help fuel the insurgency, while giving them a piece of the pie would motivate them to make peace. And if the Shiites should decide to crush the Sunni, then the Kurds would decide they are going to be next and revolt.

I think we got lucky in Iraq, in spite of some fabulous blunders on the part of the administration. It is not really practical for any of the three main groups to withdraw from the country, and no group is strong enough to decisively dominate the other two, so they are having to negotiate a power-sharing arrangement among all three. Not exactly textbook democracy, but a lot better than what had preceeded it, and better than most of rest the Middle East, too.

Posted by: Les Brunswick on January 21, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

For what it's worth, the BBC is reporting that the UIA is doing a bit of outreach to the Arab Sunnis:

Iraq Shias state coalition terms

The Shia bloc which took the most votes in Iraq's election says it will form a coalition with Sunni groups but only if they do more to combat the insurgency.

An UIA spokesman said it was already reaching out to both Sunnis and Kurds and was ready to negotiate.

A national unity government looks much more likely than when the result was announced, says a BBC correspondent.

Posted by: beer me on January 21, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

I would guess that once the Members of the Iraqi Parliament are sworn in, Iraq would become a stable democratic state, just as the planners in the USA had envisioned.

You can guess anything you like. Got any reasons to believe it? No, you don't.

Iraq was supposed to be on that road at a whole bunch of other times. Like after we initially defeated Saddam's armies. And after Saddam got captured. And after we installed the first postwar Iraqi government, back in June 2004. And after the elections a year ago. And after the Constitution.

You have reason to believe this time's different? No, you don't.

I will then be waiting for the next round of Democratic effort to collectively hope for USA's loss in Iran.

Loss in Iran?? With exactly what army?

One of the unfortunate consequences of the war we're already stuck in, is that we've got nothing left to spare for any other situation where the threat of military force might otherwise be useful.

And that's your fault. You and your kind betrayed this country.


Posted by: RT on January 21, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Try as I might, I can muster up no interest in the Iraqi elections. Shiites, Shias, Kurds--they're all just so many people who hate one another. Let them alone to fight it out.

Posted by: ben on January 21, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is amazing.

GWB has failed on everything that he tried as the President(except tax cuts for the wealthy).

GOP congressman have been caught with ther hands in the cookie jar.

GWB's popularity is at a stable below 50%.

A solid majority of people think that GWB has botched the Iraq war.

Yet, the Democrats are on the defensive. Hell they are not even on the defensive. Their leaders are just running around like headless chickes, forever trying to see what the people want by reading dense papers by nerds sitting in their basements poring over their spreadsheats.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Posted by: lib on January 21, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

For the Sunnis and Kurds to form a partnership it means that they both want the same thing, either a united Iraq or a partitioned one. So what is it going to be? I doubt they can link up they are at odds on their country's direction.

Posted by: Carl on January 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq will not survive in it's present form. The Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. That will rouse the ire of Turkey, Syria, all the countries that have significant Kurd minorities. The Sunnis are the minority in Iraq (and in Iran) but they are the majority of muslims world wide. They will probably be relegated to a zone in the center of Iraq, while the Shia majority, which identifies strongly with the Iranians to the south will most likely throw their lot in with the Iranians. This will, of course skew the Iranian demographics, and Arabs will surge ahead of the Azeri's to be the second largest demographic group in Iran.

The pebble just hit the water. The first ripples haven't even hit the shore yet. Meddling in Iraq was a piss poor idea. There is an old Iraqi saying: the only thing you get when you get between an onion and it's skin is a bad smell. Our dear leader drug us between the onion and it's skin when he got us into this divine disaster.

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 21, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Funny thing is ... this is the quiet before the storm.

It's really going to get interesting when they take on the currently unworkable constitution.


Posted by: rmck1 on January 21, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

months before the election, i said that even the best-case scenario, a multi-ethnic non-theocratic government of national unity - wasn't worth the cost in blood and treasure.

and now that that looms as at least a possible outcome, i don't see any reason to change my mind.

Posted by: howard on January 21, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

If that's really you, you need to think about what you're posting. The goal for anybody interested in a stable democracy in Iraq is a national unity government with substantive contributions from Sunni Arabs (20%, not 35%), Kurds (who are Sunni but identify politically as Kurds), and Shi'ite Arabs. If Shi'ites and Kurds together get over the 67% hump to form the government then they can carry on as they have for the last year. Same government, same ministers, same chaos. Cole makes another interesting point that the Hakim has offered 6 ministries to the Sunnis. Problem is, they had 6 ministries even before this election, and their representation in Parliament just increased from about 5 to 45. So they'd get nothing new, even though they participated in the elections. That's a recipe for all-out civil war.

Posted by: Elrod on January 21, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin, The Sunni minority has no power in America either.....or do you plan to change that?

Sunnis ruled just like the Nazis and could never win a real election.....so sorry to take the Nazis power away...I am even more sorry you feel sorry for the Nazi Sunnis for having lost control of the country they tortured for 30 years.

Is there no end of the liberal feelings of empathy for the terrorist of Islam.

Posted by: Patton on January 21, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

Guess what Kevin, the Taliban has no power either...guess you feel bad for them too ehhhh.......

And the KKK has no power in Washington (I mean except for Democrat Bob Byrd)...does that make you weep as well.........

Posted by: Patton on January 21, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

Elrod: That post wasn't me, but people like Juan Cole have been predicting imminent civil war for close to two years now.

I think I'll give Iraq the benefit of the doubt for a while.

Whatever happens with the insurgents and the Sunnis, al Qaeda in Iraq is in deep trouble since many insurgents and Sunnis are now ganging up against them.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 21, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK


I don't think it's as much about the Sunnis losing or having power, although that's a factor in helping to shut down the insurgency, but that the Shitte/Kurd majority may put a fundamentalist Islamic regime in place. I personally think the Kurds are not going to go that way, but we'll see.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 21, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, that should be "Shiite." For the record, I don't think I've ever spelled "Wahhabi" the same way twice.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 21, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

and the fact that we have ongoing violence among the various ethnic groups in iraq, with old scores being settled in particular by shiites, doesn't suggest civil war precisely because?

after all, people like george bush have been proclaiming victory in iraq for even longer than people like juan cole have been concerned about civil war....

Patton's 9:10 piece of blithering idiocy definitely ranks in his/her top 10....

Posted by: Howard on January 21, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Have You Seen Me?
Call 1-800-THE-LOST

Posted by: Patton's Meds on January 21, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Did someone say that the KKK had no power in Washington? Who the Hell do you think planned the evacuation of New Orleans during Katrina?

Posted by: murmeister on January 21, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that by some algebra of hope the democrats are rooting for a loss in Iraq is bizarre. Its strangeness places one in dumb silence which republicans seem to take as confirmation of thier rightness. The notion that a critisism of this vacuous adventure in Iraq is some how a cry for Bathist freedom is limp, vague and stupid. It represents the fall from the Gingrich hieghts to this spending squalor that is the new legacy of the republicans. How far we have come and how quick.

The insipid idea that the new Iraq will be a friend of the US is given the lie by the way the Shia in Iraq embrace Iran. Yes, in war, sadly, strategy counts. GW would love to ignore it but it is so. The key to south western asia is Iran and we blew it.

Hope for the election's success by all means. But this war was not in the interests of the US. Dealing with China would have been. But for that, it's really too late. We've got the sleeping prince for two to three years. So I suppose we will not be doing anything constructive till we get him out. Then we can pick up the pieces.

Posted by: exclab on January 21, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

I think they will inevitably come into three parts, but I think they can do it relatively peacefully. (Relatively.) That is, if the US doesn't try to maniacally screw with the process.

And I think the Shiites are less likely to be pawns of Iran than is frequently assumed. They just got rid of Saddam and they're working on getting rid of us, and so they aren't going to be in the mood to be taking any further orders from abroad.

Posted by: cld on January 22, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK











Posted by: bmw on January 22, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, imagine that. Majority rule. What an injustice.

Posted by: Adam Herman on January 22, 2006 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

Juan Cole? Wasn't he the professor guy who keeps predicting elections can't take place that do take place and civil war...like for 3 years.

If I were an Ivy League private schools, I'd wonder whether I was wasting money and credibility on his courses.

Posted by: McA on January 22, 2006 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

"""and the fact that we have ongoing violence among the various ethnic groups in iraq, with old scores being settled in particular by shiites, doesn't suggest civil war precisely because?"""""

Guess you missed the 30 years of Saddam and the Sunnis committing violence against everyone else.

I guess now that you see it on TV it is bad, as opposed to Saddam killing a 100,000 people in one yeats and burying them in mass graves..that you didn't have to see - so he wasn't such a bad guy.




Posted by: Patton on January 22, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine Clinon as President and the Congress run by Democrats and the Republicans start exploding car bombs and sending suicide bombers into Democrat events.


Posted by: Patton on January 22, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK


If you were sending your little Kraits to Ivy League schools to learn from Professor Cole, you would be wasting a good chunk of coin. He teaches at the University of Michigan which is in the Big Ten.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 22, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, this is going to end well.

Iran must be so very pleased.

Posted by: theorajones on January 22, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK
people like Juan Cole have been predicting imminent civil war for close to two years now. Posted by: tbrosz on
Actually, there is a low level civil war in Iraq. Sunnis are killing Shiaa, Shiaa Sunnis, and Sunni's Kurds. You don't need to have armies battling each other to call it a civil war.

However, Cole is not the only one:

Veteran investigative reporter Walter Pincus of the Washington Post reports on a recent frank assessment of the horrible security situation in Iraq by the US Agency for International Development, which contradicts the comforting noises made by Bush administration officials when they are asked about it. Pincus summarizes:

"It describes Iraq as being in the midst of an insurgency whose tactics "include creating chaos in Iraq society as a whole and fomenting civil war." Many of the attacks are against coalition and Iraqi security forces, the annex says, and they "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq. . . ."

[Cole's note]The only thing I would correct is that Sunni-Shiite conflicts in Iraq were not in fact a big feature of its 20th century history. Iraqis were pretty united against Western dominance and in favor of the development of Arab, Iraqi nationalism. I can't think of any big Sunni-Shiite riots in, say, the 1930s or 1950s.

Guess what Kevin, the Taliban has no power either...guess you feel bad for them too ehhhh....... Posted by: PattyCake

Guess what, Afghanistan is now the leading narco state in world production and the Taliban is still fighting. That's success, Bush-style

Posted by: Mike on January 22, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Virtually all Iraqis are Moslem(Islamic).
~25% are Kurds(Islamic(Sunni)but not Arab))
~20% are Sunni Arabs
~55% are Shiite Arabs

Posted by: lee on January 22, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

"""Who the Hell do you think planned the evacuation of New Orleans during Katrina?""""


Sorry, couldn't resist......

Posted by: Patton on January 22, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

so hard to choose with Patton: which is the stupidest remark? 9:10 p.m.? 9:07 a.m.? 9:08 a.m.? 3:19 p.m.?

Posted by: Howard on January 22, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Howard, I'd go with 3:19...

I was after all quoting a Democrat..so that really has to be the stupidiest.

Posted by: Patton on January 22, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine Clinton as President and the Congress run by Democrats and the Republicans start exploding car bombs

We don't have to imagine it. We saw it, when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building along with the child care center next door. And how the traitorous Republicans hailed him as a big hero because he read The Turner Diaries, the book that was such a big hit with Republicans because.... wait for it... it presented terrorists detonating car bombs all over the United States as heroes!

Posted by: tam1MI on January 23, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK


I'm never one to speak up on behalf of the GOP -- but I have to chime in here. That's a blisteringly unfair characterization.

The Turner Diaries was written by the head of the National Alliance, a periennial neo-Nazi nut outfit. While it's arguable that the extremist wingnuts who supported the state militias, Operation Rescue and McVeigh and were freaking out over Black Helicopters in the wake of the Gulf War during the Clinton years, that today they feel a little less hopelessly estranged from power ...

But to claim Republicans support terrorist action against the government in the name of defending white racial purity is quite a stretch, to say the least.


Posted by: rmck1 on January 23, 2006 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

Patton: "Saddam killing a 100,000 people in one yeats"
How do you kill someone in a yeat? In fact, what is a yeat? It does sound painful, however.

Posted by: Botecelli on January 23, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

via Mark Kleiman: Halliburton supplied Camp Junction City in Ramadi with water contaminated by untreated sewage. Republicans in Congress refuse to investigate.

Once again the Bush administration (they of the failure to supply body and vehicle armor) pisses on American soldiers while their conservative lemming supporters aid and abet this disgraceful behavior twoards are troops.

Just goes to show, you elect a coward as commander in chief and you hurt American security and our fighting men and women.

Why do conservatives like rdw, Mike K, Red State Mike, conspiracy nut, Freedom F*cker, and Fat White Lie hate our soldiers so much?

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 23, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.20six.co.uk/AyaC-shemale-phone-sex-picture-galleries/ - AyaC shemale phone sex picture galleries http://www.20six.co.uk/AyaC-shemale-phone-sex-picture-galleries/
http://www.20six.co.uk/XdNO-gay-lesbian-transgendered-hospice-care/ - XdNO gay lesbian transgendered hospice care http://www.20six.co.uk/XdNO-gay-lesbian-transgendered-hospice-care/
http://www.20six.co.uk/AoQW-free-big-tit-cum-shots/ - AoQW free big tit cum shots http://www.20six.co.uk/AoQW-free-big-tit-cum-shots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Apjd-transsexual-bride/ - Apjd transsexual bride http://www.20six.co.uk/Apjd-transsexual-bride/
http://www.20six.co.uk/PtwY-sheboy-pics/ - PtwY sheboy pics http://www.20six.co.uk/PtwY-sheboy-pics/
http://www.20six.co.uk/eYgM-girl-hermaphrodite/ - eYgM girl hermaphrodite http://www.20six.co.uk/eYgM-girl-hermaphrodite/
http://www.20six.co.uk/SHeb-shemals-who-fuck-kids/ - SHeb shemals who fuck kids http://www.20six.co.uk/SHeb-shemals-who-fuck-kids/
http://www.20six.co.uk/BbMj-ladyboy-list/ - BbMj ladyboy list http://www.20six.co.uk/BbMj-ladyboy-list/
http://www.20six.co.uk/VWil-free-cumshot-tgp/ - VWil free cumshot tgp http://www.20six.co.uk/VWil-free-cumshot-tgp/
http://www.20six.co.uk/GyMV-teen-trannies/ - GyMV teen trannies http://www.20six.co.uk/GyMV-teen-trannies/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Cqhy-tranny-gallery/ - Cqhy tranny gallery http://www.20six.co.uk/Cqhy-tranny-gallery/
http://www.20six.co.uk/rZKf-blowjobs-in-public/ - rZKf blowjobs in public http://www.20six.co.uk/rZKf-blowjobs-in-public/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Aymg-shemale-porn-original-content/ - Aymg shemale porn original content http://www.20six.co.uk/Aymg-shemale-porn-original-content/
http://www.20six.co.uk/bXGD-free-blonde-cumshots/ - bXGD free blonde cumshots http://www.20six.co.uk/bXGD-free-blonde-cumshots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/xaPL-amateur-transvestites/ - xaPL amateur transvestites http://www.20six.co.uk/xaPL-amateur-transvestites/
http://www.20six.co.uk/IugP-free-cum-shot-porn/ - IugP free cum shot porn http://www.20six.co.uk/IugP-free-cum-shot-porn/
http://www.20six.co.uk/HIBk-free-tranny-pics/ - HIBk free tranny pics http://www.20six.co.uk/HIBk-free-tranny-pics/
http://www.20six.co.uk/pkoJ-facial-cum-shots-uk/ - pkoJ facial cum shots uk http://www.20six.co.uk/pkoJ-facial-cum-shots-uk/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Bcub-nissan-kade-engine-and-tranny-for-sale/ - Bcub nissan kade engine and tranny for sale http://www.20six.co.uk/Bcub-nissan-kade-engine-and-tranny-for-sale/
http://www.20six.co.uk/vaVQ-free-gangbang-cumshots/ - vaVQ free gangbang cumshots http://www.20six.co.uk/vaVQ-free-gangbang-cumshots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/LAyW-transexuelles/ - LAyW transexuelles http://www.20six.co.uk/LAyW-transexuelles/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Jxph-free-transsexual-movies/ - Jxph free transsexual movies http://www.20six.co.uk/Jxph-free-transsexual-movies/
http://www.20six.co.uk/BVLq-cumshot-tpg/ - BVLq cumshot tpg http://www.20six.co.uk/BVLq-cumshot-tpg/
http://www.20six.co.uk/MlJX-ladyboy-hostess-pattaya/ - MlJX ladyboy hostess pattaya http://www.20six.co.uk/MlJX-ladyboy-hostess-pattaya/
http://www.20six.co.uk/nXov-free-shemales-sex/ - nXov free shemales sex http://www.20six.co.uk/nXov-free-shemales-sex/
http://www.20six.co.uk/PSqc-free-shemale-pics-online/ - PSqc free shemale pics online http://www.20six.co.uk/PSqc-free-shemale-pics-online/
http://www.20six.co.uk/TsXv-free-sierra-cumshots/ - TsXv free sierra cumshots http://www.20six.co.uk/TsXv-free-sierra-cumshots/
http://www.20six.co.uk/KOmE-transgendered-wife/ - KOmE transgendered wife http://www.20six.co.uk/KOmE-transgendered-wife/
http://www.20six.co.uk/LyUf-transgendered-captioned-images/ - LyUf transgendered captioned images http://www.20six.co.uk/LyUf-transgendered-captioned-images/
http://www.20six.co.uk/MRmX-sheboy-video-clip/ - MRmX sheboy video clip http://www.20six.co.uk/MRmX-sheboy-video-clip/
http://www.20six.co.uk/cOBe-free-pictures-of-ficial-cum-shots/ - cOBe free pictures of ficial cum shots http://www.20six.co.uk/cOBe-free-pictures-of-ficial-cum-shots/

Posted by: whVRELxMvr on January 24, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly