Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 12, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

PAKISTAN UPDATE....Spencer Ackerman says that U.S. intelligence is increasingly convinced that Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is doomed. So what should we do about this?

The hope — among Pakistani military officers and politicians, to say nothing of U.S. diplomats — is that the increasingly inept and unpopular Musharraf can be eased out of power while the U.S. slowly distances itself from him, allowing for as smooth a transition as is possible in the turbulent South Asian country.

Well, that would be a first. But I suppose the Bush administration is due for a success, aren't they? And this would hardly be the first transition in Pakistan's history that the U.S. has weathered.

Spencer also says something that I've seen increasingly from other analysts as well: that fears of an Islamist takeover if Musharraf departs are overblown:

Not many see the Islamists as able to take control. "One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking," observes [Rob] Richer. "But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."

That's heartening. I just hope it's true.

Kevin Drum 2:07 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I think this is on the right track. Pakistan is insanely corrupt and the people that control access to the corridors of power are the business elite and the military, neither of which are interested in Islamism (though branches of the intelligence services do look the other way with some radical groups when it suits their purposes). The Islamists control some pockets of the country, particularly the poor countryside and they do have some clout in the parliament. Musharaff's demise would probably hearten the Islamic radicals, but his replacement is likely to be just another strongman in the same mold.

Posted by: jonas on June 12, 2007 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

we should nuke the Paki's nukes, so they won't get in the hands of religious fanatics.

Posted by: Name: on June 12, 2007 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

You know, everybody is so concerned that N Korea or Iran or east bullfinch nowhere is going to get nukes, I mean seriously, what are they going to do with them. Attack the US? Huh?

In case most Americans don't know it, heads of state live a good life, suicide bombers don't, that is the difference. Heads of state don't stick their head in the tigers mouth, they have too much to lose. Didn't you see Hussein scrambling like a mother to show the inspectors he had nothing, right up to the time buttboy destroyed his country? Heads of state don't commit suicide, attacking the US with nukes is suicide.

You think OBL would be alive today if AQ hit the US with a nuke. No way. Buttboy would have no chance of re-election in 04 if they had used a nuke and he didn't get OBL. NO WAY. Regardless of how much oil his daddy has.

The only way the scum skated on the whole deal was that it was NY; the mouth breathers actually enjoyed that part of the deal. If it was Mississippi, OBL's head would have to have been delivered on a stick.

Posted by: NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

But I suppose the Bush administration is due for a success, aren't they?

No. Past performance is the best predictor of future performance...so this will be worse than anyone can imagine.

Posted by: Max Power on June 12, 2007 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK

Pakistan is the most dangerous country on the face of the planet and has been since the mid-1980s. If the Bush Administration had any ability whatsoever to assess risk, they would have focused like a laser on this country after 9-11. The ISI, Pakistan's secret police, aided and abetted the mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, including a young rebel by the name of Usama bin Laden. We should have been working to de-nuclearize the country and put a secular, democratically elected president in place. But of course, the damn hypocritical fools in the Bush White House propped up the tinhorn unelected dictator Musharraf, setting the stage for the first nuclear-armed Islamic calpihate. No good will come of this...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 12, 2007 at 5:50 AM | PERMALINK

We should hope that the Islamist won't take control, but I'm not sure we should be so confident that it it won't happen. Nobody really foresaw Ayatollah Khomeini taking over in Iran, either. I'd be more confident if there was an obvious successor.

Posted by: fostert on June 12, 2007 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, that seems like naive wishful thinking. To bet that people won't vote against their economic self-interest? Get real.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on June 12, 2007 at 6:49 AM | PERMALINK

NUKE wrote...
Didn't you see Hussein scrambling like a mother to show the inspectors he had nothing, right up to the time buttboy destroyed his country?

Uh, no. He did the opposite. He refused to come completely clean and obstructed the inspectors when (it appears now) he didn't need to becasue he had nothing to hide. And then he had to go hide in a spider hole while his boys were hunted down like the vermin they were, and now he's dead too.

Posted by: anti-NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 7:01 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

All we've been seeing the last few years from you liberals is: "Why is Bush concentrating on Afghanistand and Iraq? Pakistan is the most dangerous. Just think what would happen is the islamists took power in that country with all those nukes. Why isn't Bush doing something."

Now we see that Bush was right to take a hands of attitude toward Pak-land. Now Kevin is flip floping on this issue. But let the record show: Kevin was wrong. KEVIN WAS WRONG!!!

Posted by: egbert on June 12, 2007 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

We should have been working to de-nuclearize the country and put a secular, democratically elected president in place. But of course, the damn hypocritical fools in the Bush White House propped up the tinhorn unelected dictator Musharraf, setting the stage for the first nuclear-armed Islamic calpihate.

Pakistan was working on the bomb since the 70s, supposedly had the capability to explode one in the mid-80s, and actually tested them in 1998. It would have been a whole hell of a lot easier to keep the genie in the bottle then to try to put it back in.

For that matter, Musharraf took power in October 1999 following all kinds of disfunctionals. Again, the time to force/coerce/trick the Paks into adopting a modern secular government and stop acting like yahoos (hey, you're sounding like a neocon!) was back in the 90s. We reap in the 2000s what we sowed in the 80s and 90s.

Posted by: anti-NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

"One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking"

That's right. In wealthy countries, corrupt and self-interested political leaders simply manipulate religious fundamentalists into supporting their rise to power.

"the increasingly inept and unpopular Musharraf can be eased out of power while the U.S. slowly distances itself from him"

What's the purpose of distancing ourselves? I'm pretty sure that Pakistani's aren't going to forget our ties to the man and I'm pretty sure it will register as a foreign policy failure in the US (regardless of any 2007 State Department spin). I also figure the new guy won't be soliciting any public displays of affection from the Bush administration. So what gives?

Seems to me this is the intelligence community is living with a pre-911 mindset where the US isn't completely distrusted by muslim nations and the president isn't considered a complete bafoon on the foreign policy front.

Posted by: B on June 12, 2007 at 7:21 AM | PERMALINK

But I suppose the Bush administration is due for a success, aren't they?

Jeebus, the whole reason Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is in hot water to begin with was because Musharrah had anything at all to do with the oil loving Bushies to start with. If the Mideast wants freedom, they simply CANNOT make deals with Western oil Companies and their government loyalist like the Bushies and the Clintons.

With all this talk about "our interested in region" as Ted Koppel honestly talked about last night on NPR, of how Ms Hillary Clinton is NOT planning on leave Iraq at all either.

She already stated that she would leave some troops there, you know, at Bushies billion dollar military bases - that simply cannot be done. Iraqis are entitled to control their own oil, their own wealth. America would NEVER allow some outside country to control our resources, nor should the Mideast let the US control it's resources.

This commentary from Middle East Times says what all the people of Mideast already know – American is not ever leaving Iraq.

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Claude Salhani, Middle East Times
June 12, 2007

According to Koppel, Clinton said she would bring the troops home. She did not say she would bring "all" the troops home. Indeed there is a very distinct, and subtle difference between bringing some troops home and bringing all the troops home.

Still according to Koppel, Hillary Clinton is reported to have told a retiring Pentagon official that she would not be surprised if American forces were still in Iraq at the end of her second term in office, if she were reelected. That means nine years from now. Nine long years during which time many more American servicemen and women are likely to lose their lives.

That's right, the other president who lied about WMD was Bill Clinton BUT we already know that by now, it hasn't just been Bushie's lie, it was the Clinton's lie too.

The only way the Mideast will EVER know true Freedom will be when Iran gets the their hands on atomic power - its time for us to leave Iraq and stop terrorising these people for control of their oil - it's never been US oil, and it will never be US oil no matter how many Iraqis we kill.

It's time for Americans to sit 12 hours in line at gas pumps, because we, as a nation - let big oil companies, with the help of both the Bushies and Clintons, dictate who we go to war with, what Americans die for, thus failing to plan for the use of more hybrid cars, more renewable energy resources.

We Americans are allowing oil companies to dictate or freedom, and to have sway over the control of our own prosperity and happiness - I'm tired of lies and pretending we are doing the Mideast any favors. I'm tried of presidents who lie to us about what we're really doing in Iraq.

Posted by: Me_again on June 12, 2007 at 7:21 AM | PERMALINK

Anti-nuke; if I ask you to show me the unicorn that you're hiding in your house, your denials would be seen as refusing to come clean and your unhappiness about my intention to poke about in every part of your house would be easy to paint as obstructionist.

Posted by: Neal on June 12, 2007 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

But I suppose the Bush administration is due for a success, aren't they?

Any baseball fan can tell you, a sub .200 hitter is never due for a hit... that's why they are a sub .200 hitter.

Posted by: molly bloom on June 12, 2007 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

We know exactly where anti-Nuke's unicorn is, it's in and around the region 10 meters north of his front door. Wait no, it's almost certainly in the basement. No? And satellite pictures of unicorn droppings. Oh, they're Fido's? And what's this? The unicorn inspector's are claiming that all of the sites we've sent them too are unicorn free. Hold on, anti-Nuke hasn't let us into the jewel chest in his bedroom. We better invade his house. Oops sorry about the wife and daughter, there. Maybe you can stick the head back on the younger one and prop her up against the wall. Son, don't cry. You're now free of your nasty father. We'll let you choose your new father too, he just won't have any authority in the house.

(We have authorative intelligence reports that anti-Nuke's ran his unicorn over to his neighbor's house. We never liked his neighbor neither.)

Posted by: antedeluvian fears on June 12, 2007 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

I've come to the conclusion that Bush is the Waziri candidate, indoctrinated from youth to rise to the highest reaches of power to serve the bin Laden family. Who else has done so much for so few?

Posted by: Neal on June 12, 2007 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Anti-nuke; if I ask you to show me the unicorn that you're hiding in your house, your denials would be seen as refusing to come clean and your unhappiness about my intention to poke about in every part of your house would be easy to paint as obstructionist.
Posted by: Neal

If you asked to see my unicorn, I'd be forced to pump lead into your noggin since you are obviously a jack-booted thug. If the United Nations (i.e., the rest of the countries of the world) asked to see it and I agreed to let them see it and told them I had it and they even saw it once but I say I don't now but now I changed my mind because I want my neighbor to not be sure that I don't in fact not have a unicorn...well, I guess I deserve to spend some time in a spider hole.

Posted by: anti-NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

"One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking," observes [Rob] Richer. "But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."

The Iranian economy was tanking in the '70s at the height of the oil boom? Who knew?

In fact, increased prosperity is often a driving factor for revolutions. With it comes societal dislocations, changes to the social order, etc.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on June 12, 2007 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

In fact, increased prosperity is often a driving factor for revolutions. With it comes societal dislocations, changes to the social order, etc.
Posted by: Jose Padilla

Any examples? None come to mind immediately.

Posted by: anti-NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

1776, 1917, 1979

Posted by: for example on June 12, 2007 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

I just hope it's true.

Hope? Hope is what we have when there's nothing we can do. It's not very hopeful.

Posted by: JJF on June 12, 2007 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

anti-NUKE,

Could you tell us a few of your hilarious Paki jokes?

In the words of Babu Bhatt, the Pakistani restauranteur, ruined by Jerry Seinfeld and forced to be deported because of Elaine's lapse, would say, "anti-NUKE, you are bad, you are a very bad person".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 12, 2007 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

GwB's problem in Pakistan is the typical one for the US. The differences between the ISI and Musharraf are but one facet of the problem. Others include the religious problems between the Sunni majority and the Shia (you go get those nukes, Iran!!); the border state problems including the Sunni fundamentalists, the Pashtuns, the firing of the judge, the nuclear weapons, the Kashmir problem (gee, do you think the agreement w/ India (a non-signatory to the NNPT) to develop their nuclear industry got any attention?), the economy,etc,etc.
GwB and his aides-de-non-compos-mentis simply aren't capable of solving multi-level problems. Let him do what the US often does in a case like this: engineer a coup and get on with dealing with the next strongman. There must be somebody we can buy in that country.

Posted by: TJM on June 12, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

I've come to the conclusion that Bush is the Waziri candidate, indoctrinated from youth to rise to the highest reaches of power to serve the bin Laden family. Who else has done so much for so few?
Just figuring that out? The evidence is obvious:

1. Bush hates our freedoms.
2. When we had bin Laden at Tora Bora, Bush decided to go after bin Laden's arch foe Saddam Hussein instead.
3. Bush is cooperating with the Chinese Pacifica strategy of dividing the U.S. into three weak parts: Aztlan splitting the middle, an Asian west coast, and a polyglot east that is dysfunctional and incapable of commonweal.
4. He initiated a false flag Evangelical/Zionist Crusade against Islam to encourage al-Queda recruitment.

It's pretty obvious Bush is #2 in al-Queda after bin Laden, but acting in the capacity of a mole.

Posted by: Luther on June 12, 2007 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

"One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking," observes [Rob] Richer. "But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."

No, one commmon factor in places where Islamists (or revolutionaries of all stripes) rise to power is increasing income disparity. If investment in Pakistan is rising but that the gains of that rise are concentrated among the wealthy elite, leaving the rest of the country shut out, that will merely exacerbate social tension and unrest.

Posted by: Stefan on June 12, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

"If the Bush Administration had any ability whatsoever to assess risk, they would have focused like a laser on this country after 9-11. The ISI, Pakistan's secret police, aided and abetted the mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, including a young rebel by the name of Usama bin Laden. We should have been working to de-nuclearize the country and put a secular, democratically elected president in place."
_____________________

I'm not certain how we could have done the above without regime change in the same way we did Iraq. Trouble is, doing so would have jeopardized our 700 mile ground logistics line into Afghanistan.

Posted by: Trashhauler on June 12, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK
"But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."

How is that income distributed throughout the population of Pakistan?...Just askin'...

Posted by: grape_crush on June 12, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Find Afghanistan on a map, and determine how much we can distance ourselves from Pakistan.

Posted by: asdfg on June 12, 2007 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

If history has taught us anything, it's that some times, the devil you know is better than the one the CIA replaces him with. Pakistan has been a wild card long before 9/11 and since then has been, IMO, at least a supportive 'ally' in the WOT. Say what you want about Iraq and all the other crap that has been happening in the Middle East over the past 6 years but at the very least the present Pakistani gov't has repeatedly turned over terrorist/al qaeda suspects frequently enough to at least make Musharaf appear to be sympathetic and supportive of US efforts.

And yes, I am fully aware of the variuous human rights abuses that have taken place and the suspension a free press and jurists, especially over the past 6 months. But sometimes you have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Posted by: ny patriot on June 12, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

No, one commmon factor in places where Islamists (or revolutionaries of all stripes) rise to power is increasing income disparity.

Oil is a perfect income disparitizer, since it doesn't really take much labor to get it out of the ground (and that labor is mostly blue collar) so it seems the only way to spread those riches to the people is to give it away, an unnatural human inclination at best.

And no, I don't have any Pak jokes.

Posted by: anti-NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get the obtuseness of every pundit from left to right on the subject of Pakistan.

It's ruled by a dictator. It produces the maximum of number of terrorists. It has nukes.

So what's the hold up? Regime change in Islamabad and a focussed Marshal Plan to bring real democracy to the people of Pakistan is the only right answer.

All this chest beating as if it was as complex as the protein folding problem is bullshit.

Posted by: gregor on June 12, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

It's ruled by a dictator. It produces the maximum of number of terrorists. It has nukes.

And let's not forget that it sponsors international terrorism and has a history of invading its neighbors and committing genocide.

Posted by: Stefan on June 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Spencer Ackerman says that U.S. intelligence is increasingly convinced that Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is doomed. So what should we do about this?"

How about n o t h i n g ? Just for once. From what I remember a lot of the Pakistanis are pretty pissed about Musharraf suspending one of their Supreme Court justices and undermining their rule of law. Democracy might work just dandy for the Middle East if we just let their own people solve their own problems in their own way. Is that self-determination or something like that?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on June 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Not quite a Paki joke, but interesting nonetheless. Fareed Zakaria's father, himself a well known journalist in India, was asked on NPR a few years ago as to why his family did not move to Pakistan at the time of partition. His reply was that it did, but the family found the newly created country to be 'too Muslim', and so went back to India.

Posted by: gregor on June 12, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Not many see the Islamists as able to take control. "One common factor in places where Islamists rise to power is the economy tanking," observes [Rob] Richer. "But in Pakistan investment is taking off. It doesn't have many of the factors that drive religious elements taking power."

WTF? Pakistan is an economic non-starter. It's about one bad cotton harvest away from being a failed state. In the World Bank's 2005 purchasing power rankings, Pakistan was in the lower third of the world with an annual household purchasing power of $2,320/year.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf

Depressingly enough, we are Pakistan's primary export market.

Posted by: JeffII on June 12, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Democracy might work just dandy for the Middle East if we just let their own people solve their own problems in their own way. Is that self-determination or something like that? Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station

Pakistan isn't in the Middle East, and for democracy to work you've got to get religion out of the center of people's lives, and even then there's not guarantee.

Many of the things that Westerners find so abhorrent about Islam aren't Koranic edicts but local tribal nonsense grafted on to Islam. You know, sort of like how Catholicism has always distorted Christianity.

Posted by: JeffII on June 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

There will be a long, and bloody, (and nuclear) conflict, and in the end (is there ever an end?) Pakistan's borders will not be recognizable as they are today (are they recognizable today? Kashmire?) - and I'm guessing that China will be forced to step in as a regional superpower to enforce whatever truce finally ends the war; I think they'll be sick and tired of radioactive clouds drifting over their territory.

The real question is; Will the ChiComs treat Islam in their new, radioactive client states the same way they treat Falun Gong today?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 12, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

The real question is; Will the ChiComs treat Islam in their new, radioactive client states the same way they treat Falun Gong today?
Posted by: osama_been_forgotten

Tibet would be a better analogy.

Posted by: anti-NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Although I dislike religion, all religions, I have to remind myself that I live in a country dominated by religion. Religion is a very big part of America's politics, and we have never had an explicitly secular president or Congress or Supreme Court. So it is amusing for me to read the fears of other Americans, regardless of their polical leaning, about the religiosity of other nations, as if their religion was somehow more oppressive than our own. What especially bothers me, is that this fear of the other's religion allows my fellow citizens to think they can disallow another nation democratic principles. My fellow citizens play this game not because of the righteousness of their beliefs, but because of the might of their military.

Just because Pakistan might initiate Sharia law into its governance, does not mean that that government would do a worse job of promoting the comnmonwealth than past governments.

Posted by: Brojo on June 12, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Although I dislike religion, all religions, I have to remind myself that I live in a country dominated by religion.

Dominated? Really? Influenced for sure, but I'm not seeing any analogy in the US of A to the Mullahs of Iran at the top of the deciders, for example. Or the official Imams of Egypt who issue government-sanctioned fatwas.

Religion is a very big part of America's politics, and we have never had an explicitly secular president or Congress or Supreme Court. So it is amusing for me to read the fears of other Americans, regardless of their polical leaning, about the religiosity of other nations, as if their religion was somehow more oppressive than our own.

Which of our own religions do you mean? Mormonism? Catholicism? Protestants? Judaism?

I assume from your comments that you feel all religions are equally oppressive? Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc.?

Just because Pakistan might initiate Sharia law into its governance, does not mean that that government would do a worse job of promoting the comnmonwealth than past governments.
Posted by: Brojo

Not sure what "promoting the commonwealth" has to do with anything, but are you OK with stoning to death as the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery? That's your Sharia for you. A thousand years of tradition unhindered by progress.

Posted by: anti-NUKE on June 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo you take the wrong track on this issue. When our fellow citizens object to religion playing any role in the governance of another nation, we should all say Amen, and use the opportunity to promote the idea that our politics should be free of religion as well.

Posted by: gregor on June 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

IIRC something like 85% of Pakistanis don't want Islamists to be running things.

If we want a counter-balance to Pakistan, why not cultivate Iran?

Posted by: Horatio Parker on June 12, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Dominated?

The US has the largest prison population in the world. I think that is because of the religiosity of its citizens, whose belief in punishment is derived from their theology.

Which

Christianism.

equally oppressive?

Well, since the US has the most political prisoners (drugs) and probably more death penalties than any other country, I guess I could qualify that and say Christianity is more oppressive. The Killing Fields of Cambodia were created by Buddhists, though. The Nazi death camps were operated by baptized and Catechized Christians. The Mahatma was assassinated by Hindus. Moslems have probably killed on this scale, too, but the only example that comes to mind is the genocide of the Armenians, but their killlers may have been secular. Nationalism is a kind of belief system.

OK with stoning to death

Of course not. My point is that even with Sharia, a popular Pakistani government might provide more utility to the entire country than what any previous government has. Since it has never been tried, we do not know. I would say Iran is better off now than with the Shah. That does not mean I encourage or accept inhumane treatment of individuals.

gregor, I appreciate your point of view.

Posted by: Brojo on June 12, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

"...Pakistan isn't in the Middle East, and for democracy to work you've got to get religion out of the center of people's lives, and even then there's not guarantee..."
Posted by: JeffII on June 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Not in the Middle East, yes. But, who the hell are we to be telling OTHERS "how democracy is supposed to work" for them?? We've been on this foreign policy micromanagement power trip since WWII (esp.) and it hasn't yielded us many dividends. Meddling in other's affairs has cost us more than it has benefited us. The Soviet economic model was doomed to collapse sooner or later anyway. The Iraqi misadventure has just dropped us several rungs on the political capital rating scale. Who (and I mean the populace of the country in question) is going to take us seriously now?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on June 13, 2007 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

Anti-Nuke:

Try Russia for starters.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on June 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

nueklo dhnzxglj qilfd eryhv syebmv xozu xigflu

Posted by: dlpyrinz dopntjre on January 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

afsdloh vgpkqjoxy mjrpqucox vpujc bwxikm wxspceou vspjdkc http://www.lyme.mjcpakly.com

Posted by: cnwd ljwds on January 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

yzvltcrg eyvpnkw nyel vwubiof yowcr eqdkugtl swnhgljvp [URL=http://www.inwbp.rlhspgjf.com]fdwy thonwfj[/URL]

Posted by: ndku pbrave on January 9, 2008 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

kusmijxp ebuisnm qtzeso lbfzotsya tmrxjqgf pfyea erwxuy [URL]http://www.qcaoipjdn.uachtg.com[/URL] tygrz zkfcqnpu

Posted by: uznqkt xajnqc on January 9, 2008 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

Are you sure that ur PC free spyware and other *hit?Are you protected from PC-spy?TAKE A LOOK HERE AND SCAN YOUR PC HERE AT OUR SITE!
>>> anti virus software review

scan

Posted by: buy antivirus on July 5, 2008 at 4:30 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