 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 28, 2006
By: SUMMONING CHENEY... Two days ago, Laura Rozen wondered why the White House was being so cryptic about Vice President Cheney's trip to Riyadh on Saturday to meet with Saudi King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan. Today, Robin Wright and Tom Ricks of The Washington Post provide the answer:
Pathetic. The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to. Speaking of Laura, looks like she was also right when she reported almost two weeks ago that the administration was debating the merits of throwing its full support behind the Shias as a way to settle the growing violence in Iraq. From the same Washington Post piece today: —Paul Glastris 11:56 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (75) Comments
Golly, was it any surprise? The truly odd thing is that the Saudis waited until now to register their protests. Cheney may want the Saudis to support the double-or-nothing strategy of attacking Iran. It would be interesting to know whether they laughed at the idea or took it seriously. Posted by: troglodyte on November 28, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKHow much control do the Saudi's even have on world oil prices anymore? I think as much as Cheney has on the outcome in Iraq. Maybe they'll just cry on each others' shoulders. Or go hunting. Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 28, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKIt must be bizarre for the Penguin to answer to anybody. Just more of the enfeebling that's going on in Washington. And the Preznit says Al Qaeda is responsible for all the violence in Iraq. Guess he is their de facto new leader, then. Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKThat's an interesting characterization. If Cheney didn't go, would you praise that, or criticize the Bush administration for not doing diplomacy? And, of course, the 'characterization' comes from unnamed sources, making them entirely unaccountable for their words, if not outright fictitious. Posted by: American Hawk on November 28, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINKEvidently somebody got to AH's post before he could click the button and deleted all the substance. Posted by: Bird Watcher on November 28, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINKWould you rather choke to death or burn to death in a fire? C'mon - pick a winner. Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 28, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINKJust Love that word summoned. I also like heel, stay, fetch, situp, rollover, and beg. Posted by: lthethirdPaul on November 28, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK"Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to..." Nothing to see here, move along. The Israelis can summon Bush, Cheney and/or the entire US congress at the drop of a hat. Down the memory hole... anyone remember VERY early in the Bush II regime when George started making some comments about starting a serious peace initiative in Palestine that included dismantling settlements? As I recall, he 'got the phone call' immediately and that effort went out the window literally the next day. Dunno when or how the American people can regain control of their political system from big money. The longer it goes on, the bigger the bang is going to be when it all falls down.
But which Shias will be picked? SCIRI? Then the Iranians win. Sadr? Then the US loses. Nice choice. Posted by: Dick Durata on November 28, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINKAnd, of course, the 'characterization' comes from unnamed sources, making them entirely unaccountable for their words, if not outright fictitious. If only you had exercised that high bar of skepticism in the run-up to the war. Posted by: Pennypacker on November 28, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKA better name for the "pick a winner" strategy is Operation Genocide. Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKDamn it all, Paul,you beat me to it. I also like heel, stay, fetch, situp, rollover, and beg. - Posted by: thethirdPaul
But which Shias will be picked? SCIRI? Then the Iranians win. Sadr? Then the US loses. Nice choice How about option 3? Install a dictator and his repressive govenment to keep the factions at peace with each other? Maybe Saddam Hussein is available! Posted by: Ray Waldren on November 28, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKsupport behind the Shias as a way to settle the growing violence in Iraq Supporting Sadr is the only thing that will save our military stationed in Iraq. And time is running out even for that. Sadr may determine he does not need the US to run Iraq. Posted by: Hostile on November 28, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKSaudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats. Wait, you mean they didn't want to give the presidental face, Bush, a stern talking-to? So I guess they went straight to the source of Whitehouse policy. BUT Talking to Dick Cheney must be like talking to a nightmare, Dick only has one game, his game, Saudi would have to play his game are just not play. I'm sure it was like talking to a fricking brick wall and just as productive too. Posted by: Cheryl on November 28, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKI have a feeling Dick is like most bullies and loses the bluster when the superior bully so much as glares. He's a whole different beast in the presence of the Saudi royals than he is in the U.S. Senate. Posted by: Pissed-off, armed and pre-menopausal (you were saying?) on November 28, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKA better name for the "pick a winner" strategy is Operation Genocide. We're already there. Watch the BBC Channel 4 documentary on the Death Squads. We already roll over for them. Negroponte probably helped set them up when he was over there. As the neocons now see it, we have two choices: 2. Stay for another 10 years, and hundreds of thousands of sunnis will be "arrested" "interrogated" and later found in the streets with drill-holes, only this will happen at a much slower rate; bonus: Halliburton can continue to sell us raw sewage for our troops to drink at $8 billion per month. The only reason #1 is attractive to the neocons, is that they can blame it on the Liberal Backstabbers. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKpartly related, an article on expansion of oil refining in the U.S., partly financed by Saudi Arabia: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4363797.html For military purposes, the U.S. should work toward fuel sufficiency. Then no one will care what the House of Saud thinks about anything. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 28, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINKI agree with the "pick a winner" strategy, actually. But it would be better for the US to leverage its support for either side by telling the "winner" that it has to either cutall ties with Iran and Hezbollah (Shi'ites), or cut them with Al Qaeda, and Syria (Sunnis). Otherwise, it's a deal breaker. Then, you tell them we are going to pick a side and kick major ass unless they reconcile and make peace. Posted by: Hesiod on November 28, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK>>partly related, an article on expansion of oil refining in the U.S., partly financed by Saudi Arabia:
Hesiod wrote, ...or cut them with Al Qaeda, and Syria (Sunnis). What makes you think the Syrians back the Sunnis? (1) Syria is currently allied with Iran. Pathetic. The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to. A hint of a threat to turn off the oil spigot is all it takes... Posted by: e. nonee moose on November 28, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK>>A hint of a threat to turn off the oil spigot is all it takes... Me, I'd place my bets on the fact that the dollar is looking really shaky (gee, why would that be?) and they're holding a shit load of 'em. 'Course Cheney's long since moved his $150M into non-US$ denominated investments off-shore. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINKYes, they dutifully lowered oil prices before the election and now they are calling to say we're done. They're just not that into us anymore. Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKMany of you think we should agree to one-on-one talks with Iran and North Korea with no pre-conditions. Yet, you whine when we talk to Saudi Arabia. In short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies. Sorry, I think that's backwards. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKPrince Abdullah summons Cheney! A Cheney appears! Command?
In short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies. Sorry, I think that's backwards. What is it? Opposite day? That's exactly what Cheney did when he was summoned to Saudi Arabia, dumbass. As far as stiffing out allies, hello? Who denigrated 'old Europe?' Wasn't it that guy Rumsfeld who just had to resign in disgrace? Posted by: Pale Rider on November 28, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK>>Wait, if we pick the Shia won't the Sunni Saudis be even MORE angry? Ya think? Roughly 80% of the world's Moslems are Sunni. But Pakistan will eventually get Kashmir which was the goal all along, right. China is pleased. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINKWhat is it? Opposite day? Nope, just a typically dishonest "ex-liberal" straw man. Notice that his/her/its preceding sentence was, er, misleadingly phrased as well. I am grateful to "ex-liberal," though, for demonstrating once again that there's no honest means of defending the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence and corruption. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINKPale Rider implies that the Bush/Cheney Administration was wrong when it criticized our allies in Europe, and was also wrong when it was nice to our ally in the Middle East. Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINKYes, ex-thinker, it's backwards, like most of your logic. The point is precisely that we kow-tow to our enemiesmasquerading as alliesand stiff ourselves. Anyway, we don't actually have allies anymore. In case you haven't noticed, everyone in the world and most of the US really, really hates George Dead Man Walking Bush. Blair is done, too, you know. But perhaps the weather is nice in your Fantasy World. Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKPathetic. The American People are so stupid we elected two oil men to the highest offices in the land. Twice. Posted by: Boronx on November 28, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK>>>In short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies. Do you prefer the approach of starting a pointless war that you mismanage, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, Al Qaeda moving into a country, and billions of dollars in debt? The only appropriate Conservative approach at this point is apology and suicide. The first bill Democrats should pass in Congress is to ban all of the red states from the Electoral College. Can we at least agree that Conservatives are bad people? Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKIn short, the liberal approach is to kow-tow to our enemies and stiff our allies. When did Saudi Arabia become our ally? When have they ever done something that supported us that wasn't even more in their own interest? When did they start to crack down on religious zealotry? When did they stop funding the anti-western schools they have been paying for? What nationality was the nost common of the 9/11 hijackers? Saudi Arabia has been far more dangerous to the United States than North Korea or Iran have ever been. Posted by: freelunch on November 28, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKPale Rider implies that the Bush/Cheney Administration was wrong when it criticized our allies in Europe "ex-liberal" was for stiffing out allies before he/she/it was against it, you see. and was also wrong when it was nice to our ally in the Middle East. "Nice to our ally in the Middle East." I love it. "ex-liberal" is so bereft of a defense of Cheney's kowtowing to the House of Saud that he/she/it has to redefine it to this extent. 'Nuff said. Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do. Yes, their record pretty well supports this premise. It does not, alas, support your defense of them. Thank you, though, for demonstrating once again that there's no honest means of defending the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence and corruption. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINKThe largest political group in Iran is the Sadr City Shi'a. They will most likely prevail in obtaining political power over the nation of Iraq. They may not be the preferred ally, but they are the eventual winners in Iraq because of their demographic and will. The US can join with them to pound the Sunnis into submission, join with the Sunnis and attempt to pound the Shi'a into submission, as Saddam did, keep the course and risk all out destruction of its forces on the ground or withdraw and let the people fight it out. Letting the people fight it out leaves many poor outcomes available, including the overthrow of the Saudi royalty, which might be a good thing. I think the least amount of death and suffering and geo-political upheaval is with the Shi'a alliance option. I am sorry for the loss of life of any group and would have preferred the US not invade Iraq, but once the invasion happened the political hegemony of the Shi'a in Iraq was an almost certainty. The alliance with the Shi'a should have been the first thing the US did after Saddam's downfall. Consociational democracy was never going to work in a tribal society which suffered decades of Baathist dictatorship. Posted by: Hostile on November 28, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKThe first bill Democrats should pass in Congress is to ban all of the red states from the Electoral College. Maybe we could declare the Confederacy the victors in their rebellion and kick them back out of the Union. Sure, they have oil, but we can always buy that from somewhere else. Posted by: freelunch on November 28, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINKWell, disarray in Junior's administration notwithstanding, at least "the twins" are projecting The Argentinean press blitz followed a report on "The Blotter" last week that Barbara Bush's purse and cell phone were stolen last weekend while dining at the popular San Telmo outdoor marketplace despite being guarded by the Secret Service. Stories of the twins' visit took on wild proportions in the Argentinean press. One tabloid headline had the young women running nude in the hallway of their hotel, a report the hotel staff denied to ABC News. According to sources, the U.S. embassy encouraged the two girls to cut their stay short because the added attention was making their security very difficult. But to the dismay and anger of some U.S. embassy and security staff, the girls stayed on. Duuuuude! Posted by: barrisj on November 28, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINKCan we at least agree that Conservatives are bad people?
Fiscal irresponsibility is not conservative. Suspending Habeus Corpus is not conservative. Unprovoked invasions of countries is not conservative. Posted by: Shared Humanity on November 28, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKApparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
People used to say "At least the Nazis built the Autobahn". But that was because they needed wider roads to move tanks over. I can't think of a Bush/Cheney move that was even THAT sensible. Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK>>Maybe we could declare the Confederacy the victors in their rebellion and kick them back out of the Union. Sure, they have oil, but we can always buy that from somewhere else. You and the horse you rose in on. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINKI wonder if Cheney held hands - or is that little disrespect reserved for Bush? Posted by: Tripp on November 28, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK>>>People used to say "At least the Nazis built the Autobahn". At least Cheney shot a Republican lawyer in the face. At least Bush didn't throw up in any emperor's lap. Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINKAt least Brownie did a heckuva job. At least we were greeted as liberators. At least Abu Ghraib was perpetrated by a few bad apples. At least the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husband's deaths. At least George Bush only drinks near-beer. Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINKApparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do. Hey, you can learn! Posted by: craigie on November 28, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKThere is nothing conservative about these people. Fiscal irresponsibility is not conservative. Suspending Habeus Corpus is not conservative. Unprovoked invasions of countries is not conservative. Frankly, I disagree. The above positions may not be "conservative" in the common English language of that word as a synonym for prudent, careful, etc. But "conservative" as a right-wing political philosopy generally does correlate with favoring the rich over the poor and middle class, militarism, and an assault on civil rights. Posted by: Stefan on November 28, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINKAt least Bush discredited the Republican Party and gave Democrats control of Congress. Top that, Liberal Blogosphere! Posted by: reino on November 28, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINKSubstitute "authoritarian" for "conservative" and you will have correctly framed the politics. There is nothing conservative about these people. Fiscal irresponsibility is authoritarian. Suspending Habeus Corpus is authoritarian. Unprovoked invasions of countries is authoritarian. Posted by: bellumregio on November 28, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINKPicking one side in a civil war (or in this case one faction of one side--there is no cohesive "side" for either Shiite or Sunni)in order to pound the other side into submission/compliance/surrender will result in a couple of definite consequences: 1. Mass slaughter, probably to the point of complicity in genocide (honestly, this is what picking one side and "pounding" the other means) 2. Mass outrage among Sunni Muslims worldwide--even more outraged than they are now, that is. The consequences of the outrage will almost certainly escalate the violence and the killing, whether through increasingly desparate fighting in Iraq, increased terrorism directed at the US, or general chaos spreading through the streets of other Arab countries and destabilizing governments, or all of the above. Yep. That sounds like a great idea. It may possibly be the only course worse than the one we are currently on. Which one of these clowns thought of what is probably the only way to increase the violence in the region beyond the almost unimaginable level it is at now? I mean, really, honestly, this can't be serious. Posted by: Sinister eyebrow on November 28, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKThe problem as I see it is that if Bush and Cheney are courting Saudi support (or following Joe Lieberman's advice and getting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan in the mix), then the Bush administration is going to be picking the side of the Iraqi civil war that Al Qaeda is on. Today's Washington Post included a graf that states that Al Qaeda has become a stabilizing force in Anbar province. It appears they have a dog in this fight and it's the same dog as Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that picking sides is going to mean which enemy of the US is Bush going to start working alongside - Al Qaeda or Iran. Posted by: Matt Browner Hamlin on November 28, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKAt least liberals are now as anxious to own guns as conservatives. Posted by: cowalker on November 28, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINKkenji: And the Preznit says Al Qaeda is responsible for all the violence in Iraq. Guess he is their de facto new leader, then. If al Qaeda hasn't yet presented the Preznit with an honorary title (whatever the Arabic is for Honorary Commander of al Qaeda Recruitment for Life) they are simply not giving credit where credit is due. Posted by: cowalker on November 28, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINKAt least liberals are now as anxious to own guns as conservatives. Some of us always were. ex-lib writes: Right, it's okay to criticize our freely elected democratic allies in Europe, but it's wrong to criticize a dictatorship where the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Right, it's okay to criticize our freely elected democratic allies in Europe, but it's wrong to criticize a dictatorship where the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Obviously, something to do with the depletion of North Seas oil reserves. Or ours. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINKSinister eyebrow, you make good points, but the last few decades of Sunni rule was achieved with mass murder. It seems to be the Sunni neighbors of Iraq whose reaction you are fearful of. That is a legitimate concern, but I do not know if that should be our major concern. I think our major concern ought to be preserving as many Iraqi lives as possible. Iraq is mostly Shi'a. I think no matter what happens, short of the genocide of the Shi'a, they will prevail to become the dominate political force in Iraq. Bush has created a no win situation. If we help the Shi'a subdue the Sunnis we alienate other ME Sunnis. If we help the Sunnis, we go against the demographic tide and have to use Saddam-like tactics to subdue the Shi'a. If we stay our troops may be annihilated by both Sunni and Shi'a. If we leave will the other players in the region fill the vacuum, and/or Iraq become the rogue state neo-conmen fear. If our military is destroyed by staying, Iraq's fate will have a similar outcome as leaving. Perhaps if we leave the sectarian fighting will subside after a few bloody battles and the people will weary of fighting amongst themselves or perhpas the fighting will escalate and destroy all other ME nations. There are no good choices. Posted by: Hostile on November 28, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKWho knows whats going on? China is now Saudi Arabias largest customer while the US share of Saudi exports has declined. This coupled with American unpopularity in the Middle East and the American penchant for dictating domestic polices has weakened the long-standing special relationship between the Saudis and the United States. Chinese imports have also increase and so has direct Saudi investment in China. Abdullahs first trip as king was to China and India. Asia is shrinking the influence of the US and the western alliance. The Cheney administration is just accelerating the process by actually tipping the scales in the direction of ultra-conservatives like Prince Sultan who are anti-Washington in every way. Posted by: bellumregio on November 28, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKDid think it was a nice touch for Dick to swing by Dubai and muck some stalls for the Sheikhs. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 28, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK"Pathetic. The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to." Goodness, we (Right Wing Neocon imbeciles, actually) really ARE beholden to middle east oil!! Why is it that Right Wingers hate America? . Posted by: KG on November 28, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINKSounds as though Cheney's doing to the Saudi's what Monica did for Clinton . . . . . Posted by: KG on November 28, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINKSeeing that all of the traditional US allies in the region are Sunni (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi), and with Cheney's stubbornly hawkish view on Iran, if we did choose sides it seems like we would be with the Sunnis. By working covertly with the Saudis and other Sunnis in the region, Cheney could make an attempt at ousting Maliki, crushing the Shia militias from both the air and the ground, and set up his showdown with Iran. Not that any of that would be positive for our country, just that it follows logic after the democratic interlude of our mission tipped the scales unfavorably for us in Cheney's view, and now must be corrected... Posted by: Stefan Markey on November 28, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK"There are no good choices." Yup. Once you've driven the car off the cliff, it really doesn't matter which way the car ends up facing -- it's still going to hit the ground in the end. Of course, Michael Ledeen over at The Corner thinks he has the answer: attack Iran and Syria. You see, those two countries are "fragile, brittle, and anxious" and once we attack, "revolution could erupt." Man, what is it with these people and their complete disconnection from reality? Posted by: PaulB on November 28, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINKArent' there some Mandaeans or Zoroastrians we could take sides with instead? Posted by: B on November 28, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKI favor backing a Ba'Hai contingent myself. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK'The U.S. government is so weak that the Saudis can summon our veep for a stern talking-to.' Wrong, the Bush administration is so compromised they can be summoned to Saudi Arabia. Things have gone too-far for them, the risk is affecting them now, they don't like that. But consider that all-but-two of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and middle class professionals. The whole-thing stinks of involvement by the Saudi ruling-clans. If, and I say 'if', because the 27-pages that were withheld of the 9/11 Commission's findings involve Saudi-involvement that would hurt the Bush administration. We MIGHT see these documents come-to-light if the Democrats don't hold any connections to the same-interests, but they want to save the office of President. That's why it won't go as far as it should. Class-loyalties usurp genuine patriotic-ones. But in the case of the Bush administration, it's probably also a matter of mutual-blackmailing. Only now, the Saudis probably rightly-assume that the Cheney-gang are done-for anyway. ex-lib writes: Pale Rider implies that the Bush/Cheney Administration was wrong when it criticized our allies in Europe, and was also wrong when it was nice to our ally in the Middle East. Apparently Bush/Chenry are always wrong, no matter what they do.
American ChickenHawk, I'm a little late with this but how do you show your face around here when all the pre-election Hmp. Last week it was the Colorado Attorney-General, now it's the Vice-President. Who could possibly be next? Posted by: Solomon2 on November 28, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 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 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 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 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 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 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 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 29, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINKmatthew marler: For military purposes, the U.S. should work toward fuel sufficiency. Then no one will care what the House of Saud thinks about anything.
Summoned for a stern talkng to? Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
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 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
