 |
 |
   Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
 Last year there wasn�t a single fatal airline accident in the developed world. So why is the U.S. health care system still accidently killing hundreds of thousands? The answer is a lack of transparency.
|
   |
|
|
November 20, 2006
By: TEN WEEKS....Will Nancy Pelosi try to cut off funding for the Iraq war? Democrats say that's not on the table, but Bill Kristol isn't so sure:
That comment takes hawkishness to an almost otherworldly plane. I know Kristol thinks we need to redouble our efforts in Iraq, but take a close look at his hypothetical: If (a) things continue to slide downhill, (b) there's no change of course, and (c) there's no strategy for victory, then he's worried that Congress might pull the plug? If all those things were true, wouldn't even a megahawk like Kristol concede that withdrawal is the only decent option left? I guess not. In any case, at least Kristol put a pretty firm date on his fears: "If by the State of the Union, things aren't getting better on the ground or there's not a really plausible change of tactics here at home, I am very worried that political support will crumble; not among Democrats, but among Republicans." That's only about ten weeks away, right? He must be picking up some pretty bad vibes from his fellow Republicans. —Kevin Drum 3:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (138)
Comments
I think Nancy is in way over her head. She has already embarassed herself by pushing for Murtha. She is likely to install a man who was impeached for bribery as head of the House Intelligence commiittee. Which brings me to my prediction: Pelosi will manage to bungle whatever she proposes on Iraq funding. Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on November 20, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINKThe President has the inherent authority to fight the war, since congress gave it to him. He may not need congressional authorization to appropriate funds from the treasury. Even if the new democrat-congress wants to surrender to the terrorists, the issue may bounce around in the courts for a few years. Posted by: American Hawk on November 20, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINKHe must be picking up some pretty bad vibes from his fellow Republicans. Maybe he was sending them pervy IMs, and they told him to cut that shit out - they only swing with teenagers. Posted by: craigie on November 20, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINKWho gives a shit what you think, Bedwetter? Sounds like the hawks are permanently stuck in Denial as they are swept through the stages of grief they've imposed on the rest of us. Shorter Kristol: someone somewhere might move cautiously to put an end to the misery in which we've "somehow" ended up. Posted by: Kenji on November 20, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINKAre you calling craigie or K-Y Drum a "Bedwetter"? Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINKHe may not need congressional authorization to appropriate funds from the treasury. Oh please. At what point do you robots just ask King W to disband the Congress and rule for life? Honestly, get over it - you hooked your wagons to the biggest retard ever to appear in public life, and it's time you - like the rest of the US population - recognized that fact. You'll have to find a new hero to worship. Or think for yourselves. No, cancel that last one, I know that was just too strange and absurd a concept. Posted by: craigie on November 20, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk, He may not need congressional authorization to appropriate funds from the treasury. Chalk American Hawk down as objectively-pro dictatorship. If Pelosi did take cutting funding off the table, shame on her. It's what we have been told all these years was about the only power that Congress has over wars. Posted by: jerry on November 20, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINKGhost of Tom: Ask cmdicely next time he shows up if a formal declaration of war was required under the Constitution. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINKjerry: She *allegedly* took impeachment off the table too. Did you believe her about that one? Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINKI think Nancy is in way over her head. This from the guy who's been apologizing for Chimpy the Prezdent through 6 years of drowning. Sheesh. Posted by: ckelly on November 20, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINKckelly, I wish you wouldn't call our President "Chimpy". Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINKLittle Willy Kristol says: "If by the State of the Union, things aren't getting better on the ground or there's not a really plausible change of tactics here at home, I am very worried that political support will crumble; not among Democrats, but among Republicans." read: I'm worried that by January me and Shrub and Barney are going to be the only ones left in America politically desperate enough to argue we should stay in Iraq. Posted by: trex on November 20, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINKWe need to stay in Iraq so that we can continue our search for the WMDs. If they are discovered by the terrorists, there will be mushroom clouds over Cincinnati. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINKNo, that's Frequency's pet name. Because his predictions carry just that much weight. Although, let's face it, he's John Kenneth Gallbladder compared with chickenhawk, who has the courage to take on a "new democrat-congress [that] wants to surrender to the terrorists". because the tough guys are doing sooo well. To be fair, he's also strongly against Hitler clones conquering Brazil and those sly Martians who have decreed that we all wear our underwear on the outside. (Which, in Bedwetter's case, might actually help.) Posted by: Kenji on November 20, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINKI wish you wouldn't call our President "Chimpy". Yes, it's an insult to the intelligence of chimps. Posted by: craigie on November 20, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINKJeffery, You posted five numbskull non-sequiters in seven minutes. Have you no manners? I noticed you weren't around for a couple of days. I was hoping against hope that Kevin had finally banned you. Anyway, you weren't missed. Posted by: exasperanto on November 20, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINKUh, is there a reason anyone is still taking Bill Kristol seriously? His track record is not exactly impressive. Posted by: Craig on November 20, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINKI think the 'hawks' are in reality just pathetic individuals who suffer from SDS (small-dick syndrome.) They are so insecure about their manliness that they are terrified that a retreat from Iraq will be perceived as wimpy and feminine. Posted by: global yokel on November 20, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKexasperanto: I did not post those at 3:57 PM or 4:00 PM. Do you mean to tell me the fake Jeffery was slacking on the job over the weakend? Craig: I've been begging you Dems to try and defund the war ever since the election. Plenty of people here have stated that needs to be done. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKThe President has the inherent authority to fight the war, since congress gave it to him. No, it didn't, really. He may not need congressional authorization to appropriate funds from the treasury. The US Constitution would seem to disagree: Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.... Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...; To borrow money on the credit of the United States....; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..... Posted by: Stefan on November 20, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK Stefan, There is a war on. Pretending there isn't because you want to believe some dusty law says otherwise is the main reason you liberals are going to destroy this country. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKYes, Jeff, and we're so much slower and less efficient at destroying the country than you are, what with our having sex and hobbies and an interest in real life outside of soulless power grabs. But, hey, we're working on it. Posted by: Kenji on November 20, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKThe President has the inherent authority to fight the war, since congress gave it to him. An "inherent" power of the President is one he has by virtue of the express or implied Constitutional powers of his office that does not depend on any act of another branch of government, ergo, if the President was given a power by Congress, it is not "inherent". Cutting funding is not an all or nothing proposition. Spending that oversight cannot account for ought be cut. Spending that oversight can account for - and that is deemed necessary - would not be cut. The other story here is that Kristol is advocating a radical reallignment of US military strategy. Remember in the 90s the military claimed that it needed to be able to fight a two-front war simultaneously. With Afghanistan representing a relatively small resource footprint, Kristol here is advocating squeezing bases throughout the world in an all-or-nothing putsch in Iraq. He's conceding - correctly I think - the reality that the United States is no longer even capable of responding to an emerging military threat. Call it a one-front strategy. If this horseshit doesn't translate into serious political consequences for its architects God help us all. Posted by: Saam Barrager on November 20, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINKJeffrey, if you are trying to be a parody troll, then try harder, because it just isn't funny anymore. Posted by: Michael Richards on November 20, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINKIf Congress does cut off funding, the WH can always sell weapons to Iran to get the necessary funds. Then Iran can give the weapons to its insurgents. Then Iran will need more, and we can sell even more. We can even use the excess funds to try to destabilize Chavez in Venezuela! Of course, W will need deniability, so the whole thing can be run by some office of the National Security Council. The WH could also use the opium fields in Afghanistan. And the increased sale of heroin in the US with potentially more violence on the streets would lead to more calls to get rid of the 4th Amendment! How perfect! --->The President has the inherent authority to fight the war, since congress gave it to him. Don't recall a Declaration of War, just a limited authorization to use force, badly worded, not properly written and with no oversight done by a fucked up corrupt Republican Congress, but thanks for showing up with nothing, you shitsack. mm242 Posted by: mercury_man_242 on November 20, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKThere is a war on. Pretending there isn't because you want to believe some dusty law says otherwise is the main reason you liberals are going to destroy this country. Really? Why isn't the (mis)Administration calling it a war then? I'm pretty sure they're moved onto the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" if not something pithier since then. Posted by: cyntax on November 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK Who gives a crap what Bill Kristol has to say??? I mean, really, when has he been right about anything? He certainly isn't tied into dem strategy, that's for sure. He's pushing the rightard line, pure and simple. Don't fall into the trap of believing anything he has to say. Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on November 20, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKWho gives a crap what Bill Kristol has to say? those who make up the chattering class care what their peers are chattering about. Posted by: cleek on November 20, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKAre you calling craigie or K-Y Drum a "Bedwetter"? We're calling you a bedwetter, you chickenshit piece of crap. Unless you've enlisted, whereas I take back all the mean things I've said about you, but I'm not counting on it. Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on November 20, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKthose who make up the chattering class care what their peers are chattering about. And that, unfortunately, is just enough people to keep them employed, if slightly less than relevant. Posted by: cyntax on November 20, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKI think Kristol was approaching this from a political slant. The Democrats are now seen by the public as The Party That Will Fix Things (tm). If things get worse, Pelosi will be forced to take some kind of action. The only two things that make sense are impeachment and defunding the army, and impeachment is likely to stall out in the Senate. It will not surprise me in the slightest if she puts both those options back on the table, and soonish. Posted by: Remus Shepherd on November 20, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKWhat the heck does he mean by a really plausible change of tactics here at home? I like the "really plausible" part, which rules out what Atrios would call more "fantasy pony" plans. But a change "here at home"? Does he just mean Karl R has to figure out a new way to sell the war to folks here? Posted by: David in NY on November 20, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKOh, good, cmdicely is finally here. Can you please explain to Ghost of Tom and mm242 that a formal declaration of war was not required under the Constitution? Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK"Bouncing around the courts." That's honestly the funniest thing I've heard from the wingnuts in quite some time. Bush sues congress for Iraq war funding. Judge Judy to preside. The amazing thing about the punditocracy and the wingnuts is that they still have no idea that the Iraq war is a dead parrot. Posted by: HeavyJ on November 20, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINKthey still have no idea that the Iraq war is a dead parrot. if you just give it one more really big push, it'll fly again! i just know it! Posted by: cleek on November 20, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINKAnd jobs... it's also a little amazing that they still have jobs. Posted by: cyntax on November 20, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINKWhen Kristol proposes sending more troops to Iraq, shouldn't the standard question be: So you've asked your children to enlist, right? I don't think this is unfair or rude, and people who think it is are guilty of the worst hypocrisy on Iraq. Posted by: Matt D on November 20, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINKWe will be substantially out of Iraq by the end of next year. Probably before that. Wanna know why? The 2008 Presidential election. NONE of the top contenders want Iraq to be on the table in 2008 as an issue. They want it gone. And if we are still mired in Iraq in 2008, even though Democrats have tried to get us out, then the GOP will lopse even more seats and probably the Presidency. It is in John McCain's interest to get Iraq off the table by the end of next year. They will set some artifical goal, it will not be met, and then we will wash our hands of the place. Just watch. Posted by: Hesiod on November 20, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINKMatt D: Last I checked (unless everyone died and made Rangel king), we have an all-volunteer armed forces. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKHesiod: From your lips to the gods' ears. But then again, I thought the administration would declare victory and get out in time for the mid-terms. The one time I try to think as cynically as they do, they fail me. Posted by: CJColucci on November 20, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINKThey will set some artifical goal, it will not be met, and then we will wash our hands of the place. I would agree with that, perhaps also adding that this is the raison d'etre of the Baker Commission: to provide over-head cover for the (mis)Administration to start the draw down while maintaining "stay the course" rhetoric. Posted by: cyntax on November 20, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINKJeffrey: But we don't have enough troops in the volunteer Army and Marine Corps to sustain a significant troop increase in Iraq - a point that Kristol acknowledges. So if he really thinks sending more troops is vital for our national security, he should urge the younger members of his family to enlist. Anything else is hypocrisy. Posted by: Matt D on November 20, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK Kristol was one pushing for an attack on Iraq and is now flip-flopping when the going gets tough. Sounds kind of liberal to me. I am sure Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and John Murtha will all threaten to vote to defund the war until someone pays them off. The Democratic party is in the majority and and for sale. Defunding will only happen if the liberal anti-war groups raise enough money to pay them off. Ya'll better get started raising funds because the military industrial complex is gonna buy them first. Posted by: Orwell on November 20, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINKSo if he really thinks sending more troops is vital for our national security, he should urge the younger members of his family to enlist. maybe a draft is in order? with all the names Trolly uses, he's bound to get picked, multiple times, probably. Posted by: cleek on November 20, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINKStefan, Jeffery - you ugly little man. That "dusty law" you're pissing on happens to be the US Constitution. Troll or fake troll, your disregard for that document really got my back up. Which, if you're a troll, was undoubtedly your intent - but reveals a lot about what you and your ilk think about the Constitution and this great country. Posted by: Wapiti on November 20, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINKReally, who the heck cares what Kristol says? He's proven to be wrong so many times that I have to wonder about the competence of anyone who bothers to listen to him. Posted by: gq on November 20, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINKYes, Matt D, that was basically Rangel's position. Here was Lindsey Graham saying we didn't have any more troops but we had to send more troops, without troubling to reconcile these two points. Then Rangel said if we wanted to send more troops, we had to have a draft. And he added a sentence that only once made the news, as far as I know. As paraphrased by the (gag!) New York Post: "Rangel said if there had been a draft in 2003, the U.S. never would have gone to war because politicians wouldn't want to put their own sons and daughters in harm's way." Posted by: David in NY on November 20, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINKMatt D: Don't trust me -- David in NY said that's exactly what Charlie Rangel wanted to do. Wapiti: I did not post that, but I will agree with you it was despicable coming from the fake Jeffery. If he/she starts posting as you, I won't hold it against you (unless you want me to). Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINKI have a theory. Want to hear my theory? OK, here goes: Bill Kristol has been busy building a huge army of robot soldiers, who, for a price, will march upon Iraq and bring the U.S. to total victory. Message from Rangel to the rest of the world: Even if we don't have any more soldiers to deploy, isn't it beyond stupid to publicly say that to those who want to see the US be destroyed? Doesn't that tell the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan that if the get rid of the current troops no more will come? Obviously the liberals see no value in the threat of force. Lets just expose all our secrets to the enemies, they wont use it against us because they want peace too. All they want is for us to be nice to them! Oops I said evil. None of that exists in the liberal world. As to you, Jeffery, what the heck is your point? Matt D and Rangel are on the same page -- if there's to be a war, folks like you, your kids, your boss's kids, and your congressperson's kids ought to have to take part. And this applies particularly to those who foment the war and who otherwise are hypocrites or worse, exploiters of the lives of others. Posted by: David in NY on November 20, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINKOrwell: That's what I was referring to in the other thread about the treasonous MSM and liberal Democrats -- there's no way the U.S. military can lose in Iraq -- yet the left is trying it's best to lose. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINKThe real George Orwell knew a straw man when he saw one, much less four or five in a row. Our own Orwell is not worthy of his name and ought to be required to forfeit it. Posted by: David in NY on November 20, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINKDon't be giving der Kristol Korps any ideas. A defunding by the Dems, aided by some GOPpers, would put the blame for Iraq's ensuing chaos (inevitable at any event) at the door of the Dems in bloody 2008. If he thinks it's going to happen anyway, why "Let's try to make a profit out of this, Sundance." Posted by: buddy66 on November 20, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINKAll the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. Posted by: Orwell on November 20, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINKIn our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. Posted by: Orwell on November 20, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINKNationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. Posted by: Orwell on November 20, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINKDavid in NY: My "point" was in response to Matt D's earlier post: "shouldn't the standard question be: So you've asked your children to enlist, right?" I asked him if he knew we have an all-volunteer armed services because no one can force their kids (or anyone else's kids) to enlist. I don't think that Matt even knows who Charlie Rangel is. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINKWapiti: The post at 5:26 was the fake Jeffery. I'm not "pissing" on the U.S. Constitution (even if I wanted to it's protected under glass). I'm just recognizing the President's authority as our Commander in Chief to use whatever measures necessary to protect our country. If that means ignoring someone's interpretation of the Constitution, that's fine by me. You know, he's protecting you too, whether you like it or not. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKAw, Jeffry, take your whining to Kissinger, who just said our military can't win. Since you think they can, however, how does your plan differ, in a way our Army or government can carry out, from what's been going on for the last four years? And, how will you insure that, our staying there will not produce far more violence and be a far worse loss than if we left now? And, assuming we somehow could pacify that enormous country at a cost you were willing to pay (increased taxes, drafting of your first-born, etc.), why pray tell, won't the civil war start all over again once we do go? You guys and your fantasy ponies -- sheesh. Posted by: David in NY on November 20, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK"I asked him if he knew we have an all-volunteer armed services because no one can force their kids (or anyone else's kids) to enlist. I don't think that Matt even knows who Charlie Rangel is." Pathetic, Jeffry, pathetic. Posted by: David in NY on November 20, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINKtrex: agreed on the subtext. notice that Kristol only mentioned he'd be worried about the domestic politics. if, 3 months from now, things are still going downhill in Iraq and we still don't have a strategy, the chief concern I'd have is the fact that things were still going downhill and we still didn't have a strategy Posted by: Chris G on November 20, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK"Secrets"? Orwell, you're tripping. The entire world knows our legions are stretched as thin as April ice. It's no secret our Cold War military empire has dissolved. Posted by: buddy66 on November 20, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINKWell, on the first point, this has been Abizaid and Casey and Rumsfeld's consistent theory, that Iraqification [handing over the reins] comes ahead of victory, is the way I would put it. Or the only way to win, to be fair to put it, is Iraqification. I think . . . that's false. so, if it's false that Iraqification is required, what does victory look like without it ? "more troops" could conceivably chase all the evil-doers underground. but if they mean it, they'll be back as soon as we leave - just like they've been doing for the past 3 years. Posted by: cleek on November 20, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINKThat's got to be a ruse. Bill Kristol hasn't been sure about anything since 1982. Posted by: Fitzwillie on November 20, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINKChris G. and David: Bush's "strategy" is, and always has been, to stay until the Iraqi government can defend itself -- if you Dems want to propose something different, then go right ahead or get the fuck out of the way -- remember, your plan has to be duoble-spaced, in a way our Army or government can carry out, from what's been going on for the last four years? And, how will you insure that, our pulling out will not produce far more violence and be a far worse loss than if we stayed? And, assuming we somehow leave, is oil at $500 bbl a cost you were willing to pay? buddy666: We've got nukes this time around though. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKPelosi cannot increase funding for the war, or anything, without pay-as-you-go. As soon as some asshole like Harry Reid proposes more funding and neglects pay-as-you-go, then say good-by to 2008 as the independents go back to Republicans. Posted by: Matt on November 20, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKJust for fun: suppose Kim Jong Il is caught negotiating the price of a suitcase nuke for bin Laden, so Bush sends him the old-fashioned warning -- do it, and you will cease to exist as an organized state. So (since he's been up to worse) Kim figures the jig is up unless he changes the equation -- and he sends a million men across the DMZ, with armor. We have serious obligations to South Korea -- and Japan, among others: where do we get the soldiers? The logistical support? I used to know an Air Force strategist who argued for what he called "structuralism", the idea that no matter what anybody SAID, the real strategy for war fighting was always the structural result when it was over, e.g., the US wanted Western Europe wholly dependent on America after WW2 (so we let Stalin into Eastern Europe, and reconciled Germany in France by backing France taking Japan's surrender in Indochina), or to use a later example, we left Saddam in power in 1991 so we would maintain control over Saudi Arabia. What's gonna be the structural outcome after Iraq? Posted by: theAmericanist on November 20, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK
than the last 3-presidents.. combined.... Posted by: mr. irony on November 20, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINKWhat's gonna be the structural outcome after Iraq? three generations of Middle Easterners who think America is full of crap. Posted by: cleek on November 20, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK"...some asshole like Harry Reid..." You mean, as opposed to saintly citizens like Hastert, Boehnert, and DeLay. Hmmm, let's all think about that. Okay, done. We did the math and YOU'RE the asshole. Posted by: Kenji on November 20, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKJeffery: We had nukes in 1950 and 1965 too. A lot of good they did us in Korea and Vietnam. Posted by: buddy66 on November 20, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKJeffrey: Actually, Rangel's my rep, and I voted for him. I think he's right. We should have a draft, because an all-volunteer army appears to be too tempting for opportunistic politicians to use wisely. Any structural changes that would make our society and its leaders less likely to repeat the tragic mistake of invading Iraq would be worth the cost. Posted by: Matt D on November 20, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK"If all those things were true, wouldn't even a megahawk like Kristol concede that withdrawal is the only decent option left?" No. You're confusing rationality with ideology. Bill Kristol isn't just a talking head. He was an architect of the war in Iraq -- maybe best described as head of the MarCom arm of the PNAC. Posted by: Mark on November 20, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINKbuddy66: Yeah, but we've got a real leader in the White House this time. Matt D.: The question was whether you knew we have an all-volunteer armed services because no one can force their kids (or anyone else's kids) to enlist? Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINKYeah, but we've got a real leader in the White House this time. So why didn't Eisenhower and Nixon use nukes when they took over as CiC? Oh that's right, they weren't real leaders either. Just like President Chimpy McStagger isn't a real leader. Posted by: Jeffery is a dumbass on November 20, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKThe Democratic led Congress is in a damn if and a damned if not situation. They do not want to give Bush the huge putcsh he is asking for, but do not want to appear to leaving the troops without support. Bush will play this game to its bitter end - dead American youths. Impeachment procedings might distract Bush and Cheney. Posted by: Hostile on November 20, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINKJeffery is correct to say that we have a real leader in the White House. That is the line we should all be taking. Have all of you libs considered that our enemies wouldn't know the president is not all that bright if you didn't traitorously announce it every chance you get? Bush stupid this, Bush idiotic that, on and on and on. Way to hand that info to the terrorists. Posted by: Orwell on November 20, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINKEven if we don't have any more soldiers to deploy, isn't it beyond stupid to publicly say that to those who want to see the US be destroyed? When the terrorists a.) learn addition and subtraction and b.) get a subscription to Army Times or Stars and Stripes, boy are we fucked. I think it's time to put pocket calculators on the dual-use-technology embargo list. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on November 20, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINKBush stupid this, Bush idiotic that, on and on and on. Way to hand that info to the terrorists. So after we bomb Al Jazeera, we've got to bomb C-SPAN? Loose lips, and all that. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on November 20, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINKthree generations of Middle Easterners who think America is full of crap exactly, cleek. this "War on Terror" has a vital political dimension to it, just as the Cold War did. containment was much more than a military strategy, it was also a persuasion war that helped yield the peaceful overthrow of the Soviet Union. "winning hearts and minds" is not just about being diplomatic, its about being smart and goal-oriented. so it was utterly, utterly foolish to think that going to Iraq would actually help us in GWOT. and it is equally as foolish to think that we can train a robust Iraqi military that will not, at some point, be co-opted by one or more existing militas. it will happen--it is already beginning to. so one of the short-run questions is what we do with that given. we need to start talking with Iran and Syria. Posted by: Chris G on November 20, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINKI see the canard about how Dems are telling the "enemy"/ how weak the American military currently is has started making the rounds again. This of course presupposes that America's enemies are so stupid and incompetent they cannot study the known/public numbers for the American military, its capabilities as recorded by military journals/resources like Jaynes, cannot extrapolate how much logistical and human resource expenditures have been in Iraq, etc. In other words it assumes that every one of America's enemies are as stupid as the morons trying to make this nonsense argument. It is bloody obvious all around the world just how overstretched the American military is and has been for some time now thanks to Iraq, it is AMERICANS that have not been so aware thanks to the efforts of Bushco and the GOP keeping this knowledge from American public awareness. Those that are destroying America's capabilities are those that are in the WH and were in control of the Congress for the past four years, which my oh my was the GOP throughout. Gee, too bad the GOP are such traitors to America that they want to break the Army, underfund and undersupport the troops both in theatre AND once they are veterans (see underfunding of the VA to the demand placed upon it via the so called War on Terror/Iraq) AND show America's enemies the best way to beat the American military might in guerrilla warfare. Which I might add are the tactics now being used by the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan from watching the success of those tactics in opposing the American military in Iraq. Thanks GOPers and GOP lackeys, you have done more to weaken America in a half decade than I would have thought possible by an enemy agent that somehow became US President. This is going to be studied by American and other nations' historian for generations to come for its outstanding stupidity and incompetence. Way to go Republicans! No wonder Osama loves Bush so much and was so afraid of a Kerry win that he sent that recording at the last minute to try and swing the election for Bush. After all, the idea that insulting Bush by Osama meant he was for Kerry only made sense in the deluded minds of the faith based listener. The rest of the world understood that anyone that Osama was attacking would be who Americans would rally to, as did Osama himself as he is far less ignorant of the American culture of his enemy than his enemy understands him and the culture from which he comes from. Bushco and the GOP walked right into Osama's trap with the 9/11/01 attack, and what makes it particularly tragic was that the original response with Afghanistan was actually the right way to go and if confined to that would almost certainly have killed Osama and his leadership in Tora Bora, would have discredited the tool of terrorism as an effective way to strike America, and would have severely undercut the acceptance and growth of radical Islam in the world. By turning to Iraq though and then lying America into the war and setting most of America's traditional allies against her with this unilateral action Bushco started to do exactly what Osama claimed America would do soon in his propaganda of the 1990s. Go read some of it for yourself and you will see that how Bush did Iraq was exactly what he was saying America would do, invade an oil rich Muslim country on false pretenses to grab the oil and to take long term lease over (Those permanent bases were built for a reason despite all the claims Bush makes about not wanting to stay, so why were they built if not for long term American occupation of them?) which in turn would isolate America and many to most of her traditional allies in the Western world and especially in the Arab/ME region. Way to go Bushco and the GOP, not only do you project your weaknesses not the Dems you project your treason onto them as well. Yeah -- I wrote that in NRO, of all places, in 2002, arguing that we needed a THEOLOGICAL dimension to the war against terrorism, the way the Cold War had a political dimension. Posted by: theAmericanist on November 20, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINKI bet the Dems will jiu-jitsu this a bit and vote to INCREASE funds for Iraq, with some strings attached that will remove some of the president's authority and increase accountability. I suspect that will turn into a fight, with Bush strutting about as commander codpiece, pathetically unaware that the real implication of this election is that the American people fired him as the CinC. Posted by: cvcobb01 on November 20, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINKkristol would send the last American other than himself to their death before he'd ever admit he was wrong, let alone face up to the fact he has been wrong in every way imaginable and is a sick fuck lunatic bastard to boot. The man belongs under 24/7 supervision for the criminally insane. We will be substantially out of Iraq by the end of next year...Hesiod at 4:57 PMWhen has Bush ever talked about leaving Iraq? When has he explained why he attacked in the first place? In fact, he has claimed that he will not leave during his term. Granted, he lied in our face about Rumsfeld and other things. Talk of defunding the war is nonsense. The Republican demagogues would merely start a huge noise that Democrats not supporting the troops and it would resonate for years through the vast Republican media machine. McCarthyism lives and trives in the heart of every Republican. Posted by: Mike on November 20, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK Why post anything that Bill Kristol says? How are his predictions doing about Iraq? By my count, it's about 0-133. He is an idiot. Don't waste our time. Posted by: kimster on November 20, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINKHave all of you libs considered that our enemies wouldn't know the president is not all that bright if you didn't traitorously announce it every chance you get? That's a good point, we have to assiduously guard the secret of our Very Special President. Posted by: Ferruge on November 20, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINKMike: When did Bush lie in our face about Rumsfeld? Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINKWho cares WTF Bill Kristol says, except for FOX News lizard brain watchers, (as Atrios calls them, lizard brain = redneck, stupid people that prefer 7/24 hype instead of real news). Posted by: Cheryl on November 20, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINKI bet the Dems will jiu-jitsu this a bit and vote to INCREASE funds for Iraq, with some strings attached that will remove some of the president's authority and increase accountability. Hmm. Intriguing. My somewhat educated guess: Congress first holds hearings, lots and lots of hearings, calling the Administration on the carpet on just why they should be funding The Best War Ever (tm). They make sure Bush is firmly attached to the anchor first, then start working on how to get us out of this mess. Posted by: Dustbin Of History on November 20, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINKWhen did Bush lie in our face about Rumsfeld? I think the easier question to answer would be, When didn't he lie about Rumsfailed? Posted by: Ferruge on November 20, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINKkimster: I think it's a legitimate question, that many anti-war protesters want to know the answer to as well: when will the Democrats defund the war and/or impeach Bush and Cheney? Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINKOrwell, you're a very funny satirist. So-long and thanks for all the fish. Posted by: buddy66 on November 20, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKGive Kristol a rifle and a Kevlar vest and have him lead the charge in the "last big push" in Iraq. Let him get his brain matter splattered all over the streets of Baghdad. Oh, and raise his taxes to pay for it, instead of handing the bill to my children. Talk is cheap to these gutless, fiscally irresponsible conservatives... Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 20, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINKOrwell was being sarcastic. Actually, he was being quite humorous, intentionally or otherwise. It was a great line. Posted by: Ferruge on November 20, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINKFerruge: If that would be so easy, then it shouldn't be hard at all to provide ONE example of Bush lying about Rumsfeld. The Conservative Deflator: No thanks, but we don't need the draft just yet. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINKP.S. if any of you are claiming that Bush "lied" about the timing of Rumsfeld's departure, keep in mind that the President said, at that very same press conference, that he had not made the final choice to accept Rumsfeld's resignation, had not spoken with Gates, and he did not want to inject such a major decision about this war into the final days of a campaign. Is that not even POSSIBLY the truth? Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINKP.P.S. you also can't have it both ways: either the President is bright enough to win 3 out of the last 4 national elections, or your side got beat by a dummy. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINKOur side got beaten by a dummy. Posted by: Table's Turned Now on November 20, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINKWell, that's ONE choice, but I doubt that Gore/Brazile or Kerry/Cahill would agree with your assessment. Posted by: Jeffery on November 20, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINKP.P.S. you also can't have it both ways: either the President is bright enough to win 3 out of the last 4 national elections, or your side got beat by a dummy. Remember, almost 50% of Americans are of below average intelligence. And perhaps like Charlie, maybe they vote as well as waste everyone else's time. theAmericanist... I think your piece has some reason in it, but it would be a big mistake to call this a theological struggle. I know you're not suggesting the US export Christianity to the Middle East, but that's the first thing it brings to mind when you call it that. in any case, I think there are a few in our own country that need to transcend "us vs. them" thinking as well. Posted by: Chris G on November 20, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINKI don't believe that. Four months from now, if things continue to slide downhill, if the president hasn't adjusted course How many times and for how long has Silly Kristol and his ilk been saying, "If things don't get better in six months and the Chimperor hasn't yet found a clue, then...[insert random neocon blathering here]"? The Chimperor has not yet found a clue nor will he. These four- and six-month out predictions by the pundits only serve to distract from their last failed prediction. Multiple fatality bombings in Iraq are at an all time high. The number of daily attacks is at an all time high. Deaths of U.S. forces are close to their all-time high at a time when the number of patrols is way down, and when there are allegedly a couple hundred thousand Iraqi troops to back them up. When you do the math, this thing is orders of magnitude worse than it's been since Kristol's last idiotic attempt to save face. The situation in Iraq has gotten so bad even the professional liars can no longer lie about it convincingly. Kissinger has bailed on Iraq, the other neocons have bailed on it, and "real" conservatives like Buckley and Buchanan bailed on it long ago. Kristol, Bush, and Barney -- TLA. Posted by: trex on November 20, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINKI'd like to see them defund Iraq and propose instead a 'war tax'--at progressive rates, of course--that will expire when troops are withdrawn. When the public has to 'pay as you go' for a war, peace will break out all the hell over. . Posted by: MFA on November 20, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINKJeffery on November 20, 2006 at 7:57 PM: ..you also can't have it both ways: either the President is bright enough to win 3 out of the last 4 national elections.. Considering that Dubya only was in two national elections, I imagine that he's brighter than you, Jeffery...Not that it's by very much... (nice Ferruge at 7:38, btw - funny) Posted by: grape_crush on November 20, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK"Have all of you libs considered that our enemies wouldn't know the president is not all that bright if you didn't traitorously announce it every chance you get?" Yes, Orwell, and they would think he was wearing beautiful clothes if a few bloggers hadn't traitorousl pointed out his chimp-like nudity. You know, justy because he doesn't know enough to get dressed in winter doesn't mean we should just hand terrorists that dangerous information. Posted by: Kenji on November 20, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINKMFA on November 20, 2006 at 8:42 PM: I'd like to see them defund Iraq and propose instead a 'war tax'... Makes me think...How about any Congressional declaration of war includes reinstatement of the draft, a moratorium on tax cuts, sunsets on existing cuts to expire immediately, and rationing? As for an authorization to use military force, just suspend tax cuts and accelerate the sunsets on existing cuts? Maybe the righties will think twice about pounding the war drum if they gotta open up their wallets and face the possibilty of not seeing their kids alive again. Posted by: grape_crush on November 20, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINKOrwell: "Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception." Your posts constitute ignorance tempered by incomprehensible stupidity. Have all of you libs considered that our enemies wouldn't know the president is not all that bright if you didn't traitorously announce it every chance you get Oh, that's rich, "Orwell." So you think Bush is traitorously announcing his moronitude every time he opens his cake-hole too? Posted by: Gregory on November 20, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINKNow, now, Kenji, "Orwell" is an authority on self-deception, after all. Posted by: Gregory on November 20, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINKWhy is Kevin Drum a "bedwetter" ? Posted by: Inch by inch on November 20, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINKKenji: Orwell: "Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception." Your posts constitute ignorance tempered by incomprehensible stupidity. I believe that "Orwell" was quoting the author Orwell in order to mock the troll who uses the name Orwell. The "Orwell" of the plea to keep the president's moronitude a big secret would appear to be a parody of the trollish Orwell. This blog needs an org chart. Posted by: peter on November 20, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINKHe is not even saying that this might happen in 1 FU but in 2/3 of an FU. Good Old Billie Kristol no wonder everyone thinks he such an original thinker. Posted by: p\ on November 20, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINKTo put a finer point on MFA's and grape crush's comments: If every man, woman and child were to receive a tax bill from the government for the amount we have spent on the Iraq debacle (roughly $1,000 apiece by my calculations), the war would be over tomorrow. Make all wars "pay-as-you-go". Conscription (i.e. the draft) was also the Founding Father's antidote for pointless foreign military escapades. Mercenary armies are too easily exploited by tyrants... Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 20, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINKREAD IT AND WEEK, REGRESSIVE-SURRENDER-PAYOLA-DEMOCRATS: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111706A THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE (FROM YOUR DELUSIONS) AND KEEP US FREE (FROM YOUR DELUSIONS). TOH Posted by: The Objective Historian on November 20, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINKA word of advice to anyone thinking of responding to The Objective Historian (TOH): he's not worth the effort. The thread "Chess Club on Steroids" will show you what I'm talking about. He's the latest incarnation of The Black Knight in The Holy Grail. You can systematically deprive him of (almost) every limb (argument) and he still thinks he's beating you. His worst habit: imputing to you opinions you never expressed, refuting them in a ham-fisted way, and then dancing around the room claiming victory for having destroyed your argument and disabused you of your illusions. Second worst habit: making false claims about the 'real world' and then dancing around the room claiming victory... Third worst habit: excessive use of CAPITAL LETTERS. Posted by: DNS on November 21, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINKPosted by: DNS on November 21, 2006 at 12:40 AM I fully endorse the contents of the above post. Posted by: Scotian on November 21, 2006 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINKBlast from the Past--March 18, 2003 "Kristol's magazine, the Weekly Standard, has been loudly beating the war drums. He has launched a hawkish think tank that churns out petitions backed by big-name scholars and former officials. He presses his case privately with the likes of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and publicly on Fox News Channel. He teaches at Harvard, speaks to such groups as the World Affairs Council in San Francisco. And he's co-authored a new book called 'The War Over Iraq.' "'You have this intellectual trickle-down effect,' says Gary Schmitt, who runs the Project for the New American Century, which Kristol chairs. Indeed, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen once dubbed the looming conflict 'Kristol's War.' "If so, he has plenty of allies. Kristol, 50, is part of an informal neoconservative network, ranging from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to former Pentagon official Richard Perle, that has been pushing for a more muscular approach against dictators like Hussein. "'It's been an example of opinion leadership -- formulating ideas in a way that would eventually connect with a much broader audience,' Perle says. Kristol 'filled a vacuum' in the 1990s, says Perle, when Republicans 'weren't terribly interested in foreign and defense policy.' "Not everyone is enamored of Kristol's role. 'This is a Svengali,' says Ian Lustick, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. 'He and his comrades are operating a cabal. . . . They're willing to whip up passions and fear because they're so certain they must utilize this window for the war.'" Kristol can never say, "Well, I worked for more than a decade to make this war happen, and it's a miserable failure. Yes, we should bring the troops home." Bush can't say it either. I certainly hope both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have the confidence and spine to make the call. Posted by: cowalker on November 21, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINKHey, Scotian -- Good to see you again. It's been a while. Posted by: DNS on November 21, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 裸体图片 美女自拍 色情图片 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 黄色小说 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 21, 2006 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK六合彩
orwell: Have all of you libs considered that our enemies wouldn't know the president is not all that bright if you didn't traitorously announce it every chance you get? too late.. The single word most frequently associated currently with George W. Bush is "incompetent,"and close behind are: "idiot" and "liar." - Pew Research Center 3/16/06 I pondered the idea of a "war tax" in the shower this morning. Something like an extra 2 1/5% on all income above the SS cutoff, and then an extra 5% on all income (including unearned income) above $150,000 individual, $250,000 family. To continue until the amount collected equals the amount spent so far, plus interest. You gonna vote against funding the troops? Posted by: OwnedByTwoCats on November 21, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINKthe Americanist above said: '...he called "structuralism", the idea that no matter what anybody SAID, the real strategy for war fighting was always the structural result when it was over, e.g., the US wanted Western Europe wholly dependent on America after WW2 (so we let Stalin into Eastern Europe, and reconciled Germany in France by backing France taking Japan's surrender in Indochina),' Uh, I'm sorry if I have to rain on the amateur historian's quote, but we (the Allies) did not 'let' Stalin into Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe happened to be in the way of the Red Army as they went after the butcher who had killed 20 million Russians. Not even a complete whacko like MacArthur wanted to tangle with the Red Army in 1945. As for France, it would take a lot more reconciling than letting them have that jewel called Indochina to get France to be OK once again with Germany. Great French joke had Jacque-Frenchdude saying 'I love Germany so much that I think there should be 2 of them'. Posted by: Paul in KY on November 21, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKPelosi said that impeachment was off the table too. And she was lying about that too. The only way Congress will get Bush out of Iraq is the same way they got Nixon out of Vietnam (or at least on the way out) three decades ago: 1. Cut off the funding. I just took another look at Kristol's opening lines: "The conventional wisdom in Washington right now is but of course they'll never cut off funds. That would be politically suicidal, and that's not going to happen." He's been drinking his own Kool-Aid. How would cutting off the funds for this rat-hole in Iraq be politically suicidal? If anything, it would be widely applauded, even among people who initially supported the war. Staying the course would be politically suicidal. Posted by: nemo on November 21, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKKY, I was noting what the structuralist argument was (is), and as it happens, there remain a LOT of folks who aren't quite as simplistic as your counter to it, granted that in a clause I didn't do it justice. A slightly fuller explication would note that, for lots of good reasons, the US refused to open a second front in western Europe, which Stalin demanded immediately after Hitler declared war on the US, until June 1944. Yet we were capable of putting substantial forces into North Africa as early as 1942. Churchill wanted to invade through the Balkans which (ziggzaggy lightning as it was) just MIGHT have kept middle Europe free from Soviet occupation; we decided to go through Sicily and Italy instead. The "structural" result is that once the Soviets won at Stalingrad, there was literally nothing to keep them from Berlin (and Poland and the Baltic States and Czechoslovakia and Romania and Ukraine, etc.) but German armies whose power was being systematically drained away. That accelerated after D-Day -- but (so the argument goes) there were other options, earlier, which could have caused other results. It's a pretty shallow understanding of the wartime conferences to say Soviet occupation of eastern Europe was inevitable, without also recognizing that it was predictable -- because, in fact, it was predicted. Or didn't you know that? Posted by: theAmericanist on November 22, 2006 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒 让泪化作相思雨 花的嫁纱 简单爱 愿望 童话 放生 qq爱 心雨 老婆老婆我爱你 那一夜 真爱 好姑娘 笔记 爱的天国 我很想爱他 第一次爱的人 就是爱你 我会好好的 真的爱你 桃花朵朵开 天涯 大海 过火 爱如空气 北京一夜 独唱情歌 面具 想起 完美世界 世界末日 太早 我们的歌 花田错 红颜 飘雪 霍元甲 认真的雪 珊瑚海 不想长大 借口 追梦人 私奔 暧昧 忘不了 香水百合 白月光 我们能不能不分手 做你的男人 睫毛弯弯 断点 不值得 知足 紫藤花 一直很安静 我的果汁分你一半 丝路 火柴天堂 一千年以后 赤道和北极 光辉岁月 迷魂计 水手 回来我的爱 拯救 吻别 海阔天空 彩虹天堂 爱情复兴 新回心转意 天路 爱你 披着羊皮的狼 飞行部落 千年泪 突然的自我 独一无二 曾经最美 第一次 上海滩 古灵精怪 黑色毛衣 大舌头 好心分手 死了都要爱 大城小爱 隐形的翅膀 羽毛 舞娘 寂寞沙洲冷 一万个理由 曹操 今天你要嫁给我 反转地球 爱我别走 离歌 爸爸妈妈 我不后悔 来电 开始懂了 不要再来伤害我 狼爱上羊 被风吹过的夏天 美人鱼 如果没有你 今天 星座 蝴蝶 爱很简单 一生有你 手记 寂寞在唱歌 马德里不思议 我们的爱 号码 千千阙歌 黄色枫叶 枫 安静 吉祥三宝 那些花儿 冰雨 爱上你我很快乐 你是我的玫瑰花 一剪梅 你到底爱谁 死性不改 七里香 恋爱达人 勇气 七月七日晴 北极星的眼泪 死心塌地 白色恋人 不死之身 醉清风 可惜不是你 最初的梦想 包袱 原来 逍遥叹 那么爱你为什么 练习 爱我还是他 亲爱的你怎么不在我身边 江南 如果的事 遇见 挪威的森林 朋友 后来 不愿放开你的手 狐狸精 喜欢你没道理 美丽的神话 我们都是好孩子 爱我的人和我爱的人 假装 六月的雨 我们怎么了 红豆 说爱你 痴心绝对 心肝宝贝 放飞美丽 你的样子 天下无双 彩虹的微笑 黄昏 晴天 爱海滔滔 东风破 宁夏 东南西北风 留什么给你 莫斯科没有眼泪 香飘飘 幸福的瞬间 一千个伤心的理由 我只想要 月光 解脱 我要的世界 十年 哎呀 玻璃杯 着迷 红日 分飞 唱得响亮 屋顶 广岛之恋 我爱你 星光 倒带 哪一站 我不想说我是鸡 春泥 疯了 千年之恋 从开始到现在 西厢 我们的纪念日 听海 无赖 嘻唰唰 一路向北 梁祝 军中绿花 难道 忘了怎么哭 轨迹 天空 快乐崇拜 爱情木瓜 诗人的眼泪 温柔 七天七世纪 搁浅 感恩的心 给我你的爱 星晴 两只蝴蝶 那片海 都是你 燕尾蝶 最浪漫的事 遗失的美好 心中的日月 月半弯 情画 唯一 寓言 回心转意 美丽心情 皇帝 不如跳舞 朋友别哭 只剩我一个 灰姑娘 眉飞色舞 夜夜夜夜 分开旅行 爱人 黄种人 海啸 折子戏 奔跑 功夫 杀破狼 如果这都不算爱 我说我爱你 那女孩对我说 女人心 蜗牛 爱如潮水 我难过 牡丹江 灰色空间 当爱在靠近 天灰 爱你一万年 最熟悉的陌生人 如果爱 童年 假如 雨樱花 因为你 猪之歌 大约在冬季 夏天的风 期待 女人花 倩女幽魂 人鱼的眼泪 倔强 浪漫手机 雨人 别说我的眼泪你无所谓 零 祝我生日快乐 不怕不怕 丁香花 小丑鱼 记事本 无间道 回到过去 精忠报国 只对你说 旋木 婴儿 红色石头 爱的就是你 飞舞 一个人哭 对不起我爱你 男人海洋 一个人 你一定要幸福 恋爱ing 明天会更好 快乐练习曲 绿光 算你狠 当你孤单你会想起谁 回家 爱要怎么说出口 就是我 孙悟空 催眠 太委屈 猪都笑了 爱你不会变 直来直往 不可思议 大哥 其实我很在乎你 玩美 孤单北半球 喜欢你 我的未来不是梦 欧若拉 爱的箴言 我只在乎你 别怕我伤心 亲爱的不要离开我 自由 天亮以后 孤单爱情海 双鱼座 一千零一夜 叶子 原谅 蓝天 冬天快乐 蓝天 谢谢你的爱 化蝶飞 铁血丹心 天意 恶作剧 十元人民币 祝你一路顺风 哑巴新娘 芙蓉姐夫 讲不出再见 信仰 黑白配 好久不见 我恨我痴心 蓝莲花 你怎么舍得我难过 虫儿飞 在梅边 飘移 在他乡 太多 天亮了 盖世英雄 我要抱着你 星光游乐园 无尽的爱 以父之名 秋天的童话 天天夜夜 下一站天后 第一滴泪 我真的受伤了 花香 花花公子 我可以抱你吗 珍惜 如果下辈子我还记得你 宣言 黑色幽默 开不了口 温柔的慈悲 情书 一个像夏天一个像秋天 大地 老鼠爱大米 你的微笑 王子归来 受了点伤 一路上有你 见习爱神 累斗累 爱笑的眼睛 爱得太迟 真爱你的云 比我幸福 不顾一切要成功 吹眼睛 离别 分手快乐 谁说喝醉就无所谓 容易受伤的女人 偏偏喜欢你 宝贝对不起 寂寞的季节 让世界充满爱 吹喇叭 冲动的惩罚 特别的爱给特别的你 有你陪着我 世界第一等 等你爱我 你那么爱她 双截棍 电台情歌 胆小鬼 关于你的歌 断了的弦 爱你不是两三天 同桌的你 说爱我 两只小蜜蜂 野百合也有春天 心醉 独立 白桦林 黄昏晓 爱上未来的你 一起走过的日子 不痛 稻草人 青藏高原 命中注定 来生缘 下沙 江湖笑 很爱很爱你 心愿 大城小事 心如刀割 爱在西元前 恋着多喜欢 再回首 萍聚 八十块环游世界 月桂女神 阳光总在风雨后 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 23, 2006 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINKOrder Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanser Ultimate Colon cleanser Posted by: top on November 23, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK 
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly |
||||||
