April 18, 2004

Daniel Davies Told Us So

Matthew Yglesias recognizes that in those long-ago days when he was a hawk he should have listened to Daniel Davies's question: "Can anyone... give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics: (1) It is a policy initiative of the current Bush administration. (2) It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it). (3)It wasn't in some important way completely f***** up during the execution?"

Matthew Yglesias: April 11, 2004 - April 17, 2004 Archives: David Brooks offers the first of what I think will be many retrospective I was wrong but I was right anyway articles. The implication here is that though Bush may botch everything in Iraq, Brooks was nevertheless correct to have supported the war because he, after all, was not in favor of botching things.... The trouble, however, is this. When George W. Bush is president and is advocating a war and you, too, are advocating for war, then the fact of the matter is that you are advocating that the war be conducted by George W. Bush. That Bush would botch things was a perfectly predictable consequence of said support, based on -- among other things -- the fact that he'd botched everything else he'd ever done....

In the interests of full candor, let it be said that I did something very similar. The difference here being that, as I will now admit, I was wrong. Neither the policies being advocated by Bush nor the policies being advocated by the anti-war movement (even at its most mainstream) were the correct ones. What I wanted to see happen wasn't going to happen. I had to throw in with one side or another. I threw in with the wrong side. The bad consequences of the bad policy I got behind are significantly worse than the consequences of the bad policy advocated by the other side would have been. I blame, frankly, vanity. "Bush is right to say we should invade Iraq, but he's going about it the wrong way, here is my nuanced wonderfullness" sounds much more intelligent than some kind of chant at an anti-war rally. In fact, however, it was less intelligent. I got off the bandwagon right before the shooting started, but by then it was far too late -- this was more a case of CYA than a case of efficacious political dissent...

Posted by DeLong at April 18, 2004 08:24 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

Or as George Carlin was wont to quip,
"When has the US ever bombed a WHITE country?
Sure, we bombed Germany, but that was because
Hitler wanted to take over the world, and by
George, that's OUR job!"

Posted by: Dolores Cantel on April 18, 2004 08:51 PM

____

Well, Serbia. We may end up bombing Albania.

Posted by: Steven Rogers on April 18, 2004 09:07 PM

____

OK, so before somebody pipes up with a comment that says "well, the invasion of Iraq itself went well enough" let's point out that (1) we had insufficient forces there initially to prevent spectacular looting and civil disorder, and (2) I had thought it had been at least tacitly admitted that many US units were actually out of supply at one point in the initial push.

These two problems were, of course, due almost entirely to the fact that Rumsfeld declared we had to use an inadequate ground force.

Meanwhile, what goes around, comes around. I would *love* to hear why the following two bits of horrific news are really not so bad.

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly quotes the Telegraph:
>
> The commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick
> Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the
> overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose
> up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who
> has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would
> stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at
> all.
>
>...."A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks
> would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter
> said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about
> that."

Obviously a scary thing since I'm sure that situation could be arranged if our relationship with the Shi'a deteriorates enough. And remember that Basra was one of the last Iraqi ciites to fall in the first place.

But something that dramatic would not have to happen to make the situation pretty dire, if the follwing blurb is to be believed:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1841684

> U.S. Officials Move to Protect Iraq Supply Lines
> Weekend Edition - Sunday audio
> April 18, 2004
>
> American occupation authorities close two major highways in
> Iraq in an effort to keep U.S. supply lines open. Persistent
> attacks by insurgents have damaged the routes and food is
> running low at administrative headquarters in Baghdad. NPR's
> Emily Harris reports.

I didn't hear the original story (and I don't do Real Player, so I can't now) but if it is even *remotely* true, would there be anybody important in the military who would not want Rumsfeld's head on a stick?

Posted by: Jonathan King on April 18, 2004 09:20 PM

____

Ah, so the supply line story appears to be accurate, and even worse than I expected:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/international/middleeast/18IRAQ.html

Part of the problem is that Kellog Brown & Root, everybody's favorite Halliburton subsidiary, had to stop doing conveys on April 9. Contractors are apparently only more efficient unless they are being fired on.

Posted by: Jonathan King on April 18, 2004 09:34 PM

____

Can I raise a cheer to Yglesias for admitting his mistake? Now if only Zakaria of Newsweek, Friedman of the NYT, Remnick of the New Yorker, and all the other members of the I-can't-believe-I'm-a-Hawk club would acquire a little intellectual honesty and join him. Iraq was a giant strategic mistake, not a series of tiny tactical mistakes.

Posted by: wagster on April 18, 2004 09:46 PM

____

I, too, was a member of the anti-this-war-now crowd.

One thing that I think is helpful, even if in a rather dubious and unreliable manner, is to think, "throughout American history, what war are we proud to have won (or at least entered), and what wars to we look upon as territory grabs and mistakes?"

"Good" wars:
American Revolution
War of 1812
Civil War
World War 1
World War 2
Korean War
Gulf War 1

"Bad" wars:
Mexican-American war
Indian wars
Spanish American War & Philippine Insurrection
Vietnam (+ Laos and Cambodia)

Naturally, I don't expect everyone to agree with my classification. You can argue about that, I suppose.

Now, looking over the circumstances of late-2002/early-2003, what wars does Gulf War II resemble? It looks a bit like Vietnam, rather a lot like the Spanish-American war and the Philippine insurrection, and a bit like the Mexican-American war, at least to my eyes, on the bad war front. On the other hand, there's only ONE good war that it vaguely resembles: World War 1. It resembles all of the bad wars except the Indian wars, and only one good war.

I realize that this is a dubious, unscientific, and probably subconsciously biased method of determining the legitimacy of Gulf War II. Still, if you have any ideas for improving it, go for it.

Posted by: Julian Elson on April 18, 2004 10:42 PM

____

I belong to the war-is-at-best-a-desperate-last-resort-and-a-highly-blunt-therefore-unlikely-means-of-achieving-any-political-objective school of opinion. So my decision criteria were even cruder that Julian's, even though I'm much older than he. I noticed that, starting about Jan. 2002, there was a steady drum-beat in the media concerning war with Iraq. By summer, Bush was already declaring war was "inevitable", because Saddam choose it so, which involved something more than garbled syntax. Suddenly, everyone was being called upon, as a matter of public duty, to form an opinion about war on Iraq, which was highly flattering to the vanity of the self-important. Those who control the public agenda have the power, regardless of the actual distribution of opinions, especially when the narrow terms of the agenda rule any other questions out of consideration, as the Bushies were highly adept at doing. So the formation of suspicion about the matter was hardly difficult. And then the public arguments by the Bushies were so astonishingly weak and kept on falling apart in the light of publicly available information for anyone who cared to have a look. So it was clear that nothing good could come of this. Subsequent developments have only proven even more astonishingly lame-brained.

I don't weep for my country. I weep that apparently so few of its citizens can see the obvious.

Posted by: john c. halasz on April 19, 2004 12:17 AM

____

The Indian wars were not bad. They were obscene.

Posted by: Holly on April 19, 2004 03:56 AM

____

The war of 1812 was a land grab. But you lost.

Posted by: big al on April 19, 2004 04:30 AM

____

Is this our version of "Daddy, what did you do during the war?" The Iraq war seems set to become the "big event" of a generation, so it is no surprise that folks are now busily acquiring real estate on the right side of the intellectual tracks. Credit too damaged to make the move? Maybe a zipcode change can be arranged..."I was wrong, but for understandable reasons..."

It may be important to those who supported a mistaken war to make excuses, or amends or confessions, but I am not sure why it should be important to the rest of us. More than any other topic discussed here, science fiction and beach meditations included, the fact that some pundit, amateur or professional, spoke up for Bush's war and now thinks they were wrong, seems pretty trivial at this point. It might have mattered, a little bit, if a bunch of hawkish pundits had been doves, early enough to sway others, but the views of any one such pundit wouldn't have changed a thing at the time. Now, it certainly won't change a thing that some of them have realized their error. And it is the smallest of trivial details that one pundit was wrong in a different way than another.

Finding oneself on the wrong side of something as monumental as war, preemptive war, war fought against the will of the rest of the world, contrary to long-standing international standards, ought to convince one-time hawks who pretended to know the answer, pretended to have thought clearly, that they aren't as clever as they thought. Tiny little adjustments, legalism, turning arguments on their heads or upside down, all very nice if we are assigned a topic to defend in debate. Quite another thing when life, peace and honor are at stake.

So how about a disclaimer next time, boys and girls. "This is my view on issue X, but oh, by the way, my record on important issues stinks."

Here's my disclaimer - I'm still mad as hell that the country let Bush drag us into a rotten war and a rotten future, and I'm not all that forgiving to his fellow-travelers.

Posted by: K Harris on April 19, 2004 04:33 AM

____

I've always disliked Yglesias' writing. Here he manages to apologize for stupidly supporting Bush's War while still insisting that the mainstream anti-war people were wrong. I have news for you, they weren't. Yglesias thinks that we still should have gone to war, just with a different leader. He clearly doesn't understand that no leader could have forced Iraq to become democratic at gunpoint, and that pretty much any leader can deter an enemy state from using WMD.

So Yglesias is just as wrong as he ever was, he's just saving face.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky on April 19, 2004 05:10 AM

____

Great points Rich & K Harris --as someone who opposed the war because I believed the occupation would do massive damage to US interest I think the point to talk about now is not if someone was right or wrong.

Rather, how do we change the system so that this
type of "bait & switch" tactics can not be used by another President.

In a way, isn't this exactly why the Constitution does not give the President the authority to declare war. We now have a record of two Texans -- one I supported completely as a
young man -- that have done massive damage to the US in this way. What do we do to change the system to prevent it from happening again.

Posted by: spencer on April 19, 2004 05:20 AM

____

I say 1812, whatever the territorial ambitions involved, was largely justified since British thugs were kidnapping Americans on the high seas for their navy, which strikes me as a pretty clear case of when the constitution says war should be waged. It may not have been specifically justified when it was declared, since Britian was about to make concessions, which just didn't reach the U.S. in time for the Americans to find out before declaring war, but there was no way of knowing that at the time, and as far as Congress knew, they still intended on continuing their practices.

Posted by: Julian Elson on April 19, 2004 06:03 AM

____

Isn't this a not so veiled critique of the Kerry position?

I believed that a more premanent solution to Iraq and Saddam was needed other than sanctions. However, I was against the war originally because there were much better options.

Those Senators that voted for the resolution with reservations may have thought they were giving Mr Bush a stronger hand to negotiate and avoid war. Instead they gave him permission to not negotiate and strengthed his determination to go to war. There were other ways to have done Saddam, but those required more time and effort than this impatient administration was willing to invest. Instead we end up with chaos that requires substantially more effort and the time frame may end up being the same.

Posted by: bakho on April 19, 2004 06:41 AM

____

"Those Senators that voted for the resolution with reservations may have thought they were giving Mr Bush a stronger hand to negotiate and avoid war."

I believe it was a much more cynical calculation, bakho. These Senators figured out that the risks of being sigmatized for failing to back Gulf War II were higher than than those associated with any potential negative fallouts for the United States. And they were right. But they cared much more about their reputation and career than their country. Even today, they're still playing this game.

Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on April 19, 2004 07:22 AM

____

Brilliant post. I had much the same feeling about Brooks' column; it seemed to clever by half. He's preeningly attempting to earn some credibility with Times readers by acting "moderate" and admitting a few mistakes -- but he still will not concede that he was in the wrong about the war itself! He still believes he's right about the most important things (being pro-Bush and pro-war), so his other concessions are worthless.

As the co-writer of my blog, Fritz Lenneman, put it: For a split second, I thought they had discovered the tumor in Davy's brain that causes his conservativism. But after 500 words or so, it has been proven that the golf ball is still lodged in there.

- Marc

Posted by: Marc Hogan on April 19, 2004 07:33 AM

____

Sorry, I'm still in the not-now-maybe-later camp, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Hussein was a problem that needed a solution, eventually.

I suppose that without a context, I would have identified with the anti-war crowd. But, in context, I didn't want to identify with them. For them, it was a moral and not a practical issue. And I don't agree with that view.

My problem has been that other than agreeing that getting rid of Hussein was a good thing, and agreeing that the US still had the UN authorization to do so--I disagree with pretty much every other rationale and method this administration embraced. It wasn't a good idea in the context of the terror war; there wasn't a WMD risk; it wasn't a good idea to do it unilaterally and piss off our allies; it wasn't a good idea to expect that we could invade and occupy with minimal forces and investment. I mean, again, if I weren't hostile to what I regard as the reflexive and thoughtless antiwar mindset, I suppose I would have identified as antiwar. As it was, I mostly felt completely powerless as it was obvious that this administration was going to invade Iraq regardless of what the rest of the US thought about.

And, finally, a big reason why I would not and will not identify with the antiwar crowd is because they are largely equivalent to the withdrawal-from-Iraq crowd. I happen to think that the only thing we can do worse than what we've already done is not take responsibility for this mess and to run away from it. A whole bunch of Iraqis *did*, in fact, welcome the American "liberation" from Hussein; but, no doubt, they're cursing us now, and rightly so. The only way we can redeem ourselves is a serious military and financial, *multilateral* commitment to rebuild Iraq. Of course, that won't happen under this admin.

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on April 19, 2004 09:04 AM

____

I would rephrase Davies' question as:
"Can anyone... give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics: (1) It is a policy initiative of ANY GOVERNMENT. (2) It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it). (3)It wasn't in some important way completely f***** up during the execution?"

That is what government does. It f**** things up. Sometimes (most obviously and least controversially the legal system and territorial defense) it still is worth government doing it. The dispute is over where to draw the line.

I thought (and think) Iraq was a worthwhile gamble, despite the fact Bush wasn't going to be Platonic in his execution.

Posted by: rvman on April 19, 2004 09:59 AM

____

Keith,

The point I was trying to make, and I think others may be making as well, is that the real issues are life-and-death, not which group one wanted to be identified with, or the differences between one person's reason for backing a bad war and another's. Not liking the antics of anti-war types who managed to get in front of a TV camera is of a rather different scale than deciding whether to support war. There were plenty of folks here who offered reasoned arguments against the war.

Posted by: K Harris on April 19, 2004 10:54 AM

____

Several months before the war, Anthony Cordesman commented that there were strong arguments both for and against the war, that they were relatively well balanced. I wrote in February 2003 that I was a reluctant supporter of the war, as the least bad option: the sanctions against Iraq were a humanitarian disaster for Iraq and a political disaster for the US, and would become impossible to maintain.
http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/mideast.html

I was wrong. I was assuming that even if democracy in Iraq was unrealistic, the US would at least be able to provide stability and a return to normality (which people in Iraq desperately wanted: see the ICG report "Voices from the Iraqi Street"). The events of the last few weeks have proven that I was wrong.

I was assuming that even if the US didn't get things right at the beginning, it would be able to correct its mistakes. (Churchill: "The Americans will always do the right thing ... after they've exhausted all the alternatives.") But the root problem is security. The US doesn't have enough troops in Iraq to establish security (partly because of wishful thinking on the part of the civilian officials at the Pentagon--see James Fallows' "Blind into Baghdad"), and it doesn't have any more that it can bring in. At this point the US can only rely on the hope that things won't get worse.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/fallows.htm

I was also assuming that UNMOVIC wouldn't be able to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. Also wrong; see Kenneth Pollack's article "Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong." Getting UNMOVIC into Iraq under Resolution 1441 would have been sufficient to contain Iraq.

Now that the US is *in* Iraq, and things aren't going well, the options left open to it are even worse. It's not clear to me what the least bad option is at this point.

Louis Halle, _The Cold War as History_:

"... real power is always something far greater than military power alone. A balance of power is not a balance of military power alone: it is, rather, a balance in which military power is one element. Even in its crudest aspect, power represents a subtle and intimate combination of force and consent. No stable government has ever existed, and no empire has ever become established, except with an immensely preponderant measure of consent on the part of those who were its subjects. That consent may be a half-grudging consent; it may be a consent based in part on awe of superior force; it may represent love, or respect, or fear, or a combination of the three. Consent, in any case, is the essential ingredient in stable power--more so than physical force, of which the most efficient and economical use is to increase consent.

"By using physical force in such a way as alienates consent one constantly increases the requirements of physical force to replace the consent that has been alienated. A vicious spiral develops that, continued, ends in the collapse of power."

Posted by: Russil Wvong on April 19, 2004 11:07 AM

____

K Harris: Point taken. Allow me to rephrase, then. I was very ambivalent about the war. I was very aware that lives were on the line. But I didn't think it was an immoral war on its own terms, and that was the primary claim made by the war protesters then...and still is. Any conversation about it was (and still is) very polarized. There is a distinction between what we're talking about here--which is, really, the public position one took on the war--and what one fully thought about the war. My social context is the antiwar crowd, with whom I largely didn't agree. Had my context been the pro-war crowd, I'd probably self-identified as someone opposed to the war. In either case, however, my thoughts and feelings about the war would have been the same: that a strong case for it could be made, but that's not what we got; that there were more important things to do at that time; and the people planning this were likely to screw it up badly. Objectively, then, I could be fairly characterized as antiwar. But not march-in-the-streets-antiwar. But the fact that there are certainly many people reading this that are disgusted by my position demonstrates why the conventional antiwar position was one I could not embrace.

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on April 19, 2004 11:55 AM

____

Keith, you're in exactly the position that Prof. Mark Kleiman is in -- see his own blog. This is a stupefyingly complex problem that the US is now confronted with; excessive and simple-minded internal political polarization on it can kill us all real dead.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on April 19, 2004 01:52 PM

____

I think this was always the strongest argument against the war - that Bush would fuck it up. I remember before it started talking to a Jordanian shop keeper I know and he said something like "yeah, Saddam Hussein's Iraq is a horrible place, and yeah Americans could improve it if they really wanted to...hell, they should make a
regime change in Jordan too, except...you know they're gonna just fuck it up. Especially Bush".

Also I recall Brad's earlier posts in regards to Afghanistan which stressed that what was important there is what happens after the fall of the Taliban - US needs to be ready to committ resources to really make things better.

All this I agreed and still agree with. But the war in Iraq isn't over. If you buy the line of reasoning that "war might've been worth it but Bush screwed it up" then it's still a bit
earliy to jump on the "I told you so wagon".
Many people who supported the war knew that it
would be difficult, knew that Bush probably
wasn't the best guy to see it through after the
intial fighting was done (though I'm pretty sure Gore would've been worse) but thought it was still
a gamble worth taking and the right thing to do.

I think it looks messy right now but it's not a disaster, not Vietnam not even a major embarassment to Bush. It is a potential disaster, a potential Vietnam and a potential embarassment.
If the potential actualizes in a few months or so
I'll be happy to admit I made a mistake.
But please hold off on the "I told you so"'s till
then.

And just so we're clear on the concept,
"difficult" and "hard" and "war-like"
(i.e. people dying) does not automatically =
"Vietnam" , "disaster" etc.

Posted by: Radek on April 19, 2004 03:22 PM

____

The next question is what should we do now? If we follow the reasoning of Davies, we would assume that Bush will be unable to fix the mess we are in. That suggests that withdrawal is a better choice. But I think Powell is right: we broke it, we bought it. So leaving is not possible. It would be irresponsible, and it would open the door to all kinds of misery.

I hope for the best, and maybe having the UN figure out a plausible caretaker government will give us cover until we replace the incompetents.

Posted by: masaccio on April 19, 2004 04:11 PM

____

For me, the problem with Radek's reasoning is that it ignores one of the major costs of the war: the resources and attention that have not been applied to Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups.

Iraq was a problem that could be solved over a much longer time horizon with very little cost involved in waiting. The cost of waiting or doing too little in Afghanistan and about Al-Qaeda could be immense.

I simply do not understand how pro-war people cannot understand this. I think many of them are well intentioned, but simply miss the point. Maybe the problem is that with Iraq, you see stuff happening. You see the US whomping on people and exerting its will (kind-a-sorta, maybe). You see US officials ordering people around and things blowing up and Iraqis obeying US soldiers and gunpoint, and this is psychologically reassuring. You can't see such dramatic action with Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Building social infrasctructure in Afghanistan, diplomacy and police and small scale mililtary actions to close down terrorist cells, that is not so exciting, you don't see big US might on display.

So for me it doesn't really make much difference whether we can officially call Iraq an disaster or a disappointment or semi-success or whatever. When I look at it I see many many very valuable resources and assets being mispent. And they are going to continue to be misspent for years, because of what the invastion did regarding the potential for Iraq to turn into a major disaster. And that is horrifying to me.

This is a big humongous mess up by the Bush people. I don't see any way around that.

Posted by: jml on April 19, 2004 05:23 PM

____

I opposed the invasion of Iraq in this forum and other places. I did so because I thought it was stupid, a non sane, ideologically driven policy.

To claim Iraq was a threat to the US was such an extraordinary claim that extraordinary proof was required. There wasn't even ordinary proof.

After watching our behavior in Afghanistan, it boggled the mind to imagine that this administration would ever make the committment required to give credence to the claim that we would suddenly do what was necessary to have a chance to bring two countries in the middle east into some semblance of modernity.

Thus any other strategic claims for the invasion required the same extraordinary proof (including plans) that the threat claim should have required.

We are in this mess primarily because our president is at best intellectually incurious and consequently uneducated and possibly simply incompetent.

However, a contributing factor was the Ken Pollacks, Joshua Marshalls, etc. who treated the issue as an opportunity for scholastic strategizing rather than one that involved lives and treasure. I found it interesting that David Brooks (along with the Pollacks and Marshalls) never enters the tens of thousands of lives destroyed in one way or another in his twenty year calculus. Is he sure enough of his equations that lives and treasure are just a rounding error?

I don't think we should put the reasons we are in this mess behind us. Rather, I think they should be discussed until there is some hope that lessons learned will sink in for at least a generation.

However, neither do I think we should cut and run and try to put the mess itself behind us. Rather, I think we should make an enormous resource committment to atone for our stupidity and achieve the best outcome possible.

It may be too late. Perhaps no resource committment at this point can bring any good from ill. But I would feel much better about my country if we tried.

I don't feel very good about it now. Can anyone be proud to be part of a nation that deliberately set in motion a plan that resulted in the wanton destruction of so many lives and so much treasure when there was no threat and no plan to quickly set things aright?

Posted by: Sam Taylor on April 19, 2004 06:54 PM

____

It sure is comforting to have been virulently anti-war from the jump.

My reason for being anti-war was that I couldn't think of anything good that could possibly come out of something that required massive lies in order to get started.

Tell me, why didn't the fact that Bush lied about EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME set off some sort of alarms in the pro-war-for-wrong-reason crowd?

Posted by: Repack Rider on April 19, 2004 09:25 PM

____

Online Casino Directory

Posted by: Online Casinos on June 23, 2004 03:18 AM

____

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com

Posted by: levitra on July 1, 2004 03:29 AM

____

Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis  http://www.hot-cialis.com/

Posted by: cialis on July 1, 2004 03:29 AM

____

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra  http://www.hot-levitra.com

Posted by: levitra on July 1, 2004 03:30 AM

____

Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis  http://www.top-cialis.com/

Posted by: cialis on July 1, 2004 03:31 AM

____

Sorry to keep you  Tramadol, but there Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com

Posted by: tramadol on July 1, 2004 03:31 AM

____

Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis  http://www.new-cialis.com/

Posted by: cialis on July 1, 2004 03:32 AM

____

Best buy ultram fioricet reversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 and thus online fioricet yeah, because this is the true Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others fioricet explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.fioricet-online-fioricet.com

Posted by: buy fioricet on July 1, 2004 03:33 AM

____

That is the case tramadol is one of the best pain ever treatments the world. Most think and use ave taken cheap tramadol is best to relieve all kind of buy tramadol pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By reducing the amount of pain signals that travel throughout the body, tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! buy tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.i-buy-tramadol.com

Posted by: buy tramadol on July 1, 2004 03:33 AM

____

Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com

Posted by: tramadol on July 1, 2004 03:34 AM

____

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability fioricet of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com

Posted by: fioricet on July 1, 2004 03:35 AM

____

Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm or visit these sites for news and side effects :  http://www.one-cialis.com/

Posted by: cialis on July 1, 2004 03:35 AM

____

Got here Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com

Posted by: fioricet on July 1, 2004 03:36 AM

____

Post a comment
















__