May 06, 2004

Phil Carter Reads the Taguba Report

Phil Carter reads the Taguba report and writes:

...posted the full report by Army MG Antonio Taguba.... (Query: why was this investigation not conducted by the Army IG or by another outside entity, rather than a 2-star in the area?) One of the themes that runs through the report is a lack of meaningful training for the MPs and MP units charged with guarding prisoners at Abu Ghraib....

[...]

Analysis.... First, I have to call BS at this line of investigation, and this line of defense. The actions depicted on the photographs now shown around the world are not the kinds of things you need training to abhor. In fact, any adult ought to know better, and certainly, any Army sergeant or officer ought to know better. This is a basic matter of common sense and human decency. You don't need to know the rules under the Geneva Convention, and you don't have to be a lawyer, to know that it's wrong to shove a chem light into a detainee's rectum and take a picture of it. I think this is a specious argument, and that it will fail spectacularly before a military jury of officers and NCOs.

Second, it's possible that these MPs didn't have proper individual or collective training on specific tasks related to Internment and Resettlement Operations (what the MP school calls this stuff). But hey -- this isn't rocket science...

I think that Mr. Carter misunderstands the likely purpose of this theme of the Taguba Report. The likely purpose of this theme is not to tell Lieutenant General Sanchez and General Abizaid that the key problem that needs to be fixed is that the MPs of the 372 MP Company were not properly trained. It is to allow Lieutenant General Sanchez and General Abizaid to clean up the situation at Abu Ghraib without having to take notice that the soldiers of the 372 MP Company were doing--perhaps overenthusiastically, and certainly incompetently (pictures? they took pictures?!)--what the commanders of the 205 MI Brigade and the representatives of Other Government Agencies wished them to do in "softening up" detainees in preparation for the start of the real interrogations.

A problem of "rogue badly-trained MPs" is one thing, and is easy to deal with at the within-Iraq level. (That's also a good reason to do the investigation within theater rather than calling in the IG.) A problem of "MPs doing what Military Intelligence and CIA encouraged them to do--but also snapping pictures--" is quite another thing, and is very hard for Lieutenant General Sanchez to deal with.


It is also time to start walking back the cat: how did these pictures and this report become public? Two major theories: First, they get passed around electronically from staff computer to staff computer at CENTCOM or in the Pentagon because they are so outrageous until eventually they reach some foreign intelligence service, which then decides it is time to make them public. Second, somebody on Taguba's staff or somebody who saw the report plus documentation decided that the Pentagon was sitting on it in an inappropriate way, and that something needed to be done to save the honor of the army and to goose command into significant and serious action. Remember: the prime movers--Colonel Pappas of the 205 MI Bde., Steve Stephanowicz of CACI--appear to still be in Iraq. It's only General Karpinski who has been sent home.

I don't know which of these is true. Is the point of the leak operation to deal the United States a strategic defeat in Iraq, or to get the army command to save the honor of the U.S. Army even if it would rather not do so? Or (a third possibility) is it simply natural leakage whenever documents and images are passed computer-to-computer by young people who don't think about how many people are ultimately going to receive a file that they send?


UPDATE: Drinking at the Whiskey Bar, Billmon writes:

Whiskey Bar: Sid Blumenthal Gets It: I think it's important to make a distinction here between the Army's internal response to the allegations at Abu Ghraib, which at least led to an investigation - several of them, in fact - and reaction higher up the chain of command, in the Pentagon and at the White House.

It appears the Army was worried about the kinds of things the Army is usually worried about - loss of control, lack of discipline and a breakdown in the chain of command - and was willing to dig into the shitpile of interrogation abuses to find out just bad things had become. And it eventually put the investigation in the hands of someone (Taguba) who was willing to trace the problems back to the original decision to try to turn Abu Ghraib into a Gimo-style intelligence factory. The higher ups, on the other hand, appear to have realized fairly quickly that exposing the abuses at Abu Ghraib would draw global attention to the entire system - Gitmo, the prisons in Afghanistan, their entire kinder, gentler gulag archipelago. So it looks like they adopted a strategy of letting the CID investigations run their secret course, while allowing Taguba's report to sit on the bureaucratic shelf. The photographic evidence, however, couldn't be controlled -- the gang should have seen that from the start -- and somebody (Taguba?) became so angry about the way the report was being buried that they leaked it to Sy Hersh. The stonewall crumbled.

Now we're going down the "limited hangout" road, in which the sins of Abu Ghraib are admitted, but hopefully contained there. In that sense, the prison has become this scandal's equivalent of the Committee to Reelect the President - a would-be firebreak to keep the story from burning back up the trail to the real decision makers back in Washington. Rumsfeld is starting to look like the new John Mitchell - the fallback fall guy if the story can't be stopped in Baghdad. And so we come to the central question: Can the cover up artists keep the focus exclusively on Abu Ghraib? Ironically, the flood of S&M porn shots now making their way onto the market tend to reinforce the media's fascination with the perverted antics at the prison, which ultimately works in favor of the coverup, if not Rumsfeld personally.

I concur.

Posted by DeLong at May 6, 2004 01:45 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

Taguba's a Major General, for cryin' out loud. He doesn't submit reports to some colonel at the staff level, so who did it go to and what happened to it after that?

I'm inclined to agree with the second of your conjectures, only because I hope there's somebody with some honor left in the US Army (I'm ex-Navy, before anyone throws rocks).

Posted by: Linkmeister on May 6, 2004 02:18 PM

____

No, it was probably lawyers for Graner who released the photos to Hersh, and Chip Frederick's lawyers who released them to CBS.

Think motive.

Posted by: asdf on May 6, 2004 02:25 PM

____

THe pictures were on cd-roms being passed around Iraq, came into the hands of someone with a conscience, and that person then tipped off a commanding officer, prompting the (earlier?) investigation. How they came into the hands of the media isn't clear, but these cd-roms must have been percolating for a while. They would have come out sooner rather than later, even without a tipoff from someone with a vested interest.

Posted by: gfw on May 6, 2004 02:57 PM

____

Is it not likely that there are the same practices happening at other U.S.-run detention facilities in Iraq and elsewhere? There have already been reports along these lines from Guantanamo. If we're going to start walking back cats and drawing inferences, is it not also a plausible inference that there is more of this abuse *ongoing* elsewhere? Why is this story being cast only as investigation into past malfeasance? Would it not be reasonable to ask for an accounting of the *whole* global archipelagic gulag that the U.S. government is now running?

Posted by: Colin Danby on May 6, 2004 03:12 PM

____

Who cares how it got out. There are so many people at defense/intel/military community that are pissed with Bush and Co, that it is impossible to determine the backwalk. The Sy Hersh/60 minutes II one two punch busted the dam. There is so much info flowing now, the best strategy is to get a raft. Rumsfeld will step down. Bush will be forced to testify before congress and republicans will be glad to make it happen to save themselves. The only defense the republicans have now is to attack Bush. It will start as a lack of fervent defense, noticiably absent this weekend as repub players broker new alliances. Look for a nasty and unexpected jab from a formerly faithful constituency on the Sunday Talk show circuit, that will trial balloon this strategy.

Posted by: wonder on May 6, 2004 03:34 PM

____

There are systemic problems. There will be revelations from other prisons. Anybody who wants to be on the sidelines will be washing their laundry over the next couple of weeks, and anybody who remains will be rolled over by those already washing. This story has NO BOUNDS.

Posted by: other on May 6, 2004 03:39 PM

____

Another interesting question is why does Phil misinterpret the purpose of the report? He's an intelligent guy, but I stopped reading his blog after one too many cases of what I saw as willful blindness to either the administration or the military. His willingness to jump the gun and make sweeping assumptions in the gitmo cases, even before charges were filed, without a hint of traditional lawyerly skepticism, I found quite troubling.

Paging Antonio Gramsci? Maybe he's just angling for a job with a mainstream news outlet, and is practicing dumbing down his analysis from the get go so he can't be Google-Borked later.

I have no clue, but it's consistent, and it really detracts from his analysis. He should be much smarter (and less naive) than he writes.

Posted by: Ennis on May 6, 2004 03:43 PM

____

Another interesting question is why does Phil misinterpret the purpose of the report? He's an intelligent guy, but I stopped reading his blog after one too many cases of what I saw as willful blindness to either the administration or the military. His willingness to jump the gun and make sweeping assumptions in the gitmo cases, even before charges were filed, without a hint of traditional lawyerly skepticism, I found quite troubling.

Paging Antonio Gramsci? Maybe he's just angling for a job with a mainstream news outlet, and is practicing dumbing down his analysis from the get go so he can't be Google-Borked later.

I have no clue, but it's consistent, and it really detracts from his analysis. He should be much smarter (and less naive) than he writes.

Posted by: Ennis on May 6, 2004 03:47 PM

____

I hope you're right, wonder ("Rumsfeld will step down. Bush will be forced to testify before congress and republicans will be glad to make it happen to save themselves. The only defense the republicans have now is to attack Bush.")
Why can't I think this positive? Why don't I think Rumsfeld will step down? Why don't I think repugs will turn on Bush? You think there might be a book that Rummy could publish if he "stepped down"? Sorry, I just don't see it.

Posted by: calmo on May 6, 2004 03:51 PM

____

One could reasonably call for training of the senior officers to uncover this type of abuse, to prevent it from taking place.

The significant fact about the Taguba report is that it is the third investigation and the only one to try to stop the practices. Gen Miller reported earlier and said 'carry right on softening them up the way we do down at Gitmo'.

Question: What is going to go down if the Supreme Court now gives the green light for Gitmo, imprisonment of US citizens without trial etc? The likelihood that the Supremes will back Bush on this one must have decreased. Renquist, Scalia and Thomas are corrupt enough to back Bush but I doubt they would try unless they could get a majority.

Posted by: Phill on May 6, 2004 04:22 PM

____

Re: --No, it was probably lawyers for Graner who released the photos to Hersh, and Chip Frederick's lawyers who released them to CBS. Think motive--

What motive? As long as the photos are secret, a plea bargain fueled by the threat to release them is possible. Once they are public, the book *had* to be thrown at the perpetrators.

Of course, maybe the lawyers don't know any game theory...

Posted by: Brad DeLong on May 6, 2004 04:49 PM

____

I just wish that I could at least feel shocked. I'd love a little more outage, but I can't even seem to muster shock.

I possess a more, detached, 'what did you really expect anyhow?', sort of resignation.

That's it. That's the problem. It's really hard to maintain a sense of outrage in a sea of apathy (I know that didn't work), but it's like you look around and see everyone's turned into the living dead, and you go, 'oh, f***'.

I don't want to get to the acceptance stage, but...

sorry, that's a little/lot whiney.

Posted by: rick pietz on May 6, 2004 05:06 PM

____

rumsfeld will step down. bush took the rare step of making his "rebuke" of rumsfeld public. he really doesn't want to get rid of rumsfeld, but rumsfeld has now become a political liability. rove will insist he go for the good of george. even before abu, rumors were floating that rumsfeld will have to go because he has made a mess of iraq. this is the final straw. he will be savaged by a pissed off congress and no one will come to his defense. even bush's expression of "support" has been lukewarm, as if he is going through the motions. rumsfeld will be gone in the next four months.

bush himself will never testify in front of congress again and certainly not over this. rove won't allow it, nor, will republicans abandon him, because they have no other choice. they have to support him. besides, this is providing the perfect cover for kicking it up a notch in combating iraqi insurgents. he can afford some american casualties now that the press has something juicier to preoccupy itself with.

Posted by: Garth on May 6, 2004 05:20 PM

____

one interesting facet of this is the impact it will have on the supreme court's review of the executive branch's authority to detain indefinitely prisoners of war, citizens, etc.

rehnquist, scalia and thomas will not be affected by the news. they are so insulated from human feeling they could probably withstand a little chemo sodomy and still not break, but Kennedy and O'Connor will most likely be repulsed. I predict a 6 to 3 decision limiting the power of the executive branch to indefinitely detain
prisoners of war and a prohibition on the denial of due process to American citizens.

Posted by: Garth on May 6, 2004 05:26 PM

____

I keep telling you and telling you and telling you.

The sadism comes first.

Chosen later: a victim or group of victims; a pseudo-philosophy to justify degrading them; and an institution through which to act out.

But the sadism came first, and it is all that anyone really needs to know. It is the plot; the rest is description.

Note also, well and carefully, that the Iraqis are only surrogates in all of this. They, and their poor country (whatever it may deserve) are just being used for practice. The real target, the next target, is Blue America.

Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on May 6, 2004 05:30 PM

____

Garth, that's a good point. I hope you're right. A little reminder that the rule of law is supposed to have some checks and balances for a reason.

As for how these pictures got out, it's anyone's guess. However, I can tell you that outrageous pictures either to shock or to titillate get passed around a lot inside DoD and other agencies. Where I work (a classified shop), we've had several instances where upper management has had to issue a loud cease and desist because classified graphic images were being passed around by e-mail. Random soldiers and the like would be no better (and if they actually participated, I'm sure that some even thought it was funny).

Posted by: Uh, Clem on May 6, 2004 05:36 PM

____

Good point, Brad.

Perhaps the report, however, was a calculated leak by lawyers intended to bolster the "systemic" case.

Posted by: asdf on May 6, 2004 05:37 PM

____

err, how about this theory: the leaker passed the pictures to the media in return for money?

Posted by: am on May 6, 2004 05:39 PM

____

There should have been outrage and apologies long before this. Like when the US kept using the exising Baathist prison/torture chamber. Or when miscellaneous Iraqis were put in there for weeks and months with not tracking, no accountability, no ability to contact family and friends, no due process at all.

People talk about the damage the latest revelations have done to the US effort. Well, what damage was done when countless people lost some one they know into that black whole? What about the damage done wrt the ordinary innocent Iraqis sitting in indeterminate detention there without due process (I think that the report finds evidence that these were the majority there.)

Physical torture and sexual humiliation is heinous, but all the stuff mentioned above is also very bad, in a way, just as bad. It is still amazing to me that it did not generate much outrage, especially since one of the stated reasons of the invasion was to show the Iraqis how to have a civil society based on elections (when you are ready, someday), markets (imposed dictatorially without any consent or thought for short run social effects) and **rule of law** (except for whoever we think it is useful to beat up). And who can be really surprized, since this is what happens once any society goes down that road? Perhaps very high people are not legally responsbile for what happened, but in a moral sense, whoever in power acquiesced with the incarcertation system there, is responsible. Some types of things alwasys lead to worse things, sooner or later, usually sooner.

Interesting piece from Josh Marshall below. It references the Nelson Report, but I can't find it on the internet. Anyone know what he is refering to and where this report can be found?

Marshall also quotes Hersch as saying there is worse to come, wrt women and childrens sections for prison. I can wait for that and hope he is wrong.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

An interesting tidbit from this evening's edition of The (must-read) Nelson Report ...

We can contribute a second hand anecdote to newspaper stories on rising concern, last year, from Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage about Administration attitudes and the risks they might entail: according to eye witnesses to debate at the highest levels of the Administration...the highest levels...whenever Powell or Armitage sought to question prisoner treatment issues, they were forced to endure what our source characterizes as "around the table, coarse, vulgar, frat-boy bully remarks about what these tough guys would do if THEY ever got their hands on prisoners...."
-- let's be clear: our source is not alleging "orders" from the White House. Our source is pointing out that, as we said in the Summary, a fish rots from its head. The atmosphere created by Rumsfeld's controversial decisions was apparently aided and abetted by his colleagues in their callous disregard for the implications of the then-developing situation, and by their ridicule of the only combat veterans at the top of this Administration.

Tough guys ...

-- Josh Marshall

Posted by: jml on May 6, 2004 06:28 PM

____

Conspiracy theory. If we are conspiracy theorists, what is the plausible scenario? To my mind it is that certain high officials in the CIA and the military establishment are really worried about what Bush is doing to American security. We all know on this blog that he is running down the military capital stock (human and physical), and that it takes time to build it back. He is also making it difficult if not impossible for other nations to cooperate with us; indeed he is giving them incentives to fear and distrust us. These are people like Clarke who have spent their lives in the service of US security. It's just possible that we are looking at the outside shell of a deep game intended to ensure Bush's defeat in November.

Wouldn't it have been so much nicer if this role were carried out by the press? But they are too afraid. The editors apparently don't think ankything is an issue unless a politician raises it -- which gives them the 'he said, she said' out. They are truly afraid. Sy Hersh is an old man -- they can't do anything to him anymore. The New Yorker doesn't sell Walmart, so they can't blackmail it either. But every other medium is at risk from administration revenge, and they know it.

Posted by: Knut Wicksell on May 6, 2004 06:46 PM

____

How did the photos get out? What was the Clinton defense about dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park?

New war, new age new communications. ##1 Bet. THE SOLDIERS EMAILED the PICTURES HOME. They circulated. Some TRAILER TRASH figured out they were worth money and sold them to CBS. When CBS withheld them, they were still worth money and they sold them again. CBS had to use them or lose the scoop.

Hello??? There is a huge underground economy that traffics in digital files. Come on. Don't tell me you haven't downloaded the Pam Anderson video. I wonder how that made it on the web? No conspiracy theory needed. These pics just have a different clientele. They would have had to be sold to someone like CBS to authenticate them in order to be worth anything. National Enquirer would never bite. They would just patch their own. Once CBS showed the ones they had, everyone else who had some was probably out hawking theirs to the WaPo or whoever else comes up with new pics next.

You can bet the army tried really really hard to suppress these images. The soldiers probably did not want to admit to distributing the photos because they were in enough trouble already. They probably denied emailing them but now they are cooked.

My dad tells me that during Nam, his friend Dan had a brother, an army ranger, who sent home pictures of a dead VC with a lit cigarette in his mouth and the plattoon laughing and drinking beer. Supposedly, Dan's parents were appalled. The pictures did not circulate as widely back then because they were not digital and easy to dup. I don't even think they had photo copies then.

Posted by: bakho on May 6, 2004 06:58 PM

____

The acts of degeneracy perpetrated in the prison are inexcusable, but one wonders what role the rage fuelled by Bush's continuing assertion that Iraq was behind 9/11 in some way has played a role. Might it not be the case that this misplaced anger instilled by Bush's lie pushed these people over the edge?

Posted by: Bob H on May 7, 2004 05:43 AM

____

On the photographs: In 1968 I was keynoter of the National Students Association annual conference in San Antonio, and as my "keynote" did a multi-media presentation called "In Search of America," light show, multi-horsepower sound system, actors, very trendy. It went on the road, and when I put it on at the Family Dog on the Great Highway I advertised it around the Bay Area with a poster, the background of which was grunts in Vietnam cutting the ears off an apparently living Vietnamese prisoner.

Photograph supplied by one of the soldiers who was there, and who later became a member of the lefty printing tribe in Oakland.

At the time I was a little astonished that the kids doing the ear slicing would put up with one of their friends, platoon-mates, buddies, clicking away with his box camera. Nope. No problem. Once one is in the world of ear slicing-off, the rules are so far gone that considerations of the rationality or sense of taking photographs makes no sense at all.

Incidental detail: I was arrested stapling up one of these posters to a telephone poll on Telegraph Avenue at 6:00 a.m., under a non-existant Berkeley municipal regulation. The cop arresting me admitted that the best thing about being a cop was the draft exemption.

Posted by: David Lloyd-Jones on May 7, 2004 05:54 AM

____

Last paragraph found in this from today WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6870-2004May6_2.html

Meanwhile, Taguba's official report was working its way up the chain of command as fast as could reasonably have been expected, Rumsfeld's aides said. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, signed off on it April 30, after one of the most chaotic months of the Iraq war. The next day, New Yorker magazine writer Seymour Hersh posted a story detailing the contents of the report.

Posted by: John Dillinger on May 7, 2004 12:24 PM

____

More on how the pics got out. The media knew about the existence of the pictures from the leaked report. So they went shopping. Pictures had already been emailed outside the military. CBS hits jackpot, finds a recipient outside the military. Recipient concludes someone is going to get paid, why not me. CBS source apparently does not have all the pictures that were taken or all the ones that have been released (dog leash for instance) subsequent to the CBS scoop. The military has more pictures that have not yet been released and maybe were not emailed. This suggests multiple sources, multiple mailings, etc. and thus a not very restricted distribution of the photos.

The military thought they had them all locked up in the evidence room. Apparently, the report sans the incendiary photos were distributed. The report described the pics and their contents, but not 1000 words worth. Because only those people closest to the prosecution have seen the pics, the upper brass is unaware how incendiary they are. This explains why they were so blindsided by all this. This suggests that pics did not originate from within the military.

I don't know why they think they can get away with it forever. Eventually prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere will have to be released and their stories will be told. We read about Neslon Mandella today.

Rumors are that higher ups in the administration have a consistent pattern of discussing tough guy tactics concerning suspected terrorist prisoners. "If I had them, why I'd...."

Posted by: bakho on May 7, 2004 01:18 PM

____

DeLong writes, "I don't know which of these is true. Is the point of the leak operation to deal the United States a strategic defeat in Iraq, or to get the army command to save the honor of the U.S. Army even if it would rather not do so?"

What is notable about your post is its utter cynicism. One of the possibilities that you do not entertain is that someone somewhere recognized the suffering for what it was and wanted it brought to an end. This has nothing to do with "the honor of the army."

If that were not cynical enough, you continue, "Or (a third possibility) is it simply natural leakage whenever documents and images are passed computer-to-computer by young people who don't think about how many people are ultimately going to receive a file that they send?"

How thoughtless of them!

I was already aware of the low level of indignation in our society at the willful causing of suffering (prisons, police brutality, lack of healthcare for the poor), but I am even more appalled if we have sunk to such a level that it can be contemplated that no one would object to this behavior on any ground other than the "honor of the army."

I could say more, but frankly I am so indignant that I believe I would regret it later.

Posted by: Handy Fuse on May 7, 2004 02:10 PM

____

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

Posted by: consolidate debt on June 1, 2004 12:44 PM

____

Get WWW.I-DISH-NETWORK.ORG rid of cable and upgrade your living room by clicking here!

Posted by: satellite tv on June 3, 2004 08:04 AM

____

WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM

Posted by: creditcard debt on June 5, 2004 10:53 AM

____

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

Posted by: consolidate debt on June 7, 2004 03:41 PM

____

Get www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!

Posted by: out of debt on June 14, 2004 03:52 AM

____

Online Casino Directory

Posted by: online casinos on June 23, 2004 04:26 AM

____

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Posted by: poker online on June 25, 2004 04:26 AM

____

Buy Viagra online! its easy click here today.

Posted by: order viagra online on June 29, 2004 03:58 AM

____

Nullus est liber tam malus ut non aliqua parte prosit - There is no book so bad that it is not profitable on some part. (Pliny the Younger)

Posted by: free lesbian porno on July 10, 2004 04:20 PM

____

Ubi dubium ibi libertas - Where there is doubt, there is freedom

Posted by: premier footballers in gang rape on July 13, 2004 05:24 AM

____

Mellita, domi adsum - Honey, I'm home

Posted by: gay photography on July 15, 2004 04:23 AM

____

Nulla regula sine exceptione - There is no rule/law without exception

Posted by: fat women homepages on July 18, 2004 01:31 PM

____

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

Posted by: blackjack on July 21, 2004 03:56 PM

____

online 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 05:40 PM

____

online 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: onine casinos on July 26, 2004 04:55 PM

____

Cras amet qui nunquam amavit; Quique amavit, cras amet - May he love tomorrow who has never loved before

Posted by: gay dvd review on July 27, 2004 03:48 PM

____

Cotidiana vilescunt - Familiarity breeds contempt

Posted by: tiersex animalsex on August 4, 2004 06:29 AM

____

624 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 03:56 PM

____

5837 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Posted by: texas holdem on August 9, 2004 04:55 PM

____

O quam cito transit gloria mundi! - O how quickly passes the glory of the world!

Posted by: pee girls on August 10, 2004 02:46 AM

____

3443 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 02:27 PM

____

1132 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: online poker on August 15, 2004 06:55 PM

____

6370 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

Posted by: play blackjack on August 17, 2004 06:00 AM

____

Post a comment
















__