Pre-Emptive War

Hillary Clinton tells the New Hampshire Union-Leader, "When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war." Obviously, though, the authority she did give the president was the authority to launch a pre-emptive war. More to the point, however, whatever Clinton thought she was doing in October 2002, if she disapproved of what Bush decided to do in March 2003 she could have spoken up. All I can find in a critical vein from Senator Clinton on Iraq in that period is this press release in which she criticized the president's homeland security funding and asks that additional monies by appropriated for this purpose when the inevitable Iraq supplemental comes down. She doesn't actually criticize the president's Iraq policy at all. On March 17, meanwhile, she issued a clear and unambiguous statement of support for Bush's position:

When the President of the United States addresses the nation about possible military action, it is a solemn occasion for every American. Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties. I have had the honor of meeting and speaking with many of our brave men and women in uniform. They are the best trained, equipped, and motivated military in the entire world, we support them fully and we are grateful for their courageous service in these difficult times.

This should all come as no surprise as Clinton was happy for years to be identified as a war supporter. Like millions of Americans, myself included, her views on the merits of the war have changed as we watched events unfold on the ground and as we gave the matter further thought. She might as well just say so, since pretending otherwise is pretty silly -- she's not an obscure figure, everybody knows she was for the war.

2/10/07 1:26PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

I don't know why MY hates women. (To be fair, isn't the difference between her position and that of Edwards a matter of timing rather than language or acknowledgment?)

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on February 10, 2007 01:39 PM

SCMT: Read Edward's op-ed, "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price."

Clinton is stuck denying that she voted for the war at all!

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on February 10, 2007 01:45 PM

"...everybody knows she was for the war."

Let's not forget that everybody knew Iraq was not involved with 9/11, except for a majority of American adults.

I seriously doubt the median American has any idea where Hillary Clinton stood on the war.

Posted by: LaFollette Progressive on February 10, 2007 01:51 PM

I agree that I respect Hillary a lot less because she's a lying here.

I suspect it will make her more electable.

The Press & American People love liars.

Posted by: MDtoMN on February 10, 2007 02:04 PM

Yeah, but...from the same editorial: The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

I believe Clinton rolled out a version of this herself, six to nine months ago. That said, if she's unwilling to concede she made a mistake, I'm not sure that's a strategic mistake. At least one way to read this is as a replay of the BJC White House disagreements about releasing negative information relating to scandals to the press. IIRC, HRC was consistently on the side of restricting such releases. At the time, the press accepted the opposed view that this was a mistake that increased press attention and lengthened the time of media attention to any specific scandal. But in the face of the behavior of the press over the last five years, that view looks suspiciously favorable towards the press.

At the end of the day, the question may be whether someone can (a) raise as an important issue GWB's famous unwillingness to admit mistake, tie that to our failures in Iraq, and connect that negatively to HRC, or (b) credibly claim that her unwillingness to admit mistake marks her as substantively more war-like than the other candidates. I'm not sure either can be accomplished, particularly (b), which I take to be your specific focus. Just as her gender raises doubts for some people about her willingness to go to war, so it insulates her from some of the charges that she is too hawkish.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on February 10, 2007 02:12 PM

I will never vote for a candidate who does not support an end to the occupation of Iraq now. The time has come for Hillary Clinton to be heard now.

Posted by: Jennifer on February 10, 2007 02:19 PM

Sorry, but had Hillary Clinton or Matthew Yglesias been thinking at all clearly they would have understood war was not necessary and wrong and occupation was worse.

Posted by: Jennifer on February 10, 2007 02:21 PM

SCMTim:

I fail to see how Clinton's position makes her more electable. It's exactly the same line Kerry took in 2004 (I didn't vote for the war, I only voted to give Bush the authority, I was duped by bad intelligence), and it was certainly a liability then. Do you really think Clinton will be better able to sell that line than Kerry was? If anything, I imagine voters will be more eager to see a candidate straightforwardly repudiate the war in '08 than see a politician weasel out of their responsibility for it.

Posted by: Christmas on February 10, 2007 02:42 PM

Hilary Clinton stayed a war supporter for *years*. She prevaricated and triangulated and refused to come out against an illegal war and then an illegal military occupation. Even as things were clearly sliding downhill into disaster she waffled, hemmed and hawed, and generally showed no courage whatsoever. Or even much intelligence about what was going on. She took her first clear stand against the war less than a year ago, and is *still* waffling about ending the occupation!

I'd vote for her in the general against most Republicans...maybe not if the Repubs elect an anti-war candidate like Hagel, though I doubt they will...but that's about the only good thing I can say about her.

Posted by: MQ on February 10, 2007 02:42 PM

Hillary really didn't criticize the Iraq war until 60% of the public turned against it. Early in the occupation, Edwards was even more obnoxious than Hillary. That's why I hope Gore decides to run. If not, I'll go for Obama.

Posted by: MarvyT on February 10, 2007 02:46 PM

"When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war." Obviously, though, the authority she did give the president was the authority to launch a pre-emptive war.

I actually agree with Clinton on this point. I've yet to be convinced the vote was wrong in any theoretical or abstract sense. Sure, given that Bush is a warmongering asshole we have a problem, but threatening Saddam to let the weapon inspectors in was perfectly reasonable.

More to the point, however, whatever Clinton thought she was doing in October 2002, if she disapproved of what Bush decided to do in March 2003 she could have spoken up.

Exactly. This is what really pisses me off, and it goes for Edwards, Kerry and the rest. Who cares what the intelligence community said at the time of the vote, buy the time Bush (and only Bush) decided to invade we had weapon inspectors on the ground and they weren't finding anything. The person I'd have most respect for would be someone who voted to authorize invasion but strongly spoke up against the actual invasion months later. Near as I can tell, that person doesn't exist.

Posted by: Mark on February 10, 2007 03:02 PM

Trying to explain that making a mistake was actually a perfectly good idea is a lot worse than just admitting that you were wrong. HRC is going to have to go through endless permutations over the course of the next year - while public approval of the Iraq war sinks ever lower. I can't see how this is a good idea politically.

Posted by: justaguy on February 10, 2007 03:04 PM

I fail to see how Clinton's position makes her more electable. It's exactly the same line Kerry took in 2004 (I didn't vote for the war, I only voted to give Bush the authority, I was duped by bad intelligence), and it was certainly a liability then.

It's not clear to me how much of a liability it was. Kerry didn't lose in a landslide, the public wasn't against the war anything like it is now, Bush's popularity wasn't nearly as low, etc. Insofar as it was a liability, it was because it played into a narrative about Kerry--empty shirt who had no policy positions--and not because of sentiment about his substantive position.

I'm not sure that's true. The media made the same mistake/political judgment, and I think they're likely to paint her explanations in as favorable a light as possible. If you're going to lynch someone, the first thing to do is to rope the sheriff, the judge, and as many potential jury members into it as possible. However we parcel out roles, the major media took almost exactly the same position as HRC. Whether blogs, activists, and the like will be enough to force some sort of accountability moment is an open question.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on February 10, 2007 03:23 PM

I couldn't agree more. Hillary's slipperyness on the war issue is by far her biggest weakness. And the most baffling thing about it is that it is totally unnecessary. Why doesn't she just say she made a mistake? So many of us did. We gave this Administration the benefit of the doubt in a time when doing so was, relatively speaking, just much more understandable. Voters recognize that and they recognize Hillary trying to weasle her way into a position on the war. It is just not going to work and it plays right into the right--wing stereotype of the Clintons.

Posted by: Francesco on February 10, 2007 03:35 PM

HRC's general approach to US foreign policy - and what that approach is likely to mean for our future - is a far more important issue than which past actions, whether her own or others', she is now willing to classify as "mistakes". All sorts of people now say going to war was a mistake, from the gentlest antiwar doves to the most hawkish neocons. Their reasons for calling it a mistake differ wildly, however. If Clinton comes out tomorrow and says her vote for the war was a "mistake", what will it mean? Nothing, because the fact is that she seems no less committed now to the same overall Middle East foreign policy orientation she had back in 2002.

Perhaps in 2012, Hillary's fools will be placated if she admits it was a mistake to bang the Iranian war drums back in 2008?

Posted by: Dan Kervick on February 10, 2007 03:39 PM

Has anyone else been following the multi-column fight Bill Arkin had been having with troops and veterans until his editors at the Washington Post told him to shut the argument down? I guess you could just read Arkin's three columns, and maybe just a few dozen of the hundreds of hostile comments he received in response. It really is worthwhile, Arkin is quite moving, and it might even be instructive. Arkin's blog is called "Early Warning"

Posted by: bob mcmanus on February 10, 2007 03:42 PM

"Whether blogs, activists, and the like will be enough to force some sort of accountability moment is an open question."

I don't think it is. How long did it take McNamara?

Gaping wound the rest of your lives, people. Festering sore on the skin of America, picked at, bandaged, sutured and retorn, til the day the last...well, who knows maybe a century.

History is politics become scar tissue.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on February 10, 2007 03:51 PM

HRC's current position is based on sound politics. She was an aggressive war supporter not only in the beginning, but for several years into the war. To come out and say otherwise would be too easy for the media or other candidates to refute. Edwards can say what he says about Iraq because, despite his vote, he was not a vocal war supporter like HRC. There aren't countless John Edwards quotes out there affirming and re-affirming his war support. HRC's position was as clear as can be for a solid two years. She strongly favored the war despite the occasional complaint about its execution.

Of course, HRC knows she can't continue to support the war and hope to win the Democratic nomination. So she's got to finesse things. If she can get "moderates" and a few liberals to pick up her argument - that she was voting for more inspections, not giving GW a blank check - she can make it work. This is one reason HRC needs to get ahead of the field now: if she becomes the true favorite, fellow Democrats will reflexively defend her position out of habit and obligation. If it looks like Obama or Edwards have a shot, she'll have a much harder time finding proxy voices to parrot her positions for her.

The only real question is whether Democratic voters will let her get away with it. While I agree that most Americans are pretty clueless about HRC's war position, presidential primary voters constitute a significantly smaller, more informed portion of the voting public than "most Americans." And Iraq is only going to get worse and worse. It's going to be the issue of 2008.

Anyway, I think her strategy will fail. The fact that the media has annointed HRC the favorite puts a pretty big target on her back in terms of the other Democratic candidates - and I don't think she can pull far enough ahead to lock things up early. Once things heat up and the candidates start going after each other, her war support is going to become a major issue. Every other Democratic candidate is going to be either (a.) against the war from the start or (b.) willing to totally repudiate his early support for the war. HRC will be the lone candidate trying to finesse the issue and she will be the media "favorite."

If she's not careful, her war position will turn her into a stand-in for GWB when the debates start.

Posted by: owenz on February 10, 2007 03:51 PM

Hillary was for the war then, and if AIPAC pressures her to go to war against X or Y she will just do it. As fas as foreign policy goes, to my knowledge, only Obama and Gore can claim high marks in the Democratic presidentiable crowd.

Posted by: econBras on February 10, 2007 03:53 PM

It was quite clear to me in 2002 that HRC was making a political judgment - not a vote out of moral principle or personal conviction - when she decided to vote for the "use of force" resolution. I was there, really disgusted, as I listened (on NPR) to her long-winded, miserable speech about the subject when she cast her vote. A vote against the resolution at that time was, admittedly, extremely difficult from a political point of view, as demonstrated by the majority of democratic senators who voted for it. But we all knew at the time that the effect of the vote WAS to allow the president to make pre-emptive war. Today, she's trying to make us believe that her vote for the resolution was something that it was not. It was NOT a vote for more inspections or international support or anything else. She is prevaricating, lying, calculating, about this subject, and will not get my vote.

Addendum: even though "most" citizens might have believed the WMD story back in 2002, it is hard for me to believe that sitting US congresspersons, with their expertise and access to intel, didn't have cause to doubt the administration on that. I sure didn't believe it, and all I had to inform my thought process was a lot of free time to read stuff. To assert or believe that our most important decision-makers were all fooled or misled, like much of the public, is revisionism.

Posted by: DC on February 10, 2007 03:58 PM

I understand the theory that the Iraq vote was "needed" to force Hussein to accept the inspectors back in but that need was as knowingly fraudulent as the Niger uranium deal.

The inspection regime had become, like the no fly zones, simply a weapon used by the US to force Hussein into a fighting corner. His accusations that the US was using them as a spy program were true; he was being asked in effect to help the US draw up its bombing program.
What was being demanded of Hussein formally, to fully account for all of his supposed WMD, was an impossibility, would never happen, could not in the nature of the beast happen. Forget the fact that the US was just lying about things that never existed to begin with, no nation that ever toyed with WMD, including the US, can make such an accounting. I only go on about this because everyone knew or should have known all of this at the time. The new inspection regime could never satisfy the US and would only be used to further hostilities. This was known and discussed at the time.

And so, with all due respect, anyone who voted to authorize the war is being more than slippery to say "but oh, not the war we got!". I've even less patience for Edwards' "my vote was a mistake." The only mistake was his political miscalculation. Same for Hillary. Yes they both managed to be for the war before they were against it but that is beyond cliche. It only brings them in line now with all those Americans whose views Hill and Ed were following; a solid majority of Americans did support the war. And of course it is critical that we not tell the voters (and talking heads) that they were wrong and fucked it up big time!
Oh no they had to be misled or fed false intelligence. And that is the purpose of Hillary's dance; she can't be seen to push the voters into their disenchantment with Iraq. To follow them on Iraq is to lead in the presidential waltz.

For us, us, I can't understand contemplating a vote for anyone who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, though I can perhaps see a cynical necessity. But isn't that what got us here?

Posted by: tiptap on February 10, 2007 04:32 PM

I think that MY has the best and more truthful strategy--admit that you've changed, but point out that the center of the country has too. Those of us who were against the war from the beginning remain ticked off, but Hillary can't do any better than that with us anyway. If people are lying then you know that they are either habitual liars or there's pressure being brought to bear. The pressure right now is from Obama and the anti-war Dems who have it in for Hillary. But lying brings more pressure, which is why this is a dumb move.

"A vote against the resolution at that time was, admittedly, extremely difficult from a political point of view, as demonstrated by the majority of democratic senators who voted for it."

I guess I agree with this, but there were still 18 Dem senators who voted against it, and the vast majority of Dems in the House. Hillary was thinking as a future presidential candidate, not as a senator from a liberal state still 4 years away from her next election. If the Iraq War had gone as well as all the hawks had predicted, Hillary would have still have been able to win re-election in New York. Maybe the presidency would have been difficult, but it wasn't her job to think about that in 2002.

So when we talk about how difficult it was for Clinton, Kerry, and others let's remember that their political lives were almost certainly not in danger. Just their presidential ambitions. But I don't think we need to excuse someone for cowardice or thoughtlessness inspired by presidential ambitions.

Posted by: Jeremiah J. on February 10, 2007 04:43 PM

Dan Kervick has it right above. The key question now is her rhetoric about Iran and middle east policy in general. She is showing every sign that she will let the war lobby push her around on that issue too. Preventing more war in the middle east is IMO by far the most important 2008 issue. And Hilary is not reliable or trustworthy on it.

Posted by: MQ on February 10, 2007 05:11 PM

I'm not a believer in pre-emptive war, but if she meant that it would be a crazy break from the liberal hawk crowd. I think she fucked up her lines and meant preventative war.

Posted by: Ed Marshall on February 10, 2007 05:13 PM

"Hilary Clinton stayed a war supporter for *years*."

And would be today if prospects were better.

Its the latest example of how Clinton will lose if she gets the nod. Once you start explaining, start putting the first person singular pronoun into your statements, you're dead. Folk swoon over her 'I was born with the responsibility gene' yack, but its still an "I" statement, and still offered by way of explanation. Her husband got away with the same prevaricating (and hey, I loved voting for him twice) because he never explained. Just talked about YOUR pain, and how he would help (and still needed a splitter to pull out a plurality). Mrs Clinton ain't got it.

Posted by: rickhavoc on February 10, 2007 05:24 PM

Her husband got away with the same prevaricating (and hey, I loved voting for him twice) because he never explained.

Her husband got away with it because he is a substantially better politician, with substantially better retail political skills, than she is. If she tries to run as he would, she'll lose. I think she's running the Al Gore front-runner campaign. The end result of that? We'll see.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on February 10, 2007 05:29 PM

Looks like she presented a nuanced view.

Here is her speech on the senate floor just before the vote.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Posted by: DonB on February 10, 2007 07:49 PM

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

Next time don't be disrespectful to the Atlantacists, check.

Posted by: Ed Marshall on February 10, 2007 08:02 PM

Except for the fact that he had already agreed to let weapons inspectors in before the vote.

Posted by: Chad Okere on February 10, 2007 09:02 PM

If Senator Clinton wanted to ensure the US didn't go to war until there was a Security Council resolution insisting on unlimited inspections, she should have insisted that the apporpriate language be added the the AUMF. The resolution she voted for states,

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

It appears to me that Congress was giving the president almost unlimited authority to go to war with Iraq. Did I miss the clause that states the president could only use the threat of force to pressure Saddam to let in the inspectors? Did the Senator truly believe once President Bush had the authorization he wasn't going to use it.

Senator Clinton is either lying about why she voted for the war or more importantly can not judge intelligence. I leave it to others to decide whether being a dupe is better than being a liar.

From the Senator's own statement, "Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt" Maybe she should have asked the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Bob Graham, about the quality of the facts.
Other pearls of wisdom from a statement with an innumerable number of hedges:
"So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world..."

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier."

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely,..."

Posted by: no convictions on February 10, 2007 09:29 PM

Obviously what we don't need is some lib Hitler Hillary type telling us she'll invade Iran and then invading Iran.

What would be preferable is a bitchen populist like Johnny "totally from humble circumstances" Edwards telling us he won't invade Iran and then invading Iran.

Posted by: Linus on February 10, 2007 11:46 PM

My reading of AUM is that Bush blantantly lied that he was attacking Iraq to "enforce UN resolutions" and this broke the law.

The problem is that Sen. Clinton did not say so.

Posted by: piotr on February 11, 2007 12:14 AM

It was not a pre-emmptive war; it was a preventive war. If MY doesn't know the difference, he shouldn't even be blogging about this.

Posted by: wmr on February 11, 2007 01:34 AM

It was not a pre-emmptive war; it was a preventive war.

What was it preventing?

Posted by: CaseyL on February 11, 2007 02:44 AM

"When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war." -Hillary

Yeah, um, thanks, but something seems to have gotten lost in the translation. When one says anything to George W. Bush short of "No, I'm not going to fucking let you do what you want," he hears, "Sure, George, do whatever the fuck you want, I'm not going to stop you."

And he hears that a *lot* from too many Democrats.

Someone had a classic line about the philosophy of saying what you mean (Oliver Wendell Holmes, maybe?): "Secret hopes and fears count for nothing."

Or, Hillary and Joe Klein can go cry into a beer together about how nobody remembers how much they wanted to limit Bush's war powers, and how little they did to *actually* limit Bush's war powers. Tom Friedman, too, king of the "When I supported the war, I didn't say I wanted it to turn out like *this*, so it's not *my* fault Bush fucked it up - it's not! Stop saying that!!!1!"

Posted by: Chris on February 11, 2007 02:56 AM

The only constraints the resolution put on the president was that he had to notify Congress of his intentions (48 hours?) before the start of the war. The Congress was authorizing Bush to take whatever actions he deemed necessary and appropriate. Obvioulsy the administration wanted to start a pre-emptive war (hence those speeches laying out Bush Doctrine starting in June 2002 )so what she authorized was indeed preemptive war.
I am sure Senators Clinton, Edwards etc all hoped the president wouldn't invade Iraq but by voting for the resolution they ceded their ability to deter the president. I partly blame the Democratic leadership for the mess since they were in such a hurry to get the vote out of the way before the elections.

Posted by: not my fault on February 11, 2007 04:09 AM

There are other adjectives in the English language than "silly." For fuck's sake learn them, use them, and grow out of this ridiculous word, you've been abusing it for years and it drives me crazy!

Jesus.

Posted by: paradox on February 11, 2007 08:11 AM

Obama and Edwards should be hammering Clinton day and night over her attempts to have it every which way on Iraq. But it's difficult for Edwards to do because of his own vote, even though he's been a lot more forthright in repudiating it. And I'm afraid Obama won't because he's really running for vice-pesident and won't want to burn his bridges.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on February 11, 2007 09:11 AM

Pre-invasion, Senators were apparently told we'd be greeted with flowers in Iraq. Was that ALL they were told? Surely a little more detail was offered explaining WHY it was thought that various Iraqi power centers would quietly submit to our control. Or, is this kind of huge invasion thing simply done off the cuff?

Posted by: ferd on February 11, 2007 10:07 AM

I disagree. Too many liberals are taking out their legitimate anger about the war on Democrats who they perceive, well after the fact, were not aggressive enough in opposing the war.

Here are my thoughts. Bush absolutely had the authority to go to war without going through the process of UN Security Council Resolutions. Democrats, like Clinton, wanted to slow him down, prove that Saddam was or was not a threat, and, if war, go to war with the blessing and support of many allies and a UN Security Council resolution.

It looked (and sounded, if you listened to the Bushies' words) for all the world that Bush was rushing to war without going through the UN. Clinton, Kerry, and other Democrats said at the time that the U.S. Senate Resolution to authorize military force was a means to get Bush to agree to go via the UN, renew inspections, etc. It was an AUMF Resolution, NOT a pro-war, pro-invasion Resolution!! No President has ever been denied an AUMF.

Thus, it is incorrect to now say Clinton "voted" for war. Many liberal Democrats, justifiably mad about the war, have bought into the Republican propaganda that a vote for the Resolution was a vote for war. Wrong, you cannot re-write the Resolution, but you can go re-read it and the contemporaneous speeches by Clinton and Kerry at the time. Try it.

The very quotes that Matt refers to in this post show a consistent advocacy and preference by Clinton to continue with inspections and deliberation. And a last minute statement of support for the troops is not an endorsement for invasion.

Matt, you can say Clinton did not oppose the war aggressively enough and be mad at her. Well, actually, you can’t because you supported the war, but some of the other commenters here can. But you cannot rewrite the AUMF Resolution and say it was a vote for war. That’s bull.

Posted by: jackohearts on February 13, 2007 07:44 AM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 16, 2007 01:28 PM

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

Posted by: mirc on November 17, 2007 06:07 PM

Posted by: muhabbet on November 24, 2007 10:40 AM

Thanks for a lot mén

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on November 26, 2007 06:36 PM

thankssss..

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on December 2, 2007 11:20 AM

thanks a lot

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on December 2, 2007 11:22 AM

tesekkürlerrr

Posted by: pars narkoterör on December 2, 2007 11:23 AM

I will never vote for a candidate who does not support an end to the occupation of Iraq now. The time has come for Hillary Clinton to be heard now.
Posted by: Jennifer on February 10, 2007 02:19 PM

Posted by: kablo kanalları on December 10, 2007 10:42 AM

thanks for this useful post

Posted by: kablo kanalı on December 10, 2007 10:43 AM

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

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on December 17, 2007 04:36 AM