Monomania-mania

Mmm, sanguine. I like mine with white clam sauce.

Hey, Matt: couldja make it so that when I click "Remember info?" it, you know, remembers my info?

"It's not quite as bad a talk as I was initially led to believe."

I find it difficult to believe Obama and HRC won't have equivalent positions. Wes Clark notwithstanding, any Democratic nominee wannabe is going to do their fair share of pandering to Israel.

The issue is how they'd act as CiC. And I don't peg Edwards as starting a catastro-fuck with Iran.

Heh. "Catastro-fuck" is a funny word. Petey is an artist, and his canvas is the English language.

Expediency has a way of giving birth to convictions.

Hey, Matt: couldja make it so that when I click "Remember info?" it, you know, remembers my info?
You got your browser straight? 'Cuz if your cookie settings are at "see no porn, remember no porn" then it doesn't matter what MY and his Moveable Type does.

Obama on Iran.

...and here'sHRC.

(links for those of you who aren't reading myDD).

While I agree with Matt's implied longing to hear a candidate for pres from either party speak intelligently about Iran policy in the current (Bush) context, and Obama's and HRC's having basically the same stance as Edwards doesn't make it good.....I still don't think this is a very big deal. I have often been disappointed with Edwards' foreign policy speeches, but I can still support him. Of course it's more pander than conviction.

I vaguely remember Edwards giving a pretty stridently pro-Israel answer to some question during his '04 debate with Cheney. For what it's worth.

No one is going to out-Israel Hillary Sen. Clinton, though.

"Of course it's more pander than conviction"

I don't really know how to tell, nor anymore, how to predit how Edwards will behave in office.

I am not sure it matters. My assumption is that Bush will attack Irn, all the Democratics know that Bush is going to attack Iran. It will be castrataphic, America will take very heavy losses, and having a history of opposing the war will simply make you unviable in 2008.

As soon as we have lost 10-20,000 men "All Bush's fault" will no longer fly.

Bush could be stopped, but he won't be. And maybe he won't attack, but is simply blackmailing the Democratic oppositioon into "moderation". Bluffing.

But the strong implication is that Israel will take action alone if necessary.

Uhhh...what exactly is Israel going to "do" about Iran, cause, AFAICT, its only (non-U.S. help) option is nuclear weapons (delivery method unknown to me)?

I have often been disappointed with Edwards' foreign policy speeches, but I can still support him. Of course it's more pander than conviction.

I'm not sure how much better pander is than conviction, but I also don't know what the evidence for this is. Why not just believe that Edwards is a hawk? I know plenty of people who think the USA should have universal health care and bomb Iran.

You got your browser straight? 'Cuz if your cookie settings are at "see no porn, remember no porn" then it doesn't matter what MY and his Moveable Type does.

I know of at least one Movable Type site that does remember my settings. Matt's site seems determined to forget.

Matthew, if your monomania leads you to prioritize a Democratic Presidential candidate who isn't going to rhetorically pander to Israel concerning Iran, I highly recommend Dennis Kucinich to you.

I'd guess Kucinich will be the only one of the candidates who is free to avoid the pander. And Dennis is a good guy. I actually voted for him in '04 primaries since the outcome was already decided when my state rolled around.

But thinking that any of the Democratic candidates who don't espouse a fully rational Iran policy is a hawk is a more than slightly muddled reading of reality. I'd guess most of the Democratic field won't be espousing perfectly rational Cuba policies either. Politics exists.

And if you find yourself incapable of decoding the Kabuki dance to distinguish whether or not the various mainstream Democratic candidates are likely to start insane wars, you really should embrace the monomania and go with the purity of Kucinich.

I'm not sure how much better pander is than conviction

Fair point I guess, but you're the one who asked, which posits a notable difference in the first place.

I'd also say that I think Stoller is a little too harsh in the bit you quoted, but apt in the first sentence of his post: ''2008 is so depressing'.

I think there is, historically, a pretty big difference between what candidates say in campaigns and what they do in office, and that includes good presidents as well as bad (and that also includes W Bush, who is in his own category). I look forward to Edwards' getting grilled on foreign policy, because he definitely has some work to do on it. If he is really a foolish militarist, I won't be supporting him anymore. If he's merely the best overall candidate in the field albeit similar to the others in the foreign policy area, I will have no problem supporting him.

People may be interested in This interview from November '06, which wasn't given in Israel.

Note that "All options" includes not taking force off the table, but it also includes putting direct negotiations back on the table, which the Bush team seems to fear might lead to something productive.

But thinking that any of the Democratic candidates who don't espouse a fully rational Iran policy is a hawk is a more than slightly muddled reading of reality. I'd guess most of the Democratic field won't be espousing perfectly rational Cuba policies either. Politics exists.

So even if it's not all bullshit (and I really don't think Edwards is bullshitting) what's Iran compared to electing a Democrat!

Totally FWIW dept: Yes, Kucinich is a good guy, and during the '04 primaries he and Edwards became good personal friends.

That speech reminded me of that scene from Primary Colors where John Travolta's wearing the yarmulke in the Florida nursing home and telling all the seniors about the importance of a strong state of Israel.

I think jonnybutter's last comment is basically right. I also think the criticism of Edwards is fair in this case, if over the top. Even so, I will continue not to trust anything Matt Stoller says on anything. That guy's writing consistently reeks of either hidden personal agendas, or posturing for purely emotive purposes.

"what's Iran compared to electing a Democrat"

For my money, supporting Edwards as the party standard-bearer is the best bet for improving US government policy toward the Middle East. If you're not very skillful at seeing the big picture, I mention above that Kucinich is an attractive choice.

For my money, supporting Edwards as the party standard-bearer is the best bet for improving US government policy toward the Middle East.

He is not, he's the democrat you think you can sell to the rubes and you know better.

Petey - you seem to have a monomania all of your own...

Edwards was on several national television shows last night, and in each one he emphasized that he would not only stress regional negotiations to deal with Iraq, but also talk with "antagonistic" countries like Syria and Iran.

Honestly, aside from Kucinich, John Edwards has courageously come out stating frankly that we need to talk and negotiate with Iran. I don't see him being the most likely guy to give in to the Israeli lobby and attack Iran, but it's always possible he's just posturing and, when push comes to shove, he'll feign interest in negotiating when in actuality he'll just be trying to set the Iranians up in bad faith.

As for the "remember me" function on Matt's site, it clearly doesn't work, at least not in Firefox.

So even if it's not all bullshit (and I really don't think Edwards is bullshitting) what's Iran compared to electing a Democrat!

Exactly, Ed. Also, who would have pegged Petey as a Kucinich voter?

"Petey - you seem to have a monomania all of your own..."

Nah. More of a consuming passion.

Edwards is a means to an end. Making him the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party will do more to advance the cause of the left more than any other easily achievable action. So why not be passionate about it?

Thanks for agreeing with me, JP, but I can't agree with you about Stoller, at least the 'personal agendas' part. I don't see any evidence of that. I think he's quite sincere and does a lot of good work. I sometimes wish people like him had a little more developed sense of humor about practical politics, but I suppose that's easy for me to say. I do think it will make Edwards a better candidate to get sharper about foreign policy, on tyhe other hand.

I'm much more irritated by people like Sirota, who not only may have 'personal agendas', but also tend to be extremely rigid and utterly humorless; they tend to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and saddle candidates with their shattered 'innocence'. For example, Sirota has been smearing or badmouthing Obama for a year because Obama doesn't live up to Sirota's personal criteria of what a saviour/progressive ought to be. I think Stoller is better than that.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.

Note that "All options" includes not taking force off the table, but it also includes putting direct negotiations back on the table, which the Bush team seems to fear might lead to something productive.

Nicholas: You may be right, but it seems to me that in the current debate "ALL options must remain on the table" means "we've got to be ready to nuke the motherfuckers." Especially since that the option the generals were trying to take off the table. And nuking Iran to keep them from maybe developing a nuclear weapon would be completely unacceptable.

Petey: I was coming around to Edwards, but this really makes me doubt his judgment. Going to war with Iran is a major, looming danger, and should not be treated as even remotely sane by anyone. Iran getting nuclear weapons is a farther-off danger we're asked to fear on the word of two people we know are inveterate liars (Ahmedinejad and Bush).

In my mind, Edwards has a higher bar to clear on foreign-policy judgment than, say, Richardson because 1) he has basically no foreign-policy record and 2) what foreign-policy record he does have includes a huge, catastrophic mistake. You may not believe he would take the country to war against Iran, but there's really no evidence to back that up, just your positive feeling about the guy.

Edwards is having a live streaming chat tonight. In the section of his blog inviting questions, several people have asked him to clarify his position on Iran. I'll be very curious to see what he says.

Oy. I meant to note that those two quotes came from two different sources. The first is from Edwards's speech, the second from Nicholas Beaudrot upthread.

Edwards is the true believer out of the pack. If he is pandering it's not to the folks over at Herzliya, he's pandering to you the same way he did on Iraq talking about the threat of force.

There is likely going to be an attack on Iran, Bush is insulted from the public on these matters. Just like after the disastrous 2006 election results, instead of reducing or pulling out of Iraq, he pushed harder even though everyone is against it. Bush believes, likely because people have told him so, that he will be remembered in the future for doing what was necessary. Bush has proven to be incapable of true analysis, instead he relies on advisors and specific pundits, most of whom are recommending hackish policies to him.

Finally we get a great poker player; a great negotiator; somebody who as a trial lawyer earned a reputation as "you don't see him coming until it's too late". And now we want to second guess him; dump him because he's not a sledge hammer like Bush or an ineffective cipher like Rice? Hello...this guy is too smart to be in government. He should be raking in millionaires bucking the big guys in big corporations. God, John Edwards why do you want to deal with all this baloney? Oh, you want to change the world? How quaint.

Come on people, give the guy some slack. He just may be trying to save what is little left of this democracy.

In my mind, Edwards has a higher bar to clear on foreign-policy judgment than, say, Richardson

Does that really make sense? Plenty of people who had more FP experience than Richardson voted to authroize Bush (does that excuse them?!), and you can't know what Richardson would've done in the Senate, either. Edwards has said plainly that his Iraq vote was a mistake. If you're looking for reasons to not trust somebody - anybody - you will surely find them.

Matthew's monomania is well founded, IMO. A Bush 'administration' military attack on Iran would be a gigantic disaster, and I would bet lots of money that neither Edwards, HRC nor Obama would support it. Matt is right to be freaked out about it, and right to be concerned that the leading Dems aren't framing the issue more aggressively in terms of Bush's refusal to use diplomacy at all - although I know that both Edwards and Obama *have* expressed that concern at other times. But...aren't we overreacting about Edwards a little here?

And now we want to second guess him

I think the second guessing is not taking him at face value. He has a very consistent body of work concerning the middle east, he has rhetorical tics that aren't the standard shibolleths you spout off for AIPAC before you run, and he doesn't just use them in those sorts of circumstances.

Whatever the politicians may say in public, they need to say in private that America does not want a war with Iran but will not tolerate that country coming to possess nuclear weapons. The carrots are eventual trade agreements and WTO membership (contingent not just on the non-development of nuclear weapons but also extensive economic reforms) and the sticks must not just include the prospect of sanctions or limited bombing but the possibility of total war. And the mullahs need to understand what that will mean: not just the end of Iran's nuclear capability but the end of Iran itself, its fragmentation into three separate nation states.

No, having more experience doesn't excuse you from making a mistake, or even insulate you from them, but it does provide more of a record than just that one mistake. I picked Richardson as the counterexample because of the current Democratic candidates for President, he has the most foreign-policy experience by a healthy margin. As a result, I have a pretty decent idea of his foreign policy judgment. Edwards is more of a blank chart with a few not-too-encouraging data points on it. I'm still trying to fill him in.

Edwards did not address Iran at all in his chat, which he steered mainly toward domestic issues. I'm not knocking him for that, but it didn't make me feel any better either.

And the mullahs need to understand what that will mean: not just the end of Iran's nuclear capability but the end of Iran itself, its fragmentation into three separate nation states.

I think they understand as well as anyone that we can't make that stick.

I think they understand as well as anyone that we can't make that stick.

I thought that was a joke, maybe not though!

Nicholas: You may be right, but it seems to me that in the current debate "ALL options must remain on the table" means "we've got to be ready to nuke the motherfuckers." Especially since that the option the generals were trying to take off the table. And nuking Iran to keep them from maybe developing a nuclear weapon would be completely unacceptable.

Honest question, has the US ever had a first-strike nuclear doctrine?

... Okay, a google search shows that the DoD developed such a doctrine in '05, but it's not clear that it was ever approved by the SecDef or President.

"I think they understand as well as anyone that we can't make that stick."

As if - what exactly - it would be our stated intention? Was it our stated intention in Iraq?

I gather the Iranians understand better than many in Washington that the territorial integrity of their country is not insignificantly threatened by an Azeri nationalist movement in the north and Kurdish aspirations for nationhood. Tehran needs to understand that Washington knows insurgency and anarchy to be the likeliest outcomes to an invasion, but that that insurgency and anarchy is most likely to end in partition of the country. If the mullahs wish to avoid this outcome they must cease and desist their nuclear program and begin to reform their economy.

Nicholas: Seymour Hersh wrote about this last spring here. The White House was pushing for an option to use tactical nuclear weapons against possible Iranian nuclear facilities; the Joint Chiefs were resisting.

And then the White House backed down.

In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. The huge complex includes large underground facilities built into seventy-five-foot-deep holes in the ground and designed to hold as many as fifty thousand centrifuges. “Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: ‘O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’ ”

So those are the alarm bells that go off in my head when I hear "all options on the table."

Antid: right, but what was the final outcome? I assume the generals one out. You'll note that last spring was the time when all the ex-generals were calling on Rumsfeld to resign, and there was scuttlebutt that the whole thing was about getting the WH to back off its loony Iran policy.

Anyhow, we made it through the Cold War without a first strike doctrine. I think we can handle a country with a smaller GDP than Denmark without one too.

"I understand the political realities here, but I'd be much more inclined to give Edwards slack on this had he shown better judgment in the past."

1. Matt, I understand that you can't, or don't want to, mention your initial support for the war in every related post, but shouldn't you mention that the "judgment" you're slamming matched your own. Like you, Edwards has gone from a supporter to outspoken opponent. By your own standards, we shouldn't give you any slack.

2. I'm glad you at least mention "political realities." I'm sensing a self-defeating fuzzy-headed perfectionism emerging at My DD and other liberal blogs. I promise: not any of the major Democratic contenders is going to do anything but talk tough on Iran. I don't agree with this tack, and Democratic pols should broaden their notions of what's poltiically possible, but it seems to me that you and Stoller, maybe intoxicated by the downfall of Bush, expect Dems to lose overnight their deeply held, long cultivated beliefs about what it takes to get elected in America.

3. That said, I'm hoping against hope that Edwards's next speech on Iran goes something like, one-two-three-four, I don't want your stinkin' war.

Anyhow, we made it through the Cold War without a first strike doctrine. I think we can handle a country with a smaller GDP than Denmark without one too.

Not true. First Strike has been U.S. doctrine since the birth of the bomb. The USSR in the 80's made a non-first strike pledge and post-Soviet Russia took it back.

The point of nuclear primacy is first strike, not deterence.

"Honest question, has the US ever had a first-strike nuclear doctrine?"

Yup. For about 30 years of the cold war, we planned to first use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional invasion of Europe by the Russians.

Eisenhower initiated the policy in order to be able to reduce spending on the conventional defense of Europe, and the policy remained in place for the rest of the cold war.

To the best of my knowledge, we have never disclaimed the right to a first strike.

Like you, Edwards has gone from a supporter to outspoken opponent. By your own standards, we shouldn't give you any slack.

Except that we have much, much more information about MY's positions as regard a host of FP cases, and he is responsive to arguments and criticisms made by other blogs and even in comments. If MY whipped off his mask and revealed Edwards, I bet people would feel they had a much better sense of Edwards's FP instincts than they do have now.

"we have never disclaimed the right to a first strike."

But that's not the same as having an active first strike doctrine, which I don't believe we've had since the end of the cold war.

In '95, under the context of first strike against NPT members, Russia, France, Britain sez "these countries will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT, except in the case of an invasion or attack on their territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies or States towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State, in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state"

Contrast this with China who said "not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances" and "not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances."

So not only is first strike always on the table when dealing with nuclear powers (and always has been), as Iran is accused of skirting NPT it is by doctrine a first strike target and has been since Carter.

Tehran needs to understand that Washington knows insurgency and anarchy to be the likeliest outcomes to an invasion, but that that insurgency and anarchy is most likely to end in partition of the country.

Because what the world, and the US in particular, needs now is total, American-created, chaos on the border of Pakistan.

The problem here, vis a vis Edwards (and people like him), is that he is always held to a different standard. Stoller says: '"The issue for John Edwards has always been credibility". Really? How is that different from Kerry, HRC, Gore and every other pol who has ever walked the earth? The difference is that people like Edwards and Obama are expected to disprove a negative: since you are persuasive, charismatic and have obvious political skills, you must be a liar; you must prove to us that you aren't! If these two guys were frumpy inarticulate mediocre drones like most modern pols, no one would bat an eye if they changed their minds or waffled or pandered - people would even find a reason to admire them. It is really disheartning to me that liberals and progressives are even more susceptable to this phenom. than are conservatives; American liberals tend to not trust skilled politicians. Isn't that, to put it mildly, self-defeating? If neither Edwards or Obama pan out, fine. But it just makes no sense (except psychologically) to prejudge them.

"American liberals tend to not trust skilled politicians. Isn't that, to put it mildly, self-defeating?"

Yup and yup.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about, Johnny. I'm completely taking Edwards at face value on Iran. If I've got someone it's probably Obama because I hope he's lying.

If neither Edwards or Obama pan out, fine. But it just makes no sense (except psychologically) to prejudge them.

I think the problem people are complaining about is that there's nothing--or only the Iraq war vote--to judge them on. I suspect the better proxy for figuring out where Edwards's head is to find out what people or group of people are offering him advice in what areas. I don't know who his FP guys are; do y'all?

He took most of the Kerry team for his political staff. I'd lay way better than even money the foreign policy team would be the same as Kerry 04.

"He took most of the Kerry team for his political staff."

Huh?

"Because what the world, and the US in particular, needs now is total, American-created, chaos on the border of Pakistan."

Sure, and what I really needed was for one of my heater hoses to explode in my face a few weeks back after tapping it while I was replacing the glow plugs on one of my cars. But that doesn't mean I didn't need to replace the glow plugs.

As soon as the average iq increases by about thirty points we can dispense with this kind of logic. But until then it is the kind of logic that turns the world.

Generally I prefer to joke, and fuck around.

"I don't see him being the most likely guy to give in to the Israeli lobby and attack Iran"

He hired David Bonior to be his campaign manager, which definitely upset the Israel Lobby.

See:

http://www.nysun.com/article/44645

Sure, and what I really needed was for one of my heater hoses to explode in my face a few weeks back after tapping it while I was replacing the glow plugs on one of my cars. But that doesn't mean I didn't need to replace the glow plugs.

Maybe it means that you should have let someone competent handle the glow plug replacement. And maybe it's the same with FP.

Thanks for the links, Matt. I don't see anything to cause concern about what JE said. Israel is an ally, and Iran is a threat. What else is new. The questiion that should concern us all is, Who is the best choice to provide prudent, realistic leadership though the pitfalls of the next decade? The current administration has failed; candidates for the next one should be judged by what they say. Considering that all the Dem candidates will probably make similar noises with respect to foreign policy, perhaps we should pay more attention to domestic affairs first, and make the final, cumulative decision based upon whether or not we believe them.

1. Attack on Iran ==> closure of Straits of Hormuz
2. Oil price rises drastically, even if only "temporarily" until we can clear the Straits. (And given what else is likely to be going on, we might not be able to.)
3. US economy reaction to oil price shock? Hello, collapse of stock market?
4. Hello, reactions by Russia and China? Heck, China wouldn't have to do anything, just suddenly NOT BUY during the next round of gov't bonds we put out to sale to support our economy-in-deficit-funding-mode.
5. China has, by the way, signed quite a lot of paper with Iran. Do we really want to piss them off so they do something militarily?
6. And if it looks like Israel has egged us into acting as a cat's paw for them--after everything turns turtle and the US has slipped into a Big Fat Depression that makes 1929 look like a gentle breeze--what do you think the reaction will be here in the US?

Hello, has everyone gone nuts?!

Talk of bringing Israel into NATO strikes me as weird. Of course the European allies would never go along. But talking about it seems like an indirect way of suggesting an American security guarantee for Israel, which would mean directly involving the U.S. in future Arab-Israeli wars. It's my impression that the Israelis themselves have always been nearly unanimous that they don't want that.

Edwards on Iran, April 30, 2006: "There's some things that we can do to stem future threats but we also must look together to meet specific non-proliferation challenges. And it is Iran's nuclear ambitions that pose the single greatest security threat to the United States and Europe.

"Now for years I've argued that my government has not been doing enough to deal with the Iranian threat. While they talk that talk of the dangers of nuclear terrorism, they largely stood on the sidelines as Iran marched forward and this problem got worse. The EU3 deserve credit for its work and its leadership in this area. But American disengagement is not the right way to deal with such an extraordinary threat.

"Iran's recent actions, beginning with the reprocessing and enrichment of uranium and its refusal to cooperate with international inspections in open defiance of the UN Security Council make clear that it intends to secure nuclear weapons. And the Iranian president's statements such as his despicable description of the holocaust as a myth or his ugly pledge to wipe Israel off the map, illustrates the seriousness of the threat.

"When he says things like this we should take him at his word. The international community must confront Iran with a clear choice, give up your nuclear ambitions or suffer the consequences. Right now this means UN Security Council actions to impose sanctions.

"But we have more options than doing nothing or using force. That's a false choice. We have many more diplomatic tools to use and we already use every single one of them. For the United States, this means more active and creative diplomacy, including a willingness to engage the Iranian leadership directly. For the Europeans, it means standing strong to confront Iran in the Security Council with meaningful sanctions, and a willingness to implement those sanctions."

[...]

I already posted Obama's statements on Iran, all taken from his website, in a thread here about a month ago. I get the sense that Obama might be best from the dove point of view due to statements like this:

"We can rattle our sabers all we want but, realistically, we don't have troops for an invasion and surgical strikes aren't going to work."

or this: "[O]ne of the things you do get a strong sense of is that Israel at this point possesses such superior military forces, that they don't really have enormous vulnerability in a conventional sense."

or this: "Here's the one single thing that we could do that's most important to eliminate the Iranian threat. We could pursue energy independence here in the United States."

or this: "And so I firmly believe that we should convene a regional conference with the Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, the Turks, Jordanians, the British and others. The goal of this conference should be to get foreign fighters out of Iraq, prevent a further descent into civil war, and push the various Iraqi factions towards a political solution."

Let's not forget that Obama is the only serious candidate to have called it right about Iraq in 2002.

Hi Matthew, this is maybe too late, but I do hope you see it. There's an enormous swell in favour of Edwards at the moment, but as someone from outside the US, I'd urge you to put his foreign policy under the microscope. He seems like a good guy in domestics, but (like half the Democratic party) he's a fully enthusiastic member of the CFR consensus on foreign affairs.

That includes:

1) Standing by and letting the Iraq mess happen.
2) A rather hardline stance on Iran. It's nice that he talks about negotiations, but if you're not prepared to be a little bit flexible, then it's not actually that much help.
3) Go read his report on Russia that he wrote for the CFR. It's just really worrying. It takes for granted an entirely distorted view of recent history that I thought only Cato and Cheney believed.

"Maybe it means that you should have let someone competent handle the glow plug replacement. And maybe it's the same with FP."

Yep. Linus is dumb, and a jerk too.

We should leave foreign policy to Principaled Democratic Experts who would never think of saying one thing to please the base and then doing something else once they get elected.

PS What was Markos's stand on the bankruptcy bill after it passed again? Do you suppose he'll lead a march on Washington against President Hillary Rodham Clinton's Iran War or encourage his flock to - you know - just move on.

PPS For future reference, healthy cooling system hoses do not simply not explode on touch, but can be squeezed repeatedly while still warm to increase pressure in the system during testing, radiator soldering, and other fixes. It's also - I believe - the case that healthy societies do not implode because of what is happening in a neighboring country. It may also be the case that some of these societies are unhealthy because Washington has been enabling their worst pathologies for decades. And it may be the case as well that any number of Democrats would like to pretend that this isn't happening or doesn't matter.

Hard working hamsters (living on minimum wage) are kept up all night running the beauty in front of your eyes. They slave away powering Wordpress on the shiney new grid-server platform from the kind and loving people at MediaTemple. So if your considering stealing some content, please think of the hamsters. If that doesnt stop you, think about how far my lawyer can shove his foot up your ass.

im enjoying dreamhost, im upgrade now.

no zevj

Talk of bringing Israel into NATO strikes me as weird. Of course the European allies would never go along. But talking about it seems like an indirect way of suggesting an American security guarantee for Israel, which would mean directly involving the U.S. in future Arab-Israeli wars. It's my impression that the Israelis themselves have always been nearly unanimous that they don't want that.

of bringing Israel into NATO strikes me as weird. Of course the European allies would never go along. But talking about it seems like an indirect way of suggesting an American security guarantee for Israel, which would mean directly involving the U.S. in future Arab-Israeli wars. It's my impression that the Israelis themselves have always been nearly unanimous that they don't want that.

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

war not good

Thanks for a lot mén

thank you

Thank you.

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
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

thanksss

I think they understand as well as anyone that we can't make that stick.

I thought that was a joke, maybe not though!

porno
sex
hikaye
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

mirc

kelebek 

kelebek sohbet 

kelebek script 
kelebek
chat 
chat 
sohbet 
chat
sohbet 
sohbet
odalari 

sohbet odalari
sohbet
mIRC
mIRC yukle
mIRC indir
turkce
mirc
video izle
video
video seyret
vidyo izle
izlesene
videolar
tube
piknik
piknik
tube
picnic tube
piknik tub
youtube
you tube

video izle
radyo
radyolar
radyo dinle
canli
radyo dinle hit
muzik dinle
sarki dinle
chat
bedava
chat
chat sohbet
chatsohbet
chat
siteleri tv
tvizle
tv izle
canli tv
izle
canli yayin
tv seyret
canli tv
seyret
yabanci
tv izle
tv kanallari
canli izle
canli tv
msn
msnozel
msn
ifadeleri
msn indir
msn
avatarlari
msn
resimleri
msn
nickleri
dinle
muzik dinle
canli
muzik dinle
sarki dinle
sarki
sozleri
lyrics mp3
bedava mp3
mp3 indir
mp3 yukle
bedava
mp3 indir
cafe
sevgili
sevgili

sohbet siteleri

sohbet odalari
chat
sohbet

bedava sohbet
bedava
chat

hazir mesajlar
guzel
sozler
ask sevgi
ask
oyun
oyunlar
ideal oyun
oyun oyna

barbiy oyunlari
kral oyun
kelebek
kelebek
mirc
kelebek script
kelebek
indir

kelebek mirc

kelebek script
kelebek

kelebek sohbet
dizi
dizi izle
dizi
seyret
canli
dizi
bedava dizi
diziler