Die for Your Government

It doesn't matter to Bush and his top aides whether or not Iraq is, for all intents and purposes, hopeless. They don't pay any downside costs of escalating, so they're willing to make American military personnel and American taxpayers bear any burden and pay any price for even the vaguest hope that this will in some way increase the odds of something they could plausibly label "success" happening.

Beautiful. It's nothing we didn't already know, but it's chilling to see it formulated as clearly as that.

It was Kaiser Wilhelm's military and election strategy too.

I enjoy your posts on Iraq, but howzabout a post on Israel's barbaric siege of Gaza. It's been scandalously undercovered in the American media. Most Americans seem to believe that Israel has actually withdrawn from Gaza.

You were one of the few liberal bloggers who wrote about Israel's war with Lebanon, but on this issue, you've gone to sleep. Wake up.

holy crap. Lieberman and McCain say... 2 year 'surge', no timetables for withdrawal.

i say 'escalation' with no end in sight.

I agree with this view.

If you leave aside the moral choice and just look at it in terms of political calculation what Bush is doing makes sense.

Why would he declare defeat and get out? What does he PERSONALLY gain from such a move? Nothing. Sure it would save lives and money but they are not the lives of his loved ones or his money. When you are gambling with other people's money it makes much more sense to keep betting. What has he got to lose? He will not be running for re-election. His place in history? If he gets out now defeat will be part of his legacy. So why not postpone defeat for as long as possible?

If he can drag this out he can keep the illusion that who knows maybe we might win this thing. And then in January 2009 he drops the whole thing on the lap of his successor. When that person ends the war and all hell breaks lose and we officially lose then he and the Neocon Noise Machine can blame the whole thing on his successor. They can say the successor didn't have the resolve, the will, etc.

So for him the choice is between accepting responsibility for defeat or dumping the responsibility on his successor, thus creating at least some doubt as to who lost the war.

Needless to say this is a morally repugnant choice. It means sacrificing thousands more to death for his vanity. But in terms of cold personal calculation dragging this thing till 2009 makes sense.

i don't think there's any realistic chance of congress defunding the war altogether at this point, but i think there's at least some chance that congress might refuse to fund an escalation of the war....

Even if the Bush people are thinking these things privately, do you really think they are saying such cynical things to each other? What seems more likely is that they are all sort of pretending, to each other at least, that victory is still plausible, and still the main goal.

The big question is: what should the Democrats do? There's an interesting column in the Huffington post by Paul Abrams about a possible Democratic strategy for ending the war, involving tying the funding to tangible benchmarks, so that they can defund it without having rightwing stab-in-the-back accusations sticking.

What on Earth is that terrible video supposed to signify. I don't need the sneering affectations of some punk rocker to inform my conscience about "the government."

BTW, if I were advising Bush and I had no morals, no conscience, I would tell him to stay the course and drag this out till 2009.

I'm no fan of W, and I think the surge is a stupid idea, but how do you get off telling us what is going on inside of W's head? He may well have convinced himself that a surge has a good chance of success. You don't know, period.

Why don't you tell us again how there is noooooo way, no way at all, that Rumsfeld is going to be fired?

Kevin Drum's alternative theory is that they figure if worst comes to worst, Iraq goes through some ethnic cleansing and the United States just backs whoever emerges controlling Baghdad in exchange for a willingness to host some permanent military bases.

In other words, the United States has the choice between leaving and letting a civil war unfold, and staying and become party and accomplice to a genocide.

Option A: A sure loss of $890

Option B: A 90 percent chance to lose $1,000 and a 10 percent chance to lose nothing.

This is a somewhat poor analogy. For one thing, the foreign policy has already cost 3,000 US lives and a large-but-unagreed-upon number of Iraqi lives. No amount of "betting" will prevent this, as a sunk cost. You can't recoup your costs by doubling down. (What you can do is justify your initial costs by doubling down if that effort produces a win, which is very different).

For another, the example Kahneman posits is a very marginal one: the value of the loss of $890 is only slightly better than the expected value of the gamble, which is a loss of $900. It is a mere $10 on a thousand dollar bet that comprises the irrational difference. The wider this difference gets, the more "rationally" people will behave.

In Iraq, however, the costs are increasing, and would be expected to increase even further with a "surge." This isn't loss aversion, at least in sense that Kahneman would describe it, I think. This is "throwing good money after bad" in an unwillingness to admit defeat.

Sadly, this can be described more easily in terms of ego and unwillingness to admit defeat than it can be in terms of fundamental biases.

(Actually, not going to war when justified would be more like loss aversion; one would be willing to risk the loss of everything to avoid any form of casualty or cost.)

"They don't pay any downside costs of escalating."

And they don't have to deal with the regional war that will ensue when the United States leaves. Right now the civil war is for the most confined to Iraq, but when American troops vacate the vaccum will be filled by Iran on one side and Saudi Arabia on the other. This will be a catastrophe, a threat to American strategic and economic interests, instability that the United States won't be able to abide, and it will likely lead the President to send troops back in. Bush wisely wants no part of it, so he'll leave it to John Edwards, or whomever, whose presidency will be consumed by the crisis that Bush's war created.

In other words, Bush isn't merely putting off the inevitable, he's putting off the catasrophic.

No downside to Bush from worse failure in Iraq?!

I beg to differ. While Bush himself has almost certainly run his last election campaign, keeping the Presidency, and returning Congress, to Republican hands, in 2008 has to be of utmost concern to him. And not only is worse failure, more prolonged failure, in Iraq bad for Republican chances in 2008, but failure after a change in course, such as this escalation, that, unlike the original invasion, would not be covered by the AUMF that most Congressional Dems voted for in 2002, will stick the Republicans more one-sidedly with blame for the fiasco. I find that to be the most incomprehensible feature of all this talk from the administration about escalation. If they actually think it might work, then they should by all means try it, but they should do so without making a big deal out of it, as they did with as large a "surge" in 2004. All that bringing public attention to the experiment accomplishes, is that it allows the Dems a free-pass opposition; verbal opposition without the risk of having to vote one way or another on an actual legislative proposal, such as the 2002 AUMF. Dems, even those who voted "aye" in 2002, will then be much freer to disown a war that Bush has morphed into something quite other than what they voted for in 2002. Sensible Republicans understand that their party must, above all else, retie Dems to a war that the results of the midterm elections have already partly let them free of. So they propose that Bush send up a new AUMF, or, like Lugar, that Bush at least have the new Congressional leadership in for discussions that renew some of their responsibility for the ongoing conduct of the war. Instead, Bush seems intent on helping them sever their remaining ties of responsibility, by forging ahead with an escalation against the will of the electorate (as expressed in the midterms and more recent polls), against the recommendations of the ISG, and against the will of Congress.

It's hard to understand why Bush would be so seemingly reckless with the future fortunes of his party. He has arguably been the most partisan President in our history, working explicitly to forge a permanent majority for his party. And even if you postulate that his narcissistic concern over his "place in history" has trumped his desire to help his party, Bush has much more concrete matters of concern in prospect should that party fail to retain the White House in 2008. He is unlikely to face impeachment in the next two years, not from a dearth of highly impeachable and criminal offenses, but overhwelmingly because, as head of the Executive Branch, he controls access to the usually classified evidence that would send him to jail if revealed. He simply cannot let that control pass to any Democrat in 2008. Yes, a new Dem administration may not particularly care to pursue a criminal prosecution of the ex-President, but having to rely on the kindness of enemies seems a sub-optimal strategy for Bush. And even if the new President were not inclined to prosecute, if he/she wants to end the war in Iraq and the American gulag, he may have little choice but to go on the offensive of a criminal prosecution in order to get the facts out that will defend against the Republican charges of treason that would follow a move away from Iraq and our gulag. It would be much easier to make the argument that Iraq and our gulag have been stupid and criminal in the context of the actual cases of criminal stupidity engaged in by the ex-President, than as some abstract argument.

As I commented on Ackerman's post: Doesn't anyone read Clausewitz any more? Of course the move is political. That doesn't mean it is for the purpose of raising his approval rating, as Ackerman seems to think.

"They can say the successor didn't have the resolve, the will, etc. "

And/or They can say that the successor/radic-lib media/etc. stabbed us in the back.

It's hard to understand why Bush would be so seemingly reckless with the future fortunes of his party. He has arguably been the most partisan President in our history, working explicitly to forge a permanent majority for his party.

Ummm... It's hard to understand? How? Recklessness has been their modus operandi since the day they took office. Bush's tax cuts were no model of prudence, even if they were blessed by the "disinterested" Alan Greenspan.

The prescription drug program, steel tariffs, Social Security "reform", Iraq -- all the major initiatives of this crowd have come out of a profoundly short-term view, that never looked beyond the next election. Even Rove's vaunted "permanent majority" strategy was based on expedience, which is why it's dead: A stable majority has to be somewhat large, to accomodate inevitable disagreements and temporary defections. That's hard to build when all your tactical victories are based -- by design -- on ad hoc 50% + 1 coalitions of convenience.

It's essential to keep in mind that these guys owe their political fortunes to one guy: Osama bin Laden. I know that they've always they talked a lot about attracting Hispanics, inventing a Norquist-style government, and so on. But they weren't making all that much progress on any of these before 9-11-2001. In fact, they were well on their way to being one-term wonders. Then bin Laden dropped a respite in their laps, and they were able to ride it through the '02 and '04 elections. But now what Krugman's called "The Great Revulsion" is setting in.....

As I commented on Ackerman's post: Doesn't anyone read Clausewitz any more? Of course the move is political. That doesn't mean it is for the purpose of raising his approval rating, as Ackerman seems to think.

Al might be veering close to reality here. Congrats, Al!

He's technically correct about one thing: Bush is, indeed, not sending troops to raise his approval numbers. He's wants to send them in the hope that the numbers won't plummet even further.

This is the problem of government generally. It does not bear any of the costs of failure, and so will usually double-down when things look bleak - whether its failed foreign policy, or failed domestic policy.

But it's most egregious when government doubles-down with lives. I think Biden is right, too, that since expending a few more lives is worth it to be able to blame President Obama for losing the war.

He may well have convinced himself that a surge has a good chance of success. You don't know, period.

He may well have. That doesn't get him off the hook, morally, because in order to believe that he has to be willfully ignorant--he has to choose to ignore all fact and logic in order to hold that conviction. There is no moral difference between such willful ignorance and deliberate, cold-blooded callousness; if he should know better but chooses not to, it's the same as knowing better and still choosing evil.

I ll sound like a cynic here, but waiting for the conflict to play out while you nudge it in one or the other direction is one of the best options left.

That and a moderate dictatorship modeled after Musharraf.

While I think Glen's argument does make a lot of sense, it certainly doesn't fit with what Bush is currently doing.

I think there are two possibilities here.

1) Bush actually thinks this surge has a reasonable chance of success

2) Matthew has it right and this is mostly a political move- an unlikely last ditch effort to succeed or at least pass it on to his successor.

The problem with Glen's argument is that it assumes that Bush is sensitive to or appreciative of all of the post-presidency ramifications of his current policy. I honestly doubt that he regards it as a reasonable possibility that he will be tried for his war-crimes. Part of the problem with Bush is that his exceptionalist view of America also applies to himself- he doesn't believe that what he did was wrong.

Analyzing a person like this is complicated: Bush does believe some of the things he says that we think are untrue- he drinks his own kool-aid. But he also lies intentionally for political purposes. Its hard to know what you're dealing w/ in any given case, but I lean toward Matthew's interpretation because its the kind of thing I think a lot of people might be tempted to do in a similar situation.

"...if worst comes to worst..."

(That phrase was a real bugaboo of my brother's, so I rise on his behalf.)

"...if worst comes to worst..." simply makes no sense. For it to have any meaning at all, you probably mean to say "... if WORSE comes to worst..."

How many lives and how many dollars will be expended for a five point bump in the polls?

mpowell,
Granted that this Preznit is unusually hard to figure, a seeming dunce in so many respects, but crazy like a fox in other respects. But I can't see how Bush could fail to be acutely aware of his legal vulnerability, since he used the legal vulnerability of intelligence operatives, if Congress failed to act to cover for them, as the chief reason Congress needed to pass his Military Tribunals act. If he knew the underlings were in legal trouble, how could he fail to make the connection that those who ordered them to these illegal actions were not far more vulnerable? "I was only following orders.", is not a great defense, but it's a hell of a lot better than no defense, which is what the Decider who gave the illegal orders would have. In fact, the conventional wisdom on Harriet Miers leaving as WH Counsel is that she ain't made of stern enough stuff for the knife-fighting legal defense the WH will need, now that Congress is in enemy hands. If they had the forethought to think this way about losing Congress, which can only issue subpoenas that they can fight until the cows come home, how can they not have looked forward to the next step, against the possibility of losing the Executive branch, and thereby custody of the evidence itself? These folks seem to me to be acutely aware of their legal vulnerability.

And as long as we are trying to tease apart the psychodynamics of this particular wormbag of pathology, I would point to a well-developed sense of victimization, of being the target of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", as evidence that Bush is more, not less, likely than straight assessment of the dispassionate motives of his potential Dem successor would indicate, to fear persecution. The Chosen are always beset by the ungodly, and so forth. There are plenty of practical reasons that a Dem successor, however much he might actually viscerally hate Bush, would actually want to avoid as much as possible legal pursuit of the ex-President. But I think Bush is likely to put more weight on the emotional, and discount these practical considerations

But the underlying reason that I think that Bush is more likely than you or I to expect legal pursuit by a Dem successor is his belief in the unitary Executive. He honestly believes, lives the idea every day, that the universe literally revolves around the President, that the world would have fallen apart had he not stretched beyond the deeds of former, lesser, Presidents to do these necessary but distasteful, and often illegal, things that only the unitary Executive can do to protect this nation. I suspect that he is much more acutely and immediately attentive than you and I to the vast power that the Presidency commands. The thought of this vast power, which, because he has boldly violated the law to do what he imagines is ultimate good, includes the power for an unsympathetic successor to use the evidence of these illegal actions to utterly destroy him, must be a constant source of terror to him. He is, to his own way of thinking, the most powerful man on earth, whom no one, absolutley no one, can touch or bring to account, with one exception -- his successor, before whom he will be absolutely powerless the day after he leaves office. I can't see how anyone in his position could fail to have as his chief pre-occupation just now the control of the identity of that successor. I think that these considerations weigh so heavily on Bush that we even have a real possibility of Bush doing something extra-Constitutional to avoid ever leaving office, to anyone.

sglover,
I will readily admit that they haven't been too swuft about policy, and yes, even politically, they tend not to look past the next election. But this is the next election we're talking about. The author suggested that Bush doesn't care about the next election, simply because he isn't going to be on the ballot. I would maintain that not caring about the next election flies in the face of about the only thing reference this President that we know with any solidity, that he focuses on the narrow, right-in-front-of-him, political question of who wins the next election. That, and I think he's in big personal legal trouble if a Dem wins the next election. The prospect of a hanging tends to clarify a man's thinking enormously, as Dr. Johnson once observed.

Bill- What on Earth is that terrible video supposed to signify. I don't need the sneering affectations of some punk rocker to inform my conscience about "the government."

It's more about the sound and fury than about what it signifies. In this case it pretty much just signifies a big "fuck you" to a government who decided that people needed to die for them, and had really shitty reasons for doing so. Art can be very subtle. But war cannot. Punk is sometimes just war by other means.

Sure. You want a movement with young people in, you gotta have a soundtrack. Art can't enact social change in itself, but it can aid and abet by shifting people's views. I'm not actually sure this sort of thing is that helpful, though; more likely the artists want to vent. I hate what's going on and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. Nothing. We elected the Democrats because we were annoyed about the war, and they're not going to do anything...

Besides, most of these punk rock guys aren't exactly running for office. They're musicians, so they make music. It's all they can do.

Joseph Strummer: you said this is the basic problem with government and that is incorrect.

It IS a basic principal-agent problem. Remember Amarath's $6 billion losses? Those were the actions of one trader continually "doubling down" in the futures market. As a matter of fact, the parallel is pretty strong. In each case, the gambler was already assured of large losses (3000 dead, millions), but instead of accepting that and moving on chose to INCREASE their risk exposure. Why? Because their reputation is already trashed either way and the only way to save it would be through an absolute miracle of a hail mary (sorry for the Friedman-esque mixed metaphors!). The agent in both cases has no "skin in the game."

"But I can't see how Bush could fail to be acutely aware of his legal vulnerability,"

"Legal vulnerability" depends on control of the courts.

Five partisan justices on the Supreme Court installed him in the WH. He has been busy the last 6 years stacking the courts with right wing jihadist judges. So he fully understands that a court controlled by his cronies will look after his interests.

We will see this play out in the next two years. Expect the WH counsel's office to refuse subpoena requests from congress. Assert executive privilege. Escalate it through the courts. Rely on friendly judges to cover for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/bushs-strategy-of-massiv_b_37946.html

Looks like Paul Begala agrees with me.

"In a way that might make Harry F. Byrd proud, our president is about to embark on a policy of massive resistance. He will instruct his lawyers to delay, deny and refuse to comply with any effort by Congress to get to the bottom of official corruption - especially as the billions squandered or stolen in Mr. Bush's war. He'll try to run out the clock, then take his chances with his hand-picked right-wing judiciary. (Keep in mind the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, through which this dispute would flow, includes such Bush appointees as Brett Kavanaugh, a Ken Starr protégé whose work in the Bush White House was described by Henry Waxman as promoting "an imperial presidency." And the Supreme Court has such presidential suck-ups as John Roberts and Sam Alito.)"

By the time Bush leaves office the judiciary will be firmly in the hands of his cronies. He will have nothing to fear.

LaFollette - "It's more about the sound and fury than about what it signifies. In this case it pretty much just signifies a big "fuck you" to a government who decided that people needed to die for them, and had really shitty reasons for doing so. Art can be very subtle. But war cannot. Punk is sometimes just war by other means."

Great. Your defense of punk rock piles up as much non sequitur as the video itself. I guess it would have to...

DonB,
I agree that a combination of friendly justices and a pre-existing doctrine of executive privilege that seems to get a lot more respect even from neutral observers than I, in my non-legal mind, think is appropriate, make it unlikely that this administration would be compelled to hand over within the next two years any of the numerous smoking guns it undoubtedly has in its custody. Of note, though, is that even to fend off this toothless threat, the famously loyal Bush has decided to throw Harriet Miers over the rails in order to lawyer up in the WH Counsel's office with some legal knife-fighters. If Bush is impeached, it will only be because whistle-blowers reveal smoking guns outside the legal process.

But my point is that the real legal threat to Bush comes after he has handed over control of the Executive, and with it custody of all of these smoking guns, to his successor. If that successor wants to, he can reveal smoking guns, and have US Attys who now work for him initiate criminal investigations based on them, all without any legal recourse for Bush's lawyers to invoke Executive Privilege to keep the information from coming out. Executive Privilege is a privilege of the Executive, which Bush will no longer be at that point. And I don't think the friendliness of many judges to Bush would allow them to overturn on appeal otherwise solid convictions using this evidence, however much they might have been able to get away with bending rulings on arcana like Executive Privilege to keep damaging evidence concealed before the genie was out of the bottle.

Terrific analogy! It elucidates why gambling can be addictive. And, as we know, our president has an addictive personality...

The analogy may be useful, but the link to approval ratings, legacies, etc., is probably off. I imagine the only thing passing for thought in that head is how to 'win' in Iraq, and the decision is between 'surge' or doing nothing. Simple, but it takes weeks to hash out. Explains the bolstering of the Kagan plan to escalate with forces that do not exist.

Its been fun watching some fairly complex motives ascribed to every move by this simple little man.

"But my point is that the real legal threat to Bush comes after he has handed over control of the Executive,"

No, it doesn't.

Two possible outcomes after Bush leaves office.

1) A republican president takes over. People currently working for Bush will work for him. Same group of people, different administration. Sort of like switch from Reagan to Poppy.
There will be no meaningful investigation. Not to mention Bush will likely pardon anybody under investigation and/or in a position to testify against him just before leaving office much like Poppy did. It effectively ended the Iran Contra investigation.

2) A Democratic president takes over. He can order his justice dept to look into various wrong doings. They in turn will have to rely on the courts to enforce subpoenas etc. If there are trials judges will decide what evidence is admitted. They will have the power to overturn convictions. Read Lawrence Walsh's book Firewall. He writes about how partisan judges from the Federalist Society did everything in their power to sabotage his investigation. Remember how the Ollie North conviction was overturned by the Appeals Court? Since then the courts have become even more partisan with more Federalist Society judges. These judges will have the power to sabotage any investigation. Bush knows this. Which is why he has gone to war to install his cronies in the judiciary.

Same will apply to any congressional investigation. They can compel testimony and obtain documents only after giving immunity.

Modern day GOP has two goals; tax cuts and courts dominated by cronies from the Federalist Society. The Starr witchunt and the 2000 election has only reinforced their belief in placing partisans in the judiciary.

I'm in basic agreement with the words in MY's post, but that video is the most shrill thing that I've seen or heard from a MY blog.

Nice use of the Anti-Flag Matt. I personally would have chosen "Sold as Freedom", but to each his own.

DonB,
I agree that a Republican succeeding Bush in 2008 is indeed unlikely to pursue leagl prosecution of then ex-President Bush. That's exactly why I think it makes such a big difference to Bush whether a Republican or a Democrat should succeed him. This was the point of my original post.

If a Democrat succeeds Bush in 2008, there will not be subpoenas, or at least not contested subpoenas, for judges to adjudicate, should the Justice Dept pursue an investigation of the ex-Preznit. Walsh's Independent Counsel's office had to carry on its investigation while the Executive was held by two Republican Presidents, whose administrations did indeed make him fight out in the courts requests for evidence. But if Bush is succeeded by a Dem who OKs an investigation, the Executive branch departments from which the prosecutors seek evidence will not contest handing over this evidence. There will be no day in court for the question of whether or not this information is handed over, and therefore no way for even the most biased judges to frustrate the investigation in this way.

Normally, I yield to no one in my paranoia concerning all the manifold, and often occult, doings of the vast right-wing conspiracy. But I doubt even the Federalist Society's ability to get away with stark variance from the judicial straight and narrow when people are paying attention, and care about the outcome. This is the second, and perhaps greater, difference between Iran Contra and what would happen if Bush is prosecuted after leaving office. In Iran-Contra, both parties had already decided to minimize the scandal before Walsh was appointed. The Dem Congress decided not to impeach, which is how you get a recalcitrant Executive to geek, but then went ahead with public hearings that granted immunity for the key testimony Walsh would have needed, if he was going to get folks to geek. These two steps, in combination, made no sense except as signalling Dem acquiescence in the understandable Republican plan to sweep the whole matter under the rug and out of the public eye as quickly as possible. Pliant judges got away with dubious rulings because no one cared enough to raise a stink, or they actually wanted, even the Dems, for the whole thing to be over as quickly as possible, with as little fuss and hard feelings as possible.

"But if Bush is succeeded by a Dem who OKs an investigation, the Executive branch departments from which the prosecutors seek evidence will not contest handing over this evidence."

It will take a lot more than that to investigate this cabal.

It will take judges who will not throw away indictments, who will allow evidence to be presented in trials and who will uphold convictions upon appeal. Never underestimate the power of judges to sabotage prosecutors. Bush has been busy stacking the judiciary with the most partisan GOP hacks he can find.

Read David Brock's book Blinded by the Right. He writes about how Appeals Court judge Silberman was presiding over cases involving the Clintons while behind the scenes he was secretly helping the Jones team. The partisans Bush has been appointing make Silberman look like a boy scout.

pornopornotubeporn
SexGüzel SözlerAcı sözlerDuygusal Sözlersextube89
89comSeks
Amerikan kapıSohbetChat
MobilyaAhşapArkadaşarkadaşlıksikiş
Site EkleAhşap kapıToplistsite EkletoplistTürkçe MircMircsextubeSohbetchatKapıTosya AhşapTOSYATHANK YOU GRUP..

sohbet
chat sohbet
mynet sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
sohbet siteleri
islami sohbet
sesli sohbet
kameralı sohbet
sohbet odaları
sohbet net
kelebek sohbet
alem sohbet
canlı sohbet
bedava sohbet
dini sohbet
ideal sohbet
erotik sohbet
internet sohbet
almanya sohbet
bol sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
seks sohbet
isvec sohbet
sohbet odasi
chat sohbet muhabbet
chat mynet sohbet
almanya sohbet chat
zurna sohbet
sex sohbet
canli sohbet
cet kelebek sohbet
sohbet com
ingilizce sohbet
gay sohbet
cinsel sohbet
mynet odalari sohbet
35 sevgi sohbet
sohbet gen tr
kahkaha sohbet
istanbul sohbet
odasi sohbet turk
chat.tc sohbet
sevgi sohbet
yonca sohbet
makas sohbet
cinsellik sohbet
kraltv sohbet
turkce sohbet
ara sohbet
chat cinsellik sohbet
lesbian sohbet
sohbet cet
chat muhabbet sex sohbet
sohbet et
hotmail.com sohbet
keriz sohbet
izmir sohbet
sohbet sohbet
cam sohbet
islam sohbet
sohbet tr zurna
bayan msn sohbet
sohbet sohbet.com
seviyeli sohbet
sohbet sitesi
yazili sohbet
sohbet ankara
kardelen sohbet
konya sohbet
7 islami kanal sohbet
web cam sohbet
java sohbet

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

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
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

mirc

thankss

thank your

thanks my brother

very good thnks

sexshop