Why ruin the surprise? Everyone likes surprise parties, and they're even better if you have one every week!

Along with the Chinese and other spam, watcher provides a good argument for comment registration...

But, aside from that, Rice's visit isn't a surprise visit to the ME, or even a “surprise” visit to the ME, its a “surprise” visit to Lebanon during an announced visit to the ME to deal with the crisis in Lebanon, which makes it even less of a real surprise than the other non-surprising “surprise” visits.

that an administration that covets secrecy above all else doesn't publish its travel itinery should come as no surprise.

they're "surprise" visits because, if they weren't, every SAM in the region would be armed and ready for their arrival.

i can't recall who it was (some media figure) who, after the bush "surprise" visit to iraq noted that the media love this kind of thing because it gives good television. the odds of them not playing alone are about the same as the odds that watcher here will shut the fuck up with his sick holocaust denial and anti-semitism, namely zero.

Kevin Drum makes a surprise blog post! Film at eleven...

Well, it's a surprise that they give a shit.

Well, how many of you last week were upset because the U.S. would NOT deal with Beruit directly?! It should at least be a "surprise" to those folks.

Can we please stop treating as major news the unceasing "surprise" visits to the Middle East by various Bush administration luminaries?

It'll be genuine news -- not to mention a genuine surprise -- when any senior Administration official can make a pre-announced visit to Iraq, in particular.

It's astonishing -- well, no, it isn't, really -- that the media consistently fails to note the Administration's tacit admission about the dreadful security situation in Iraq and elsewhere, inasmuch as they have to sneak in like a thief in the night.

The only surprise will come when one of them starts doing their fucking job for once.

We have no standards in this country anymore. None.

On the whole, the current press corps are sound sleepers indeed.

Thomas: Well, how many of you last week were upset because the U.S. would NOT deal with Beruit directly?!

Aw, Charlie, whoever said that Condi and Bushco are direct in any of their dealings?

Is there a way to describe actions that are scheduled at the last minute to address problems that should have been foreseen but weren't? (Maybe software program management has figured this out.) I do think it's appropriate for Rice's most recent visit to be described as a last-minute decision--we have Bush's word that he only thought she would be visiting the Middle East at some point in the future.

Since the number of Jews who have answered the questions raised by this article is zero, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is all, and it is so relevant to this thread, I feel it needs to be posted again:

Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

The following passages in italics are from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/wmid26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html

Last night two Israeli soldiers were killed and another kidnapped in a dawn attack by Palestinian militants who tunnelled under Gazas heavily protected border.

The attackers, believed to number seven or eight, surprised Israeli forces when they appeared at first light through a tunnel on open ground 300 yards inside Israel near a kibbutz.

Gaza is built on old semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could tunnel 500, or more, yards in the sandy ground of Gaza (300 yards into Israel plus 200 yards of no-mans land plus more to the tunnel entrance), without the tunnel collapsing at some point.

They split into three groups before launching simultaneous attacks on three Israeli defensive positions - a look-out tower, plus a tank and an armoured personnel carrier, both dug in, facing Gaza.

If you were only seven or eight, would you split into three groups? If you were only two, or three, would you attack a tank over flat ground, manned by four soldiers waiting inside to kill you?

They blew open the tanks rear doors with a missile fired from point-blank range before tossing grenades inside. Two of the tank crew died and another was severely wounded but the final crew member, the gunner, was forced out of the wreckage at gunpoint.

The rear doors are blown off and a few grenades popped inside. Tanks are not made to fall apart. Blowing off the rear doors would have taken a blast sufficient to seriously hurt those inside. The grenades would have then made mincemeat of them. One wonders if it is standard practice to wear a bulletproof vest inside a hot tank. One would think that the tank would be bulletproof enough not to require such a vest. Can Israeli tanks stop bullets, or not?

Later reports, from the New York Times and Guardian, tell use that Shalit suffered only minor injuries to his abdomen and one arm, even though everyone else in the tank was severely wounded or killed. Shalit would have been less than three feet away from those killed (there is no spare room in a tank).

Israeli trackers said they found his blood-stained bulletproof vest close to the Gaza perimeter fence.

The militants force Shalit to take off his bulletproof vest and leave it close to the Gaza concentration camp fence, in order to help the Israelis with their investigation.

By the way, whose blood is it on his bulletproof vest? Did his minor wounds bleed profusely, or was it the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. Pity their bulletproof vests didn't save them.

Meanwhile, two other militants attacked a nearby concrete watchtower.... The troop carrier was also damaged in another attack but it was unoccupied. The attackers then escaped back into Gaza by cutting their way through the perimeter fence.

Interestingly, the attackers escaped easily by cutting through the (electrified) perimeter fence, yet cutting through the perimeter fence in order to get in, was so hard to do, that they burrowed through half a mile of sandy ground instead. Something wrong with this story, perhaps?

After all this commotion, the soldiers in all the nearby Gaza concentration camp guard-towers, manage to miss a few Arabs running the 300 yards, over flat ground, back to the perimeter fence, miss them when they cut through it, and miss them running across no-mans land to safety. Anyway why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug? Perhaps, they wanted to prove the total incompetence of the Israeli soldier.

If you believe this sad tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Hamas political leadership sought to distance itself from the incident last night when a spokesman said it had no knowledge of the fate of Cpl Shilat. Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman, said: "We are calling on the resistance groups, if they do have the missing soldier to protect his life and treat him well."

Yes, the Hamas political leadership had no idea of the fate of Cpl Shilat, as the story is a total fabrication.

If you are not already convinced that the whole story is a fabrication, ask yourself; What were the four Israeli soldiers doing in the tiny confines of that dug-in tank? Ask your self; How long were they going to continue sitting in that tank? All day perhaps, or till they roasted in the desert sun? Or, till another group of four took over on the next shift? And of course, having four soldiers in just one tank, wont provide a defense, so there will have to be hundreds of tanks and hundreds of soldiers all sitting in these tanks,...

all waiting,... all waiting,... all waiting,.... for exactly what?

Waiting for Palestinian children to throw stones at them, perhaps? Perhaps, waiting attentively for militants to dig a half mile tunnel through sandy soil, pop up, and rush them over flat ground, but not attentively enough to see them approach? Perhaps, they were waiting for the Egyptian army to materialize, Star Trek like, from their bases hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Suez canal? I dont know,... you tell me why?

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war. Yes, the Jews are evil people.

Dude, go to hell. You're even worse than Bush.

It'll be genuine news -- not to mention a genuine surprise -- when any senior Administration official can make a pre-announced visit to Iraq, in particular.

Gregory nails the real story. It's too dangerous to make anything BUT surprise visits.

Nice.

Dr. Rice!?!? What are you--why, what a, a pleasant suprise! Well, Amir, don't just let her stand there -- take the lady's coat! Hmmm...cashmere, isn't it? Really? Where on Fifth Avenue? You'll have to let my wife know for her next shopping trip to New York. Please, please, take a seat, it's all I can offer you in my humble home. Thank you, you're too kind, but this is really not the best of my palaces. Can I offer you anything? Coffee? Tea? Really, if we'd known you were coming we'd have baked a baklava. Amir! Tea! Yallah! Yallah! And how's your husb...excuse me, the president? He is well? Marvelous how he still find so much time to exercise, isn't it?

So...what brings you here?

That's a very superficial post.

The visits are news because the matters are important and buch critics are constantly calling the administration "detached", or words to that effect.

The visits are "surprise" visits because they have not been announced to the press before they actually occur (except probably in the case of Rice, where it was clear that she was intentionally waiting longer than the Bush critics wanted.)

I wrote on another thread that the choice was between the destruction of Israel and the preservation of Israel. A writer said that was a "false dichotomy". I would assert that anyone who thinks it is a false dichotomy has not accepted the intensity and perseverence of the desire among Israel's enemies to destroy Israel (Hamas, Fatah, Hisbollah, Syria, Iran, large subpopulations of Israel's neighbors.) All of the discussions about the details of Israel's policies are only relevant if Israel is preserved. But Israel only has a long-term future if it can survive each short-term crisis. the crisis now is the accumulation by Hizbollah, with Syrian/Iranian support, of a large cache of rockets, and a large network of fortified underground bunkers. Any policy short of a serious and complete disarmament of Hizbollah probably permits Hizbollah to destroy Israeli's cities in the short-term.

This niggling over details (some call it "whining") is a waste of time, attention, and thought.

Maunga made a case that Israel is a crime and its destruction would be a step toward redressing the crime. I disagree, but at least Maunga understands what the wars are about.

watcher:

I'm proud to be considered an honorary Jew in your eyes. Mazel tov :)

Kevin:

I don't think has to do so much with press manipulation as it does, as others have noted, with the abysmal security situation in all those countries.

And to that extent, it's newsworthy. What they should be hammering home is just precisely *why* these pro-democracy bastions in the Muslim Middle East *require* "surprise visits" so as not to ensure a fusillade of *ahem* democratic expression.

Bob

Bwa, Stefan.

If they knew she was coming, they'd have baked a cake.

Gregory:

How many pre-announced visits did FDR make to war zones?

Jim J:

I'm more than satisfied with the job being done by this Administration.

LeisureGuy:

Sound "sleepers" as in terrorist agents?

shortstop:

Perhaps you missed the news about Bush's first veto? That was pretty "direct" against stem-cell research.

RSA:

Is it at least "possible" that Bush was thinking out loud about a very fluid situation and had decided to send Rice but did not now yet which exact day would be the best?

SurpriseWatcher:

Welcome back.

Calling them "surprise" visits successfully distracts the media from the fact that the surprises are part of security arrangements in a region the Bush administration has made more unstable and more dangerous.

If they knew she was coming, they'd have baked a cake.

I modified it above:

Really, if we'd known you were coming we'd have baked a baklava.

Jim:

Was FDR's Yalta trip "announced"?

Let me get this straight Kevin. You want the press corps to be less gullible, right?

The comments are interesting. For so many people, Israel is always right.

Really, if we'd known you were coming we'd have baked a baklava.

Well, I missed that--apologies. And the ungrammatical construction of that song title has bugged me each of the possibly two times I've thought of it over a lifetime.

Charlie: Was FDR's Yalta trip "announced"?

But Chuckles, you're always claiming that FDR is History's Greatest Monster. Surely you're not defending him now just to make Bush look less foolish?

Aw, Charlie, whoever said that Condi and Bushco are direct in any of their dealings?

Four words for Charlie: Too little, too late. Throw in the Administration's tacit -- hell, explicit -- approval of Israel's counterproductive, disporportionate tactics, and there's plenty of mendacity and incompetence to criticize, thanks.

As to Charlie's usual nonsensical parallels to WWII, I'm simply pleased to note his tacit admission that the security situation in Iraq is, indeed, too perilous to allow the an announced visit. "Mission accomplished," indeed.

(Cue Charlie's usual bullshit about how the banner referred to the carrier's mission, and it was just a coincidence that said banner formed the backdrop to Bush's speech...)

The Yalta Conference, sometimes called the Crimea Conference and CLASSIFIED VISIT codenamed the Argonaut Conference, was the secret wartime meeting from February 4, 1945 to February 11, 1945 between the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. The delegations were headed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin, respectively.

Even back in the U.S., President Roosevelt traveled in secrecy. Did you know that he accepted the 1944 Democratic nomination for President speaking from a private railroad car at an undisclosed San Diego naval base? For wartime security reasons, the public was told only that the base was on the "Pacific coast."

The President at the time was taking a five-week, fourteen-thousand-mile military inspection trip of the Pacific Coast, Hawaii and Alaska. His special nine-car railroad caravan had moved slowly from Chicago to Kansas City, El Paso and Phoenix, to "kill time" before his arrival in San Diego and spare him from having to sleep at night in a moving train. Secret Service agents in fact tried to keep Roosevelt's exact whereabouts a secret. At each stop, the President and his party were asked to stay aboard the train.

Well, how many of you last week were upset because the U.S. would NOT deal with Beruit directly?!

As far as I can tell, zero; the US never took the position it would not talk to “Beirut” (by which, I presume you mean “the government of Lebanon”) directly. It did, and still does, take the position that it won't talk to Hezbollah directly, which is supposedly (per Israel) the “other side” in this conflict which is, supposedly (again, per Israel) not directed against Lebanon.

I would prefer the elites of the Bush administration receive the surprise.

I don't think I've ever stated FDR is History's Greatest Monster or that the war in Iraq is finished by any means.

destruction of Israel and the preservation of Israel. A writer said that was a "false dichotomy". I would assert that anyone who thinks it is a false dichotomy has not accepted the intensity and perseverence of the desire among Israel's enemies to destroy Israel

mere desire is not sufficient to bring about the desired result.

How many pre-announced visits did FDR make to war zones?

Precisely -- the visits were secret they were war zones, and hence dangerous to travel to. The fact that our regime leaders still have to make secret visits to Iraq means, then, that they are war zones, and belie the regime's claim that things are going well and the country is secure.

An Administration that were not in fear for its life every time one of its members set foot outside the bubble might actually be able to make a more normal diplomatic visit. The surprise is purely for security reasons.

Shorter Charlie: Iraq is as dangerous as World War II!

except probably in the case of Rice, where it was clear that she was intentionally waiting longer than the Bush critics wanted

So, Rice intentionally delayed a vital diplomatic visit just to spite Bush's critics? Sheesh, republicrat, some defense...

from another site:

In one of the most admirably straightforward of Islamist declarations, Hussein Massawi, the Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago, put it this way:
...
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

I firmly believe that visits are not needed when we have the commo capabilities we have, but look what happens when the President didn't parachute into New Orleans for a photo op sandbagging or something. His subsequent visits, as do all VIP visits to disaster sites, take emergency personnel away from rescue efforts.

look what happens when the President didn't parachute into New Orleans for a photo op sandbagging or something

I love it when dishoenst Bush apologists -- but I repeat myself -- characterize Bush's conspicuous inaction as failing, somehow, to perform superhuman feats. No, Wallis, just his job, thanks.

But thanks for reminding us that Bush did co-opt some actual rescue workers for a photo-op designed to foster the perception that he was engaged.

In case you are interested, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a (secret) Jew.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's mother Sarah Delano was a Jew. The Delanos are a Jewish family originally from Spain/Italy.

His father was also a Jew:

"In the distant past my ancestors may have been Jews. All I know about the origin of the Roosevelt family is that they are apparently descended form Claes Martenszen van Roosevelt, who came from Holland." The New York Times of March 14, 1935 (quoting Franklin Delano Roosevelt).

"Claes Rosenvelt entered the cloth business in New York, and was married in 1682. He accumulated a fortune. He then changed his name to Nicholas Roosevelt. Of his four sons, Isaac died young. Nicholas married Sarah Solomons. Jacobus married Catherina Hardenburg. The Roosevelts were not a fighting but a peace-loving people, devoted to trade. Isaac became a capitalist. He founded the Bank of New York in 1790." The House of Roosevelt by Paul Haber, 1936:

"This war against America is a tragedy. It is illogical and devoid of any foundation of reality. It is one of those queer twists of history that just as I was assuming power in Germany, Roosevelt, the elect of the Jews, was taking command in the United States. Without the Jews and without this lackey of theirs, things could have been quite different." Adolph Hitler

Roosevelt's wife was a distant cousin and a niece of former President Theodore Roosevelt (another secret Jew). Both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were descendants of Claes Rosenvelt.

Winston Churchill was a (secret) Jew.

"Cunning, no doubt, came to Churchill in the Jewish genes transmitted by his mother Lady Randolph Churchill, née Jenny Jacobson/Jerome." Moshe Kohn, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 18, 1993.

Is there a way to describe actions that are scheduled at the last minute to address problems that should have been foreseen but weren't?

Any of "clumsy", "desperate", or "inept" work but fail to capture the entirety of the failure involved. There's not a single word or pithy idiomatic expression that I can think of that really captures that, though certainly this administration would provide plenty of use for it if there were.

I am not surprised.

Is it at least "possible" that Bush was thinking out loud about a very fluid situation and had decided to send Rice but did not now yet which exact day would be the best?

The less verbose question is, "Is it at least 'possible' that Bush was thinking?" to which the best answer is, "Anything is possible."

Or maybe cover it from the angle of "Why is it the only thing that this administrations seems to be able to plan out in advance is their vacation schedules?"

Everything is a "surprise" because they make it up entirely as they go along, with almost no understanding of the past or visions of the future. There is only the here and now, and the money being made from it.

Bush 43 - The Id of presidents.

It is a surprise when the Bushies do anything diplomatic, even if it is only Condi going around showing the Reps under Rove can out-affirmative action the Dems.

What is the ratio of Bush vacations to the hobby ranch to diplomatic visits?

It would be a surprise if the press would ever comment on Condi's leadership in Iraqi reconstruction or in national security.

wonder if it was a surprise to the Israeli Offense Forces?

She knew she could do some shopping in the fancy shops of downtown Beiruit-y'know, after the Israeli army ordered the citizens to run for their lives.

She won't have to stand in line, and there might be some good bargains, too!

Thomas
Did Yalta take place three and a half years after FDR played dress up and declared the war over?

It wasn't a surprise to some people. The Israelis knew far enough in advance to stop bombing Beirut while Condi was there.

Bombing Condi would've been so awkward.

Bombing Condi would've been so awkward.

No one could have anticipated that, not even FDR.

4watcher - do you mean 4skinwatcher?

I mean really, you sound like that old Saturday Night Live Skit, Uberman, when he looked through people's clothing: yes, she's beautiful, and he's a Jew!

It would be a lot funnier if it weren't so sad that some people actually believe this garbage. Put it another way: what would be so wrong if all these people were Jewish?

this is interesting if true:

http://www.nysun.com/article/36557?page_no=1

A writer said that was a "false dichotomy".

That would be me.

I would assert that anyone who thinks it is a false dichotomy has not accepted the intensity and perseverence of the desire among Israel's enemies to destroy Israel (Hamas, Fatah, Hisbollah, Syria, Iran, large subpopulations of Israel's neighbors.)

First of all, this is an emotional appeal, ostensibly to the one-dimensional monstrosity of Israel's enemies. As a persuasive argument it fails to take into account Israel's culpability for disproportionate responses in the decades-long conflict and attempts to paint a significant portion of Muslims in the Middle East as nothing but intransigent killers.

In point of fact they are people, not caricatures.

As an analysis of the situation, it fails the tests of history and psychology which show that even bitter enemies committed to one another's destruction can and have eventually made peace. Minds and hearts can be changed.

If your principle were indeed true that once groups become enemies committed to killing one another they will always be enemies - well, then you may as well admit Iraq is screwed because more Sunnis and Shia are dying at each others' hands there each day than are dying in the Lebanon-Israeli conflict.

And they're doing it up close and personal with acid and drills and gangland-style executions.

surprise visits are the special domain of neglectful fathers who think they can make up in impulsivity what they lack in consistency after the divorce!

so much less work and so much more spectacular than actual parenting!

no wonder Bush and his administration love them!

Rice intentionally delayed a vital diplomatic visit just to spite Bush's critics?

No. She did it on her/Bush's schedule, independent of them.

Condi is going to the ME because Israel is losing. Check out Billmon today.

www.billmon.org

mere desire is not sufficient to bring about the desired result.

Tell me about it.

Maybe the surprise is merely that they are actually working. As opposed to just caballing, I guess.

And, no, it's the "watchers" who are evil people. Glad we got that out into the open.

Just substitute the word "sneak" for surprise.

Tell me about it.

no shit

Funny you bring up Carter, another pissant U.S. prez that got his ass kicked by Iran.

With very, very few execptions that utopian view did not reflect reality.

as opposed to the utopian neo-con view that has worked out so well... ?

I would assert that anyone who thinks it is a false dichotomy has not accepted the intensity and perseverence of the desire among Israel's enemies to destroy Israel (Hamas, Fatah, Hisbollah, Syria, Iran, large subpopulations of Israel's neighbors.)

Well....so? They may have the "desire" to do so, but they have no ability to turn that desire into reality. Besides its conventional forces Israel has nukes, and its enemies know that Israel will respond with them to any sufficiently serious existential threat.

Similarly, I have an intense and persevering desire to sleep with Keira Knightley. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen, though.

No. She did it on her/Bush's schedule, independent of them.

Ah, so it was merely incompetence. Glad you cleared that up.

but wait! You said: except probably in the case of Rice, where it was clear that she was intentionally waiting longer than the Bush critics wanted

"it was clear that she was intentionally waiting longer than the Bush critics wanted" sounds a lot like spite to me. We'll just chalk it up to your poor command of language. After all, it must be hard keeping all the GOP's doubletalk straight.

Well, isn't it kind of a surprise that she went to Beirut first? I mean, they intended that all along obviously but didn't say so, so why wouldn't we be a little surprised?

Or am I just making excuses for my naivete?

Similarly, I have an intense and persevering desire to sleep with Keira Knightley. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen, though.

Not to dispute your taste, ol' buddy, but I wouldn't advise risking your girlfriend's displeasure. She's no ordinary woman, as you know. :)

4watcher sure sounds like a Nazi, making "Jew" a racial category that can never be "denied" rather than a religion. One drop of Jewish blood ... eh 4watcher?

I always thought Roosevelt was an Episcopalian, and apparently so did he, belonging to an Episcopalian church and all.

Surprise visits are a sign of weakness and fearfulness.

We'll know the Lebanese, Iraqis and Afghanis have completed their transformation to democracy and quelled their various insurrections when administration officials make pre-announced visits to foreign capitals.

Thomas:

I am assuming that you are a conservative Republican and a Bush supporter. I may be wrong and expect you to correct me if I am.

The analogies which you conservatives draw between WWII and the current Iraqi situation are flawed for one very large reason. This is that Germany and Japan were the aggressors. We were attacked on our own soil at Pearl Harbor, and we were helping our European allies to repel the invasions of the Germans.

In Iraq today, WE are the aggressors. No matter how valiently you try to spin any threat Saddam posed, or how horrible a dictator he was, which no one disputes, you cannot escape that essential fact. WE INVADED IRAQ. We are the aggressors. I've yet to see a conservative and/or Bush defender admit this.

Oh, and while establishing democracy in other countries is a worthy aim, it cannot be imposed at gunpoint, and WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO SO.

So this renders analogies to WWII incorrect. If anything, we are more like Hitler in this circumstance. Again, this is a poor analogy, as we aren't trying to eliminate all Iraqis and Abu Graib and Guantanamo, horrible as they are, aren't in the same league as the concentration camps.

I know this won't deter you from continuing to post your ridiculous analogies, but I just wanted to get this very central point out: we are the aggressors here.

This comment is for Watcher.

First, when you post your screeds about how there were ONLY 2,000,000 instead of 3,000,000 deaths here or there, or that the camps on German soil didn't actually use gas ovens, you appear to think you are making a point and that this makes a HUGE difference and that the Holocaust didn't happen. You instead make the opposite point of what you intended.

Does it matter whether it was 5,000,000 total or 6,000,000? Or even 2,000,000 or 3,000,000? NO. NO. This was still a great atrocity.

Does it matter if the gas ovens were on German soil or were instead in Poland or Czechslovakia? NO.

It is well documented, and in original GERMAN sources by Nazis themselves, that there was an attempt to exterminate Jews and other "undesirables" such as Gypsies, mentally retarded, etc. Moreover, I personally know 2 survivors of the camps. They don't talk about it much because they'd rather not dwell on it.

As for Roosevelt and ancestry which may have been Jewish, SO WHAT? If so, the change from being Jewish to being some sort of Christian happened centuries ago.

I can imagine that you would try rebut using the following: they did it to escape persecution and to fit in, and they didn't do it because of a true conversion of beliefs. However, none of us can truly know what is in other people's hearts, even contemporaries' hearts, much less people long dead. People do convert. People do change religions. They have every right to do so. Your post proves NOTHING.

OTOH, the FACT that the Holocaust occurred and was one of humanity's worst episodes, does not justify Israel's current disproportionate acts.

No please, let the "surprises" continue.

The unspoken message behind every one of these headlines is that it isn't safe enough over there for them to pre-announce.

Greeted as liberators, indeed.

我向大家推荐:北京 上海企业名录 厂向广大客户提供上海企业名录产品及上海企业名录服务。您想要了解 企业名录 吗？请到中国企业名录网来寻找企业名录。山西企业名录 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的山西企业名录,丰富山西企业名录行业资讯助您成交。安徽企业名录 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的安徽企业名录,丰富安徽企业名录行业资讯助您成交。北京 江西企业名录 厂向广大客户提供江西企业名录产品及江西企业名录服务。要想寻找广西企业名录信息请访问 广西企业名录 网，各种广西企业名录应有尽有。北京 湖南企业名录 厂向广大客户提供湖南企业名录产品及湖南企业名录服务。上海 湖北企业名录 公司专业生产湖北企业名录产品，欢迎选择湖北企业名录。要想寻找福建企业名录信息请访问 福建企业名录 网，各种福建企业名录应有尽有。北京 辽宁企业名录 厂向广大客户提供辽宁企业名录产品及辽宁企业名录服务。四川企业名录 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的四川企业名录,丰富四川企业名录行业资讯助您成交。上海 河南企业名录 公司专业生产河南企业名录产品，欢迎选择河南企业名录。要想寻找河北企业名录信息请访问 河北企业名录 网，各种河北企业名录应有尽有。上海 山东企业名录 公司专业生产山东企业名录产品，欢迎选择山东企业名录。您想要了解 浙江企业名录 吗？请到中国浙江企业名录网来寻找浙江企业名录。要想寻找江苏企业名录信息请访问 江苏企业名录 网，各种江苏企业名录应有尽有。您想要了解 北京企业名录 吗？请到中国北京企业名录网来寻找北京企业名录。企业名录 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的企业名录,丰富企业名录行业资讯助您成交。