Comments (357)

Deb wrote on February 2, 2007 5:30 PM:

Can't someone shut Billy the Kid Kristol up? It boggles the mind that anyone in the Republican Party would continue to listen to this blow-hard. He's been wrong every step of the way. Tell him to take up arms and get in the fight.

Bearpaw wrote on February 2, 2007 5:35 PM:

Careful! Criticizing Bill Kristol emboldens the enemy.

penney wrote on February 2, 2007 5:49 PM:

Geesh, I do hate to break it to Mr. Kristol, but he is in error. In '79 and '80, New Jersey's Senators were Harrison Williams (D) and Bill Bradley (D). Neither a Reganite Republican.

Nan wrote on February 2, 2007 6:14 PM:

Why do people treat William Kristol as just another pundit? He is not a pundit he is a GOP apparatchick. The guy writes strategy papers for the GOP.

It is a scandal that Time magazine is publishing this neocon dead ender. One more reason to cancel your Time subsciption.

POed Lib wrote on February 2, 2007 7:19 PM:

If you ever hear Bill Kristol on a talk show, call up and revoke his pundit's license. I have done this once, and am trying every time I hear him to do it again.

What does it take to get the access for these fucking moron neocon blowhards revoked? They have been wrong since 2000, and before that they were wrong as well.

David Reid wrote on February 2, 2007 7:33 PM:

I would trust Billy Crystal's opinion more.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 2, 2007 7:55 PM:

The issue with Kristol is not that he is a pundit batting zero - He is not a pundit. He is a shill, a paid prostitute, a shameless who-war.

Correct or (as we have all noted here - more likely) incorrect, little Willy K tows the present Executive Branch's line.

When Kristol talks and writes he is not generating and disseminating his point of view, observations or ideas . . . He is fling the Chimp in Charge's poo.

The best (most entertaining) part is the right wing-nuts eating their own in an effort to avoid the slow motion fall into the grinder.

Mr. Kistol, please, continue to drive all the moderate Republicans you possibly can on to our side . . .

libra wrote on February 2, 2007 9:40 PM:

[...]the Democrats' anti-surge, anti-Petraeus, anti-troops, and anti-victory resolution. -- Kristol

If there was any chance for a "victory by resolution" in that conflict, I'm sure everyone -- Democrat and GOPher alike -- would be writing and signing them with both hands. Unfortunately, it's only in Bush's private little fantasy-world that things happen "because I told them to"

Kristol-Nacht should find himself another job. Maybe something that involves using his hands, since his brain seems to be on the fritz.

PW wrote on February 2, 2007 10:13 PM:

Kristol is a privileged, spoiled kid, not unlike our boy-president. He was at the heart of promulgating the policy which took us into Iraq. He is shares the blame for hundreds of thousands of cruel deaths.

Winning is not possible -- insufficient wisdom and talent. Losing is not an option -- as long as you can play dirty. And the charm wore off years ago. Late middle-aged spoiled boys are not an attractive spectacle, not ever. Late middle-aged casually murderous charlatans are that much worse.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 2, 2007 10:22 PM:

Pretty heavy duty threat. Where's Kristol going to find another Alphonse D'Amato? Howard Beach?

Bill Watson wrote on February 2, 2007 10:32 PM:

The likes of Krystol are neither Democrats nor Republicans, they are also not Liberals or Conservatives and are neither doves nor hawks, they are Zionists-only. Their first allegiance is to the maintenance of the Israeli status quo in the middle east. How else can you float the idea of a chosen-race occupying other people's land, unless you create an atmosphere of utter havoc and instability in this area? Our children pay the price.

Meah Bottoms wrote on February 2, 2007 11:20 PM:

William Kristol has blood on his hands.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 2, 2007 11:28 PM:

Come to think of it, where's that fucking fat know-it-all, Richard Perle, been?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 2, 2007 11:32 PM:

That fat, fucking, know-it-all, Richard Perle, sounds better, I think.

SeeDee wrote on February 2, 2007 11:59 PM:

Mrs Panstreppon: How about fat, fucking finaglers of foreign-policy fuck-ups, Perle, Feith, Kristol, Kissinger and Wolfowitz for which U.S. tax-payers fork over BILLIONS of wasted dollars.

SeeDee wrote on February 3, 2007 12:36 AM:

Bill Watson: "Their first allegiance is to the maintenance of the Israeli status quo in the Middle East."

....Middle-East?...in a pig's eye...their first allegiance is to badger and scare the funds-hungry on-the-take politicians in the U.S. of A. into maintaining the status quo of the Likud-dominated AIPAC AND Israel in THIS country.

I wish Hillary, and John, and Barak, and, yes Joe, would speak for America FIRST for a change.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 3, 2007 2:59 AM:

Mr Bill Watson . . .

After reading your little rant about Zionism/Zionists, I find myself left with one request . . .

Please, stay off my side. Racist horse-hockey like the manure you were spouting is best left to those living in right-wingnut land.

Mirroring irrational, illogcal and unfounded behavior with equally irrational, illogcal and unfounded behavior in an effort to disprove or dissassemble the orginal irrational, illogcal and unfounded behavior fails to deliver on your intended communication and leaves you looking as (fill in the blank) as you intended them to appear.

Bruce Moomaw wrote on February 3, 2007 7:29 AM:

Actually, Clifford Case of NJ WAS a genuinely libeal Republican, and he WAS upset in the 1978 primary by conservative Jeffrey Bell. What Kristol doesn't mention, of course, is that Bell was then solidly beaten by Bill Bradley in the general election. The same thing would have happened to Alfonse D'Amato after he beat Jacob Javits in the primary, if it hadn't been for NY's freakish multiparty system that allowed Javits to keep running on the Liberal Party ticket and bleed off 20% of the vote from Elizabeth Holtzman -- just enough to let D'Amato squesk through. Well, the Liberal party don't exist no more in NY state -- and if the GOP nut-fringe Right really want to purge their party into oblivion by opposing not just liberal Republicans but moderate-conservative Republicans as well, fine with me.

Emet wrote on February 3, 2007 8:16 AM:

"Kristol-Nacht should find himself another job."

Only somebody who has not the slightest understanding of the Holocaust could try to make a pun like that. Excoriate Kristol for his views, but find something else on which to base your sick humor.

Pug wrote on February 3, 2007 8:34 AM:

It would be hard to find a man in America, other than W or Dick Cheney, more discredited than Bill Kristol. He appears to be urbane and articulate but it would be hard to find anybody who has been more wrong.

I say purge 'em, Bill. Run only "pro-victory" candidates on the Republican side in '08. Call the other side "anti-troop", or you could even try "cut-n-run" again. Then, you'll remember last November's elections as a pretty good day for Republicans.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 3, 2007 9:00 AM:

3/17/03 - Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard

"...We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts...."

Anonymous wrote on February 3, 2007 9:22 AM:

Billy Kristol-Nacht reminds me of the spoiled little rich kid, who becomes shrill and throws a temper tantrum when he can't have his way, and put his boot on someone's face.

He also reminds me of the Mayan rulers, who willingly cut out the hearts of living human beings. All I can conclude about Billy is that he is a reincarnation of those for whom the sight of blood and carnage is an end in itself, even if the blood comes from patriotic Americans.

Most of us recognize the truth of what Mikhail Gorbachev told the UN General assembly on Dec. 7,1988 when he announced the unilateral withdrawal of 500,000 troops from the Warsaw Pact by saying:

"It is obvious that force and the threat of force cannot and should not be an instrument of foreign policy".

Billy, PLEASE "GO SELL SHOES"!!!!

Dennis wrote on February 3, 2007 9:36 AM:

Who gives a damn about what Bill Krystol has to say? You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 3, 2007 9:43 AM:

2/11//02 Weekly Standard

"The Bush Era" by Kristol and Kagan

"France's Le Monde actually asks, "Is the threat as pressing as all that?"

The answer is yes. As the president said Tuesday night, the danger is growing and "time is not on our side." Bush deserves enormous credit for grasping not simply the essential tasks in the war we now fight, but also the urgency of accomplishing them. He seems to have thought more profoundly about the lessons of September 11 than the foreign policy establishment and the political elites of Europe or even of our own country. Indeed he seems to understand the requirements of the situation better than some in his own administration. He understands that failing to act decisively -- and if need be preemptively -- against the nexus (or call it the axis) of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will leave this country and its friends in increasing and unacceptable peril. The president knows what he has to do. We're confident he will do it. And we're certain he'll have the support of freedom-loving people here and around the world. Even the nervous nellies of the establishment, we suspect, will end up applauding."

The sound you hear now is a one-handed clap.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 3, 2007 9:59 AM:

Don't ever let them tell you that it wasn't about the WMDs.

1/21/02 Weekly Standard

"What to Do About Iraq;For the war on terrorism to succeed, Saddam Hussein must be removed" by Kristol and Kagan

"...All this strikes us as an elaborate stratagem for avoiding the hard decision to confront Saddam Hussein. Yes, it is essential to capture bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. It is necessary to stabilize Afghanistan and back a functioning government there. And, yes, we have to roll up the al Qaeda operations in other troublesome parts of the world.

But none of this precludes dealing with Iraq, or makes the obligation of dealing with Iraq less urgent. The United States can, after all, walk and chew gum at the same time. The Iraqi threat is enormous. It gets bigger with every day that passes. And it can't wait until we finish tying up all the "loose ends." For one thing, those loose ends are not just minor details. If bin Laden has left Central Asia, he'll be hard to find. Who knows how long it may take? Meanwhile, history moves on, and the clock is ticking in Iraq. If too many months go by without a decision to move against Saddam, the risks to the United States may increase exponentially. And after September 11, those risks are no longer abstract. Ultimately, what we do or do not do in the coming months about Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq will decisively affect our future security.

And it will determine more than that. Whether or not we remove Saddam Hussein from power will shape the contours of the emerging world order, perhaps for decades to come. Either it will be a world order conducive to our liberal democratic principles and our safety, or it will be one where brutal, well-armed tyrants are allowed to hold democracy and international security hostage. Not to take on Saddam would ensure that regimes implicated in terror and developing weapons of mass destruction will be a constant -- and growing -- feature of our world. Destroying Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda is, obviously, very important. Dealing with other sponsors of terrorism -- Iran in particular -- is crucial. But, in the near-future, Iraq is the threat and the supreme test of whether we as a nation have learned the lesson of September 11...

Nor is there any doubt that, after September 11, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction pose a kind of danger to us that we hadn't fully grasped before. In the 1990s, much of the complacency about Saddam, both in Washington and in Europe, rested on the assumption that he could be deterred. Saddam was not a madman, the theory went, and would not commit suicide by actually using the weapons he was so desperately trying to obtain. Some of us, it's true, had our doubts about this logic. The issue seemed to us not so much whether we could deter Saddam, but whether he could deter us: If Saddam had had nuclear weapons in 1991, would we have gone to war to drive him from Kuwait?

But after September 11, we have all been forced to consider another scenario. What if Saddam provides some of his anthrax, or his VX, or a nuclear device to a terrorist group like al Qaeda? Saddam could help a terrorist inflict a horrific attack on the United States or its allies, while hoping to shroud his role in the secrecy of cutouts and middlemen. How in the world do we deter that? To this day we don't know who provided the anthrax for the post-September 11 attacks. We may never know for sure...

This is nonsense. It is almost impossible to imagine any outcome for the world both plausible and worse than the disease of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction. A fractured Iraq? An unsettled Kurdish situation? A difficult transition in Baghdad? These may be problems, but they are far preferable to leaving Saddam in power with his nukes, VX, and anthrax. As for the other arguments, the effort to remove Saddam from power would no more be a "diversion" from the war on al Qaeda than the fight against Hitler was a "diversion" from the fight against Japan. Can it really be that this great American superpower, much more powerful than in 1941, cannot fight on two fronts at the same time against dangerous but second-rate enemies?...

First, there is the special problem posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Any attack on Iraq must succeed quickly. There is no time to repeat the pattern in Afghanistan of trying a little of this and a little of that and seeing what works. In the Afghan war, it was a change of strategy after three weeks that eventually turned the tide against the Taliban. We don't have the luxury of early mistakes in Iraq. As soon as any attack begins, Saddam will be sorely tempted to launch a chemical or biological attack on one of his neighbors, probably Israel. Any U.S. attack will have to move with lightning speed to destroy or secure sites from which such an Iraqi strike could be launched...

It is a tough and dangerous decision to send American soldiers to fight and possibly die in Iraq. But it is more horrible to watch men and women leap to their deaths from flaming skyscrapers. If we fail to address the grave threats we know exist, what will we tell the families of future victims? That we were "prudent"?

The problem today is not just that failure to remove Saddam could someday come back to haunt us. At a more fundamental level, the failure to remove Saddam would mean that, despite all that happened on September 11, we as a nation are still unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities of global leadership, even to protect ourselves. If we turn away from the Iraq challenge -- because we fear the use of ground troops, because we don't want the job of putting Iraq back together afterwards, because we would prefer not to be deeply involved in a messy part of the world -- then we will have made a momentous and fateful decision. We do not expect President Bush to make that choice. We expect the president will courageously decide to destroy Saddam's regime. No step would contribute more toward shaping a world order in which our people and our liberal civilization can survive and flourish."

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 3, 2007 10:07 AM:

10/1/01 Weekly Standard

"The Right War" by Kristol and Kagan

"...The president revealed in his speech a deep understanding of an important point: that the "war on terrorism" is not merely a war on terrorists. It is also, and perhaps even more significantly, a war against the kinds of regimes that support and employ terrorism as a deadly weapon in their war against us. Saddam Hussein, because of his strategic position in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, surely represents a more potent challenge to the United States and its interests and principles than the weak, isolated, and we trust, soon-to-be crushed Taliban. And unlike the Taliban, Saddam Hussein may soon have at his disposal not only terrorist networks, but biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons. Is it conceivable that the United States would destroy the Taliban but leave the Iraqi regime untouched? Could the war the president so eloquently rallied us to Thursday night be considered won if Saddam were still in power three years from now, aiding our enemies and developing weapons of mass destruction?

As both the New York Times and the Washington Post reported this past week, there has been an argument within the Bush administration over how centrally to target Iraq. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others in the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney's office have argued that no war on terrorism can possibly succeed if there is not a change of regime in Iraq -- which is what Wolfowitz meant when he said a week ago that it was necessary to "end states that support terrorism." The president made clear in his speech that the war on terrorism must bring about a change of regime in Afghanistan. He surely knows that a change of regime in Iraq may take longer, but is every bit as important.

Indeed, we find it hard to believe that anyone in this administration, whether in the State Department or in the White House or in the CIA, can seriously be arguing that the Iraqi regime should be left alone. In 1998 a group of prominent figures sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to take strong action against Saddam Hussein. They warned that if Saddam were to "acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard." They pressed President Clinton to make it the aim of American foreign policy to "remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."

The signatories of that 1998 letter are today a Who's Who of senior ranking officials in this administration: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State John Bolton, Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman, and National Security Council senior officials Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad. If these Bush administration officials believed it was essential to bring about a change of regime in Iraq three years ago, they must believe it is even more essential today. Last week we lost more than 6,000 Americans to terrorism. How many more could we lose in a world where Saddam Hussein continues to thrive and continues his quest for weapons of mass destruction? Do we really want to find out?"

oldtree wrote on February 3, 2007 10:51 AM:

the wrong billy kristol that just isn't funny in the traditional sense.
he is correct though, his "people" are losing control. they paid off government officials for so long that they thought they owned the country. losing control is driving them to distraction.
it is an acceptable alternative to the status quo, to see these people relieved of power, and not likely to ever return.

they have managed to control voting to allow 1/3 of the country's voters to control elections since diebold and others began. good work, but it has been found out.
they have managed to start several wars. all of which were thinly disguised for resources they couldn't buy, so decided to steal, like South America? turns out, only they benefitted, and everyone else involved suffered greatly.

all of america is corrupt to the core and it is no longer worth saving. when you have a cheese with a lot of nice blue mold on it, you can save much of the cheese with a bit of scraping.
when you have a pile of shredded cheese, it all rots and is not worth keeping. there is only a bit of the real cheese left on the continent. none of which is anywhere near the shredded rotten detritus that must be discarded.
time to clean up the cheese. for as long as it is all we have to eat, we better remember that salient fact. just tossing the rotten cheese doesn't help the brick from going bad

may I suggest that the first to go are those that act like "big" or "head" types. we have no more use for them at all. all of those we know but for one, are only interested in themselves. why are they so obviously self centered? why do they offer nothing but hot air for our future?

only one fellow out there has abandoned the rhetoric and is working toward repair. the rest are so corrupt that they will never be able to change, it is dna for them.

it may be inconvenient, but we have but one choice for president next time.

Chris Henny wrote on February 3, 2007 12:11 PM:

Krystol has never travelled to the Middle East, probably never been in the Military (so another talkin head chickensqawk), and has no understanding of how the rest of the world feels about this whole sorry mess in Iraq.

It is hard to believe anyone still listens to someone like him with so little credibility who has proved so consistently wrong.
Using such meaningless words as "Anti-Victory" is astonishing. Even our less than able "President' and his band of petrocleptocrats is no longer looking for a "Victory" however they define it. They would settle for a little less of the violence they triggered by invading a country pre-emptivly with no planning for the aftermath claiming it would cost $80 Billion and is now $350 Billion and rising and where we now have over 3000 dead 50.000 wounded and the Iraquis 10-20 times more and all this after the "President" claimed Mission accomplished.

I like MAcho talk but you also have to walk the talk Mr Krystol.

melior wrote on February 3, 2007 1:24 PM:

Bill Kristol is engaging in a bit of "pop psychology" here... as he famously told us, the Sunni and Shia get along just famously with each other.

Kathy wrote on February 3, 2007 1:26 PM:

Hey I cancelled my subscription to Time when they put Ann Cultwhore on the cover and a puff piece about her inside. By the way I tore the cover off so as to not scare my then 9 yr old son out of about 7 yrs growth.

'sconset wrote on February 3, 2007 1:53 PM:

Kristol is another phony like that hideous Dick Morris--neither of them have been right about any of their prognostications. They are both so full of crap that anybody who pays any attention is wasting their time.

Kristol is bought and paid for by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is the financier for The Weekly Standard which has never made a dime of profit since it was created.

He is a Zionist and a repugnant shill.

SeeDee wrote on February 3, 2007 3:37 PM:

Kristol and his ilk are the ACTUAL anti-Semites among us.

And they will never learn because their supercillious demeanor closes their minds to 'reason'.

Karen wrote on February 3, 2007 4:56 PM:

This is a really hollow threat and it smells of fear that the Republican party will change drastically and suddenly because the most proIsrael President of all time, George W. Bush, has brought the party to ruin. I've seen Hagel go right at Lieberman twice now, Face the Nation and Meet The Press. I've never seen anyone whack Lieberman like Hagel did. Actually, I've never seen one senator whack another like that, saying that Lieberman's comments were "offensive" and that Lieberman didn't have the market on caring about children.

Our politicians' onesided, pandering support for Israel was never going to withstand Americans having to die for Israel. The Republicans will probably crater before the Democrats because they mostly don't represent areas with heavy Jewish vote.

Robin Boerner wrote on February 3, 2007 5:18 PM:

Bill Kristol never met a whore...ah...war he didn't like.

Hows the Halliburton stock doing?

Kahoneez wrote on February 3, 2007 6:08 PM:

If you want the background of PNAC/William Kristol go to (rightweb.irc-online.org) and it's also a mistake to underestimate Kristol or be dismissive of him, by calling him "just another pundit". The FACTS say otherwise, because he and his crime partners helped unleash the "neo-reganite" war machine on the world, in order to destroy any "rivals". Are they doing this solely for the benefit of Israel or the Likukds, of course not, however you shouldn't (R. Adolf) have a knee jerk reaction, to somebody calling him a "zionist", while it does play a role in the whole scheme of things . Save your Zionist CARD.
Who benefits, from U.S. imperialism? The U.S. military industrial complex, corporations and of course Israel.

Jim wrote on February 3, 2007 6:42 PM:

What exactly is Bill Kristol's claim to fame? I know that his father is an influencial conservative with big time credentials at the American Enterprise Institute but what has Billy done? As far as I know he has been consistently wrong about everything since Regan was President. Yet he is constantly on Fox News providing misleading, stupid and biased opinions on the great issues of our time. I know he's very wealthy, Ivy league educated, never served in the armed services, yet he still insists that the US must attack Iran, send more troops to Iraq and continue to follow Bush's vision of the Middle East. Hey Bill, I'll send my kids to war when you send yours.

Tom L wrote on February 3, 2007 10:58 PM:

It runs in the family. Kristol's father Irving was an idiot too.

freedom pants wrote on February 4, 2007 3:09 AM:

If he's lucky, he will hang. There are much worse ways to die. In the meantime...

SNAKES on a Boat!!!!

http://www.twscruise.com/

KH wrote on February 4, 2007 3:10 AM:

Is this an empty threat? Does Kristol question these Senators’ political judgment that they can’t survive the 2008 general election without opposing administration policy? Or does he accept their judgment, but still seriously threaten to defeat them in the primaries if they don’t bend the knee? I.e., would he be willing to give up their seats just to enforce discipline on the issue? Idle or not, does this kind of bullying eventually become self-defeating?

2008 will be nice natural experiment: we'll see how much money will go to 'pro-victory' challengers running against 'anti-victory' incumbents in the 2008 Republican primaries. And how much to not-even-really-viable challengers.

Sage wrote on February 4, 2007 8:20 AM:

Every time you spew your anti-Israel hate, you turn off people who want to see a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. That's why more Jews have voted for liberal Democrats than any other segment of the white electorate for 42 years. Israel did not cause the Iraq war, and implying so is hateful.

global citizen wrote on February 4, 2007 9:14 AM:

I too am disgusted by the level of at least implicit anti-Semitism in this thread. AIPAC has influence but regarding Iraq it was minimal influence. Iraq's roots are get the oil, 75%; U.S. domination of the Middle East for all kinds of reasons other than Israel and including contracts for Halliburton and Cheney's meglomaniacal insanity, 24%; protecting Israel maybe 1%, probably less. Kristol's religion is irrelevant to the discussion of his stupidity and evil and whatever else he should be accused of.

Anonymous wrote on February 4, 2007 11:03 AM:

just have to point out the perspective from up here in maine:

if senator collins wants to hang onto her seat the best thing she could do is change her party affiliation. barring that she better fight the escalation or say good buy to washington.

kristol is delusional if he thinks maine would vote for a pro war candidate over collins, or her likely challenger representative tom allen (D).

actually i would love to have kristol to come up and visit, maybe attend a standing room only town hall meeting with dennis kucinich. he could take a walk through my home town where 3000 + little white flags honor those sent to die to feed the neocon's grotesque appetite. better yet he could pick up a newspaper and read it, just to get acquainted with reality.

SeeDee wrote on February 4, 2007 11:17 AM:

global citizen:

All due respect for your interpretation of growing awareness among Americans of the influence of AIPAC (which you downplay), but I wonder what your comment would be IF there was an AEPAC (AMERICAN-EGYPTIAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE) whose efforts were directed exclusively to influencing U.S. actions that benefited Egypt?

For that matter, what comments would you offer in the event of ANY American-hyphenated-other-nation political group which put America's interests 2nd in their considerations?

Sage wrote on February 4, 2007 2:31 PM:

Dear SeeDee,

As an active supporter of AIPAC, I would do everything within the law to counter the influence of the hypothetical lobbying group you posit, insofar as that group sought to weaken U.S. support for Israel. Still, I am glad I live in a country where citizens of any ethnic or religious group are free to associate with like-minded citizens, express support for candidates by word and deed, and petition elected officials. I would not presume, as you do, that the members of your hypothetical group are disloyal Americans or that they put Egypt's interests above those of America as they see them.

To be sure, we would have a fundamental disagreement over whether it was truly in America's interest to support an unstable dictatorship that, by the way, opresses women and gays, but if like minded Egyptian-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Mexican Americans, or any other American citizens want to lobby as AIPAC does and support candidates in the same way as the members of AIPAC do (AIPAC makes no political endorsements or contributions), then I join with 'ol Jim Madison and Alex Hamilton who blogged, so to speak, a long time ago and who said a multitude of factions is the greatest bulwark against the tyranny of mob rule. May I respectfully suggest that you read Federalist 10. Madison and Hamilton would have no problem with AIPAC. Why do you?

ahem wrote on February 4, 2007 3:08 PM:

Bill Kristol needs to be dropped in the middle of Sadr City wearing an 'I [heart] Saddam' t-shirt.

As an active supporter of AIPAC, I would do everything within the law to counter the influence of the hypothetical lobbying group you posit, insofar as that group sought to weaken U.S. support for Israel.

Your premise is fallacious; AIPAC currently works against the interest of the elected Israeli government. It is an lobbying agent of an foreign opposition party, and should truly be called ALPAC: the American-Likud PAC. Kristol and his PNAC buddies worked against the elected Israel government at the time of 'A Clean Break'; they are doing the same now.

Philly Boy wrote on February 4, 2007 3:28 PM:

See Dee, there is an American-Saudi political action committee. It's called the Bush family.

As for Bill Watson's earlier rant about occupying other people's land, I assume that if Mr. Watson lives in the United States, his domicile is on property rented or purchased from a Native American.

Legalize wrote on February 4, 2007 4:06 PM:

It's still shocking to me that anyone, anywhere considers Bill Kristol an authoritative voice on anything. The buffoon has been wrong about everything vis the Iraq war from the beginning. Grab a rifle, Bill.

Robin Boerner wrote on February 4, 2007 4:08 PM:

The latest from The Weekly Standard, the Prozac Cruise from Hell. Why do Republicans insist on polluting Alaska's waters so? Can't they just circle in the Potomac or the Hudson on their way down?

Alaska Ear
The divine appendage

Published: February 4, 2007
Last Modified: February 4, 2007 at 02:38 AM

GOP PERK-UP ... Republicans bummed out by the November election are invited by the national political mag Weekly Standard to regroup and rejuvenate on a weeklong cruise through Southeast Alaska June 16-23. On the agenda: Sightseeing, partying and speeches from a military historian and a Republican speechwriter. (Be still my heart, says a GOP earwig.)

Passengers can catch "Las Vegas-style productions" in the ship's lounge, gamble in a glitzy casino, or gloat over close-up views of Hubbard Glacier, which is "marching to the beat of a different drum ... advancing while the rest of Alaska's ice rivers are receding rapidly." So says the promo material.

The sales pitch also stresses that passengers will be "traveling with like-minded conservatives."

No word on whether left-leaning liberals will kayak nearby.

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/alaska_ear/story/8614993p-8507534c.html

Sage wrote on February 4, 2007 7:46 PM:

Ahem, AIPAC was just as vocal and just as powerful when Yitzkhak Rabin of blessed memory, Ehud Barak, and Shimon Pers were Prime Ministers of Israel.None of them ever spent one day as a member of the Likud Party. Spread your ignorance somewhere else please.

SeeDee wrote on February 4, 2007 8:38 PM:

sage, global citizen, et alia:

I am at a loss to understand WHY you resort to such vehement opposition to the slightest hint that maybe W & M (and their critique of the AIPAC lobbying tactics) had a valid point or two.

That you can sit at your keyboard and post hogwash about the intent or financial clout of AIPAC in steering American foreign policy to the advantage of the State of Israel regardless of the cost in blood and treasure for the United States is remarkable.

Can you explain why the recent AIPAC meeting commanded the performances of Hillary, Obama and Edwards who fell all over themselves saying only what AIPAC WANTED to hear? Or perhaps you can further explain the recent journeys to Israel to perform along the same lines.

You totally miss the points I offer in your zeal to nip in the bud any attitude that you can twist to appear anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic.

I, personally, am not even concerned at the HUGE money amounts kicked in by AIPAC or any other lobbying group (although it has reached a new level in perverting the election processes in America). What concerns me is that, in the case of AIPAC, their thrust is always to push policies that engage America on the side of Israel, no matter what the dispute(s). It is a bit un-reasonable to believe that a State, like the Pope on matters of Catholicism, is infallible on every action and every issue in the Middle-East.

Again, I respect your views...and I have short tolerance of true anti-Semitism...I also tire very quickly any more of a hew and cry being raised toward ANYONE who questions Likud policies.

And, yes, I'm a student of Madison (and Hamilton, and Adams, and Jefferson...)...too bad we did not have an AIPAC back in those days.

SeeDee wrote on February 4, 2007 8:43 PM:

And, since, this discussion seems to have degenerated into a fuss about anti-Semitism or pro-Israel or anti-Israel, instead of Kristol's kraziness, I'll say no more....

P Lovering wrote on February 5, 2007 12:36 AM:

Rachel Corrie, young American, was run over by an Israeli Army bulldozer -- twice -- while protesting the destruction of Palestinian homes in Gaza.

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1866&CategoryId=23

Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 5, 2007 12:45 AM:

I recognize that identifying with liberal causes means specifically that one identifies with liberal causes. Being Liberal does not mean that one is educated, enlightened, logical, literate or even pays the remotest cursory attention to the world one lives in. In a perfect world, those who identify with liberal causes would be all those things. Unfortunately, it takes less that a passing glance at a number of the prior posts to confirm that there is little hope for that becoming truth.

Bill Kristol is a corporatist. Bill Kristol is a fascist. Bill Kristol works diligently do covert the world into a bimodal, feudal society composed of those own multinational corporations and a serf class to produce and purchase widgets. The current Executive Branch supports oil as its favorite widget. America is merely a tool to be used up in the pursuit of their goals. Everything else is accessory . . . if not imaginary.

Bill Kristol is not a Zionist. Bill Kristol does not care about Zionism. Bill Kristol could spent the next twenty-five years in a bathroom and not even create a gram of defecation for Zionism, Zionists or Israel. Zionism to Bill Kristol and his ilk is a vapor of a specter used to pursue oil dreams and recruit supporters when necessary. Bill Kristol occasionally spouts Zionist–like propaganda for the same reason that a pig wears lipstick – To woo those folk whose fathers are their brothers or whose mothers are also their sisters.

The use of Zionism/Zionist as an explicative to describe Bill Kristol and friends shows a clear lack of understanding of the danger he and the folk he represents and a clear lack of understanding of Zionism.

If you are looking for a regional player to spew about . . . Far more attention needs to be paid to Saudi Arabia in this thread . . . Their smell is all over this stuff.

Hedley Lamarr wrote on February 5, 2007 12:46 PM:

So, that the idea of pulling troops out of a civil war where they are caught in a cross-fire of wacky waring factions is anti-troop is truly Orwelian. Wanting to keep them alive is going against their better wishes, eh?

harry@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 5:20 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

harry@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 5:20 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

michael@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 9:22 PM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 9:43 AM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 9:43 AM:

hello

zouicahx gjxw wrote on August 1, 2007 10:58 PM:

varl ptlsayov ahxm bhvdw sopirq mcseg bymk

zouicahx gjxw wrote on August 1, 2007 10:59 PM:

varl ptlsayov ahxm bhvdw sopirq mcseg bymk

buy viagra generic wrote on September 18, 2007 8:44 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 19, 2007 10:28 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on September 19, 2007 5:41 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 11:51 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 1:52 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

Eagles wrote on September 21, 2007 10:09 PM:

sale@mp3.com

Eagles wrote on September 21, 2007 11:25 PM:

sale@mp3.com

prescription viagra wrote on September 22, 2007 3:26 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on September 22, 2007 4:50 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on September 22, 2007 6:15 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 22, 2007 8:49 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 22, 2007 11:43 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 23, 2007 11:56 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 3:46 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 5:50 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 8:31 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 10:11 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on September 25, 2007 11:27 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 1:01 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 3:06 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 4:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 6:16 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 7:57 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 9:33 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on September 26, 2007 11:12 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 12:49 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 2:20 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on September 26, 2007 3:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on September 26, 2007 5:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 8:58 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 10:23 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 12:07 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 1:47 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 3:17 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 4:46 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 6:15 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 7:45 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 9:14 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on September 28, 2007 12:21 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on September 28, 2007 2:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on September 28, 2007 4:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on September 28, 2007 5:57 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on September 28, 2007 7:43 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on September 28, 2007 9:16 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 12:25 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 2:22 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 4:11 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 6:10 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 10:34 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 12:08 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 1:37 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 3:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 4:32 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra pharmacy wrote on September 29, 2007 7:17 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 3:00 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 2, 2007 4:35 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 6:19 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 8:04 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 2, 2007 9:42 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 2, 2007 11:17 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 3:21 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 5:29 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 7:11 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 8:55 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 5:20 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 8:07 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 11:10 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 1:23 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 3:08 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 4:54 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 8:42 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 5, 2007 10:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 6, 2007 1:41 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 6, 2007 3:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 6, 2007 5:20 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 2:23 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 4:08 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 5:54 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 7:23 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 8:52 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 10:26 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 12:02 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 1:25 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 3:03 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 5:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 7:18 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 7, 2007 9:22 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra uk wrote on October 7, 2007 11:06 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 8, 2007 1:21 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 8, 2007 3:55 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 8, 2007 6:11 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 5:42 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 7:33 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 9:16 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 11:02 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 1:03 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 4:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 8:41 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 12:15 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 3:02 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 6:02 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 8:39 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 11:43 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 2:29 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 4:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 10, 2007 7:03 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 9:45 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 6:34 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 8:51 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 10:35 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 12, 2007 12:00 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 1:32 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 3:06 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 4:50 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 6:07 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 7:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 9:15 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 10:43 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 12, 2007 12:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 2:02 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 3:57 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 12, 2007 9:18 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 3:46 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 5:37 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 7:37 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 13, 2007 10:03 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 12:37 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 2:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 4:10 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 6:02 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 7:54 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 12:19 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 1:43 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 3:16 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 14, 2007 5:02 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 6:51 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 9:19 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 10:56 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 12:35 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

levitra online wrote on October 15, 2007 2:20 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 4:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 6:11 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 8:25 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 11:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 1:57 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 4:41 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 6:16 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

order online viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 7:40 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra uk wrote on October 16, 2007 8:56 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 10:23 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 11:57 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 16, 2007 1:14 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:50 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 4:12 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 5:35 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 7:26 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 8:53 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 10:20 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 11:50 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 1:22 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:46 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 4:31 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 6:24 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 17, 2007 7:57 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra uk wrote on October 17, 2007 9:28 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

pharmacy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 10:54 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 18, 2007 12:28 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 18, 2007 2:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 4:52 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 6:53 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 8:25 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 9:53 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 18, 2007 11:29 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 1:17 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 3:21 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 5:40 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 8:06 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra price wrote on October 19, 2007 9:45 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 11:17 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 2:36 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 4:18 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 19, 2007 6:18 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 19, 2007 8:39 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 10:34 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 1:39 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 2:59 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 5:09 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 7:05 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 8:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 10:01 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 11:39 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 1:09 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 2:26 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 21, 2007 3:59 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 5:44 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 7:33 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 21, 2007 8:57 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 21, 2007 8:58 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 21, 2007 10:17 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra cheap levitra generic levitra levitra online order levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 1:24 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 2:56 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 4:28 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 6:05 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 7:38 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 22, 2007 9:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 22, 2007 10:40 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 2:11 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 4:13 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 6:28 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 9:04 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 23, 2007 10:52 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 12:28 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 2:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 23, 2007 3:32 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 23, 2007 5:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 8:45 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 10:08 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 11:45 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 1:26 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 2:57 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 4:27 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 5:57 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 7:38 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 9:19 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 10:38 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 25, 2007 12:02 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 25, 2007 1:35 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 25, 2007 3:11 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 25, 2007 6:53 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 25, 2007 8:55 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 25, 2007 11:29 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 1:54 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 4:33 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 5:58 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 6:22 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 8:13 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 9:33 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 10:59 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 27, 2007 12:24 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra price wrote on October 27, 2007 2:01 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 27, 2007 3:52 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 27, 2007 5:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra online wrote on October 27, 2007 7:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra buy wrote on October 27, 2007 11:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 27, 2007 12:48 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 3:10 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 4:37 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 5:55 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 7:24 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 4:09 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 5:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 7:06 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 8:51 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 10:16 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra price wrote on October 28, 2007 11:52 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 29, 2007 1:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 29, 2007 3:43 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra prescription wrote on October 29, 2007 8:30 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 29, 2007 10:32 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 29, 2007 11:56 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 2:31 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 4:30 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 6:04 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 7:47 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 6:49 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 8:22 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 9:53 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 11:23 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 12:57 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 2:50 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 4:50 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 31, 2007 6:52 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 9:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra prescription wrote on October 31, 2007 12:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on November 17, 2007 5:54 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on November 17, 2007 7:43 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 3:37 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 8:06 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 10:18 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 2:42 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 4:44 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 7:37 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 10:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 12:49 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 2:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 4:42 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

order online viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 6:08 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra uk wrote on November 19, 2007 7:40 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 9:10 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on November 19, 2007 10:56 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on November 19, 2007 12:49 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 8:18 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 10:59 AM:

cheap@levitra.com