Writing in the Nation, Eric Alterman tells us what he learned from reading Plan of Attack.
I don't know when I'll read it: I don't think it would be healthy for me to get depressed to any further extent. And close engagement with the details of this administration--on any issue--is always depressing.
There still is time for the grownup Republicans to make their move. A vote of no confidence in George W. Bush by the Republican Senate caucus, followed by a naming of McCain or Lugar or Domenici to be the preferred Republican presidential candidate would have a 75% chance of setting a process in motion that would leverage Bush out of there. And the replacement Republican candidate would have as good a chance of winning the November election as George W. Bush would.
And such a vote of no confidence would certainly improve the quality of our country's government and our country's likely future.
Posted by DeLong at April 24, 2004 09:44 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postWoodward Returns: Here's what I learned:
1. For foreign policy purposes, Dick Cheney is President: Cheney wanted this war from way back when; it was Bush who needed convincing. As Slate's Tim Noah points out, "The closest Woodward comes to showing Bush making a final decision is when Bush pulls Rumsfeld aside in early January 2003 and says, 'Look, we're going to have to do this I'm afraid. I don't see how we're going to get him to a position where he will do something in a manner that's consistent with the UN requirements, and we've got to make an assumption that he will not.'" When the President is not around, Administration officials refer to Cheney as "the Man," as in, "The Man wants this" or "The Man thinks that."
2. That's too bad, because unfortunately Cheney is nuts. As Powell puts it, Cheney was in the grip of a "fever," no longer the "steady, unemotional rock that he had witnessed a dozen years earlier during the run-up to the Gulf War. The vice president was beyond hell-bent for action against Saddam. It was as if nothing else existed." Woodward gives us the backstory: Cheney, confirmed by his equally fevered aide "Scooter" Libby, repeatedly pitched--as he does today--the apparently imaginary meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Powell/Woodward aptly term this contention "worse than ridiculous." It goes on. "Cheney would take an intercept and say it shows something was happening. No, no, no, Powell or another would say, it shows that somebody talked to somebody else who said something might be happening. A conversation would suggest something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a 'We know.'"
3. Rumsfeld's Pentagon, led by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, caught Cheney's nutty fever too. The war party in the Pentagon was no less obsessed than Cheney and Libby with finding the nonexistent link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Powell considered them to be "a separate little government" and referred to them as the "Gestapo office."
4. George W. Bush cannot be bothered to listen to the views of those with whom he disagrees, even (particularly?) people who clearly know a great deal more about the topic than he does and hold Cabinet responsibility for it. Bush told Woodward that when he saw Powell for twelve minutes in the Oval Office on January 13, 2003, it was "not a meeting to have a discussion. This was a meeting to tell Colin Powell that a decision had been made and that the president wanted his support."
5. Which is also too bad, because Bush lives in a dream world. This from the transcript of Larry King Live,: WOODWARD:...I said, OK, you've found no weapons of mass destruction, and one of my bosses at "The Post" said, The question is, did you deceive us or were you deceived? And I got two very emphatic, No. No. KING: On both? WOODWARD: On both.
6. The United States Constitution is meaningless to these people: The Bush Administration decided to lay out $700 million on a "massive, covert public works program" in Kuwait in 2002, even though, as Woodward aptly notes, they did not inform Congress. This is a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which vests the power of the purse in Congress, along with various statutes that bar the executive from unilaterally moving money out of areas explicitly mandated by spending bills. It is, moreover, an explicit violation of the post-9/11 emergency supplemental bill, which gave the President discretion to direct the $40 billion it appropriated but specifically required him to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. There is no evidence of any such consultation, and indeed the White House is not claiming any exists.
The Administration has reacted to this revelation with (a) dishonesty: On CBS's Face the Nation, Condoleezza Rice tried to argue that "resources were not taken from Afghanistan." This is false--Bush removed Special Forces from Afghanistan in 2002 to send them to Iraq, as David Sirota of the Center for American Progress notes; and (b) disingenuousness and more dishonesty: White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy told an interviewer that the "significant buildup" in the Persian Gulf region before the war was not necessarily preparation for an invasion. (Apparently it was in preparation for a regional swim meet, to be held on a date yet to be determined.) Duffy also said the Administration wanted to be ready to aid weapons inspectors. This is ridiculous. The record demonstrates that the White House went out of its way to undercut the weapons inspectors in order to justify its obsession with war. For the past year, the goofball President of the United States and his Defense Secretary have been denying that inspectors were ever even allowed inside Iraq--something that goes all but unreported in the US media because reporters apparently find it too weird (see my last column).
There's plenty more in Plan of Attack, like the Saudis playing with our elections and stuff, but those are the lowlights. Read it and weep.
Bush responds to two sets of voices: Those in his head and the voice in his hear (Cheney's)
Now this suggests Cheney listens to just the voices in his head.
Great. Folie à deux.
Posted by: CSTAR on April 24, 2004 09:59 PMA no-confidence vote from the Senate Republican caucus would be great. But there are 51 Senate Republicans, so which 26 can you imagine voting to dislodge Bush as the nominee? You'd need a bunch of people like George Allen (VA) and Lindsey Graham (SC) to get a majority, and that's just not gonna happen.
Here's a list; see for yourself.
Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne - (R - CO)
Allen, George - (R - VA)
Bennett, Robert - (R - UT)
Bond, Christopher - (R - MO)
Brownback, Sam - (R - KS)
Bunning, Jim - (R - KY)
Burns, Conrad - (R - MT)
Campbell, Ben - (R - CO)
Chafee, Lincoln - (R - RI)
Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad - (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm - (R - MN)
Collins, Susan - (R - ME)
Cornyn, John - (R - TX)
Craig, Larry - (R - ID)
Crapo, Michael - (R - ID)
DeWine, Mike - (R - OH)
Dole, Elizabeth - (R - NC)
Domenici, Pete - (R - NM)
Ensign, John - (R - NV)
Enzi, Michael - (R - WY)
Fitzgerald, Peter - (R - IL)
Frist, Bill - (R - TN)
Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC)
Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA)
Gregg, Judd - (R - NH)
Hagel, Chuck - (R - NE)
Hatch, Orrin - (R - UT)
Hutchison, Kay - (R - TX)
Inhofe, James - (R - OK)
Kyl, Jon - (R - AZ)
Lott, Trent - (R - MS)
Lugar, Richard - (R - IN)
McCain, John - (R - AZ)
McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY)
Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)
Nickles, Don - (R - OK)
Roberts, Pat - (R - KS)
Santorum, Rick - (R - PA)
Sessions, Jeff - (R - AL)
Shelby, Richard - (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon - (R - OR)
Snowe, Olympia - (R - ME)
Specter, Arlen - (R - PA)
Stevens, Ted - (R - AK)
Sununu, John - (R - NH)
Talent, James - (R - MO)
Thomas, Craig - (R - WY)
Voinovich, George - (R - OH)
Warner, John - (R - VA)
> And the replacement Republican candidate
> would have as good a chance of winning
> the November election as George W. Bush
> would.
Here is an example of how the right wing controls the rhetoric.
This is the first place -- even in the blogosphere -- where I have seen someone talking in terms of Bush having to beat Kerry. Any newspaper or any show you will watch will always say "can Kerry beat Bush?" I'll bet that's worth three points in many polls right there.
Posted by: Alan on April 25, 2004 05:53 AMIt really is very sad. The worst administration in history probably, and his supporters think he's fabulous.
Posted by: Mito on April 25, 2004 08:11 AMMe? in this space and others, last summer/fall, i wondered aloud if mccain would study the democratic party, circa summer/fall 1967, and realize that bush had to be challenged. He didn't.
Now it's too late, i'm afraid, and even though i'm sure there are many republicans (including mccain) who wish that someone, anyone had challenged bush when there was still a chance to, it ain't gonna happen.
Nor is George Bush going to study the example of another Texan president (i'm being generous to bush here, both by calling him a Texan and by using the word "study" in this context) and recognize that he's the problem, and he should withdraw from the race to give his party a chance.
So we're just going to have the beat the bum, despite all the best slime that money can buy and all the best dishonesty that our so-called liberal media can't be bothered to point out.
Posted by: howard on April 25, 2004 08:22 AMPerfect World – Speeches We Wish They Had Made
President Bush’s Speech to the American People
on the Eve of the Second Invasion of Iraq
My Fellow Americans:
I am speaking to you tonight on a matter of grave import to our Nation.
Two years and six months ago, our country was attacked in a most grievous and cowardly manner by a motley crew of religious mercenaries under the leadership of the misguided son of a privileged-class Saudi family, Osama bin Laden. His name today is synonymous with radical fundamentalism and terrorist strikes against America.
In response to the devastating 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, where so many of our fellow citizens died so tragically, America has conducted a military campaign aimed at the base of support for Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network in Afghanistan. Our righteous rage and anger was leveled on both the bin Laden terrorist network, and sadly, on the innocent civilian population of that desperately poor nation. We have run the bin Laden terrorist network to ground. It is only a matter of time before he will be captured and punished. It is only a matter of time before he passes from this world, and has to answer to his God, our God.
Like the Old Testament eye-for-an-eye, thousands of innocent Afghani’s have died during this campaign. Nothing can bring those tragically lost lives or shattered families back together again, and nothing can justify further acts of rage, anger and revenge on our part. This blood debt has been absolved. Therefore, tonight I am calling for a new war. A righteous global fight for freedom and liberty, based on Christian principles.
We are going to turn the other cheek. What is past, is past.
I call on all the nations of the world to refocus on the issues at hand. Injustice and greed in the world wreaks a horrible toll every day, a toll which we Americans have a duty to defend against. On the eve of this new fight for freedom, I have assembled the largest military force since the Viet Nam War. I am tasking our troops to go into the world, and to make right the evils of injustice and greed where ever they are found, to use America's premier strengths in the cause of good. I call on all nations to join in our cause.
Our first campaign in this fight will be to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, both physically and financially. Christian nations owe a favor to Islam not to defile their holy land. We will withdraw our troops, and close our Saudi bases. In like mind, the House of Saud owes a debt to us, not to defile the world with their support for unholy fundamentalism. We know the attack on our country was conceived and financed by Saudi’s from the elite and privileged classes. Accordingly, I am announcing tonight financial sanctions against the Saudi government, until reparations have been made to the families who lost loved ones at the World Trade Center, and until monies have been granted by the Saudi government to rebuild the World Trade Center as it was before. They have sown the seeds, and reaped the whirlwind, and now they must pay for their transgressions.
Our second campaign will be to withdraw our support for the Zionist fundamentalists in Israel under the leadership of former General Ariel Sharon. We cannot continue to support and aid an AntiChrist government at war with its own people, denying the rights of liberty and freedom from oppression to one group of their citizens on the basis of religion. This is unholy, it is evil, and America will not let apartheid and ethnic cleansing in any form stand, ever again.
Our continuing campaign will endeavor to free all oppressed peoples from tyrannical regimes and unholy civil wars. Where ever in the world tyranny thrives, they shall shake in fear. Where ever neighbor sets hand against neighbor, we shall bring peace. We will lift up the poor and downtrodden, we will make their lives whole, we will set their houses aright. As a great Christian nation, we can do no less. It may take some time, it may even take decades, but nothing can turn us aside, once we have set on our path.
This is a Great Crusade. I am calling on all Americans, on all the peoples of the world to fight terrorism in all forms, and to support America in our quest for freedom and liberty for everyone, all peoples of every nation. Tyrants and terrorists, your day has come to an end.
Thank you, and God bless America.
I often wonder whether Cheney's medications aren't affecting his judgement. Cheney has a very bad heart, and I don't know what mix of pills he's taking but many medications have psychological side effects.
Rumsfeld has the quickness and impervious self-confidence that comes from amphetamine. Speed can convince you that you're the smaretest man in history and that your ideas are beautiful and perfect, whereas criticism are just petty annoyance. Caspar Weinberger had that same vibe.
I have no proof and don't claim that this is true, but I am serious in this speculation.
Posted by: Zizka on April 25, 2004 01:29 PMZiska,
Actually, Rumsfeld has the quickness and impervious self-confidence that comes from being a carrier-qualified fighter jock. An old joke: What is the diffreance between a fighter pilot and God? God doesn't think he is a fighter pilot.
Posted by: Steven Rogers on April 25, 2004 03:01 PMIt's worse than I could have ever dreamed in my worst nightmares. We knew Bush had no previous accomplishments, that we was slow and that he was lazy. But past experience has shown that earlier Presidents 'grew' to their office. He has brought the office down to his level. He doesn't understand the Constitution, and no doubt wouldn't believe in it if he did. He has no notion of due process (not helped in this by advice from Rove). This is an ends justifies the means administration.
Much of it must be laid at the intellectual deficiencies of the President, but some, I think, must come out of the corporate mindset, where you follow rules or get canned. Go back to the debate on the airport screeners; they almost had a seizure at the idea of giving the employees ordinary civil service protections. If they had their way (and they almost always do) none of our civil servants would be protected. You can see this already in the way they are bending the state to be the propaganda arm of the right wing of the Republican Army.
What makes it so awful is that the press connives in this destruction of our way of governing ourselves, as has the Republican establishment. What has happened to us is such an outlier that like a lot of researchers, we want to throw it out so it doesn't screw up the estimation. In effect, we are collectively in denial over the seizuere of our government by radicals who would like to replace it with an authoritarian regime (with elections, of course, but they had those in the good old USSR -- and a great Constitution to boot).
The other sad thing is the degradation of our civil myth into the kind of thinking represented by Mr. Anderson's rant posted above. In its typically parochial American way, it's the kind of rant that old German professors of a certain conservative stripe used to make about the need to extend the sway of German 'kultur'. A lot of young Germans got themselves killed for buying into it, not to mention tens of millions of other people.
The coming election is the most important any of us are likely to be involved in for the remainder of our lives.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell on April 25, 2004 03:38 PMSteven: many pilots do use amphetamines to keep sharp.
For me, America is really at issue by now. There's only so long you can keep on saying "Fundamentally, America is ......" when what you see is all contrary to the "fundamental." To me, war liberals like "Armed Liberal" go farther in the imperial direction than I can possibly follow, but maybe they are right that they DO represent "the Real America". (The war liberals' idea that we can keep Bush's war, and not get the rest of the nasty movement conservative load too, strikes me as delusory.)
Posted by: Zizka on April 25, 2004 04:19 PMZizka: "I often wonder whether Cheney's medications aren't affecting his judgement. Cheney has a very bad heart, and I don't know what mix of pills he's taking but many medications have psychological side effects."
He probably has pumphead, the unofficial term used by doctors to describe cognitive deficits after being on a heart/lung machine.
"He probably has pumphead, the unofficial term used by doctors to describe cognitive deficits after being on a heart/lung machine"
I think we have a new nickname for Dick here. "Pumphead".
Posted by: Nabakov on April 25, 2004 08:01 PMRumsfeld: Viagra, Levitra, Vicks VapoRub.
Cheney: Wellbutrin, Zoloft, Tylenol, anything legal.
Bush: Jesus, Acyclovir?
There are other presidents who did not "grow" into their presidency--Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore, and Grant. The last had been a successful general but he was a lousy president--his cronies helped make his administration one of the most corrupt (until Bush, jr's, that is). Harding's was also pretty bad in terms of crony-skimming.
It's not just the Bushies--it's Congress. Again, a party that professes to be conservative has used its time as majority party in Congress to forget about separation of powers, forget about not liking "activist" judges,etc., same way new GOP Congresspeople all decided term limits weren't a good idea once they'd gotten elected. Congress seems to have decided to relinquish its powers under the Constitution--so I blame Congress for what the Bush Administration has been able to do as well as the BA itself. There are a few lonely voices crying in the wilderness (Waxman, Ted Kennedy, sometimes McCain and a few others)--but overall Congress has done horribly. I don't think things will change significantly unless Bush is not re-elected AND a fairly large number of incumbent Senators/Reps are re-elected. The way things are going, probably it will be only the good ones who won't be re-elected--it will be interesting to see who wins the GOP Senate primary in PA, Specter or Toomey.
Posted by: azurite on April 25, 2004 09:49 PMCheney, being a businessman instead of an academic, may seem a little "pumpkinhead",
but he's just reacting the way any good
businessperson would to the prospect of
12 years of deepening economic recession,
which is the likeliest scenario from 9/11,
absent any major public works contracts,
which the Republicans, in their 'wisdom',
have always voted down. That leaves only
overseas public works, for which, of course,
there must be a pool of money to siphon off,
and a large amount of ordinance dropped to
level the playing field for new construction.
Think Sandbox 101. Think stolen lunch money.
Think people who have no intention of leaving
their palatial rooms above the glass ceiling.
Think sole-sourced open-ended contracts, and egregiously padded billings, and no oversight
because 40% of DoD is conducted IN SECRET.
The businessman's dream.
It makes BushCo seem like pumpkinheads to us grunts and droogies, but it's just rat sense.
Would you rather spend 12 years sucking the
exhaust pipe of a failing rust-belt economy?
As an old tottering alcoholic told me once,
"Learn, or die." Or finagle into academia.
This isn't about Republicans or Democrats.
This is about the evil of the late 90's,
the Enronization of America, the junkbond
derivative mad mindset of pirate thieves.
You are either with them, or eaten by them.
Posted by: Elliot Gould on April 25, 2004 10:00 PMBrad DeLong writes:
>
> There still is time for the grownup Republicans to make
> their move. A vote of no confidence in George W. Bush by
> the Republican Senate caucus, followed by a naming of
> McCain or Lugar or Domenici to be the preferred
> Republican presidential candidate would have a 75%
> chance of setting a process in motion that would
> leverage Bush out of there.
I share your frustration, but not your pipe dream. :-)
Seriously, there are just not 26 GOP senators (or even a large fraction of that number) would would stick their necks out like this EVEN IF they believed that the GOP was looking at a 1967-type scenario. Too many are beholden to Bush for their victories in 2002 or their re-election (money) in 2004.
The only way this could possibly change is if something dazzingly bad happens in the next few weeks. I mean, if diverting $700 million from rebuilding Afghanistan to planning the Iraq war gets nothing but a shrug, it would take something immense. US military deaths in Iraq would have to be up to several hundred a month. Or the Taliban would have to return to power. Or the economy would have to make a complete crash landing. Or the Plame investigation would have to lead somebody to squeal in a very major way. None of this is very likely at all.
> And the replacement Republican candidate would have as
> good a chance of winning the November election as
> George W. Bush would.
Another problem with your fantasy here is that the most likely replacement GOP candidate would be somebody like Rick Santorum. I think you're forgetting that without The Base, no Republican presidential candidate has any chance of getting elected in November.
If think the most serious thing that could hurt the GOP coming out of the Senate would be defections of the most obvious half-dozen moderate senators from the party. I can see that as at least a 1% bet. No other scenario is within an order of magnitude of that.
Posted by: Jonathan King on April 25, 2004 10:48 PM"businessperson would to the prospect of
12 years of deepening economic recession,
which is the likeliest scenario from 9/11,"
Source?
Posted by: ogmb on April 25, 2004 11:58 PM"[...].I think you're forgetting that without The Base, no Republican presidential candidate has any chance of getting elected in November. "
The Base? Were you aware that's English for Al Qa'ida?
DSW
Posted by: Antoni Jaume on April 26, 2004 07:52 AMJesus...
Brad, this is on page 430 of Plan of Attack:
When the President wasn't around, Cheney often referred to him as "The Man," saying that "The Man wants this." or, "The Man thinks this." Cheney was a forceful, persistent advocate, but the President decided.
This is worse than Drudge... I suggest you read the book, and not Alterman. He's just told a bold-faced, easily disputed lie; or made an error that never would have gotten into a less biased paper.
Posted by: Mike M on April 26, 2004 10:08 AMAlterman may exaggerate Cheney's control in the house. It doesn't really seem like Bush needed all that much convincing to go to war with Iraq. The fact that Cheney was interested in aggressively bringing the rest of the cabinet around is just a matter of the likeness of mind between Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney.
I think there are a substancial number of "grown up" republicans disatisfied with the current administration, but splitting the party is an ugly, time consuming and sometimes permanent thing. I don't think they want to do anything that would Democrats that happy.
Posted by: ~o on April 26, 2004 12:29 PMPropaganda masters will be studying this era of American history for centuries to come.
GWB is, without a doubt, one of the top 3 worst presidencies every. There are *several* Watergate-level scandals running concurrently in this administration, without *any* sign that any action will be taken on any of them.
And yet, many (half?) of the Americans out there are solidly behind this crook and charlatan.
Fucking amazing. I weep for our country. (Figuratively, of course. Only girly-men really weep :-)
Posted by: Timothy Klein on April 26, 2004 02:40 PMas to Mike ...
"or made an error that never would have gotten into a less biased paper." Oh please. What paper would that be?
It would be useful to deal with not just one claim Alterman made. It would be easier, perhaps.
As to "the man" -- given you use one citation, quite possible if the word was used to deal with various individuals. And, sure, Cheney wouldn't claim himself to be "the Man." How would THAT look?
Joe --
"Oh please. What paper would that be?"
Perhaps the Washington Post, or the WSJ, or the NYTimes -- Alterman's piece in the Nation is the only place where I've seen a similar claim; and, upon reading it further, I see that you're probably right: it's deception, not error.
"As to "the man" -- given you use one citation, quite possible if the word was used to deal with various individuals."
I've read the book, and the reference to "The Man" appears in one place, on page 430. And Jeez, look it over: Alterman backs out "The Man thinks this" and "The Man wants that", but changes the context. He creates the context to refer to Cheney, not Bush.
"And, sure, Cheney wouldn't claim himself to be "the Man." How would THAT look?"
I'm not sure how it would look for Cheney to refer to himself as the man, but I know how it looks for Alterman to create the context of other people referring to Cheney as "The Man", as though he were "The Man" in the Administration.
As for dealing with every claim that Alterman makes, I would suggest reading the book. You can decide if you agree with everything that he writes, or part of it, or none of it.
The point is that if someone is going to call Cheney "the Man," it would be in pretty bad form for he himself to do it -- it would "ruin" the deniability factor, if he made it so blatantly obvious.
I am open to Alterman being wrong on this issue, but various other charges are made by other sources, including those in the papers you list. So, yes, it would be helpful not just to single out his weakest link.
-j
Posted by: Joe on April 27, 2004 09:43 PMBuy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.
Posted by: direct TV on May 27, 2004 06:06 PMBuy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.
Posted by: directv on May 28, 2004 05:20 AMgo to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!
Posted by: click here on May 29, 2004 08:43 AMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: consolidate debt on June 1, 2004 10:51 AMWWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM
Posted by: credit card debt on June 5, 2004 09:01 AMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: consolidate debt on June 7, 2004 12:20 PMGet www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!
Posted by: consolidate debt on June 14, 2004 12:32 AMOnline Casino Directory
Posted by: Online Casino on June 23, 2004 02:02 AMOnline Casino Directory
Posted by: Online Casino on June 23, 2004 02:03 AMNow you can Play Poker online any time!
Posted by: online poker on June 25, 2004 12:45 AMBuy Viagra online! its easy click here today.
Posted by: Buy Viagra online on June 29, 2004 12:17 AMonline casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.
Posted by: online casino on July 25, 2004 03:25 PMonline casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.
Posted by: online casino on July 26, 2004 02:28 PMI love tramadol even though
I have no idea what it is. And this sentence is just filler.
online casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!
Posted by: online casino on July 30, 2004 03:01 PM8006 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 02:22 PM2801 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
4440 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 01:38 PM6761 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: online poker on August 15, 2004 05:52 PM8018 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: blackjack on August 17, 2004 09:13 AM