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

September 13, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

"FAILURES OF IMAGINATION"....Eric Umansky has a terrific article in the Columbia Journalism Review this month about the media's post-9/11 coverage of the Bush administration's policies toward torture, rendition, and "coercive interrogation." The press deserves praise for the stories they finally broke, he says, but the overall picture is decidedly mixed:

When the record on torture coverage is examined in detail, an ambiguous picture emerges: in the post-9/11 days, some reporters offered detailed accusations and reports of abuse and torture, only to be met with skepticism by their own editors. Stories were buried, played down, or ignored a reluctance that is much diminished but still bubbles up with regard to the culpability of policymakers.

The Abu Ghraib story, for example, didn't burst like a bombshell, as so many people now remember. It dribbled out very slowly:

With headlines blaring across the world, and near-endless coverage on Arab networks such as Al Jazeera, President Bush made his first public comments about the abuse two days after the photos aired.

And that is what, finally, lent Abu Ghraib big-story status: not allegations of abuse or even the photos confirming them, but revulsion abroad and the presidents reaction to it. "Bush Denounces Troops Treatment of Prisoners," proclaimed the Los Angeles Times in its first front-page story on Abu Ghraib, on May 1, 2004.

The floodgates then opened, and what was revealed was far more than random acts of sadism toward detainees at Abu Ghraib. Now that the story had been ratified as important, as the writer Michael Massing put it in The New York Review of Books, journalists pushing for significant coverage of abuse were no longer sticking their necks out. They were part of the pack.

That's exactly right. Here's a post I wrote two days after the Abu Ghraib pictures were first aired, for example, noting that while the pictures were splashed all over Arab newspapers and TV stations, "only a handful of U.S. newspapers gave the story significant play."

Read the whole thing. Eric has done a great job reminding us of how skeptical reporters and editors were in those days about allegations of abuse and especially about allegations that the abuse was deliberate administration policy despite the fact that their own reporters were often the ones who had dug up the evidence. It's a story with a moral.

Kevin Drum 5:42 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

karl's fax machine was on the fritz back then too

gotta go..

wheel of fortune is coming on

Posted by: g.w.b. on September 13, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's a story with a moral

What would that moral be?

If it reflects badly on the Bush administration, then it must be true?

Posted by: zAmboni on September 13, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

And the moral of the story is ... the press has no guts (or initiative, or anyhting else they're supposed to have).

Let's have truth in labeling and just call it Pravda.

Posted by: alex on September 13, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

No one could have imagined their failure to imagine.

Posted by: Mimir on September 13, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus wants us to torture.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Posted by: Al on September 13, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

" . . . in the post-9/11 days, some reporters offered detailed accusations and reports of abuse and torture, only to be met with skepticism by their own editors. Stories were buried, played down, or ignored a reluctance that is much diminished but still bubbles up with regard to the culpability of policymakers"

Yet another indication of - particularly post-9/11 - how the right wing media that dominates this country does what it can to portray this clearly failed administration in the most favorable light.

And in response to zamboni's question - yes. If it reflects badly on the Bush administration, it must be true. Given this administration's compete lack of positive accomplishment, there is no other conclusion possible.

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

If it reflects badly on the Bush administration, then it must be true?

That's one. The other is: some liberal media would be a very good idea. When do we get any?

Posted by: craigie on September 13, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

OMG! I am actually agreeing with Al!

Posted by: stumpy on September 13, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

"...decidedly mixed."

Well, no such thing, gramatically.
And definitely not morally, where the outcome has been decidedly dismal.

Posted by: Kenji on September 13, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

The Abu Ghraib story, for example, didn't burst like a bombshell, as so many people now remember. It dribbled out very slowly:

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld mentioned the DoD investigation in his January testimony before the Senate. Even the senators like Edward Kennedy who later used extreme language did not express interest at the time.

then, the threat to release pictures was made by a defense attorney seeking exculpation for his client, who was subsequently tried and found guilty.

Posted by: republicrat on September 13, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I'm liberal media, Craigie. I'm just at a suburban weekly with somewhat smaller readership than the WaPost or NYTimes.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 13, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

It is utterly depressing.

Posted by: four legs good on September 13, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

In all the interviews Bush has granted over the past few weeks, he's gotten a pretty good number of questions on torture. Matt Lauer especially pressed him pretty hard. But the big disconnect on the whole issue remains that the Defense Department has prosecuted and jailed people like Lindy Englad for what ostensibly amounts to torture. Yet now the administration is arguing that interogators should be immune from prosecution for... "procedures" that they refuse to define. Of course, we all know that waterboarding and physical/emotional abuse is the subject. So, if physical abuse was a crime at Abu Ghraib, why isn't it a crime at whever they beat the hell out of Khalid Sheik Muhamad?

Why aren't the president and his spokeshumans being asked about this? Simple question: if your proposed legislation absolving interogators from prosectuion gets passed and signed into law, will Lyndie England be released from prison? If not, why not.

Posted by: pinson on September 13, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Well, no such thing, gramatically.

Uh-oh, Kenji...

Posted by: shortstop on September 13, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I frankly just don't believe that the main cause of the underplaying of torture and abuse stories was editorial "skepticism". That's a cop out. It makes it sound like the editors were doing their job, but just a bit overzealously.

These stories didn't run because editors,

a. didn't want to run stories that would bring floods of angry letters from readers and invite a further deluge of hate commentary and threats from the administration, Republican members of Congress and the usual winger loudmouths.

b. didn't want to hurt the war effort by running pictures and stories that were bound to damage, perhaps irreperably, the view of the US in Iraq and elsewhere.

It wasn't skepticism - it was suppression. The editors knew this was very, very bad news, and highly damaging to the reputation of the United States. So they chickened out, buttoned up, stayed in line and suppressed the truth.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on September 13, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

At last you Americans and Israelis have come to understand the utilitarian nature of "harsh methods". But I must say it took much too long and honorable men like Herrs Bush and Cheney to adapt our methods with no shame before you have finally come to understand the importance of these 'alternate methods'.

Doctor Mengele

Posted by: Josef Mengele on September 13, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

zAmboni wrote: "What would that moral be? If it reflects badly on the Bush administration, then it must be true?"

Well, sure if you're a real moron, then that might be the moral.

Sheesh ... can we get some smarter monkeys, please?

Posted by: PaulB on September 13, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Right on cue, the Dems resurrect a failing electoral strategy ("our troops torture and rape!"), just in time to remind voters why they keep rejecting Dems.
Posted by: Havlick stole the ball on September 13, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

That's right, because "winning elections" counts more than doing what's right. Right?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Why, yes mister Been Forgotten, anything is really permissible as long as we keep Liberals out of office. Because if we don't keep Liberals out of office, the terrorists win, like they did in Spain.

Posted by: Karl Rove on September 13, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

Turd Blossom?

What's "Spain"? Do they have terrorists there too? Do we need to bomb them too? Do they have any oil?

Posted by: George W Bush on September 13, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

And another moron rears his ugly head: "Right on cue, the Dems resurrect a failing electoral strategy ("our troops torture and rape!"), just in time to remind voters why they keep rejecting Dems."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that a) "the Dems" aren't doing anything of the kind, that b) you have completely missed the point of Kevin's post, and that c) Kevin isn't running for office?

We definitely need some smarter monkeys.

Posted by: PaulB on September 13, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

The moral of the story is - when a man with the longest criminal rap sheet of anyone ever elected president and a long family history of political treachery and treasonous acts gets into the White House, you can expect corruption, disdain for the rule of law and treacherous and treasonous acts to become commonplace.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 13, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,
Pehaps you've gathered by now that the Sons of Turd Blossom despise democracy. They never react to anything on moral grounds; like the 'liberal' press, they care only about strategy. All that matters is that Dems, or a cardboard version of them, lose elections by tiny amounts so they can crow about their massive mandates. Even if that were true, it's not like any electoral success, real or stolen, makes an Abu Ghraib or even a Katrina okay.

And anyway, the post was about coverage, not what works politically. But these bootlickers only have one playbook, and we can't expect them to change just because the topic does. Talking points ber alles!

Posted by: Kenji on September 13, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

BREAKING -- Islamofascists attack in Montreal!!

"Eyewitnesses say they saw a tall skinny man, wearing a black trench coat and sporting a Mohawk haircut, walk into the cafeteria carrying a large gun. He apparently fired several shots."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/13/shots-dawson.html

Posted by: alarmist on September 13, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

A sad commentary on the present state of media affairs in this country.

At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the only losers will be the American people. Because regardless of whatever it is you choose to believe about these myriad number of controversies surrounding the Bush administration, reality always bites -- and it somehow mangaes to bites the willfully ignorant particularly hard.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 13, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

mimir: "No one could have imagined their failure to imagine."

I imagine that no one could have imagined their failure to imagine what would happen because of their failure.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 13, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Can we also have someone or something of note that holds the American people accountable for their failure to hold the Bush administration accountable for torture, rendition, et al?

Posted by: Linus on September 13, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

CIA interrogators are buying insurance....

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1157964841875B225

Posted by: cajun on September 13, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

"BREAKING -- Islamofascists attack in Montreal!"

Oh. My. god. No one could have imagined their failure to imagine that Islamofacist fanatics would sport Mohawk haircuts!

That's probably what Sen. George Allen was trying to warn us about when he pointed to the Democratic campaign worker at that Virginia campaign rally, only it came out as "Macaca".

Just thank your lucky stars that the Canadian Prime Minister wasn't at that cafeteria. Don't they want to behead him? If they ever did that, then the Bush White House and Republicans would have a devil of a time collecting that $450 million slush fund from Canadian timber interests.

.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 13, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

So flipping around a bit and I came across Kevin Drum's note that he has read the CJR article titled "Failure of Imagination".

I've read it, and liked it, but had one question.

What's with the title, eh? I was captured by it. Seems Graham Greenish to a dumb Canadian.

I have been reading again a collection of essays by Pico Iyer one in particular has caught my imagination called "Sleeping with the Enemy".

Eric Umansky article had a similar, what slant. Torture or those that do it have a failure of imagination.

Nice title, eh.

I think as Pico points, out in his essay, Graham Greene noted some time ago that:

"when you saw the corners of the eyes, the shape of the mouth, how the hair grew, it was impossible to hate. Hate was just a failure of imagination"

The Power and the Glory


Posted by: OPan Gloss on September 13, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

OPan Gloss: "What's with the title, eh? I was captured by it. Seems Graham Greenish to a dumb Canadian."

You're a Canadian? Then perhaps you can explain to us that $450 million slush fund for our country's GOP, courtesy of your Conservative PM, Mr. Harper, and your country's timber industry:

"So, here we have the government of Canada requiring that Canadian private parties sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says that Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The government of Canada thus is making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the president." -- Elliot Feldman, Baker & Hostetler LLP, to the Standing Committee on International Trade, House of Commons (August 21, 2006)

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 13, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Donald

Your guess is as good as mind on the softwood fiasco.

Who knowns what our lovely Harpernator has done behind the doors with your Bushie character.

The lumber stuff is a mess.

But spend our money well.eh.

Posted by: pangloss on September 13, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

I also remember the original stories about the accusations in Europe regarding detainee abuse at Gitmo. These long preceeded Abu Ghraib. I remember being extremely skeptical, thinking this was just more America bashing from the squishy Europeans. It was inconceivable to me that Americans would systematically engage in prisoner abuse, let alone outright torture. I've learned my lesson. Whenever I read about Americans torturing prison I view it exactly as I would similar stories from China, Russia, Egypt, etc. Thank you Mr. President. We have much to answer for.

Posted by: robertl on September 13, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Donald. Just what we need to do, transfer a big chunk of our GNP to the much larger country to our south. (Or below us, as some would say.) Kind of like the outer provinces tithing to Rome.

In this case, however, it's probably some tit-for-tat deal worked out by Jack Abramoff with the odious Stephen Harpera man with no chance before the Canadian electorate were it not for AmeriPackaging wizards. It's good to have high friends in low places. Got any deluxe cabins left on the Titanic?

Posted by: Kenji on September 13, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

What's the failure of imagination? That Kevin finds it odd to look back and discover that the media was slow to pick up the Abu Ghraib scandal?

TV and newspapers act at a glacial pace whenever it comes to anything potentially negative to Bush. They have since the beginning, and though they are moderately better now, it continues to this day.

That's really old news, isn't it?


Posted by: JJF on September 13, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

It's an excellent piece. I wrote about it last week, on the 8th, with some quotes and additional links.

Posted by: Gary Farber on September 13, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Doug Frantz, then the Timess investigative editor and now the managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, says Howell Raines, then the Timess top editor, and his underlings insisted that it was improbable; it was just hard to get their mind around. They told Roger to send Carlotta out for more reporting, which she did. Then Roger came back and pitched the story repeatedly. Its very unusual for an editor to continue to push a story after the powers that be make it clear theyre not interested. Roger, to his credit, pushed. (Howell Raines declined requests for comment.)

This sounds like bullshit. Remember when the Times broke the warrantless spying story after they sat on it for a year at administration request? I'm guessing Raines called Rove or Rumsfeld before he voted on this story.

Posted by: Boronx on September 13, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

There was an atmosphere at the Times at that point which discouraged news or opinion that might be seen as aggressively anti-Administration or anti-American. It wasn't necessary for Raines to call the Administration. It seems much more plausible that he figured that while this may have occurred once or twice, here or there, it was a case of a few bad apples, the story might be a little slanted by some anti-American Muslim testimony even if it were correct in its facts, and to give it prominent play would be inappropriate when our enemies were doing things that were so much more horrible. The reasoning would have been: in July, 1944, what did you put on the front page? That some American soldiers had mistreated a few of their Nazi captives? Or that they were fighting to liberate Europe?

The "news" isn't simply a matter of printing every single fact in the universe. It can't be. There's a judgment of whether something is unusual enough to be interesting, and a judgment of whether it's important. At that time, it would have been easy to see this story as being unimportant -- and giving it prominent play to be in a sense immoral.

Of course, that judgment was totally fucking wrong. The most shameful thing in the CJR article is that the news didn't break in the US until the President acknowledged it. THe most perverted thing in American media today is the requirement that the Government issue a response before something can be reported.

Posted by: brooksfoe on September 14, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

pinson wrote:

"Why aren't the president and his spokeshumans being asked about this? Simple question: if your proposed legislation absolving interogators from prosectuion gets passed and signed into law, will Lyndie England be released from prison? If not, why not."
_________________

Why not? Because the guilty soldiers were not authorized to perform the abuse, let alone torture.

Posted by: Trashhauler on September 14, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, right. Something tells me there aren't going to be many updates of "All the President's Men" coming out of this period, book-wise. But there will be lots of "The Final Days".

Dubya may even be down on his knees, praying with Henry Kissinger before this is all over. (Praying, of course, being a euphemism for a flask of Jack.)

Posted by: Kenji on September 14, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

"Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace -- al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" -- staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden."

Ann Coulter
Wed Sep 13, 8:04 PM ET

This is one of the best examples yet of the Democrats plan towards Jihadism. Find a way to do nothing.


Posted by: Jay on September 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

mhr:

You were never a Democrat.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

mhr:

Those well-known effete left-wing pseudo-intellectuals McCain, Graham and Warner are the ones holding up Bush's tribunal bill because it vitiates Geneva Convention Common Article III.

They argue that maltreating our prisoners puts all of our overseas troops in grave jeopardy.

But, being effete left-wing pseudo-intellectuals, what do *they* know, right?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

mhr: I do not favor torture, certainly of the kind that muslims mete out to others, including sunnis who torture shiites and vice versa. But I will give large leeway to experienced interrogators to do their job and do it well.

Then you know nothing about interrogation, because "experienced interrogators" say torture is generally useless -- it gives you only what you want to hear. (Google is your friend. Use it. Love it.)

Beyond that, well, it sucks to be right. From 10/10/03:

Recently, three U.S. servicemen were arrested on suspicion of trying to smuggle "classified information" out of the prisoner detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to this analysis, they might well be guilty of a serious crime. But one could infer from this story that they might well have been trying -- also or instead -- to report that prisoners were being tortured. Not just coerced, not just sleep-deprived, but "good old-fashioned torture, as people would have understood it in the Dark Ages," as an attorney for some of the detainees describes it.

I have no idea what the facts are. I have no idea who's right. And God knows I understand the stakes. But I have worried from the start of our military action against terrorists that the level of secrecy and lack of due process surrounding our interrogation of these prisoners would lead to a bad end. Torture dehumanizes everyone involved with it -- victim, torturer and all those the torturer represents. It also directly and completely negates that upon which this nation was founded and which it purports to represent to the rest of the world.

We have no way of knowing for sure, but we are told that interrogations of detainees at Gitmo have provided valuable information in combatting terrorism. But it would have to be very valuable information indeed to be worth purchase at the cost of our national soul and our individual humanity.


Posted by: Lex on September 14, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and the reason this is relevant is that I was then (and remain) a MSM journalist.

Posted by: Lex on September 14, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

I would recommend the article at this url as required reading for those interested in torture as a tool for fighting the war on terror. It was written in Sep 2001. http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/19/fighting_terror/index.html?pn=2

Posted by: liberal, small l on September 14, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, you're not serious, are you? Giving crendence to an Ann Coulter clip ?!?

Did it have footnotes (end-notes, actually) with it?!

By that rationale, let's simply post Barbara Streisand or Shaun Penn quotes as rebuttals.

Jeepers, Jay, bring more to the table next time - please.

Posted by: GK on September 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

For the first time ever,

Ooooh! Portentous!

a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense.

What? There's no contradiction there. It can be treated BOTH as a matter of national security and as a criminal offense. Terrorism, in case you've missed it, is a criminal offense under our country's laws. Unless, of course, you think "national security" is synomous with "going to war against an unrelated third country" -- in which case yes, Clinton is guilty of not invading Switzerland in retaliation.

The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court.

And found guilty and sentenced to prison, where they remain still. As opposed to Osama bin Laden, whom Bush has allowed to remain scot free and isn't even looking for anymore.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996.

Flat out lie. Never happened. Completely made up.

Posted by: Arminius on September 14, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

"FAILURES OF IMAGINATION"....


eric could have stopped at just failures...

Posted by: mr. irony on September 15, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK


among the many things ann coulter forgets is....

the #1 killer of americans by terror in the u-s from 1993 until 9-11

was..

timothy mcveigh...

and he's dead...

osama?

not so much....

and bin laden only killed 17-times more than mcveigh...

well...on 9-11 anyway...

gwb: gotta have priorities

Posted by: laffin-at-jay on September 15, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

not that ann cares about facts but...


***..Sudan's offer***


"We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." - 9-11 Commission Report


not surprised ann would take the word of a foreign diplomat over that of an american president...

treason..indeed...

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 15, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

best nfl picks aqq best nfl picks aqq http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comaqq
college football picks aqq college football picks aqq http://college--football-picks.blogspot.comaqq
football betting aqq football betting aqq http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comaqq
free football picks aqq free football picks aqq http://free-football-picks.blogspot.comaqq
nfl picks aqq nfl picks aqq http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comaqq
aa aqq aa aqq http://testtestaqq
football predictions aqq football predictions aqq http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.comaqq
football predictions aqq football predictions aqq http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comaqq
best nfl picks aqq best nfl picks aqq http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comaqq
college football picks aqq college football picks aqq http://college--football-picks.blogspot.comaqq
football betting aqq football betting aqq http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comaqq
free football picks aqq free football picks aqq http://free-football-picks.blogspot.comaqq
nfl picks aqq nfl picks aqq http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comaqq
aa aqq aa aqq http://testtestaqq
football predictions aqq football predictions aqq http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.comaqq
football predictions aqq football predictions aqq http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comaqq
best nfl picks aqq best nfl picks aqq http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comaqq
college football picks aqq college football picks aqq http://college--football-picks.blogspot.comaqq
football betting aqq football betting aqq http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comaqq
free football picks aqq free football picks aqq http://free-football-picks.blogspot.comaqq
nfl picks aqq nfl picks aqq http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comaqq
aa aqq aa aqq http://testtestaqq
football predictions aqq football predictions aqq http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.comaqq
football predictions aqq football predictions aqq http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comaqq

Posted by: best nfl picksaqq on September 15, 2006 at 4:17 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