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

June 28, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

WHAT IS THIS "LAW" YOU SPEAK OF, EARTHLING?....Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, had this to say to Congress yesterday: "It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn't intend to enact the bill." Dan Drezner comments:

Getting rid of the double negative, and this translates into, "the president often intends to enact the bill." Not always, but often. Which is great, but I always thought that when Congress passes a law [and the president signs it] no matter how stupid that law might be the president is always supposed to implement it.

Silly boy. Laws are for kids. The grownups are in charge now, remember?

Kevin Drum 12:07 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I'm hijacking this thread to talk tennis. Did anyone see the Ljubici/Lopez match? Awesome!

Posted by: decon on June 28, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

He means the President HIMSELF will often enact the law. So say the flag burning law was passed. If someone on the east coast burned a flag, W would go out and beat the guy with a baton himself. But if it was on the west coast, he'd have someone else do it due to the travel time. So, of course he'll often enact the law but it is silly of you Libs to think he could always do it--he's very busy.

Posted by: ecoboz on June 28, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, but don't talk about censure! Censure is reserved for only serious no-nos, like getting a blowjob.

Posted by: Quinn on June 28, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Laws are for mere peasants -- not King George!

Only an unfettered King can keep me, Al, and Hawk safe from the scary brown people trying to kill and rape us!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on June 28, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, we work for him. The era of the president being our employee is over now. That whole Harry Truman thing is so 20th Century. We're back to the madness of King George, with his highness ringed by troll courtiers, waiting to soak up his spittle. Sigh. I miss democracy.

Posted by: Kenji on June 28, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

"....to faithfully execute....."

Posted by: zmulls on June 28, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

You Libs want to tie Bush's hands behind his back with your laws while he's busy fighting terrorism.

Just because you're jealous of his vast fortune and the fact that the genetically superior Bush Line has had a wealthy industrialist, a senator/VP/President, a governor, and a governor/President, and an S&L President, all in a mere 3 generations.

You envious Liberals want to beat down the giants among us so that we're all the same height - and then you'll just cry when there's no giants to protect us from terrorists!

Posted by: American Fuck on June 28, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

When I was a kid I saw this wonderful cartoon about how a bill became a law. Funny, I don't remember anybody in the cartoon saying the President "enacted" a law. I guess everything changed after 9/11.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 28, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, what an amazing out of context quote. If you read the paragraph directly above it:

Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional.

"It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn't intend to enact the bill," Ms. Boardman said.

If congress were to pass a statute that said, "No newspaper may print anything critical of Operation Iraqi Freedom", he would have the duty to refuse to enact it, and start immediate proceedings having the statute thrown out by the courts. All he's doing is fulfilling his duty to obey the constitution. Signing statetes can help make an unconstitutional bill constitutional. If anything, he's been overcautious making sure that nothing oversteps the carefully laid boundaries of constitutional jurisprudence.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 28, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

From outside the US, he seems more and more just a spoiled little rich kid. Pretty irrelevant outside the US. We look forward to a Democratic adult back representing the USA.

Posted by: Bob M on June 28, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Government of Laws, not men. - John Adams

Our founding fathers didnt want to rely on the whims of individual men or trust them in the long run to ensure our nations freedom and liberty. This is why we have a nation of laws not men, and a system of checks and balances under our Constitution.

The Bush administration says the President is above all of that.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... [Bush chuckles, audience laughs] ...just so long as I'm the dictator [more laughter]. George W. Bush.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 28, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Only when America has a Supreme Leader who is above and beyond all laws will we be safe from Islamofascist terror.

Posted by: GOP on June 28, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Catch22,

You really want to bring up John Adams?

Posted by: John on June 28, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

>> If congress were to pass a statute that said, "No newspaper may print anything critical of Operation Iraqi Freedom", he would have the duty to refuse to enact it, and start immediate proceedings having the statute thrown out by the courts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I've been suspicious for some time now that AH is really just a clever parody for our entertainment, but this pretty much seals it.

Nobody, not even our Reich-wing charter members here are so stupid as to not understand that should congress "pass a statute that said, 'No newspaper may print anything critical of Operation Iraqi Freedom,'" the president would have the duty to VETO it. The idea that the President gets to sit in for the judicial branch as he signs something into law and then "start[s] immediate proceedings having the statute thrown out by the courts" is too stupid to even rise to the level of a joke. Unless that's the whole point.

Nice work Hawk. You had us going there for a while. I knew you were [pretending to be] too stupid to be real.

Posted by: Thumb on June 28, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

If congress were to pass a statute that said, "No newspaper may print anything critical of Operation Iraqi Freedom", he would have the duty to refuse to enact it

Yes. It's called a "veto" not a "signing statement," you blithering idiot. Check the Constitution.


.

Posted by: spork_incident on June 28, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

That whole take-Care-that-the-Laws-be-faithfully-executed thing is SO six years ago.

Posted by: Lex on June 28, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Great minds...

Posted by: Thumb on June 28, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Some of Boardmans comments are extraordinarily revealing of the Bush administrations remarkable assertions of executive privilege and what amounts to oversight of Congress.

How about:

'Respect for the legislative branch is shown when the president chooses to construe a particular statement in keeping with the Constitution, as opposed to defeating an entire bill that would serve the nation.'

or try:

"Boardman said the president has the power and responsibility to bypass any statute that conflicts with the Constitution, even in cases 'where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the president has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.'

Meanwhile, yesterday also yielded this whopper, from Tony Snow (who was finally, at last questioned on the topic of signing statements, aka line-item legislative veto power):

Snow also insisted that the president was merely fixing 'relatively minor' constitutional flaws that Congress had 'unwittingly' included in bills during the lawmaking process.

So we have President Bush sitting as a sort of one man Supra-Supreme Court, passing judgement on legislation. The administrations claim is that a single mans judgement trumps all other opinion, from whatever source.

Snow amplifies this by asserting that the President can single-handedly determine when Congress is behaving witlessly.

Snow (and presumably his employer) also fails to note the fallacy of referring to "relatively minor" constitutional issues. There's no such thing as a relatively minor constitutional issue. As the legal linchpin of our entire nation, any "quibbles" with the Constitution are necessarily of the gravest importance. Saying that the President can act alone to fix "minor constitutional issues" is akin to saying the Constitution is of little importance.

Specters half-hearted stab at the sotto voce constitutional crisis is to ponder legislation that would allow Congress to sue the President to force him into obeying the law. In other words, Congress will become a supplicant and take a number to stand in line waiting for the judiciary to attempt to order the President to follow the law.

First, we cant expect for a minute that such legislation will pass. Second, if it does we can expect the administration to mount a vigourous attack on that legislation itself. Not to mention, it would need to be signed by the President to become law.

Posted by: Doug Bostrom on June 28, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Doug,

Any citizen with standing can challenge the POTUS in Court.

Catch22,

Wouldn't you feel more comfortable taking Thomas Jefferson's position about law being derived from human reason rather than divine revelation? I will take John Adams's position.

Posted by: John on June 28, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional.

Signing statements have no legal applicability and are not recognized under American constitutional law, and therefore they "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional as much as sprinkling holy water and mumbling a voodoo incantation over them does.

And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional.

Every single law "could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional -- the probability being relied on is so broad that it would allow the president the right to challenge any law at all.

Posted by: Stefan on June 28, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

f anything, he's been overcautious making sure that nothing oversteps the carefully laid boundaries of constitutional jurisprudence.
Posted by: American Hawk on June 28, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter AH:
If the President does it, it's not illegal.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 28, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Snow also insisted that the president was merely fixing 'relatively minor' constitutional flaws that Congress had 'unwittingly' included in bills during the lawmaking process.

This is an out and out admission by Snow that the President is breaking his oath of office to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

The idea that one man can decide on his own, with no review, that 535 duly-elected legislators have "unwittingly" included something in a bill that they have voted on, is a gross and obscene violation of the Constitution and would, in a sane state, be grounds for immediate impeachment. This is autocracy, not democracy.

Posted by: Stefan on June 28, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "faithfully" then, Stefan?

Posted by: John on June 28, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

f*cking monarchists. yes, you, anti-american vulture.

Posted by: benjoya on June 28, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

He means the President HIMSELF will often enact the law. So say the flag burning law was passed. If someone on the east coast burned a flag, W would go out and beat the guy with a baton himself.

Almost makes you wish the Comedy Central sitcom send-up "That's My Bush!" was still on the air (although it was intended as a limited run and thankfully ended before 9/11/01). Imagine Timothy Bottoms (as George Bush the younger) going out to Lafayette Park and taking that presidential baton to a flag-burner...the slapstick potential is priceless. Mack Sennett meets Mark Russell.

Posted by: Vincent on June 28, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK


would you object if congress enacted a bill overturning say the 1964 civil rights act and the president refused to enforce it? the real problem isn't a president deciding which laws to enforce, it's a president (bush) who wants things both ways. he wants to sign a bill that is politically popular and reap the benefits from it, while at the same time not enforcing it because it suits his policy goals. the proper course for w, or any president, who so disagreed with a particular act of congress, would be to veto the bill in the first place.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on June 28, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

John points out that any person with standing can challenge the executive. That statement is true enough (assuming that the entire weight of the Justice Department can realistically be overcome by some pipsqueak individual who must establish standing, etc.), but it speaks to another problem.

The Founders envisioned all sorts of bad outcomes and attempted to build into our legal framework an intricate system of anticipatory protections against abuse. However it seems they may not have pictured a situation where bad faith and/or ignorance of our principle distinguishing features as a country are found in one or even worse two or more branches of government.

Our system depends in large part on faith; actors in our government must first and foremost be believers in our system as it is depicted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If they either find these features untenable or simply don't understand them, our system is at risk of failure.

Suggestions by Specter or others that questionably conceived, speculative patches on the Constitution must be adjudicated in court are feeble responses to what appears to be an executive branch gone rogue. If anything they're a demonstration of how bad faith can upset this applecart; Specter who is rather expert at this sort of matter is groping for a response. That's because the system did not include the concept of "signing statements" in its formulation, so no obvious response within our legal framework is available to deal with it.

The fact that Congress is currently dominated by close allies of this particular executive instantiation makes the problem practically intractable.

Meanwhile, we're hearing the odd defense by the administration that "Clinton did it, too", as well as references to earlier executive signing statements. Just because this situation has gone unchecked and has gradually become more acute is no reason to feel comfortable. Rather, it's a good lesson about why constant vigilance in defense of our legal system is very important. Taking Boardman at her word, she's describing a gradual process of increasing executive power at the cost of the legislative branch. Are we supposed to be ok with that simply because it's taken a while to become so obvious that even middle-roaders like Specter are becoming squeamish?

Posted by: Doug Bostrom on June 28, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Article II powers do allow the president not to enforce some laws if he deems them unconstitutional. Presidents throughout history have used that authority. However, the scope in which this Administration claims that priviledge is unprecedented. There are Congressional means that can reign in on the President, but this Congress doesn't really seem to care. Heck, conservatives don't seem to care about governing anyway.

The President's interpretation of the law is also subject to popular mandates via voting. Unfortunately, the Administration's abuses of his Article II powers was not brought to light until after his reelection. That is the fault of a docile media--and Congressional Democrats as well as Kerry/Edwards.

Posted by: gq on June 28, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

The Framers failed to envision a situation in which someone would lie outright while taking the oath of office.

Posted by: CN on June 28, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

If Congress were to PASS a bill that the President found highly objectional, such as overturning the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then I would expect the President to VETO the bill. Thus, the bill never becomes law and never needs to be enforced by police powers. What I do not expect, however, is for the leader of our nation to hold himself and his office above those laws he has signed into being. It's not about enforcement -- it's about stating that the law applies to everybody but the President and his office, and those acting according to his bidding. May God help us all if the man ever gets the line item veto he has been salivating after.

And, to "American Fuck" -- I'm neither jealous nor a liberal. And, thankfully, I also am not an ignorant sheep willing to swallow the "fighting terrorism" excuse for every action and deed it is used for. I got a parking ticket the other day -- I had only parked in front of the building in the no parking zone to prevent terrorists from being able to park there with explosives in their vehicle, and thus preventing the building from being blown up. (See, I can do it to...doesn't make it any less transparent or retarded.)

Posted by: flea on June 28, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

If Congress were to PASS a bill that the President found highly objectional, such as overturning the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then I would expect the President to VETO the bill. Thus, the bill never becomes law and never needs to be enforced by police powers. What I do not expect, however, is for the leader of our nation to hold himself and his office above those laws he has signed into being. It's not about enforcement -- it's about stating that the law applies to everybody but the President and his office, and those acting according to his bidding. May God help us all if the man ever gets the line item veto he has been salivating after.

And, to "American Fuck" -- I'm neither jealous nor a liberal. And, thankfully, I also am not an ignorant sheep willing to swallow the "fighting terrorism" excuse for every action and deed it is used for. I got a parking ticket the other day -- I had only parked in front of the building in the no parking zone to prevent terrorists from being able to park there with explosives in their vehicle, and thus preventing the building from being blown up. (See, I can do it to...doesn't make it any less transparent or retarded.)

Posted by: flea on June 28, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

gq says that Article II "allows the president not to enforce some laws if he deems them unconstitutional". I don't find that explicitly stated in article II. The relevant bits seem to be:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

and, embedded in the paragraph concerning the state of the union and convening congress:

"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

There's nothing written there about making exceptions, certainly nothing explicit.

I guess at a stretch the oath might elliptically be construed as allowing the president to unilaterally interpret the Constitution? But the Constitution's reference to the President's interaction with the law is that "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...", so one could reasonably say that in unilaterally editing laws as they're handed to him, the President is ignoring his oath.

So, if this putative presidential power is not explicit, it seems it's high time for the Supreme Court to tell us what's what.

Posted by: Doug Bostrom on June 28, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

You want a GIANT...how about Warren Buffet...he's my HERO...and I'm betting the REPUGS hate him but are afraid to say so because he got his money the "old fashioned" way...HE EARNED IT!!! In their bat caves, though, I'm betting they're calling him STUPID when he could have just held on to all that wealth for HIMSELF and HIS progeny...rather he is actually doing what these hypocrites would have their braindead dittoheads believe they mean to do...following the example of their CHRISTIAN namesake...caring about the people of the world...NOT JUST AMERICA!!! How very unpatriotic of him.

Posted by: Dancer on June 28, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "faithfully" then, Stefan?

No, we can't, since it has a well-established meanign in American constitutional jurisprudence.

Posted by: Stefan on June 28, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Boardman still has a long way to go before he achieves the surreal genius of Joseph Heller's great line in "Catch 22":

"I always didn't say you couldn't find me guilty."

Keep up the good work, Mike.

Posted by: fbg46 on June 28, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK


http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp63dWinterSpring2000p7.htm

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/01.html#Scene_1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement


Posted by: flea on June 28, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I think the worst problem evident in that statement is that we seem to somehow have ended up with a Deputy Assistant Attorney General who doesn't know what the word "enact" means.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 28, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK
The Framers failed to envision a situation in which someone would lie outright while taking the oath of office.

False. They anticipated it, and provided a remedy in Article II: Congress' power to impeach.

What they didn't count on was that such a dishonest executive would occur at the same time as a Congress consisting, by an overwhelming majority in each House, of a combination of timid sheep and allies of the out-of-control executive.

Or maybe they anticipated that, too: see Amendment II.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 28, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK
Article II powers do allow the president not to enforce some laws if he deems them unconstitutional.

This clearly can't apply to signing statements, where the President has both the power and duty to veto a law presented to him which he feels is unconstitutional, rather than asserting an authorityitself unconstitutionalto edit the law passed by Congress to transform it into something Constitutional.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 28, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK
If congress were to pass a statute that said, "No newspaper may print anything critical of Operation Iraqi Freedom", he would have the duty to refuse to enact it,

The only way the President can "refuse to enact" a law is by veto, and, indeed, the President would have the moral obligation to veto such a blatantly unconstitutional bill.

and start immediate proceedings having the statute thrown out by the courts.

Well, no, the President pretty clearly lacks standing to challenge such a bill; Congress, of course, could try to compel the President to enforce it by legal action, which (if the action was sought under a joint resolution supported by a majority of both houses) would probably have standing and provide a forum in which the Constitutionality of the bill would have to be decided. Other than that, until someone did try to enforce it, no one would be likely to have any standing.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 28, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

The Constitution 2.0 (Release date 12.12.2000)

Quod rex vult, lex fit.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on June 28, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Quick. Someone compare Bush's signing statements with Clinton's signing statement in the Veteran's Assistance Act.

It's not unprecedented for Presidents to use signing statements. It's unprecedented for Presidents to use signing statements to contradict or vary the statute in any way. Scalia should easily be able to find 4 other Justices to quickly reject this as a valid form of interpretation before actual harm is done.

Posted by: Justin on June 28, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be resigning my position as one of American Hawk's chief spoofers effective immediately. His laughable defense of Bush's signing statements, particularly his complete willful ignorance of the PRESIDENTIAL VETO as the best and most immediate way to keep a law from going into effect, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is either a) a parody himself or b) a worthless shitstain of a right-wing Bush fellater who is beyond patody. Either way, that's my time, folks! G'night! Don't forget to tip your waitresses!

Posted by: American Hawk's stand-in on June 28, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

(Sometimes) the President (sometimes) pledges to (sometimes) see that (sometimes) the laws are (sometimes) faithfully executed.

Has a nice ring to it, no? Although of course some further qualifications may be necessary.

Posted by: KH on June 28, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, KH, the President should ALWAYS execute the laws faithfully (which includes NOT executing un-Constitutional laws).

Posted by: Doug on June 28, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, KH, the President should ALWAYS execute the laws faithfully (which includes NOT executing un-Constitutional laws).

And Smirky McLush is just the man to recognize what the Constitution really meant to say when the finest legal minds are stumped, huh, Charlie?

Posted by: shortstop on June 28, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

"John" is apparantly yet another in Charlie/Cheney's series of aliases.

Posted by: Gregory on June 29, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

I am furious with Congress--things like these "signing statements" are so blatantly un-Constitutional that the Shruboid should have been summarily impeached ages ago.

In fact, if I'm right, these little gems of Bush's aren't even really signing statements. My understanding of the real definition of "signing statement" is a little paragraph explaining why the decision to sign (or not sign) was made. eg: "Even though many people will disagree with my decision, I have signed this bill. I feel that this was a necessary law because [**insert reasons here**] and that it will have the following benefits [**describe benefits here**].

A signing statement is NOT meant to change the nature of the document being signed, only to explain the decision. So, not only did Shruboil lie when he took the Oath of Office, he is also lying by calling his bill-editing "signing statements". He has betrayed the public trust more times than can be counted, and it makes me so angry. It is going to be hard for America to recover its dignity and its democratic process when King Shrub leaves office (if he ever actually leaves--I give it 50/50 odds that he stays put).

Posted by: brainchild on June 29, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

What are you talking about? I'm just here waiting for Catch22 to return. I've pulled out my copy of McCullough's book on Adams just in case.

brainchild,

Would you have supported impeachment if Clinton used a "signing statement" in exactly the same way?

Posted by: John on June 29, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

John--

For a first offence (by any president, weather Clinton, Bush or otherwise) I would want Congress to censure the President and demand a retraction of the statement. If the President refuses to retract the statement and sign or veto the bill as presented by Congress, or if the signing statement represents a repeat offence, then yes I would agree to impeachment. The idea of "checks and balances" is vital, and we cannot allow one branch of the government to sidestep its peers.

Posted by: brainchild on June 29, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Then read through a couple links flea provided yesterday at 2:44 PM.

Posted by: John on June 29, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

One of the strangest things about "John"/GOP/Cheney/Charlie is that he/she/it pretends not to be Charlie while continuing his/her/its disticintive posting style -- and distinctive dishonesty.

Joked about any more dead kids lately, Charlie?

Posted by: Gregory on June 29, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK


"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." - George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000


"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."- President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 29, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Joked about any more dead kids lately, Charlie?

Charlie's moved on to mocking the grieving families of the 9/11 victims.

Posted by: Stefan on June 29, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 不得不爱铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声 吉祥三宝铃声 手机铃声 不得不爱铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 手机铃声 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 铃声图片下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 工作总结 工作汇报 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 癌症肿瘤新药

Posted by: aacxmmc on June 30, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

china bronze statues - china bronze statues
安利 - 安利
安利 - 安利
白小姐 - 白小姐
白小姐 - 白小姐
搬场 - 搬场
搬家 - 搬家
搬家 - 搬家
包装机械 - 包装机械
笔记本租赁 - 笔记本租赁
标记机/打标机 - 标记机/打标机
标签打印机 - 标签打印机
标签打印机 - 标签打印机
标准件/紧固件 - 标准件/紧固件
波纹管 - 波纹管
彩票 - 彩票
餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统
餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件
餐饮软件/餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮软件/餐饮管理系统
超声波 - 超声波
超声波清洗机 - 超声波清洗机
除尘带 - 除尘带
除铁器 - 除铁器
磁力泵 - 磁力泵
打包带 - 打包带
打折机票 - 打折机票
打折机票 - 打折机票
打折机票 - 打折机票
电梯 - 电梯
动画制作 - 动画制作
对讲机 - 对讲机
对讲机 - 对讲机
二手笔记本 - 二手笔记本
二手挖掘机 - 二手挖掘机
二手挖掘机 - 二手挖掘机
二手挖掘机 - 二手挖掘机
二手挖掘机 - 二手挖掘机
二氧化氯 - 二氧化氯
二氧化氯 - 二氧化氯
反应锅/反应釜 - 反应锅/反应釜
粉末涂料 - 粉末涂料
福彩3D - 福彩3D
福彩3D - 福彩3D
福彩3D - 福彩3D
福彩3D - 福彩3D
福利彩票 - 福利彩票
复印机租赁 - 复印机租赁
高频机 - 高频机
公司注册 - 公司注册
广告机 - 广告机
广告设计 - 广告设计
国际机票 - 国际机票
国际机票 - 国际机票
国际机票 - 国际机票
航空障碍灯 - 航空障碍灯
换热器 - 换热器
机柜 - 机柜
加热器 - 加热器
监听器 - 监听器
监听器 - 监听器
减速机 - 减速机
减速机 - 减速机
减速机 - 减速机
减速机 - 减速机
净化工程 - 净化工程
考勤机 - 考勤机
空气热交换器 - 空气热交换器
冷库 - 冷库
冷却器 - 冷却器
离心机 - 离心机
离心机 - 离心机
离心机 - 离心机
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩 - 六合彩
六合彩公司 - 六合彩公司
滤布 - 滤布
螺杆泵 - 螺杆泵
螺旋藻 - 螺旋藻
门禁 - 门禁
排列3 - 排列3
汽车租赁 - 汽车租赁
汽车租赁 - 汽车租赁
窃听器 - 窃听器
窃听器 - 窃听器
窃听器 - 窃听器
窃听器 - 窃听器
窃听器 - 窃听器
窃听器 - 窃听器
清洗机 - 清洗机
三维动画制作 - 三维动画制作
散热器 - 散热器
散热器 - 散热器
筛网 - 筛网
商标注册 - 商标注册
上海搬场 - 上海搬场
上海搬场 - 上海搬场
上海笔记本维修 - 上海笔记本维修
上海笔记本维修 - 上海笔记本维修
上海打折机票 - 上海打折机票
上海汽车租赁 - 上海汽车租赁
上海特价机票 - 上海特价机票
上海租车 - 上海租车
上海租车 - 上海租车
上海租车 - 上海租车
上海租车 - 上海租车
手机窃听器 - 手机窃听器
手机窃听器 - 手机窃听器
数据采集器 - 数据采集器
双色球 - 双色球
双色球 - 双色球
双色球 - 双色球
双色球 - 双色球
双色球 - 双色球
双色球 - 双色球
塑钢带 - 塑钢带
特价机票 - 特价机票
特价机票 - 特价机票
特价机票 - 特价机票
天线宝宝 - 天线宝宝
条码打印机 - 条码打印机
条码打印机 - 条码打印机
条形码打印机 - 条形码打印机
条形码打印机 - 条形码打印机
条形码打印机 - 条形码打印机
拓展训练 - 拓展训练
拓展训练 - 拓展训练
拓展训练 - 拓展训练
拓展训练 - 拓展训练
挖掘机 - 挖掘机
挖掘机 - 挖掘机
挖掘机 - 挖掘机
挖土机 - 挖土机
无纺布 - 无纺布
无线点菜 - 无线点菜
吸塑机 - 吸塑机
线棒 - 线棒
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩
鞋垫 - 鞋垫
写字楼 - 写字楼
压路机 - 压路机
液位开关 - 液位开关
油泵 - 油泵
曾道人 - 曾道人
曾道人 - 曾道人
中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票
中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票
中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票
中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票
中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票
中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票
中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票
注册公司 - 注册公司
注册公司 - 注册公司
自动门 - 自动门
自动门 - 自动门
租车 - 租车
租车 - 租车
租车 - 租车
租车 - 租车
租车 - 租车
足球比分 - 足球比分

Posted by: dd on July 1, 2006 at 1:53 AM | 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