Moral Seriousness

If politicians who need to stand for election choose to put the most-politically-palatable possible spin on that policy view rather than the most exactingly accurate one, I don't think that's seriously problematic.

God forbid we live in a country where citizens are treated like adults and told the most exactingly accurate reason decisions are made. You wonder why so many pundits and reporters parroted the Administration's lies before the illegal invasion of Iraq while continuing the same tradition(or at least advocating it). What was the WMD argument(or the changing justifications) but the "most-politically-palpable possible spin?"

I am an advocate of the we give up position in the Middle East - immediate withdrawal, regional talks, reopening commercial relationships with Iran and Syria, the whole bit. But I disagree with this: "On the issue Beinart raises, I agree with him. The "blame the Iraqis" account of the war is somewhat offensive and factually misguided. That said, it's a lot less misguided than continuing the war. If politicians who need to stand for election choose to put the most-politically-palatable possible spin on that policy view rather than the most exactingly accurate one, I don't think that's seriously problematic."

I think it is seriously problematic because, of course, we aren't going to withdraw from Iraq. We might withdraw all troops from Iraq, true, but just as we have interests in, say, Pakistan, without having troops there, we have definite interests in the Persian Gulf. Finding convenient political phrases, or simply repressing our history in a region, seems to lead to continual disaster. Thus, for instance, in retrospect it is easy to see that the Reaganite designation of the Afghan jihadist guerrillas as freedom fighters disguised a policy that created a network for paramilitaries and a mindset for attacking superpowers - in the first instance the Soviet Union, and in the second instance, the U.S. - all of which occured without any real criticism in this country.

Of course, Beinart is an idiot, and his notion that the U.S. should frankly call its actions immoral and announce its defeat would be more impressive if he called the chastised those warhawks that advocated making a criminal like Chalabi the face of the occupation and spent all of their time, in 2003, while Iraq was becoming a place of screwy AEI economic policies, massive corruption, and a domain for revenging the petty vanities of Iraqi exiles upon the population as a whole, trying to morally incriminate the anti-war side. At least he might have the decency to call the editorial policies of tnr by the right name: murderously criminal.

Blaming the Iraqis for the steaming turd that is their situation is more offensive to me than blaming the media or even the American public. We invaded their country, bombed it to smithereens, allowed chaos to reign (in the name of untidy freedom), disbanded their police and all semblance of security, let basic services rot and disappear, and now we're pissed that they haven't gotten their act together?

That spin isn't just not exactingly accurate; it's morally bankrupt.

The idea that it's the Iraqis fault is of course totally bogus. We never see coverage about this, but how is society supposed to function when you can't deliver electricity in Baghdad for more than two and a goddamned half hours a day!? (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/iraq-electricity/).

If there were actually somebody other than Bush in charge, I'd say launch an Iraqi WPA-type program (to give an alternative to "working" as an insurgent to feed your family) and provide the resources necessary to restore services in the city and throughout the country -- but there's nothing good that's going to result while Bush is in charge, so we must bail ASAP.

"If there were actually somebody other than Bush in charge, I'd say launch an Iraqi WPA-type program (to give an alternative to "working" as an insurgent to feed your family) and provide the resources necessary to restore services in the city and throughout the country"

And I'd agree with you - if we could have a TIME MACHINE along with it to go back to 2003 immediately post invasion and implement said plan when it would have actually done some good, instead of letting the Provisional Authority treat Iraq reconstruction as a sandbox for their libertarian economic ideas and the reconstruction funds as personal piggy banks to embezzle money from.

Absent a working time machine, we should probably stick to things that will actually work with the facts as they are on the ground at the moment.

While more and more people are warming up to the notion that Bush's Iraq adventure is a colossal disaster, we are apparently still far away from a discussion -- much less repudiation -- of the true cause of it: the whole notion preventive/preëmptive war. Invading Iraq was immoral, criminal, and stupid. Until Bush, Cheney, and crew are held accountable, this country cannot truly move forward.

It depends on what you mean by "blame the Iraqis". If you want to say that it's not morally their "fault" that things have turned out this way, that if Americans were in the same situation things would be just as bad or worse--well, of course.

If you want to say that if America had done something different after invasion then Iraqis would have succeeded in building a stable democracy without Saddam--well that's a totally different, much harder argument to make.

"Blame the Beinarts" is a morally serious, politically palatable, and empirically supported course of action, and we should all get to it. "Blame the Packers" is a similarly serious course of action -- his most recent New Yorker bit was the height of moral unseriousness, he's a third-rate thinker, and he got the Iraquis into this mess.

The idea that it's the Iraqis fault is of course totally bogus. We never see coverage about this, but how is society supposed to function when you can't deliver electricity in Baghdad for more than two and a goddamned half hours a day!? (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/iraq-electricity/).

The ThinkProgress chart appears to be incorrect, at least based on the Brookings data upon which they purport to base the chart.

I agree with a lot of the above comments. It might seem better to let politicians blame the Iraqis as political cover so they can support withdrawal.

However, this is just too depraved to let it stand. I don't mind politicians fudging things a little bit. But the ethnocentric, jingoistic thinking that underlies these comments are part of the reason they got us into this mess.

Beinart and MY are both correct that, to the extent the "It's the Iraqis' fault" argument seeks to absolve the US of blame, it's totally misguided. But "fault" is not a zero-sum game. It's not either our fault, or the Iraqis, it can certainly be both. And while I take a back seat to no one in laying blame on us Americans (and of course, Bush in particular) for this mess, I can't see my way to say that the Iraqi people, and their highly sectarian inclinations, don't bear some responsibility as well. Of course, there are those Iraqis who don't (or at least didn't initially) want to buy into the Shia/Sunni/Kurd antagonisms, and for those Iraqis I am truly sorrowful. But the evidence certainly suggests to me that the percentage of Iraqis who saw themselves as Shia/Sunni/Kurd first, and Iraqis second -- and for whom peaceful coexistence was not a terribly high priority -- is pretty high.

part of the problem seems to me that punditry is focused on answering questions interestingly instead of asking interesting questions. Perhaps these people don't have a formed opinion on withdrawal. Writing about their struggle to form one would be a heck of alot more helpful and interesting than the meta-commentary crap that you so ably point out, Matt. The problem is that doing so would put blood in the water, and if there's one thing the pundit class wants to avoid, it's looking like an idiot.

I favor withdrawal, personally, but I can't tell you for a certainty that it's the best policy. No one can. There's no guarantee that things won't get much much worse when we start leaving than they already are, or that they won't get dramatically better if we stay. There's just information and opinions drawn on that information (or, in the Bush administration, there's opinions formed on no information at all, it seems). I think that, given the information and options we have right now, withdrawing seems like the best of many terrible options. But if I were a pundit, I'd have to say "Withdrawal is absolutely the best thing to do, and all who disagree with me are fucktarded".

matthew, i think you're busy learning, in real time, what drove so many anti-vietnam war folks so bat-shit crazy 40 years ago: it was perfectly clear that the US couldn't "win" anything worth winning. It was perfectly clear that the public had no interest in an endless grind that was leading nowhere. It was perfectly clear that vietnamization was not working and not going to work.

and yet the war continued, year after year after year after year after year.

Of course we should be heading towards the exits with our eyes wide open: things could get worse after we leave. on the other hand, things are getting worse while we are staying, so it's hard to know why people think that the possibility of things getting worse with us leaving is such a grand argument.

meanwhile, of course, the time is rapidly approaching when bush tells us that we need to stay in iraq so that we aren't pereceived as a "pitiful, helpless giant" (that's a nixon reference, kids, for why we had to keep fighting in vietnam in '69, in '70, in '71, in '72, and into '73 - hell, he even invaded cambodia first). won't that be a moment of "moral seriousness...."

PS. Credit where it's due: Al is correct that Think Progress appears to have the Brookings info wrong, and that daily electricity in Baghdad is more in the 6+ hours range. as derrick coleman so memorably said: "whoop de damn do."

There many Americans who are absolutely convinced that the only reason we lost in Vietnam was because the goddam politicians "forced the military to fight with one hand tied behind its back". What was the result? The concensus that in the next war, nothing should fetter the military. Yet oddly, having learned the "lesson" of Vietnam, Iraq doesn't seem to be working quite as well as it's supposed to.

Nope, the real lesson is that you've got to smash these rationalizations down before they get a chance to grow. Otherwise, before you know it the same shills who were worrying over "Vietnam syndrome" will be worrying about "Iraq syndrome", and they'll be pushing their snake oil with the line, "We all know that our noble cause in Iraq was betrayed by the locals, but this time...."

And while I take a back seat to no one in laying blame on us Americans (and of course, Bush in particular) for this mess, I can't see my way to say that the Iraqi people, and their highly sectarian inclinations, don't bear some responsibility as well.

One big gaping huge moral difference, though -- nobody ever bothered to ask a single Iraqis if s/he wanted an invasion.

The "blame the Iraqis" account of the war is somewhat offensive and factually misguided.

What else could you expect from people that believe we are "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here?" I think most of the Pundits are operating under the assumption that--Hail Mary, full of grace--things might miraculously turn around over night (as soon as the insurgent figure out it's time to stop trying to influence our elections, or whatever). They need to maintain plausible deniability and taking a stand doesn't fit into that scenario.

Blaming the Iraqis for the mess we made is morally wrong and totally unacceptable. The US is responsible, and we must own up to that. We will owe them for generations to come for wrecking their country.

We must get the hell out and accept responsibility.

One big gaping huge moral difference, though -- nobody ever bothered to ask a single Iraqis if s/he wanted an invasion.

Well, not quite true... We asked a handful of Iraqis who hadn't lived in Iraq for a long time, and they said, "Booyah! Bring it on!"

Now we should ask them how they like it so far!

Hey, Ahmad Chalabi! How's this invasion working out for you, dude?

"Immediate withdrawal" is a misnomer. That would be "emergency evacuation" (a la Saigon) and nobody wants that. Any responsible withdrawal has to be phased and gradual, unless you don't care whether a whole lot of people die because of HOW we withdraw. Once this is seen in terms of how we actually get them out, and by when, things become more complicated. A lot of the withdrawal proponents (I'm one too) neglect this facet.

One big gaping huge moral difference, though -- nobody ever bothered to ask a single Iraqis if s/he wanted an invasion.

I take your point, and it's valid, if a bit overstated (I mean, there were certainly some Iraqis -- Kurds and Shiites in particular -- who favored the overthrow of Saddam). But the fact remains that, even though it was utterly predictable that the invasion and removal of Saddam would lead to a deepening sectarian spiral (and, for that reason, we bear heavy moral responsibility for taking that step even in the face of that risk), that descent into civil war was not a necessary consequence. That it did so must, it seems to me, be laid at least to some extent at the feet of the Iraqi people (speaking very generally, which is of course always problematic).

that descent into civil war was not a necessary consequence

Descent into civil war is an absolutely necessary consequence of our invasion. By foementing civil war the occupying power is forced to choose sides every time he makes a decision about security. It would not have been possible to dislodge the US without further complcating the issues and using up more US resources in involvement with this internal sectarian violence. Nasty, huh? But that's what must be done to make an occupation untenable.
All of which was well known before we went in.
All my instincts tell me that there will be a quick, if temporary lessening of violence when the US leaves. Why not cap off the military defeat of the US with stopping the violence themselves and achieve a double humiliation of the US? And a powerful arguement for being left alone.
And in fact, normally containable ethnic tensions may have been exacerbated tp gain an advantage from their deleterious effect on the occupation.

For now, I don't care who gets blamed just so long as we do, in fact, leave and something gets done about the capacity of presidents to wage private wars get lobotomized. The War Powers Act seems to have all the muscle of a dust bunny.

This is what bothers me most about Beinart and his ilk on the "decent left" -- they routinely seem more obsessed with policing the moral purity of various people's speech rather than with getting good results. The need to "call evil by its name" seems to be their central moral guidelight, whether or not that has any bearing on actually resolving a given problem.

Unfortunately, it may not be possible to both accept full responsibility for Iraq and mobilize the country to get out of Iraq.

I understand the concern that if you allow the country to retain its dignity in the matter, then it won't be deterred from pulling a stunt like this again in the future. On the other hand, it seems to me that the idea that we can deter the country by instead pushing a policy of national humiliation is rather out of touch with certain basic truths about human nature. People are prideful and they tend to respond to humiliation with spite, not reason. The Germans' didn't exactly react to the humiliation of Versailles by becoming chastened or remorseful (I know, Godwin, yeah yeah).

I think history shows that the only way to truly destroy a society's spirit is through subjecting them to unbearable, backbreaking destruction, punishment, and material suffering. Since that isn't an option, I think the right policy is just to get ourselves out of Iraq as expediently as possible, and then try to muddle through afterwards.

Baker and Hamilton commented to the senators about these points, 1.)Bush is the president for 2 more years. 2.)He is the one who has to make changes 3.)The recommendations aren't fruit salad 4.)The congress has not done it's job.

It seems that they were laying out arguments that could be used for impeachment.

Remember, people, moral responsibility for a bad outcome does not have to sum to 100%. I swear, I think this is the single most troublesome fallacy there is. Iraqis who blow things up, kill civilians, and prevent a stable civil order from emerging there: VERY BAD. Americans who created the conditions where that was all but inevitable: VERY BAD. One can acknowledge (indeed, it's really too obvious to need acknowleding) that Iraqis shouldn't kill each other and should all try to get along, without in any way denying that the U.S. is responsible for the situation there.

While it might make sense to allow politicians to blame the Iraqis to provide them with politcal cover for withdrawal, we're not politicians here, and neither are any of the pundits cited in Matt's post. If the blogosphere and the punditosphere will start dealing with truth and reality, politicians won't have as great a need to look for political cover to disguise doing the right thing.

Beinart wouldn't know moral seriousness if it bit him in the ass.

For now, I don't care who gets blamed just so long as we do, in fact, leave and something gets done about the capacity of presidents to wage private wars

While I agree 100%, I worry that these two goals may be in tension. Face-saving for the architects of the war may smooth the way for withdrawal, but it also leaves them better positioned to push for an invasion of Iran or Syria after a decent interval.

If we can't be largely out in 3 months, it seems there ought to be a moral obligation to try SOMETHING besides 'stay the course'. Unfortunately, even with the ISG providing cover, I don't see anyone willing to forward any initiative.

Look, I know as well as anyone how long the odds are. But doing nothing, while waiting for withdrawal orders, is a disservice to Iraqis and our troops alike.

NEGOTIATE. With Iran, Syria, and al-Sadr, at least. Nothing is lost by talking. As an opponent of the war and a a proponent for a quick withdrawal years ago, I still believe it's morally reprehensible to not pursue every diplomatic possibility while people are dying.

Does the Baker-Hamilton report say we need to abandon the Green Zone and the permanent bases?

Did Gates say to the Senate "no, we're not winning, and you know what, we're not going to, so we need to evacuate the Green Zone and end construction of permanent bases and stop paying the 100,000+ mercenaries in Iraq right now"?

TNR Ed, Beanheart, Packer, all D.C. mouthpieces for hire. Like I said in a thread below, for the real power elite in Washington, the ones behind this war, the war is going JUST FINE. SPLENDIDLY. SWIMMINGLY, ann coulter might say.

The game right now is to have the media give the impression that the wise men as Atrios says are truly taking this all in serious consideration and the war may indeed have to change. Bush has no credibility whatsoever as a wise contemplative mind so james baker had to be summoned. These people, the Nixon people, the Bush people, and the collection of interests that gained from the invasion, have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people, yet they've already managed through the media to saturate the discussion with the idea that THAT is what is keeping us there, or that THAT might have been one of the motives to invade. When in fact, the violence occurring now, and the possibility of partition, and seemingly endless warfare, are all in their eyes signs of vitality, signs that the mission was accomplished and the former nation of Iraq is history.

Matt, I think Packer states a pretty clear position in the New Yorker article: we need to mount a last, serious effort to do everything we can to forge a political settlement and internationalize the occupation in Iraq. Since announcing that we are going to leave would decrease our leverage in this effort, we shouldn’t do so. However, if the effort fails and the disintegration of Iraq becomes ‘irreversible’, then we should leave.

One can agree or disagree with this position, but it’s wrong to denounce it as lacking in ‘moral seriousness’ just because it is somewhat nuanced. The boiling down of complex policy debates into simplistic ‘are you with us or are you against us’ dichotomies has been one of the hallmark flaws of the Bush administration; it’s somewhat distressing to see similar sorts of arguments bouncing around the left blogosphere.

Seems to me that the questions of how and when to withdraw from Iraq, and how to deal with the aftermath of the withdrawal, are pretty damn complicated and uncertain. In such a situation, the correct policy prescription is probably one that also has a high degree of nuance and contingency. Framing the debate as ‘do you favor withdrawal or not’ tends to drive all of the necessary nuance out of the discussion.

MY said "... The "blame the Iraqis" account of the war is somewhat offensive and factually misguided. ...".

When you lose a war I think it makes a certain amount of sense to blame (or credit) the enemy. Certainly they had something to do with it. Ignoring the shared Iraqi responsibility for current conditions in Iraq is the sort of American arrogance that got us into this mess.

Blaming the Iraqis seems comparable to me to blaming the victim of a violent crime. If someone gets mugged or raped while walking home at night, its their fault for being outside when its dark out.

Similarly, when Iraqis get slaughtered because Bush neglects his responsibility to establish law and order after invading the country, its their fault for not living in a stable, first-world country. Remember, the vast majority of the people who have been killed over there were innocent civilians who just wanted to live in peace.

that descent into civil war was not a necessary consequence

No, but it was a highly likely one. It wasn't exactly a secret (well, OK, evidently it was news to Bush) that the Sunnis and the Shia and the Kurds weren't primed for a post-"liberation" love fest. Not to mention the fact that Russia and Yugoslavia, to name just two recent cases, provided fresh and vivid cautionary examples of what happens when a society gets its cork popped.

Look, there's no denying that Iraq hasn't proven fertile ground for a post-Enlightenment republic. Hell, that was one of the strongest arguments against the damn war in the first place. But "blame" doesn't strike me as an apt reaction, when our own intentions were so transparently wrong and delusional. And again, I think it's vital to bury this trope, because we've still got the same fucking ghouls here itching for the next disastrous (but personally lucrative) crusade.

RC, sometimes things really are simple. Iraq is a hellish nightmare, and we have long since lost any ability we may have had to control events there. American soldiers are dying there, for no evident purpose other than protecting GW Bush's ego. The Iraqi people want us to leave. So we should leave. Once the Decider (or, more realistically, his successor) realizes this and makes the strategic decision to withdraw, the military leaders can determine the appropriate tactics and logistics based on the situation at that time.

No, RC, no. George Packer and his ilk are trying to run out the clock with the hope in 2008 that they'll be able to help get a war candidate, McCain or Hillary Clinton, elected. It's not "nuance". People who advocate preemptive invasions of other countries are, to put it charitably, not nuanced.

You need to come clean, RC, and tell us why you want us to stay.

THANK YOU!

Christopher M:

I think you're being a bit naive about Peter Beinart and almost everyone without exception who is or has ever been affiliated with The New Republic. Beinart doesn't want a "good result". He wants a bad one -- the indefinite occupation of Iraq and a militarily hostile posture towards Iran -- but he understands that this aim is repellent to most Democrats. So he scolds and distracts and hearkens back to Truman to try to keep the party towards ever taking that first step out of Iraq. He, TNR, Packer, et al are warmongers who thought the occupation of Iraq would make Israel stronger. Whether it has is debatable. What is not debatable, however, is that leaving would make Israel weaker. To use a phrase Beinart would like, that is "why we fight."

It's Bushes fault. End of discussion.

Enjoy.

James B. Shearer wrote:

MY said "... The "blame the Iraqis" account of the war is somewhat offensive and factually misguided. ..."

When you lose a war I think it makes a certain amount of sense to blame (or credit) the enemy. Certainly they had something to do with it. Ignoring the shared Iraqi responsibility for current conditions in Iraq is the sort of American arrogance that got us into this mess.

The Iraqis are not "the enemy."

Gator90, you’re certainly right in saying that Iraq is now a hellish nightmare. But as bad as things are, they can still get A WHOLE lot worse. While our capacity to improve the situation is pretty slim, I do think that the way in which we leave (and the diplomatic strategy we follow while doing it) will have some influence on whether things get worse. That’s why it’s not so simple.

Brendan, you’re lumping together a whole bunch of people who actually have very different positions together, and then just attacking their motives instead addressing their arguments. Packer’s pretty different from say, McCain or Beinart. In my judgment he’s pretty clearly a morally serious person.

I happen to think that we need to leave. But what has happened to Iraq is not the Iraqis’ fault. It’s our fault. We have a responsibility to leave in a way that minimizes the harm done.

Brendan, I would posit that our continued occupation of Iraq makes Israel weaker by inflaming and empowering militant Islamic fundamentalism thoughout the Mid East, which is not to Israel's benefit. As one who supports Israel (in the sense that I wish for Israel to exist and thrive, preferably in peaceful harmony with its neighbors), I thought from the beginning that the invasion of Iraq would probably be bad for Israel just as it would probably be bad for everyone else involved. (The only real beneficiaries of the invasion that I can discern were U.S. military contractors, Osama bin Laden, and, for a time, GW Bush and the Republican Party.) I remember worrying before the war that if Iraq really did have WMD, the most likely use of them would be against Israel (as with the Scuds in Gulf War I) in the event of a U.S. invasion. But none of the Israel-loving war hawks seemed to share my concern. But then, none of the war's architects and supporters seemed very worried about WMD being used against our troops, either. Strange, that...

The pundits have figured out that the ISG report does not actually envision us leaving. The report basically calls for the privatization of Iraqi oil, a permanent American presence in Iraq, and all the fun and games those two items in conjunction will lead to.

Pundits don't make comfortable livings by telling rich powerful people that they are wrong. The ordinary readers, on the other hand, have already demonstrated they can be hoodwinked. Thus, the highest elements of the pundit's art will come into play, catering discretely to the majority desire that we leave, while perched on the fence as to whether we actually will.

Truely great disasters are not constructed with rational choices.

It's Time For Review

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates

American society today suffers from a vacuum of leadership in Washington. We desperately, as a society, need to recover a sense of fundamental purpose in the world. A seminal event of our time was 9/11. There were probably no more than 30 conspirators led by a barefoot Osama Bin Laden in the hills of Afghanistan at the time of the event. What was the reaction of our government? To invade Iraq. That is like Roosevelt responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Argentina. And four years later the most powerful country in the world has not found the tallest man in Afghanistan ( Osama Bin Laden 6'5").

A historian once said that America gets the kind of leaders it deserves. We deserve better. When it comes to international relations, a drunk cannot help another drunk unless the first drunk is sober. Our leaders need to take the first step and accept that America is a militaristic society and we do see violence as a valuable tool in solving problems. The second step our leaders need to take is in recommitting themselves to their constitutional duties in a representational democracy. They are there to put a check on mob rule, not to become the mob.

Our social and civic institutions are in decline--families, churches, schools, neighborhoods and civic associations--have traditionally taken on the responsibility of providing our children with love, order and discipline--of teaching self-control, compassion, tolerance, civility, honesty, and respect for authority. A vote for Bush is a vote for staggering incompetence, yet the President still enjoys a 40% approval rating in the polls. The country is in deep doo-doo.

We use to hold national "summits" in this country of leaders in government, industry, experts, professionals and layman alike to confront a particular issue of grave concern to the nation. We use to have "blue ribbon" commissions making recommendations for legislation. The exception today is The Iraq Study Group. The country has other big problems along with Iraq.

Why not hold national summits, followed by "blue ribbon" commissions making recommendations on the following subjects:

1. Health Care For Everyone - Private Or Government Run?

2. Entitlements - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

3. Education - America should lead the world at all levels of education!

4. Energy - Presidential Medal Of Freedom for first person to create a six passenger, 200 miles-per-gallon car. ( Call ex-director of CIA-Tenent and ask for medal back. He will have easy access to it, he's probably wearing it ).

5. Civil Liberties - How Much Do You Want The Government To Know About You?

6. The Economy - Forced Savings ( We already do it with Social Security ).

7. Tax Code - Make it strengthen families and the middle class ( Excellent teachers should be highly valued in this society and exempt from paying income taxes ).

8. Public Health - Violence: Ban all violent imagery aimed at children under the age of five. Obesity: Ban all soft drinks and candy with over 1 calorie in the schools across the country and mandate exercise ( running ) class once a day. Trans fat: Outlaw it. Smoking: Smoke-free cities. Alcohol: Ban all alcohol-related television commercials.

People talk endlessly about wanting the country to come together. These national summits would be a way of moving the dialog forward.

David Gilbert - concerned American and recovering alcoholic and drug addict

I am a life-long Democrat; I despised George Bush the first time I laid eyes on him; I was opposed to the war from day one -- I actually sobbed the day it started. But I find the "blame the Iraqis" strategy the most heart-sickening, morally-reprehensible development in this whole sad, sad story.

thank you

thank you

Sohbet
almanya sohbet
izmir sohbet
msn sohbet
Sohbet odaları
Chat
chat siteleri
free CHAT
sohbet siteleri

- Alt Linkler - * sohbet *

Kelebek Sohbet
Liselikızlar
ingiltere Sohbet
islam sohbet
islamkent
Arkadaş
Dost Chat
Chat Sohbet
Reklam ver
Avrupa Chat
Yazılı Sohbet
Yazgülü
Bolsohbet
izmir sohbet
Hollanda sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohpet
sohbet.com
msn sohbet
mynet sohbet
cet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline

- Alt Linkler - * Chat *

maynet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline
seslichat

- Yeniler -

Gurbet
Sevgi
Ask
antalya sohbet
sex sohbet
girl

- Amsalak Linkler -

Komik Videolar
Komik vidiyolar
bedava Videolar

her hangi bir sorun oldugunda pm atınız ...

- Bglog - * webmaster blog *

webmaster
komik blog
komik
komik Resimler
komik yazılar
komik videolar
komik fıkralar

- Sohbet5.Net -

Sohbet
chat

girl

hosting

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
uzaktan eğitim
r10 seo yarışması
DrCetinerDotOrg - DrCetinerDotOrg
DrCetinerDotOrg
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması

SEO (Search Engine Optimization) yarışmasınının genel amacı "wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması" kelimesinde google da ilk üçe girebilmektir. İlk üçe girenlere sürpriz hediyeler var.

Amaç: hem eğlenmek hemde yarışma coşkusunu yaşatacak forum etkinliğidir. Bu yarışma sonucunda ilk sırada olan arkadaşımız 2007 yılının en iyi SEO'cusu seçilecek ve ödüllendirilecekdir.Ayrıca dereceye giren ilk üç kişiye sürpriz hediyeler var.

nice

thanks a lot

thank you

Amaç: hem eğlenmek hemde yarışma coşkusunu yaşatacak forum etkinliğidir. Bu yarışma sonucunda ilk sırada olan arkadaşımız 2007 yılının en iyi SEO'cusu seçilecek ve ödüllendirilecekdir.Ayrıca dereceye giren ilk üç kişiye sürpriz hediyeler var.

thansk..

Thanks for all...

wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo

telekinezi
beyin gücü
Parapsikoloji
bilim
amatör müzik
amatör videolar
müzik videolar
akorlar
eticaret
bebek elbiseleri
örgü
kazak
çocuk elbiseleri
link
toplist

bilgi yarışması yarışma arkadaş ara asp script indir hayvan resimleri asp indir php indir bil kazan seri ilanlar aşk sevgi resimleri yarış kazan kavak yelleri dizisi bilgisayar güvenliği genco dizisi asp script indir avrupa yakası dizisi ilan ver kaspersky antivirüs köprü dizisi hepsi bir dizisi php indir aşk sevgi resimleri resimler pusat dizisi sevgili ara yaprak dökümü dizisi php script indir kurtlar vadisi pusu dizisi bilgi yarışması

thanks

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

I like html emails today with faster internet connections normal emails are extremely boring.

nice

very good

dünyanın en güzel kadını
kadin
kadın
çin takivimi
cıntakvimi
çintakvimi
çin takvimi
Güzel Kızlar
cinsellik
Kızlar
liselim
şiirler
güzel sözler
yeniyıl mesajları
aşk hikayeleri
burçlar
astroloji
yemek tarifleri
Fıkralar
sinema haberleri
Rüya tabirleri

интересно

laptop masası thnk