Comments (436)

Kali wrote on March 22, 2007 1:46 PM:

Constitutional scholar, Tony Snow, now that is funny. Great line!

elial wrote on March 22, 2007 1:49 PM:

Digging a deeper hole! Unbelievable

goethean wrote on March 22, 2007 1:49 PM:

Wow! Can't wait until we have a Democratic dictator...I mean President.

J.Goodwin wrote on March 22, 2007 1:49 PM:

That's funny, the Department of State hasn't been telling the same thing to the Germans:

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/outusgov/over.htm

I wonder if Tony's been talking to Ms. Rice.

Robin Boerner wrote on March 22, 2007 1:50 PM:

He should review those old Nixon newsreels....

One nice thing about arrogance and hubris, it gathers diverse enemies to counter it. I didn't hear any objects by Republicans on the Senate panel to issue a supeona for the WH staff's testimony.

Kathy wrote on March 22, 2007 1:51 PM:

Too bad Clinton didn't know that!

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 1:51 PM:

According to Bush's unitary executive theory, the president is the "boss" and members of congress are his "employees". Regular Americans, if I'm getting the theory right, are the "peons". We get to vote every few years, but our votes don't count.

I think that's the way it works...

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 1:53 PM:

Well at least the cards are all finally on the table.

TheraP wrote on March 22, 2007 2:00 PM:

Gather round children - it's story time!

Once there was a neighborhood, where the children decided to have a club. One child had a rich daddy and that child’s daddy wanted his kid to have more than other kids. His kid already had a lot of toys, but daddy wanted his kid to be important. So the daddy gave candy to all the kids and told them his little boy should be head of the club. And the other children went along. They held an election and the spoiled little boy got to be head of the club.

But the daddy still was not satisfied. His little boy wasn’t important enough yet. He gave more candy to the kids and suggested they should all get together and write up some rules for the club. He even gave his spoiled son some ideas for rules. And the other children went along. Pretty soon they had rules so the spoiled kid could make up any rules he wanted and be the only one to keep all the candy.

The spoiled kid said he needed to spy to make sure no one else was eating too much candy. And pretty soon he started telling everyone that one kid had his own store of candy, a big one. He got all the kids together to go over there and beat that kid up, even though no one checked to see if the candy was really there! And the other children went along. And pretty soon they began to be afraid that maybe somebody would come and beat them up too.

But the daddy still wasn’t satisfied. He wanted his kid to be even more important. But that’s when the other grown-ups got really, really mad – and decided to protect their kids.

The grown-ups went to tpm and learned that their neighborhood was not the only place where these bad things were happening.

(This part of the story is still happening… so we’ll have to wait to see how it turns out - but the grown-ups opened their wallets and made sure tpm could keep telling stories - so the kids and the grown-ups could all be protected - and live happily ever after)

JoyceH wrote on March 22, 2007 2:01 PM:

Smooth! Just in case Congress isn't already ticked off ENOUGH at the White House...

Skip wrote on March 22, 2007 2:02 PM:

Regrettably the concept of the Unitary Executive may have some logical underpinnings. The work of a lawyers staff is protected under client privilege. From there it's not to far of a walk to the Unitary Exec.

(Not that I want to defend Tony -- when he does such a good job all on his own).

David wrote on March 22, 2007 2:03 PM:

What does Article I actually say?

More generally, if the Congress issues the subpoenas on the USA firings and the WH refuses, what is the legal case and what is the prognosis?

draftedin68 wrote on March 22, 2007 2:03 PM:

.

Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Tony was interviewed for this job!

I wonder if Duhhbya was barefoot or if he had his shoes on when Snow kneeled and kissed his feet?

.

AD Gidley wrote on March 22, 2007 2:03 PM:

For the past six years this administration has been very focused on the type of information it releases through its various mouthpieces. I say that only because I would like to believe that Snow is just talking out of his butt, and unaware of his idiocy, but unfortunately, based on the history we have, he IS probably channeling Bushco. This then means that Bush and his handlers want to put this mindset out into the MSM to try to create confusion on congress' role. It won't work, in my opinion, as I feel the majority of people have become disillusioned with the lies, and wise to the rhetoric.

I hope.

J. Thomason wrote on March 22, 2007 2:03 PM:

Its all a double-dog dare to institute impeachment proceedings. If Congress has the power to convict for high crimes and misdemeanors the subpoena power follows. I do suppose the executive could plead the 5th. There is no sovereign immunity loop hole in that provision. The wager Bush makes continues to bank on the loyalty of Republican Senators. Of course this all presumes the Constitution will prevail.

jeffs wrote on March 22, 2007 2:03 PM:

Yes, the cards are on the table. What exactly will be the course taken by Congress when Bush rejects the subpoena requesting Rove testify under oath?

What enforcement mechanism is there?

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 2:06 PM:

"What exactly will be the course taken by Congress when Bush rejects the subpoena requesting Rove testify under oath?"

There are multiple possible paths. None of them will be quick, and all will be painful. One hopes that Bush will be true to his history and cave when the pressure is on. He likes to talk big, but he always caves.

rusty wrote on March 22, 2007 2:07 PM:

did these people not take a civics class in private school? did they not have to read the constitution? federalist papers? Up is down, down is up.

logorrhea wrote on March 22, 2007 2:08 PM:

Sorry, goethean, but you need to get with the program. This is a non-reality based world we're living in. Right now, Congress does not have oversight, and has never had oversight. If a Democrat wins, Congress will have oversight and will have always had oversight.

Get it?

carole wrote on March 22, 2007 2:08 PM:

Tony Snow in 1998-

"Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 2:09 PM:

At this point, China should just come in and collect what is rightfully theirs.

P J Evans wrote on March 22, 2007 2:10 PM:

That ought to be enough to start impeachment proceedings right there! (But I don't think the Dems in the House have the guts to do it. Unfortunately.)

Richard Cownie wrote on March 22, 2007 2:11 PM:

"The work of a lawyers staff is protected under client privilege"

Well, yeah. But the lawyers are being paid by
the client. The White House staff are being paid
by the American people. And while I think they
shouldn't have their feet held to the fire for
discussing crazy ideas which are never implemented,
they should definitely be accountable to explain the
reasoning behind the ideas which *are* implemented.

The other mystery here is that by statute, the
US Attorneys can only be fired by the President:
and yet in this case 8 US Attorneys think they
were fired, and Bush says he never had any
discussions about it. Who's running the shop ?
Who fired them, and why ? And did they have
authority from Bush to do so ?

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 2:11 PM:

"Right now, Congress does not have oversight, and has never had oversight. If a Democrat wins, Congress will have oversight and will have always had oversight.

Get it?"

Uh... no. Did you sneak in and change the Constitution when no one was looking?

eric wrote on March 22, 2007 2:11 PM:

"The work of a lawyers staff is protected under client privilege.
Posted by: Skip"

Not quite. I think you are referring to a "work product" privilege. In any case, that isn't what we have here, at all. This isn't an attorney and his staff preparing for litigation.
This doesn't even involve litigation or the solicitation of legal advice.

Hap Haploid wrote on March 22, 2007 2:12 PM:

At the next press conference, someone's got to ask Bush if he agrees with his press secretary's statement.

Wanda wrote on March 22, 2007 2:12 PM:

"we'll give you EVERY communication" - Tony Snowflake says,

did he too forget the l8 days left out of the docdump 2 days ado? those republicans have bad memories.

I'm hoping Pelosi tells the Incubus in Chief, we have the votes Mr. President. Iraq or Impeachment.

Which is it Mr. President? to coin a Pox Phrase, "I deliver news, YOU decide"

Rusty Austin wrote on March 22, 2007 2:13 PM:

Pelosi 07!

mitchcol wrote on March 22, 2007 2:14 PM:

I heard on npr this morning that if subpoenas are issued by Congress, and ignored by the White House, the matter would be turned over to...guess who?...the U.S. Attorney for Wash. D.C. for enforcement. He (if he's a 'loyal Bushie') could simply refuse to bring prosecution, as was apparently done by the D.C. U.S. Attorney back in '83. I don't have any more background on that case. Can someone help me out?

Robin wrote on March 22, 2007 2:15 PM:

Now, if the person saying that were wearing a military uniform and standing, oh, say, in some undisclosed location in a forest somewheres or even a naval ship, I would call that an attempted military coup! A mutiny of a rogue governmental unti at the least.

Irrespective of the ultimate results in this matter, that stance by the White House IS a constitutional crisis.

"We operate as an island unto ourselves, answering to no one in this nation."

So what happens? The subpoenas get served. White House people don't show up. Do we send MPs to round them up and drag them there? Does the WH put loyal military men at the gates to prevent Congress from entering and dragging the public servants to the hearing?

I can hardly get my mind around this! The White House is a roguish, mutinous band of thugs. They are occupying the seat of power illegaly as far as I am concerned.

logorrhea wrote on March 22, 2007 2:16 PM:

Over on Kos, some have reported that Snow made the same claim on CBS and CNN, as well as ABC. This is the new talking point, apparently.

jeffs wrote on March 22, 2007 2:16 PM:

"There are multiple possible paths. None of them will be quick, and all will be painful. One hopes that Bush will be true to his history and cave when the pressure is on. He likes to talk big, but he always caves.
Posted by: Mark F.
Date: March 22, 2007 02:06 PM"

I just get the feeling that in this case, there's so much at stake (I mean, my god, Rove testifying under oath?!) that I don't see him caving. Maybe I'm being naive and cynical (at the same time?), but the Supremes bailed him out once...

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 2:17 PM:

"Pelosi 07!"

:) :) :)

E-dog wrote on March 22, 2007 2:17 PM:

Why are we worried about the Primary for that matter, we don't need no stinking elections.

W. for Evahhhhhh!

DallasNE wrote on March 22, 2007 2:18 PM:

KKKarl, is that the best talking point that you can feed to Tony Snow? They get weaker by the day. You, KKKarl, will be testifying under oath to Congress before this Memorial Day.

Question, when these people all lawyer up is this expense paid for from "contributions" to a legal defense fund or by the Federal Government.

Robin wrote on March 22, 2007 2:18 PM:

So, George W. Bush has RENOUNCED his oath of office?????

That's the bottom line right there. I am gonna go write a blog essay on that!

2strange wrote on March 22, 2007 2:22 PM:

npr had former Democratic house counsel Stanley Brand on this morning discussing the enforcement of supoenas - apparently DOJ is the agency that is supposed to enforce them!

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 2:23 PM:

jeffs: I think what would probably happen (if it gets that far) is that Rove would refuse to respond to the subpoena and congress would have to decide if they were going to pursue a contempt charge. Following that, it could and probably would get very complex and very ugly. And Bush's stacked Supreme Court just mind find in favor of executive privilege, no matter what the Constitution says.

logorrhea wrote on March 22, 2007 2:24 PM:

Mitchcol - According to Wikipedia, Jeffrey A. Taylor is the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia -- appointed very recently on September 26, 2006.

He's worked with Orrin Hatch, Ashcroft and Gonzalez, and drafted provisions of the Patriot Act.

In other words, he's a Bush loyalist.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 2:25 PM:

did these people not take a civics class in private school? did they not have to read the constitution? federalist papers? Up is down, down is up.

Posted by: rusty

They may be home schooled. Just like the home schooled Nazi twins that are the darlings of the ring-wing supporters.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 2:26 PM:

I"m not so sure that this would be turned over to the USA for the District of the District of Columbia. I would think that the Chairs who issued the subpoenas could go into court and seek enforcement. This canard that it would take months if not years to play out is simply divorced from the speed the courts can move if properly motivated (constitutional crises fall into this category). Also, it would be a summary action. The questions presented and the fact finding is extremely limited and can be summed up thusly - does the Congress have the authority to compel testimony from White House personnel. The delicious irony of having the R stocked D.C. Circuit apply the smackdown to this "unitary executive" bull**** would be worth well worth it.

dcs wrote on March 22, 2007 2:27 PM:

Two rarely-traveled legal paths might be taken. Hold the subpoenaed staffers in contempt of Congress and issue arrest warrants. This might not go over so well, but it is probably a legal option.

Less direct, but probably more potent, would be to charge Gonzales with providing false testimony to Congress, but I don't know the mechanics. Who issues a warrant for arrest? Who enforces it?

DPS wrote on March 22, 2007 2:28 PM:

Richard,

I think the USAs weren't fired but rather tendered their resignations upon request. So, really anybody could *ask* them to resign, with or without the president's knowledge, although the USAs would assume that the request came with the President's approval. Only in an instance in which they actually had to be terminated would it officially have to go through him.

JB wrote on March 22, 2007 2:28 PM:

Do executive privilege and immunities protect the President or his staff from testifying to Congress? In United States v. Nixon the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution contained a presumptive, non-absolute executive privilege, but the privilege did not extend so far as to shield the Watergate tapes, and Nixon had to turn them over to a special prosecutor. It seems to me that given the composition of the Supreme Court, this might be a bad time for Congress to engage in a judicial showdown with the Executive Branch over Executive Branch powers. Moreover, it would shift the debate away from the issue at hand - information the White House is withholding - to the issue of separation of powers. If only the majority in Congress or an outcry from the public were able to force the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the firings.

jayackroyd wrote on March 22, 2007 2:31 PM:

Funny. With Charlie Gibson he said that they DO have oversight authority. I wonder in which order these took place.

Robert wrote on March 22, 2007 2:33 PM:

This is tricky ground, because the Constitution doesn't state that Congress has the any right to supervise the Executive Branch. In fact, the sole item in the Constitution that might be applicable is

Article II, Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This basically gives Congress the option of subpoenaing individutal members of the Executive Branch. If they fail to appear, they can be held in contempt of Congress, in which instance Congress can approve a resolution which must then be prosecuted by a US Attorney.

While the behavior of the President is reprehensible, it would be hard to argue that it falls under Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

epv wrote on March 22, 2007 2:33 PM:

This is frightening. Clearly the Bush administration represent a neo-con type of proto-fascist regime, grabbing as much dictatorial power as the American people will let them get away with... Bush wants to be King, and my goodness, he is enabled by the opportunists- jackals- war-mongers- and oil-whores who surround him.

Bush and Rove, using Tony-boy Snow as their brain-dead mouth-piece, are simply saying that they will make a pretense of showing-up providing that they can lie with impunity- that it's behind closed doors with no transcript- and that once finished, no more questions will be asked (i.e. no follow-up)... This is so outrageous as to border on treason.

Executive Privilege does not permit Bush to commit any act with impunity. Bush does not have the right to commit crimes. Bush is not a King-- and indeed the Founding Fathers set-down clear provisions to ensure that Congress could (and should) take actions to censor and/or impeach a president who decided that he wanted to be King of the U.S.

High crimes & misdemeanours are, in fact, the justification, according to the U.S. Constitution, for impeachment of a president.

In other words, Bush cannot violate his oath of office- he cannot commit cover-up crimes- he cannot order crimes to be committed- and, he cannot violate or order the violation of our laws.

Why some neo-cons are trying to twist the meaning of "executive privilege" into a cloak for Bush to avoid being held accountable to "We the People" is obvious, but we should reject such sophistry and demand that Congress impeach this criminal Bush regime.

NCBlueneck wrote on March 22, 2007 2:34 PM:

Cut poor Tony Snowjob some slack. You aren't likely to get the de-programming you need from the Faux Nooz cult while working at the White House. It takes a while for the Kool-Aid to pass through the system. He's going to need some "reality based" rehabilitation. But then again, he is a journalist by trade, and what has factuality got to do with main-stream journalism these days?

Stuart Shiffman wrote on March 22, 2007 2:34 PM:

Is anyone shocked by this?

Given this administrations views on what constitutes due procees and justice for people across the world why should we be amazed that their notion of the Constitution is one that even King George (the 1700's King George) would find unreasonable.

DavidW in SF wrote on March 22, 2007 2:34 PM:

Freudian slips showing?

I notice that every time Tony Snow mentions either "documentation" or "evidence", it is always accompanied by the word "shred".

r€nato wrote on March 22, 2007 2:36 PM:

Let's fucking impeach Bush and see if he recognizes that kind of Congressional oversight.

Julie wrote on March 22, 2007 2:36 PM:

Since the Constitution doesn't specifically state the words, "The Congress shall have oversight over ...", then does 200 years of evolving pattern of practice say it does?

Does "advise and consent" apply to the Senate only? Is Congress just there to write the checks to support whatever the President decrees? That seems to be what Snow is saying. Add to that the fact that they were able to fire the USAs because it was the Congress itself that amended the Patriot Act to give them the authority to reappoint without advice and consent ...

We all thought it was pretty clear that the Constitution said that congressional redistricting could happen only once, every 10 years, after a census. The Supreme Court then turned around and said it didn't.

So is this, then, the ultimate agenda behind their rampages about "strict constructionism?" Are we now going to start interpreting the Constitution as literally as some would have us interpret the Bible?

They've either overplayed their hand completely, or we're cooked.

Meanwhile, the most horrifying thing about that video clip is not necessarily Tony Snow's statement, brazen though it may be.

The most horrifying thing about that clip is that Card-Carrying, Professional Ace Journalist Diane Sawyer didn't call him on it.

Between the brazenness of their power grabs and the incuriosity of the public and the journalists that report the news, we're cooked.

nina wrote on March 22, 2007 2:38 PM:

Following up on Robin's remark early in this post...
the exasperating thing about dealing with the hubris of this administration is that a guy like tony snow can come up with any harebrained comment about oversight that he likes... and thoughtful dems go about like whirling dervishes to give him a spot-on rebuttal.. while he moves on to his next crackpot denial or goofy explanation. Now we can understand what was meant when we first heard about "reality-based" media etc. When it comes to answering nonsense with thoughtfulness, they're too fast for us!

Astonished wrote on March 22, 2007 2:38 PM:

about half way through Tony says
"What we also don't want is the sort of trappings of somebody at Boston Legal and they're getting grilled, Perry Mason or whatever."

That about sums it up. Don't ask us any direct or tough questions. Guess what Tony? It might just turn out differently than 'what you want'.

---
code word 'jump'
((as in 'jump' off the precipice))

RWN wrote on March 22, 2007 2:42 PM:

This is a dynamic situation where the WH can only hold ground if no other factual revelations appear. The issue will not be with the DOJ enforcing or not the subpeona's but whether the GOP in the Senate will join the Democrats in repugnation.

What you have is simply Bush challenging the system because the stakes are at the highest because he has something to hide that is far more reealing than the NSA spying, or the lack of warrants with the FBI or this firing episode.

This will all go to the systemic obstruction of justice and even unconstitutional abuse of powers beyond the current imagination.

Back to the Senate, the 94-2 vote was a firing across the bow to the Administration saying that they do not have carte blanche with the partisan split anymore. A further repugnation will be a core of 12-15 moderate Senators forming a caucus on their own and joining the Democrats and then holding up the government.

Stonewalling in the DOJ will do nothing with this and a filibuster immunity. Lastly.....there are smart Republicans who will fear the breakdown of the party wholesale unless they show some integrity.

RWN wrote on March 22, 2007 2:43 PM:

This is a dynamic situation where the WH can only hold ground if no other factual revelations appear. The issue will not be with the DOJ enforcing or not the subpeona's but whether the GOP in the Senate will join the Democrats in repugnation.

What you have is simply Bush challenging the system because the stakes are at the highest because he has something to hide that is far more reealing than the NSA spying, or the lack of warrants with the FBI or this firing episode.

This will all go to the systemic obstruction of justice and even unconstitutional abuse of powers beyond the current imagination.

Back to the Senate, the 94-2 vote was a firing across the bow to the Administration saying that they do not have carte blanche with the partisan split anymore. A further repugnation will be a core of 12-15 moderate Senators forming a caucus on their own and joining the Democrats and then holding up the government.

Stonewalling in the DOJ will do nothing with this and a filibuster immunity. Lastly.....there are smart Republicans who will fear the breakdown of the party wholesale unless they show some integrity.

rlogan wrote on March 22, 2007 2:43 PM:

What matters in the remainder of the term is the public.

Congress has unequivocal statements from Bush that he committed felonies in ordering spying without FISA warrants. He spent money illegally on Iraq that was appropriated for Iran.

Every new criminal gangster operation exposed raises expectations that something will be done - and nothing happens.

Until a sufficient number of congressman feel their golden nest is at risk in the next election, they won't can this administration.

Mark F. wrote on March 22, 2007 2:45 PM:

What I think they're really worried about is guys like Josh Marshall getting his hands on the transcript. Our distinguished Senators may or may not ask the right questions and demand the right answers, but if the bloggers have anything to do with it, they WILL get to the bottom of this. I suspect the bottom is somewhere very near the top.

J.Goodwin wrote on March 22, 2007 2:45 PM:

Failure to uphold the laws of the land in accordance with the oath of office is treason. I don't see the problem here.

And if the system fails, then we'll have a real constitutional crisis. The shooting kind. Should be interesting.

Ad Absurdum wrote on March 22, 2007 2:45 PM:

The possibility of any of this never crossed the minds of Democratic senators when they allowed the Roberts and Scalito shoo-in.

Harpodog wrote on March 22, 2007 2:46 PM:

Does anyone know who was the USA that Jeffrey Taylor replaced last September, and what were the circumstances? I read somewhere that he was appointed under the no-Senate-approval-needed rule. Was he put in place to ensure that Dem issued subpoenas would not be enforced if the Dems won the election, and thus gained the power of oversight (Tony Snow excepted)?

jayackroyd wrote on March 22, 2007 2:48 PM:

did these people not take a civics class in private school? did they not have to read the constitution? federalist papers? Up is down, down is up.

They are daring Congress to cause a Constitutional showdown. And, if you watch Snow, they continue to take advantage of the media's inability to simply say "The reason that there are oaths and transcripts necessary is because you have lied in the past. When you say that you are going to give us every bit of relevant information, how do we know you're not lying? You have lied repeatedly about the circumstances in this case. You lied about the NSA wiretapping. You lied about not knowing who the Plame leaker was. How long do you want me to go on? The reason they want oaths and transcripts is so they can fact-check your statements and hold you accountable for lies."

This is not, by the way, a biased or partisan thing to say. Snow says that a chat is adequate, and this is the only response to explain way it is not.

Did you also notice that he explicitly introduces the idea of "frame" and "narrative" in pushing back on this. But Sawyer doesn't push back on his frames: "Showdown at the OK corral" "Show trial"

Sholom wrote on March 22, 2007 2:50 PM:

Perhaps this is a new legal theory (that would be supported only by the most radical of judicial activism).

Congressional oversight is _not_ an explicit right in the Constitution. (I can hear those right wingers now, waving their copies of the Constitution, "where in this Constitutiton do you see a right of oversight"?)

The answer to the above question is, unfortunately, not a sound bite. A good answer is in a CRS publication (updated this year) at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

jayackroyd wrote on March 22, 2007 2:50 PM:

did these people not take a civics class in private school? did they not have to read the constitution? federalist papers? Up is down, down is up.

They are daring Congress to cause a Constitutional showdown. And, if you watch Snow, they continue to take advantage of the media's inability to simply say "The reason that there are oaths and transcripts necessary is because you have lied in the past. When you say that you are going to give us every bit of relevant information, how do we know you're not lying? You have lied repeatedly about the circumstances in this case. You lied about the NSA wiretapping. You lied about not knowing who the Plame leaker was. Scooter Libby is going to jail for lying under oath and Karl Rove took five visits to the grand jury, presumably because he kept getting caught in his lies. The Vice President once told Tim Russert he didn't say something the Russert had just played a video of him saying. How long do you want me to go on? The reason they want oaths and transcripts is so they can fact-check your statements and hold you accountable for lies. Not to mention that this is how hearings are always done. The only thing that is out of the ordinary is your refusal."

This is not, by the way, a biased or partisan thing to say. Snow says that a chat is adequate, and this is the only response to explain way it is not.

Did you also notice that he explicitly introduces the idea of "frame" and "narrative" in pushing back on this. But Sawyer doesn't push back on his frames: "Showdown at the OK corral" "Show trial"

Roger wrote on March 22, 2007 2:51 PM:

Robert:

The 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors' only covers a president who states "I didn't have sex with that woman." That is a true high crime.

Hoppy wrote on March 22, 2007 2:51 PM:

Bush will commit the crime of obstruction of justice if he doesn't permit Rove and Harriet, who isn't even on his staff now, to testify about a probable crime. Remember, Nixon was well on his way to being impeached for the same crime. All the Congress has to do is let this play out, then begin the House Judiciary hearings into impeachment. Whether the Democrats in the House have the courage to do that is a good, and unanswered question.

Martin Kelly wrote on March 22, 2007 2:52 PM:

Here's the full Tony Snow quote from 1998. Even funnier

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

jayackroyd wrote on March 22, 2007 2:52 PM:

Oops. No italics tag support. Sorry about that.

scavok wrote on March 22, 2007 2:54 PM:

This is a high stakes game of chicken between the White House and Congress. I'm willing to bet it will be the WH who blinks first, but that won't happen for a few more days.

Congress has nothing to lose by pressing the administration. They just need to get more comfortable with flexing the muscles they have let atrophy over the past six years. The public is on their side, and will become more vocal about the issue as it drags on.

Every time the administration goes on TV they look more desperate. This performance by Snow is a prime example. Keep up the pressure and they will cave like the craven bullies they are.

Jim J wrote on March 22, 2007 2:55 PM:

This is really simple: They think, possibly incorrectly, that they have the SCOTUS in the bag.

They're taunting, trash-talking, at this point, not even attempting to defend an actual position.

dzman49 wrote on March 22, 2007 2:57 PM:

"Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability"

He'll have to take it back even though that's what everyone in the WH really believes. It's like Fawn Hall at the Iran/Contra hearings saying North, etc. were "above the law". She had to recant within 24 hours.

georgia wrote on March 22, 2007 2:59 PM:

If they're really going to argue that Congress doesn't have oversight authority, they're only going to hasten their own downfall.

They would be compelled to share the info in impeachment hearings, regardless of "executive privilege".

jdw wrote on March 22, 2007 3:01 PM:

The link to the US Embassy in German is a riot.

John

Brooklyn Girl wrote on March 22, 2007 3:06 PM:

No oversight? Hey, Tony, can you spell "impeachment"?

votingpresent wrote on March 22, 2007 3:08 PM:

"Failure to uphold the laws of the land ... is treason."

Well, no, actually. "Treason ... shall consist only in levying War ... or in adhering to their Enemies ..." etc. You could make a case that Bush has done this by effectively strengthening Al Quaeda.

I would prefer instead to impeach Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Like failing to uphold the laws of the land.

Eain Murphy wrote on March 22, 2007 3:08 PM:

My favorite line from Tony is:
"Look, do you want Karl Rove on TV or do you want the truth".
As if the two are mutually exclusive events.
What a F-ing Joke.

Robert wrote on March 22, 2007 3:09 PM:

The comments here are reaching the level of hyper-ventilating bile-spewing that I would expect to find on a wing-nut site.

From the perspective of common sense, impeachment is not going to happen. It's only been tried twice in more than two centuries and it failed both times. It is very difficult to convict a President. Eight years ago, we were all glad that this was the case. It doesn't change just because it's their guy that we want to get rid of.

The way that Congress can oversee this, or any other, administration is by shining the cold, hard light of day upon it. Holding hearings and subpoenaing testimony forces the White House to defend their actions. Repeatedly forcing them to sputter through transparent lies in press conferences weakens their position.

To respond to earlier comments, only the Senate has "Advise and Consent" powers and it's only on the approval of certain appointed officials and on treaties. And yes, Congress' only material weapon is budgetary.

This doesn't make the Legislature ineffectual, unless it chooses to be. Congress passed the Patriot Act, it can repeal it as well.

Dr. Puck wrote on March 22, 2007 3:11 PM:

It goes like this:

1. Congress makes laws
2. Executive interprets and executes laws
3. If Congress doesn't like the executive's interpretation, it's up to some party to sue all the way up to the supreme court, so we can learn what the supreme court's re-interpretation is
4. Congress implements Supreme Court's superior interpretation in new law.

Repeat Step 2-3-4 forever

This is neither original constructionism or rationale, so I've dubbed this: Alice In Wonderland Theory of FOunder's Intent

Personal comment: the lameduck Bush administration will spend the final years of their all-time most horrific governance consolidating wonderland conceptions while core supporters laugh all the way to the bank.

Most odd element? That such hubris doesn't seem to jibe with the negative payoff for the Cheney Inc.'s egos -- without a doubt the history books will be both forthright and cruel

Brighid wrote on March 22, 2007 3:11 PM:

And, this is a flat-out lie. The Bush administration did not turn over an 18-day gap in the emails; Bush limited the number of officials who would be available, and has demanded that they not be put under oath, testify in public, or result in any transcripts from the testimony. If there is no transcript, there is no further "legal scrutiny" and he knows that.

Moreover, Congress does have oversight of the executive, as ruled through the years by the courts; they have the purse strings, and the power of subpoena by law and they have IMPEACHMENT. That is CONSTITUTIONAL, legal "oversight," Tony. The founding fathers presciently provided for Constitutional oversight of the Executive Branch.

Congressional Oversight:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-936.pdf

dannebrog wrote on March 22, 2007 3:12 PM:

on tuesday morning tom delay was interviewed on morning edition, and in response to steve inskeep asking him about the permanent republican majority and the k street project (which delay himself brought up) and not talking to democratic lobbyists, he said:
"why would i meet with the enemy?". inskeep followed up with "{but} he's an american with an interest" and delay countered with "he's not an american with my interest or the interest of the majority."

these guys just don't believe in the fundamental tenets of representative democracy, where even the minority have a right to a voice.

link to story and steaming audio is at the npr site, on the morning edition page for tuesday 3/20.

sagacious wrote on March 22, 2007 3:13 PM:

Never forget that all Hitler did in Germany was legal

MLK 63

TiredFed wrote on March 22, 2007 3:15 PM:

come on Tony, say something else that will piss off the Senate.

Tracy wrote on March 22, 2007 3:16 PM:

If only Clinton had tried this approach, I'm sure the Tony Snow's of the world would have gotten behind him 100%...riiiight?

ShorelineCT wrote on March 22, 2007 3:16 PM:

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE HEARING

WASHINGTON, DC
APRIL 27, 2005

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2005/042705senateintelligence.htm

Chairman Roberts, Vice Chairman Rockefeller, and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here to talk about reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I appreciate this opportunity to come before Congress to discuss our successes in the war on terror and to find new ways to fight for freedom more effectively and consistent with the values that we all cherish as Americans...

....The PATRIOT Act was a swift and decisive response to the attacks of September 11. In the weeks and months following the attacks in Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York, Democrats and Republicans came together to address the vulnerabilities in our nation’s defenses. Both Congress and the Administration worked with experienced law enforcement, intelligence, and national security personnel to design legislation to better protect the American people. Although there was extensive consideration in 2001, and although it is unusual to impose sunsets on statutory investigative tools, Congress included sunsets on certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act because members wanted to ensure that we were not risking the very liberties we were setting out to defend.

Today, we can all be proud. The track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the Act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse. Our Nation is stronger and safer. Our bipartisan work has been a success. The Department of Justice has exercised care and restraint in the use of these important authorities because we are committed to the rule of law. We have followed the law because it is the law, not because it is scheduled to sunset. With or without sunsets, our dedication to the rule of law will continue.

The Department will strive to continue to carry out its work lawfully and appropriately and as a citizen I expect Congress will continue its active oversight over our use of the PATRIOT Act – not because of sunsets – but because oversight is the constitutional responsibility of Congress. So, given the Department’s record in using these authorities, the obvious effectiveness of these tools in stopping violent crimes and protecting our Nation, and the authority of Congress to reexamine these provisions at any time to correct abuses, the sunset provisions are, in my judgment, no longer necessary and should be repealed.....

votingpresent wrote on March 22, 2007 3:21 PM:

"hyper-ventilating bile-spewing" comments?

When the republic is in as much danger as it has been since the Civil War it's hard to see what is being overstated. This administration will keep pushing towards the cliff edge, and nothing else will stop them.

This is what impeachment was made for. It will happen.

Sholom wrote on March 22, 2007 3:27 PM:

Off topic -- re: Tom DeLay doing interviews promoting his book

A description of an interview Tom DeLay had with Chris Matthews (from, perhaps dailykos? can't remember):

Matthews grilled DeLay about passages in his book where he apparently ripped into fellow corrupt Texan Dick Armey, eventually asking the Hammer about describing Armey as "drunk with ambition." DeLay denied writing that. "I wrote that he was 'blinded by his ambition.'" Matthews starts flipping though the book and finds the "drunk with ambition" quote and reads it to Bug Man. And DeLay keeps denying it. Finally, Chris hands the book to Tom and tells him to read it himself. DeLay looks down, pauses, and says "I don't have my glasses."

Uncle Don wrote on March 22, 2007 3:31 PM:

Article I of the Constitution vests the legislative power in the Congress of the United States.

In order to legislate, Congress must have the power to investigate. Once Congress has legislated, it has the power to investigate to determine if the laws enacted are being executed properly.

If there is a legislative intent or purpose behind any Congressional investigate, then the power of Congress is virtually absolute. The Executive Branch cannot not constitutionally refuse to provide information sought by Congress. If such information pertains to national security, state secrets and the like, it can be produced in a private session and classified as "secret." But it cannot be withheld from Congress, which acts as the reprsentative of the people and the states.

I agree with the comments above that the Bush regime apparently fears the revelation of much worse crimes than the firing of seven U. S. Attorneys, which may have had the effect of obstructing justice or abuse of presidential power.

bohdi wrote on March 22, 2007 3:32 PM:

These kind of snow-jobs are pure Orwell. Unmistakeable. They are an effort to rewrite the Constituion by introducing large lies into the scheme which condition the domesticated public into the beleif that they have always been true.

No way can these operatives ever release or give access to White House emails. That Pandora'x box has just about everything in it from the secret Cheney energy meetings thru 9/11 and dozens of nefarious events

Uncle Don wrote on March 22, 2007 3:36 PM:

I regret the typos above.

Frederick wrote on March 22, 2007 3:36 PM:

I don't think the Supreme Court will rule in Bush's favor, and he knows it. He will put up his macho front for a few more days and then cave. This guy just doesn't know how to pick his winnable battles, he's had six years of
people rolling over for him and he's now facing a pissed off Congress.

Kathleen Bushman wrote on March 22, 2007 3:44 PM:

Tony Snowjob in an editorial published in the St Louis Post-Dispatch. Of course his remarks aren't applicable now because he was referring to Clinton. "Evidently, [the President] wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 4:05 PM:

Robert wrote: "While the behavior of the President is reprehensible, it would be hard to argue that it falls under Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Yeah, well I think the Clinton impeachment lowered the bar pretty far on the 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' part of that. Thanks to the GOP witch-hunt, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress wants it to.

Julie: "Since the Constitution doesn't specifically state the words, "The Congress shall have oversight over ...", then does 200 years of evolving pattern of practice say it does?"

The Constitution doesn't specifically mention 'executive privilege' either, but if you listen to the White House, God himself handed it down to Moses on the tablets.

Funny how 'strict constructionism' always works out to benefit the right.

OxyCon wrote on March 22, 2007 4:18 PM:

Snow is really embarresing himself badly lately.
While McClellan would stammer and stutter, Tony Snowjob just spews tons of made up nonsense that he's going to get rammed back down his throat in the future when the shoe is on the other foot.
He is melting down before our very eyes.
Here's a Fox "News" partisan pundit acting as White House Spokesperson and lately whenever he gets asked a ligitimate question, he immediately smears the questioner as being a partisan.
Can you get any more "Alice in Wonderland" than that?
Some White House reporter should ask Tony Snowjob how much he's enjoying his job now, since he's the one getting lied to by the Bushies this time and he has to face the nation and pass along Bush's lies.
Rmember when Snowjob said "This is the bestest job in the world and George W. Bush is my idol"?

STS wrote on March 22, 2007 4:20 PM:

Mark F, Frederick:

Bush has proven willing to cave on a lot of "little things", but this is about his "grade" as President. Avert impeachment or too many convictions of top associates, and the myth-making machine will go into overdrive rewriting history with George W. Bush as the greatest president since Lincoln (with the possible exception of our "all time greatest" President Ronnie).

But if he get bulldozed by a tremendous pile of convictions and Republican Senators abandon him in droves, it the mythmaking machine might have trouble winding up sufficient steam to make him anything other than "worst president ever."

THIS is something Bush cares about. He'll never cave on TAX CUTS and he'll never cave on the OCCUPATION of Iraq, and he'll never cave on his COVER UP.

Unless of course, Democrats wake up and decide to make him choose among those things.

cevrero wrote on March 22, 2007 4:50 PM:

Oh yeah, did you hear that an "discontinued oversight provision" was inserted in the Patriot Act last year?

Legalize wrote on March 22, 2007 5:08 PM:

Well, at least they can't in good faith deny their utter contempt for popular governance any longer - although "good faith" is not something in which they are interested.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 5:10 PM:

so this is where the tree hugging, welfare supporting people hang out all day. All this time i thought you were under a rock.

Jason wrote on March 22, 2007 6:52 PM:

Under Clinton it became necessary to 'define' a word to be able to take Clinton at face value. Under the Bush administration it is necessary to 'trust' their word to be able to take the Bushies at face value. Clinton lied about sex. Bush lies about EVERYTHING. And the sweet Republicon darling Snow(job)is in your face shouting, "WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!?"

The Oracle wrote on March 22, 2007 8:47 PM:

Aw, shucks, there goes any chance of an impeachment of Republicans in the worst administration in American history, with Tony Snow saying over and over again that the U.S. legislature has no "oversight" of the executive branch.

Oh, wait, I vaguely remember something about our country having something called the U.S. Constitution.

donna wrote on March 22, 2007 8:58 PM:

Oh, I really hope they keep this up for a while.

I WANT it to get where nobody will ever dare vote a Republican into office again.

I certainly am at that point already, as I imagine most of you are. The further they go, the more Americans they will lose in future votes.

e` wrote on March 22, 2007 10:51 PM:

We have a former FAUX news "person" teaching us about any aspect of the Constitution. Our country has officially gone crazy. We let this crabwalker out in public, we've lost all credibility. Which we lost 6 years ago.

Anonymous wrote on March 23, 2007 2:23 AM:

"The work of a lawyers staff is protected under client privilege." -- Baloney.

Example: Bybee Memo not protected, and was released. Other examples include lawyers actively involved with criminla activity: That is not protected. And if a lawyer disclosed the communicaitons, it is not shielded from being used for other questions to other lines of evidence.

Lawyers are not gods in America. If they are criminals, they can be convicted.

Anonymous wrote on March 23, 2007 2:25 AM:

This Snow Comment is at odds with the Federalist Papers: It presumed a clash of factions. In Snow's universe he will only clash when rolling people over, but makes no allowance for having push back. Snow needs to find another faction to roll over. This Constitution is here to stay.

Susan wrote on March 23, 2007 11:28 AM:

Does it occur to anyone else that all of this indicates more than anything that the Republicans don't plan to lose another Presidential "election" ever?

ZetMaster wrote on April 14, 2007 3:35 PM:

Good day!
We offer best prices for OEM Software. Hurry up, it's limited!
[URL=http://oem-software.myzips.org/info-Adobe_Acrobat_6_professional.html]Adobe FrameMaker 7.0[/URL]
Check our prices and blow your mind!
Thanks

margaret@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 11:29 PM:

hello

margaret@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 11:30 PM:

hello

harry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 11:47 AM:

hello

mat wrote on May 1, 2007 4:18 PM:

i love uoy

Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 7:16 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

willy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:34 PM:

hello

willy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:34 PM:

hello

willy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:35 PM:

hello

bruce@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 12:28 AM:

hello

Jonglly wrote on May 9, 2007 3:22 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

Jonglly wrote on May 11, 2007 11:55 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

Jonglly wrote on May 15, 2007 1:31 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

Jonglly wrote on May 18, 2007 6:29 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

Jonglly wrote on May 20, 2007 9:33 AM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

bruce@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 5:41 AM:

cialis forum

qjgpkcty ectwbx wrote on May 29, 2007 9:09 PM:

ndqcmg mzilnjr pibvtwenc lrhsqpnko umwzqj mhrznje rqzlcwpsg

pbosvly gbwqmpoe wrote on May 29, 2007 9:10 PM:

nstlmy wkiqh gfbqapsov rsiq dayf nkvq frgizu http://www.nczhske.grsvwzm.com

pbosvly gbwqmpoe wrote on May 29, 2007 9:12 PM:

nstlmy wkiqh gfbqapsov rsiq dayf nkvq frgizu http://www.nczhske.grsvwzm.com

quwyx sbjime wrote on May 29, 2007 9:13 PM:

xmaj ctmerhnqo rypvcmjes evlxk jcwxurhvp zdyporlu beaixzjy rysqzfjw vjswehpx

quwyx sbjime wrote on May 29, 2007 9:14 PM:

xmaj ctmerhnqo rypvcmjes evlxk jcwxurhvp zdyporlu beaixzjy rysqzfjw vjswehpx

vcshow aphue wrote on May 29, 2007 9:16 PM:

vzot cosxfyd jvtachufn jokwe tcojzbqs yogqp pdvebh [URL=http://www.kxqwihj.sijulhwdx.com]kjor pqfvajw[/URL]

Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:29 AM:

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

pdnatzxi pzkhedq wrote on August 1, 2007 10:42 PM:

zurtibvf qeiytpbx ijcozp tnpojci vopgc daypik aksd

pdnatzxi pzkhedq wrote on August 1, 2007 10:43 PM:

zurtibvf qeiytpbx ijcozp tnpojci vopgc daypik aksd

pdnatzxi pzkhedq wrote on August 1, 2007 10:44 PM:

zurtibvf qeiytpbx ijcozp tnpojci vopgc daypik aksd

order levitra wrote on September 17, 2007 6:34 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 18, 2007 1:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on September 18, 2007 6:30 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on September 18, 2007 8:19 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on September 18, 2007 9:56 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on September 18, 2007 3:45 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 19, 2007 1:37 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on September 19, 2007 3:17 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 6:07 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 7:54 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 9:34 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 1:17 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on September 20, 2007 5:59 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

Eagles wrote on September 21, 2007 10:38 PM:

sale@mp3.com

prescription viagra wrote on September 22, 2007 3:04 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on September 22, 2007 5:53 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 22, 2007 11:18 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 23, 2007 9:52 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 23, 2007 1:11 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on September 23, 2007 3:12 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on September 24, 2007 3:57 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on September 24, 2007 5:44 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 3:08 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 7:46 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on September 25, 2007 9:48 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on September 25, 2007 11:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 12:34 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 2:24 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 4:17 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 5:51 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 7:28 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 9:08 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on September 26, 2007 10:44 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 12:23 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on September 26, 2007 1:56 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on September 26, 2007 3:24 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on September 26, 2007 5:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 8:36 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 9:58 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 11:38 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on September 27, 2007 1:23 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 2:53 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 4:23 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 5:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 7:23 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 8:53 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on September 27, 2007 11:52 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on September 28, 2007 1:39 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on September 28, 2007 3:49 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on September 28, 2007 5:29 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on September 28, 2007 7:15 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on September 28, 2007 8:54 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 12:00 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 1:46 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 3:41 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on September 29, 2007 5:38 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 11:45 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 1:12 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 2:43 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on September 29, 2007 4:08 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra pharmacy wrote on September 29, 2007 5:42 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

free music downloads site wrote on September 30, 2007 3:32 AM:

Hi, there!..ea568c1f03bc408ad729a55dc1c9f458

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 2:21 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 2, 2007 4:07 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 5:48 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 2, 2007 7:33 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 2, 2007 9:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 2, 2007 10:50 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 5:03 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 6:40 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 4, 2007 8:22 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 4:41 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 7:21 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 10:18 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 12:56 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 2:38 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 4:21 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra pharmacy wrote on October 5, 2007 6:16 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 5, 2007 8:06 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 5, 2007 10:11 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 6, 2007 3:22 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 6, 2007 4:54 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 1:43 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 3:36 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 7, 2007 5:23 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 8:30 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 11:38 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 1:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 2:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 7, 2007 4:27 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 7, 2007 8:57 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra uk wrote on October 7, 2007 10:37 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

free music downloads wrote on October 7, 2007 11:18 PM:

Hi, there!..53862267f2f666ec6578055063563fb5

online viagra wrote on October 8, 2007 12:37 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 8, 2007 3:19 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 8, 2007 5:24 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 7:02 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 8:47 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 9, 2007 10:32 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 12:26 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 3:10 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 7:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 11:32 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 1:58 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 5:24 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 7:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 10:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 1:55 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 3:56 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 4:28 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

viagra cheap wrote on October 10, 2007 6:11 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 9:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 5:50 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 8:09 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

gonne collant wrote on October 11, 2007 9:15 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

generic levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 10:09 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 11:39 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 1:09 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 2:42 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 4:21 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 5:44 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 7:08 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 8:48 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 10:20 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 12, 2007 11:42 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 1:30 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 3:21 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 12, 2007 5:36 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 12, 2007 8:24 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

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

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 5:06 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 7:03 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 13, 2007 9:24 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 13, 2007 11:59 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 1:44 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 3:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 5:31 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 9:31 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 11:53 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 1:19 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 2:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 14, 2007 4:31 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 6:19 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 8:57 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 10:29 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

levitra online wrote on October 15, 2007 1:49 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 3:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 5:37 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 7:47 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:38 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

discount viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 10:23 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 1:09 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 3:58 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 5:53 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

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

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra uk wrote on October 16, 2007 8:34 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:12 AM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

online viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 9:59 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 11:32 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 16, 2007 12:52 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:21 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 3:51 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 5:12 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 6:52 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 8:28 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 9:55 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 11:25 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 12:59 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:24 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 4:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 5:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 17, 2007 7:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra uk wrote on October 17, 2007 9:02 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

pharmacy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 10:30 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 18, 2007 12:00 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 18, 2007 1:44 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

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

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 6:14 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 8:05 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 9:26 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 18, 2007 11:01 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 12:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 2:43 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 4:59 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 7:22 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra price wrote on October 19, 2007 9:21 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 10:50 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 19, 2007 12:33 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 2:12 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 3:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 19, 2007 5:42 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 19, 2007 8:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 10:04 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 11:54 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 1:13 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 2:35 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 4:38 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 6:31 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 8:16 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 9:37 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 11:12 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 12:48 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 2:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

bu